<p>[Education</a> | Fewer students choosing forestry | Seattle Times Newspaper](<a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2004379853_forestry29m.html]Education”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2004379853_forestry29m.html)</p>
<p>Washington State University is axing its forestry program, and the University of Washington might follow soon.</p>
<p>I was so shocked when I read that.
If I had enough language to go to the UW, I would enroll in the forestry program ( or agriculture)
SO important to our region and planet.</p>
<p>I didn’t see anything in the article about “disappearing forests” and I believe that in fact, America’s forests have actually increased in the last century.</p>
<p>I’m a little surprised, however it may be that the traditional forestry program will evolve into something more like Arizona State has done by introducing a degree in Sustainability. In general most schools seem to be expanding their curriculum in terms of environmental studies (I only know this because it’s S’s area of interest).</p>
<p>I have no knowledge of programs in the state of Washington, but just commenting on general trends I am seeing…</p>
<p>re:#3 trees grown as a crop are not " woods" and are not biodiverse</p>
<p>^^ I’m not sure of the breakdown of trees grown as crops versus lands that have been reforested or allowed and helped to return to a natural forest versus un-logged lands but I’ll bet the deer, raccoons, squirrels, spiders, birds, and other creatures appreciate any of these.</p>
<p>I’m also wondering why the OP opened with ‘disappearing forests’ since it wasn’t in the article (or I missed it).</p>
<p>Regardless, it’s suprising that Washington State would have ceased its forestry program but I suppose if there was little demand for it they might not have had much of a choice.</p>
<p>It’s called “managed forestry”. Basically, you keep 45’ of forest by the side of the highway, and clearcut the rest. </p>
<p>The result of good education.</p>
<p>The stat that forests have increased is a little misleading. You will often hear logging advocates say “We have more forests today than in 1920.” </p>
<p>While that is true, the 1920s were the height of industrialism without a thought to conservation. The landscape was devastated. So, it’s a technicality.</p>
<p>Cornell had the first Forestry department in the country which long ago evolved into a broader and more conservation oriented Natural Resources Department. Perhaps that is the way things are going. Not necessarily a bad thing.</p>
<p>You can fly over my state today and see the awe-inspiring results of folks trained at our august colleges of forestry.</p>
<p>No great loss. Students aren’t enrolling, because they see the programs for the frauds they are.</p>
<p>Want to protect forests? Enroll in law school.</p>
<p>I worked with some people educated at forestry schools. It was actually quite sad. They were trained well in how to take trees down but not at all in more philosophical concerns of why to take trees down or where to most effectively take trees down for the benefit of both the land and the economy. </p>
<p>They used to laugh at me for “seeing things through a green lens” (sustainability) because they were just trained to do, not think. On the other hand, I worked with people from Yale Forestry which did seem to have a wholistic approach - so perhaps it is dependent on the school. But for the former, I agree with mini. Teach people how to intelligently manage ecosystems (which can include strategic timber harvests) and we will all evolve. If forestry schools can do that effectively, then so be it. If not, perhaps it is time to move on.</p>
<p>I strongly disagree with the above posts. I work with foresters- as a lawyer- and our foresters are trained to act with a total focus on sustainability. When we harvest, we are protecting the growth of forests. I have not met one forester who acts or believes otherwise. We had a minor clear-cut violation last year due to the mistake of a contractor and our forester took it very personally and was upset beyond belief.</p>
<p>I’m glad they are upset. They darn well should be, as they presided over the almost total denuding of my state. Clearly, their training failed them miserably. </p>
<p>Historically, they’ve been part of the problem, not the solution. As to what they are now…well, students are voting with their feet, and with good reason.</p>
<p>Your interpretation is just that- YOUR interpretation. I think it is more a sad commentary on the lust for high incomes and city life that is causing students to choose other professions. Also, the use of synthetic materials as opposed to wood products.<br>
I’m sure you are aware that it is dangerous for forests if trees are NOT cut down- it just has to be done properly. And in the case of all the forestry at my company, it is.</p>
<p>I strongly disagree with the above posts. I work with foresters- as a lawyer- and our foresters are trained to act with a total focus on sustainability. When we harvest, we are protecting the growth of forests. I have not met one forester who acts or believes otherwise. We had a minor clear-cut violation last year due to the mistake of a contractor and our forester took it very personally and was upset beyond belief.</p>
<p>I agree with you.
I am taking classes in the hort program at Edmonds community college ( where Dan Hinkley among others have taught) with an eye towards going into sustainable urban agriculture.</p>
<p>last qtr, we had a seminar taught by a forestry grad student from UW & the whole emphasis of his research was how is this going to improve/not be destructive of eco system- how can we raise trees for lumber, but improve conditions in watershed, improve conditions for other species?</p>
<p>As to what they are now…well, students are voting with their feet, and with good reason.
I think part of it is, people like to sit at desks, wear suits, not get wet.
When you are working outside, you don’t stay in, if it is raining.
But* that *is what I like about it, I like being outside, working with something that matters, not just to the economy but to the planet. I like my Carhartts and my muck boots way more than I liked my Ellen Tracy suits- ya gotta wear pantyhose with those things- even if it is 20 deg- talk about silly!
BUt also the programs are morphing into sustainable environmental work, to have a broader, not just regional base- its not strictly fisheries or forestry anymore.</p>
<p>Total denuding of my state–was horse manure. Yes Seattle is no longer covered with large fir trees, DUH. But flying into and out of the area frequently I see many thousands of acres of heavy forest and small areas of newer growth and some areas of clear cut awaiting new growth. Unless you plan to start living in plastic houses with plastic furniture it will take some tree cutting and replanting every year.</p>
<p>I travel across the state frequently, by plane, and have for almost 20 years. You can see the patterns of clearcut, and the 45 foot buffers by all the highways. For years, you could see the giant log booms as well, as the trees were hauled off to Japan. No more, though. There aren’t enough of them left to make it a decent business. The local community colleges have special programs for the hundreds of individuals laid off from the timber industries. </p>
<p>So the programs have to morph. Managed and “sustainable” forestry has turned into a standing joke. Now the big question in forestry is how quickly one can make a cottonwood grow.</p>
<p>So the students - many of whom LOVE the outdoors, and want careers where they can work outdoors - are streaming toward environmental studies programs, and steer clear of the college of forestry. Of course, there aren’t enough jobs for them when they get out, so they compete with the philosophy majors for the barista jobs.</p>
<p>But hey, some of those jobs are inside national parks! I met two delightful young UW environmental studies graduate baristas at Sol Duc just last summer.</p>