Foresters Oppose Plan For School

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31052, 6 May 1966, Page 12

Foresters Oppose Plan For School

The New Zealand Institute of Foresters lias expressed no confidence in the proposal to establish a forestry chair at the University of Canterbury because of the “disappointing” terms of reference given to the foundation chair.

The institute claims that the scope of the university’s proposals for the school of forestry is much narrower than desirable. The institute bases the claim on the support of “foremost overseas authorities in the field of forestry education.” In a letter to the ViceChancellor and Rector of the university released for publication yesterday, the president of the institute (Mr A. D. McKinnon) said there was deep concern that graduates from the proposed school would receive a training that would:

Be quite inadequate to fit them for the management of New Zealand's forests and forest lands. Fall far short of the standards demanded of their contemporaries in overseas schools and with whom they would have to compete in due course. Fail to instil the philosophy and ideals of a profession that has not only produced fine foresters but also some of the wisest and most farsighted conservators of soil, wildlif • and natural resources of New Zealand.

“I submit that whoever the incumbent of the new chair may be, the University of Canterbury has, by its terms of reference, already restricted him from meeting these requirements,” Mr McKinnon said. “Under these circumstances the institute cannot have confidence in the school

and I have no alternative but to communicate our dismay.”

Mr McKinnoi supported the letter with a report on the cross-section of opinion among full members Of the institute which strongly opposed the proposals for the chair of forestry. The report held that the proposal would bring the risk of a sub-standard school of forestry being established, and the institute carried the professional responsibility of safeguarding against this possibility. The report suggested that the institute seek an assurance that the school would have a minimum staff of at least six adequately qualified lecturers to ensure quality at the top. Alternatively the institute should ask for a postponement of the project until a school of adequate standard could be financed and assured or seek an abandonment of the project by both the New Zealand Forest Service and the university and the continuation of the present system “which is producing such excellent results.”

The report also called for the abandonment of any proposals for composite professional and non-professional training at the university. While it was agreed that some of the teaching could come from other faculties, it was essential that the school be capable of inculcating sound forestry principles. There was danger seen in too much division of teaching responsibility. The report added that while there were distinct advantages in having a school of forestry in New Zealand these would be nullified if the faculty lacked fully-qualified staff or was restricted in scope. It would be better to adhere to the existing plan of sending students abroad for university training.