2010-A Time For Change
Alumni Input and Comments
On Thurs February 4, 2010 the Faculty of Forestry Alumni were emailed a letter from their executive outlining proposed changes by the University of Toronto to the Faculty of Forestry, its status as a Faculty and its programs. Below are alumni responses to that letter.
An idea I expressed to a number of faculty staff over the years including
Rorke, Tat and Andy Kenney, was the suggestion to pull a range of MFC grads
who are working in the field of forest conservation together for a one or
two day session to share thoughts on whether the existing MFC curriculum is
relevant to the challenges and issues we currently face. I'd be happy to
learn that such a session did in fact take place and if not, I'd urge you to
consider whether this sort of discussion could add value to the larger task
you now have in front of you. Does the faculty have a good understanding of
what kind of work their graduates are engaged in? Can programs be adjusted
so even more graduates find work in the field of forest conservation?
Since receiving my MFC degree in 1999 I have dealt professionally with
fellow graduates working for other trade associations, FSC, Ontario Parks,
Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment, Northern Development, Mines and
Forestry, forest industry, forest and environmental consulting firms, and
several non-governmental organizations. And these are only graduates that I
have encountered in my line of work. There are times when graduates lean on
their faculty but it sounds like this is a time for the faculty to turn to
its graduates for assistance. Consider the practical knowledge base of more
than ten years of MFC graduates and how this knowledge may be useful to the
faculty.
It is with shock, but not surprise, that I read the email to alumni today stating that the Faculty of Forestry will undergo yet another review by the university. As a BScF graduate of 9T4, I was involved as an undergraduate in the 1993 decision and advocacy efforts.
Despite my nostalgia for the faculty, its name, and history, we have to change with the times. I’ve been in BC since fall 1994, and it’s clear here that forestry enrolment has declined recently due to the multidisciplinary nature of resource management and the declining roles for traditional forestry, even forest conservation as the program was transformed to in the 1990s. Of the 3 options presented in the email, the one that makes the most sense to me is #3 – transforming into a multi-disciplinary, multi-faculty entity. I believe this faculty should focus on environmental and resource management, for a variety of needs – extraction and management of natural resources, as well as ecosystem management to provide a variety of ecological goods and services, including air, water, carbon storage, habitat, etc. The integrated nature of the challenges that face us today – carbon storage, air quality issues, species at risk and their habitats, water quantity and quality, balancing water needs for ecosystems, fish wildlife and consumptive uses (agriculture, domestic consumption), managing wildland-urban interface fires – demands integrated solutions. And not just on the scientific and management end – we need to integrate the social dimensions into all management decisions, including the various “publics” such as aboriginal groups, special interest groups, and the general public at a variety of scales from local, regional, provincial and national. A large part of my current work involves “breaking down the silos” of people’s individual or organizational interests, encouraging them to discover common interests, and facilitating collaboration on solutions and working together on a variety of resource management issues. Clearly, we can educate the next generation to understand this from the beginning of their careers, rather than fight an uphill battle.
Please keep me informed of your progress, and thank you for your efforts on alunmi’s behalf.
Despite living in faraway BC, I support the Faculty of Forestry.
I am a 1961 undergraduate of the Faculty of Forestry U of T (and a 1970 MBA, U of T), attended the Forestry Centennial in 2007, and I live and am active in forestry, agriculture, and the environment in my home and in the rural municipality of Spallumcheen.
I have read your email and attachments and offer these alternatives to the 3 scenarios currently being considered by the Faculty, as follows:
1. Relocate from U of T, a university which has excessive debt, to a southern Ontario university which is financially sound and friendly; for example, the original site of the Faculty of Forestry, the University of Guelph, where agriculture has been established for a long time. Others include the established, close and friendlier universities at McMaster, Western or Queens.
2. Change the name of the faculty to the suggested Faculty of Environmental Science and Conservation, and initiate your own undergraduate programs and continue your post graduate programs.
3. Last but not least, as I understand the current dean is leaving, engage a dean who has both the recognized credentials and the knowledge of environmental science, conservation and forestry in Ontario and Canada.
I wish you and the Faculty good luck.
A couple of notes -
- U of T Forestry seems to me to be ideally located to study the effects/sources of Global Warming in/from a major City.
- I feel it would be a major policy error to change the research or location of our Faculty. Such research may be the key to saving our environment.
I am an alumni advisor working with the FAA.
I echo your remarks and unfortunately attended the bad news session many years ago when the undergraduate program was terminated.
I also met with Tat and the group just recently and Tat did elude to the 3 options.
One thing I remember most from that meeting was that the word "Forestry" may actually be scaring off potential students.
The environmental programs at Scarborough campus and to note others: Trent University and even at Seneca College - King Campus are doing extremely well. ( I am an advisor there just as I am at SSFC - Arboriculture and Urban forestry)
Anyhow the word Urban Forestry has now beened coined as you know by Eric Jorgensen and is being practiced predominantly in the larger municipalities.
Having said this we need to strategize more on how Urban Forestry can now become the main focus at U of T and taught at the faculty not via Arts and Science.
I have 33 years experience in this field an am Executive Director of the Ontario Urban Forest Council.
Thanks for this opportunity to join in the conversation and keeping me
informed. It is of course disappointing that the Faculty is being
reviewed and pressured again to make what appears to be significant
changes and challenges. I have come to realize the only really things
we can count on are taxes, getting older and change.
Personally I am not particularly fond of any of the options suggested,
incorporating the Faculty into the Arts and Science I think diminishes
the importance of the program and its contribution. Second option to
move the program to Scarborough I think takes the program away from
interaction with the other major programs and makes for a longer commute
for most students, and the potential for Art and Science students to
take elective courses from the faculty, also the loss of the faculty
building which was built by industry and government contribution for the
Faculty would be unfortunate. I guess the third option is the most
acceptable, not ideal but it does create an environment of working with
all resource related programs and integrating full resource management.
However, I would also suggest a fourth option be considered, approach
another university i.e. Ryerson and moving the program out of UofT,
although this I believe would be a big loss for UofT I think it would
also provide more stability for the program and potentially the
reinstatement of the undergrad program. There may even be a way that
Ryerson could purchase the Faculty building from UofT and the program is
permitted to stay where it is. I believe at this time with climate
change and bio-energy, and increase pressure on the land base a forestry
program is more important than ever, and this program is well position
to address and contribute to these important issues. I believe the
Faculty of Forestry at UofT that I graduated from has a lot to offer and
if UofT does not recognize that then perhaps it is time we look for
someone that does.
Also, I would like to suggest a survey be put out to all alumni and
other interested parties or stakeholders regarding this important issue.
Thanks again, look forward to hearing from you.
I believe that the last time the Faculty came to a cross road a suggestion was made to move the entire faculty to the University of Guelph. Perhaps it is time to have a good look at that option again, (after all it is home to the province's agricultural school of higher learning, it has an arbouretum, and was (if memory serves me) open to the idea of absorbing at least some of the faculty's departments. Also, perhaps an institution such as Laurentian University in Sudbury (home to the new medical faculty for northern Ontario, and also to a new fresh water lakes research institute, as well as geology school) would be interested in gaining another faculty. Also, it was in the late 1970's that a professor from Laurentian began the enormous task of regreening the city of Sudbury's barren and rocky entranceways and cityscape (after INCO completed construction of the Super-Stack). Perhaps this school of higher learning could/would partner with our faculty.
It was with great sadness that I received your e mail outlining the Faculty of Forestry's current difficulties. Trees are natures most sophisticated plants. They grow the tallest, live the longest, and provide food, fuel and shelter to both mankind and the animal kingdom. The world's forests are also the most important in creating oxygen and conserving water. Unfortunately nobody either in industry, government, or the public generally, gives a damn. Trees take too long to grow and no one wants to invest either time or money when there seems to be so many other urgent priorities. Hence we have a worldwide crisis. Single industry towns are becoming ghost towns in Canada by the dozen, Insects and diseases run unchecked and have killed millions of hectares - the mountain pine beetle has already killed 10 million hectares in BC and Alberta alone and when nature burns these areas, as it always does, many lives will be lost .Only the Foresters seem to care. Canadians have the great advantage that we the people own the bulk of Canada's forests . You would think that any kind of enlightened owner would be interested in the intelligent use of this marvelous renewable resource to create tens of thousands of new jobs and help solve the world's energy crisis. The Universities must accept the blame for their inability to educate.
Not sure what the situation is at Lakehead but perhaps this might be an opportunity to partner with that institution and set up a new forestry grad studies entity outside of Toronto - Sault St Marie would seem an ideal location given the huge forestry presence there of both the Provincial and Federal governments and all that would offer for cooperative research studies etc.-just a thought.
It was a mistake to drop undergrad education leading to RPF and leaving the Faculty unaccredited to the standards below. I was on a U of T faculty review at the time. This mistake has marginalized the Faculty and left it vulnerable with its grad teaching mission unconnected to the professional standards for professional forestry (see below).In addition the job market for RPFs is very weak at the moment but the need for employees with RPF competencies has never been greater. The Provinces are tending to download more responsibilities onto RPF shoulders has the forestry issues need their expertise. BC, Ont. and Quebec have right to both title and practice. BC now has both RPFs and technologists under the ABCFP providing professional oversight.
Masters grads or the BSc/BA U of T undergrads in forest conservation are deficient in meeting the academic standards for entry into professional forestry
At the moment there is no course based masters program in Canada which would allow these grads to make up their course/competency deficiencies. We are about to set up one at UBC that would meet Canadian Forestry Accreditation Board standards. We have now 260 grad students in UBC forestry studying a huge range of disciplines.
U of T could do the same.
Also such a program would attract Canadian and foreign BSc holders since it would lead to professional recognition and also be a chance for a career knowledge upgrade for mid career foresters and biologists. Forestry has become increasingly complex requiring a competence in a wide range of disciplines.
After 30 forestry teaching at UNB and UBC ,25 years on the ABCFP Board of Examiners and 50 years as member of the OIFQ I am increasing convinced of the need for rigorous professional forestry standards that are implemented. The need has never been greater.
There are powerful advantages to teaching forestry at a large university campus due to huge range of expertise available.
It looks like the Faculty will lose it Faculty status. Moving it to Scarborough would not be helpful
The 1971 CIF study and 407 page book on “Forestry Education in Canada” by Dean Garratt from Yale had 27 recommendations, number one was: “No additional undergraduate forestry programs should be established in Canada” It is a pity nobody took any notice.