Assessment of logger education programs and programming across the United States

Brooke K. Haworth, Charles R. Blinn, David T. Chura

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

Professional loggers occupy key positions within sustainable forestry, requiring enhanced knowledge of the principles and specific techniques associated with forest management and operational considerations such as safety, business management, harvesting productivity and cost calculation, and employee supervision. An expert opinion survey of logger education programs (LEP) across the United States was conducted to assess the status of those programs and associated programming. Results indicate that LEPs vary considerably between states, evidenced by the large variance in program responses. The financial success of LEPs, while maintaining reduced fees and tuition, may depend on diversity of funding sources, reorganization of training services, and use of volunteer and retired professionals. Creating successful training experiences depends on qualified instructors, subject relevance, small groups, discussion opportunities, program evaluation, and field practice. Formats that are rarely used by LEPs are classroom computers (9%), independent study paper- (9%) and computer-based (6%) programming. Eighty-seven percent of the programs expressed strong support for an increase in collaboration, with the largest interest indicated for regional curriculum exchanges. The Forest Resources Association (FRA) was cited most often as the appropriate lead organization to initiate those exchanges.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)358-363
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Forestry
Volume105
Issue number7
StatePublished - Oct 1 2007

Keywords

  • Adult education principles
  • Logger certification
  • Logger training requirements
  • Sustainable forestry

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Assessment of logger education programs and programming across the United States'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this