WHAT CHARACTERISTICS SHOULD FORESTRY STAFF POSSES?

Pod ovim naslovom taksator D. Ilijić u nastavcima u prva tri broja Šumarskoga lista iz 1895. god. daje odgovore na postavljeno pitanje, naglašavajući kako u svakom upravnom organizmu mora biti precizno određena sfera djelovanja pojedinih organa, sukladno njihovoj sposobnosti. Inače organizam prestaje pravilno obavljati svoje funkcije. To je razsulo i propast gospodarstva, kaže on, a posebice je to pogubno za cjelokupno gospodarstvo, jer ono „reprezentira veće glavnice“ i posljedice se tek kasnije otkrivaju, što je upravo slučaj kod šumarstva čije je glavno načelo potrajno gospodarenje šumama. U prvome napisu on razmatra svojstva nadšumara na razini imovnih općina, koje na temelju veličine posjeda tretira kao velika gospodarstva, „koja sačinjavaju najveći dio narodnog imetka“ (danas bi ih kao primjer zamijenili s područjem UŠP Hrvatskih šuma d.o.o.), gdje su nadšumari „glavari imovno-općinskih šuma. Svojstva, koja toli važnu osobu resiti moraju, nesmiju biti prividna, nego moraju poticati iz same naravi njene i dubokog osvjedočenja o svojoj uzvišenoj zadaći i pozivu. Uz postepeno stručno usavršavanje kroz praksu, „poštenje je kruna vrlina, čovjek, kojemu su povjereni milijuni narodnog imetka. Tko se nije namučio štrapacima ostvarujuć u šumi svoju teoriju, taj se neće obradovati ni plodu uspjeha“. Svoju stručnu naobrazbu u pravom smislu te riječi, treba dovesti u sklad s praksom i upotpuniti znanje barem enciklopedijskom naobrazbom u onim disciplinama, „bez kojih nijedan inteligentan čovjek biti nemože“. Osuđuje se „osorno ponašanje i neotesana otresitost“, a sugerira uljudno i predusretljivo ponašanje prema podređenom osoblju i prednjačenje podukom i savjetom. Nepokolebivo poštenje, sdruženo sa potpunom strukovnom naobrazbom, kao i revnost sa dosliednošću, pa sve ovo sjedinjeno u harmoničnu cjelinu u osobi nadšumara, bit će bez dvojbe uspješno sredstvo, kojim ćemo naša već u slabom stanju nahodeća dobra, bar donjekle unaprediti moći“. Dakle, ponajprije stručnost i poštenje. Drugi profil šumarskog stručnjaka koji pisac članka obrađuje je protustavnik, što će reći računovođa „kod gospodarstvenih ureda“, no i on prema Zakonu mora biti šumarski stručnjak, naravno s položenim državnim šumarskim ispitom. U odsutnosti nadšumara on ga zamjenjuje. „Nijedno gospodarstvo pa makar i najmanje bilo, ne može opstajati a da gospodar ne vodi računa o svojem dobru. On mora imati što no rieč: „u malom prstu“ nauku o narodnom gospodarstvu i njegovih načelah . . . ., isto tako mora se on trsiti da steče uz elementarna načela šumarske struke, koja je sa zavoda sobom donio, i ono iskustvo, koje ga stavlja na tom polju u isti nivo s nadšumarom upraviteljem ureda“. Da li današnji računovođe-naredbodavci, ma tko oni bili, vode računa o tome koje blagodati može pružiti šuma i kako se prema njoj odnositi, ne tražeći samo klasični profit. Zašto se je prije 120 godina tražilo da protustavnik bude šumarski inženjer, a danas nije bitno da li naredbodavac išta zna o šumi? Treći je profil šumar (u ono vrijeme to je kotarski šumar, a danas upravitelj šumarije). Oba prethodno navedena profila su, kako autor kaže „mnogo slobodnija u svojem službenom položaju . . . . . , jer laglje je samo zapoviedati, nego slušati i zapoviedati“. Šumar mora izvršavati zapovijesti gospodarstvenog ureda, pomno ih proučiti, utvrditi njihove zakonske okvire, paziti da ne nanese štetu gospodarstvu. „Prva toli teža strana šumareve službe osniva se na dužnosti, koja mu propisana neshvaćanjem upravne svrhe u obće i nepoznavanjem naravi strukovne znanosti, kao i potankih lokalnih odnošaja i potreba, a još manje sredstava za podmirenje istih“. Teško je boriti se protiv takve anomalije, …..koju često i mrtvo slovo našeg zakona štiti . . . . upravni griesi traže nesmiljeno svoje žrtve, a te su nazadak gospodarstva i nesreća osoblja, koje nedužno mora na se, da primi odgovornost za sve kobne posljedice upravnoga neuspjeha“. Pitanje je: „kako da šumar postupa u toj borbi, da ju privede, ako ne onoj pobjedi, kojom bi spasiti mogao svoje šumsko dobro, a ono barem pobjedi, koja bi mu sačuvati mogla osobnu čast“. U nastavku autor ukazuje na odnos šumara prema svome osoblju (ponajprije lugarima, čiji profil je također obrađen, te prema ostalim zaposlenicima). Svakako, ovaj kratki uvodnik može poslužiti kao poticaj čitateljima Šumarskoga lista da pročitaju tih 15-ak stranica, da vide detaljnije što je nekada zahtijevala struka, te da povuku paralelu s današnjicom i odrede svoja stajališta prema budućnosti svoje struke i šume kao najsloženijeg ekosustava. Ona u današnjim uvjetima stanja, kako prirode, tako i društva, traži još veća znanja nego u prošlosti, ali i promjenu današnjih odnosa prama njoj.In the first three issues of Šumarski list of the year 1895, forest estimator D. Ilijić gave answers to this question, emphasising that any management organism must have a precisely defined sphere of individual organs’ activities according to their capabilities. Otherwise an organism ceases to properly perform its functions. It is a chaos and decline of economy, he says, and particularly devastating for the global economy, as it “represents bigger capitals”, while the consequences are revealed only later; this is precisely the case with forestry, the main principle of which is sustained forest management. In the first article Ilijić discusses the capacities of a county forester at the level of property districts, which are according to the size of the property treated as big economies that “compose the highest proportion of the national property” (today they would be equal to the territorial range of the enterprise Croatian Forests Ltd.), where a county forester is the “head of a property district forests. The properties that should adorn such an important person must not bejust seeming, but should emerge from the very nature of this person andhis deep beliefin this most high task and profession. Along with specialist education through practice, “ honest is the crown of this person to whom the millions ofthe national property have been trusted. Those who have not laboured hard in the forest while buildingup his theory will not enjoy thefruits of success. “ One’s specialist education should be adjusted to the practice and the knowledge taken from encyclopaedic information in those disciplines, “without which no intelligent man cannot afford to be”. “Arrogant behaviour and rude manners” are condemned, while civilised and helpful advice-offering attitude toward inferior staff is suggested. Steady honesty with full specialist education as well as diligence with consistency will certainly be a successful base upon which we shall be able to improve our already declining assets to at least some degree. Therefore, competence and honesty above all. Another profile of a specialised forester dealt with in the author’s article is accountant “of management offices”, who also, according to law, has to be specialised in forestry and has passed the official examination required by the state. He substitutes the county forester in case of his absence. “No forest management, even the smallest one, can function without the manager taking care ofthe property. He must be perfectly conversant in the theory of national management and its principles ..., and also must try hard to achieve, with other already acquired skills, the same experience in this field that is equal to that ofa county forester, the head ofthe office.“ The question is whether today’s accountants/executives take into consideration the multiple benefits ofthe forest, and how they should be treated without only considering the profit. Why was a forestry accountant required to be a forestry engineer by education 120 years ago, while today a forestry executive need not know anything about forests. The third profile is forester (in those times it was a district forester, while today it is chief forest manager). Both previously mentioned profiles were “much more free in their official status ..., because it is easier only to order than to listen andorder “. A forester must obey the orders of the management office, study them properly, establish their legal frames, and be careful not to do any damage. “The first really difficult side of a forester ‘s profession is based on the obligation that is prescribed by not understanding the individual local relations and needs, withfewer meansfor satisfying them “. It is difficult tofight against such anomaly, ...which is often defended by our law ... administrative sins mercilessly require their victims in theform of declining economy and unhappy staffwhich, though innocent, must accept the responsibility for all tragical consequences of the unsuccessful administration. “ The question is, “if he cannot win it and sove the forest goods, how should a forester act in this struggle, in order to at least save his personal honour? “ The author then points at the relation between the forester and his staff (in the first place forest rangers, whose profile is also discussed, as well as other employees). This short foreword may encourage the readers of Šumarski list to read the whole text of about fifteen pages and learn more details of what the forestry profession once implied, and to compare it with today’s practice; to define their standpoints toward the future of forestry and forest as the most complex of ecosystems. Under today’s circumstances of both nature and society, this ecosystems needs even more knowledge than in the past, as well as a change of today’s attitudes toward them