There's a move to require licensure as a prerequisite for full membership in the ASLA . . . This debate is at the core of the growth of the profession and the advancement of the ASLA. Before licensure, to be recognized as a truly professional landscape architect, LAs were motivated to join ASLA and attach the credentialed suffix to their names, e.g., John Smith, ASLA. As more states passed licensure acts, there arose a conflict of interest for the ASLA. Should the society promote licensure and thus reduce the need for ASLA credentials, or fight licensure and solidify the need for ASLA credentials? This conflict became a major topic of LASN commentary. When I first started LASN in 1985, it appeared that the ASLA was passively resisting licensure. Granted, there were many who pushed, and some who pushed very hard, to promote the profession to a fully licensed/registered status. Many of those turned to LASN as a vehicle for promoting their ideals. Back then, while officially the ASLA was working to assist the licensure efforts, there was little in-house coordination to push this agenda in the state legislatures. The result was that many highly qualified landscape architects left the ASLA and began suffixing their names with the more deliberate "Registered Landscape Architect," e.g., John Smith, RLA. Today many, if not most landscape architects, continue to use the RLA suffix. Of course, there are still a few stubborn states resisting the registration of landscape architects. I believe that Colorado, for instance, is holding out because its large number of federally employed LAs see registration as a financial burden, and aren't concerned about the greater good of the profession . . . Evidently those Coloradoans would rather pay ASLA and avoid the prospect of facing continuing education requirements than remove themselves as the last major hurdle in nationwide acceptance . . . Meanwhile, the ASLA is working toward the goal of "50 in 2010," meaning all 50 states with registration/licensure acts by the year 2010. The ASLA has the right idea . . . But what if registration were a requisite for full ASLA membership? Would that make the "ASLA" designation meaningless? What would that do to the numbers of members, especially those in nonregistered states, or those who have avoided registration and relied solely upon their status as an ASLA full member? What about those well deserved FASLA'ers? . . . The AIA has made licensure a requirement for full membership; the ASCE has not. Of noted interest is that most architects attach the AIA (membership) suffix to their title, while most engineers attach the PE (registration) suffix to their professional title. The real issue, however, is what is best for the growth of the profession . . . and clearly licensure/registration is best. As such, the ASLA should make licensure a requirement for full membership. Those landscape architects (a.k.a. "posy planters") who live and/or work in one of the few states without licensure should be forced to seek licensure in another state, or live with their associate membership status. There should be no middle ground. In this scenario, a landscape architect would do best to list oneself as Jane Smith, RLA . . . and if that LA were in such a position, the best possible title would be Jane Smith, RLA, FASLA. Still, Jane Smith, RLA, ASLA, would show the consuming public a level of professional participation above the simple RLA, and thus membership would continue to show status. With licensure as a requirement for membership, the ASLA would be freed from arduous membership screening and be allowed to focus on membership benefits: things like screening and otherwise participating in legislative activities, promoting the profession to the public, and competing against the architects, engineers and contractors who more and more seek to take away the "green space" business. Licensure/registration is a good thing for the profession. It is a good thing for the Society. It is the only way to make a stand in the competitive landscape of the development industry. God Bless . . .