A “practice” act regulates a group of actions or “practices” that can only be carried out by persons licensed to carry out those particular practices. For example: Only a licensed engineer can design a bridge. So a practice act regulates a group of practices, and then defines (through proof of education, experience and testing) and subsequently “licenses” the group of individuals that are qualified to carry out those practices. So, if I try to design a bridge, I am breaking the law because I am not a licensed engineer. 

A “title” act regulates a group of people that use a certain “title,” with no regard or reference to, or regulations about, a particular practice. But in order to be allowed to use that title, the state requires that those people prove that they have a certain level of experience and education relevant to the particular title being regulated. For example, in this proposed RCW, a person using the title of “soil scientist” should have a degree in soil science and 5 years of professional experience carrying out soil science work. 

So a title act regulates only a title, and provides a list to the public of the “certified” (not licensed) individuals that meet the required qualifications to use that title. Under that circumstance and current related title act law in WA state, if a forester identifies him/herself as a “landscape architect” when writing a report, they are breaking the law because they have not provided information to the state showing that they qualify to use that title. But if the forester designs a landscaping plan, or takes a soil sample, or develops erosion control plans, or delineates a wetland…. they are not in violation of this or any other current or future title act. In our case, they would be in violation ONLY if they use the title “soil scientist” or “wetland scientist” (or in current law, the titles  “landscape architect” or “notary public” …. any other currently regulated title) when preparing their report for public use.