Forest Certification

[SwampDonkey]

When I was out in BC, I told the boys I was here for the adventure. On those days where it was pouring down sideways with wind, and sliding is goose goop on the hillsides, they'd ask me "are you having fun yet". 

[Tom]

Certification is about "control".   These outfits may find some factions in the USA that embrace "control".  Some States could be pointed to that seem to have citizens who enjoy being led around.    But, there are States, areas of the country, citizens who abhor the loss of the freedom of decision and the ability to manage their personal property as they see fit.

When these organizations move from their comfortable homes in the areas that accept them to the more independent areas, these controls will hit the fan and they may have more confrontation than they bargained for.  It's a shame that so many citizens are so complacent when it comes to these "controlling" situations and wait until it affects them directly because it makes for a lot hotter fire.

I'm not for Certification as a private landowner.  I see no reason for it in our National Forests.  It's another effort at blackmailing the public, creating soft jobs for the unworthy and keeping a segment of the US population under another bureaucratic thumb.

[SwampDonkey]

Reminds me of Jean Arnold, who gets government funding and some private funding to go around telling us what we don't know and what we are doing is no good. While at the same time she's getting her $40-50,000 from these source and people around her are barely existing on $20,000 farming and woods work.  I seen a position she posted a couple years ago for an RPF with pay of $6.50/hr. 

[Ron Wenrich]

I went to Lowe's last night, just to look for certified wood.  I figured maybe Weyerhauser would have some certified hardwood.  Not true and neither was their guarantee to be defect free (another story).  I looked at hardwood veneer.  Not certified.  I looked at the studs and plywood.  I looked at the stamps.  Nowhere did it state certified.  I looked in the moldings and the cedar section.  I just can't seem to locate it.  There is nothing advertising the lumber as certified.  I even asked at check out and the cashier didn't even have a clue.  So, it apparently isn't being driven from this end.

[SteveB]

I guess my take on Certification would be a bit different.  I think of the kind of 3rd party certification we're talking about as giving the people more control and less beuracracy.  When it comes to private land, if you want to certify your woodlot to someone elses standard, go ahead.  If you don't like certification, do it entirely your own way.  Ultimately the consumer gets the biggest vote, and that's the basis of our western economies.  If the consumer wants (to pay for) FSC certified products to make them feel warm and fuzzy, retailers will figure this out, mills will produce it for the retailers, and they'll look to private or public lands as the source.  If you don't beleive in certification, the answer is to find like minded mills and ultimatley consumers to buy your wood.  

What's worth it for one person, company, land management trust, etc. might not be worth it for the next.  There's lots of chioce out there FSC,SFI, CSA (Canada), Forestcare (alberta), ISO, etc....  

When it comes to public land, citizens that don't trust big companies or big business, don't like the idea of one or both of the aformentioned to have the single-handed right to make all of the decisions "for us" without some type of additional check or balance.  These types of people see 3rd party certificaton as another way to help ensure "our" public land is being managed appropriately.


Swampdonkey,

When it comes to selection in uneven aged stands, you're right, the idea is usually to harvest a bit from all size classes, not focus on the big ones.  That's why we use tree marking here to regulate this type of cutting.  The bush is marked to the prescription, the marking is checked/audited to make sure the prescription was implemented through marking properly before it is approved to be cut, and then we make sure the trees are cut according to the paint.  Obviously, the marking also has to focus on taking out the disease and defect trees in order of priority, while meeting targets for the retention of a specified number of supercanopy, mast producing and cavity trees for wildlife.  The prescription will specify the ideal residual basal area per diameter size class, which become the targets for the tree-marker to strive to mark to.  The provincial recomended residual basal area distribution varies by region (average growing conditions) and is detailed in the Ont. Tree Marking Guide, and A Silv. Guide for the Tolerant Hardwood Forest in Ont.  The rpf uses the guides and local knowledge, experience to create the prescription and give the tree markers direction.  If you don't have these guides I think you'd probably be interested in them.  I don't agree with every word of them, but they are based on a lot of reserach from around here as well as throughtout the N.East US.  I remember seeing refrences to them somewhere in New Brunswick's forest management policies/manuals.  All of this stuff is suposed to be based on science, but obviously there's lots of judgement that come into play (I guess an art as much as a science).

OK.. enough hot air

[SwampDonkey]

Steve, I have those guides actually and have molded some of my prescriptions in hardwood stands using those as guides. But, woodlot owners in this part of the country don't always follow plans or hire consultants to implement them. Right now in our marketing board area there is hardly anyone interested in a plan, because they have to pay the full cost. We've suspected that when plans are subsidized, they become cheap cruises and the woodlot gets liquidated a lot of the times. This just helped reaffirm the suspicion. But, that's getting into another issue.

[SteveB]

Ron,

In the past I worked for a company that supplies lowes with lumber, and we were SFI certified, but who knowes if they end up stamping that on anything?  I think a lot of the retailers want to buy certified wood to say that they do in case anyone complains or challenges them, but they might not advertise it.  I have seen moulding and doors at the local Home Depot with FSC on it.  Actually, FSC is the only certification I've ever noticed. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if they only market the certified stuff in areas where they figure the market cares.  I could see them having "FSC" on wood in the cities, but not go to the trouble of advertising it for the farmers/logging areas.  I've seen it stamped in magazines and catalogues that are intended for a "green" audience, and I've seen it advertised in print shop windows in big cities.

As far as hardwood lumber and veneer goes, I've noticed that they don't tend to be into certification as much as the pulp and softwood guys.  The fierce foreign competition in the hardwood sector is coming from tropical contries, where there's not much certificaion, so if consumers demanded it and we were able to become certified, we'd probably be in better shape in north america than we are.  Sawmill manager was complaining the other day that they figure their tropical competition's  got chaep wood supply since their trees grow fast, AND they're obviosly not heeding too many enviro rules if they're cutting off public land witout the right to, and not paying any stumpage.  (local hwd. veneer mill also just anounced shutdown yesterday)  I think the softwood and pulp companies are more into certification because they're bigger, and bigger means a bigger target for the enviro's.  The Sierra Club's of the world probably figure they get more bang for their buck by attacking the big guys (the lawyers of the "non-profits" probably make a hefty one).

[Samuel]

So are any of you specifically involved with managing Forest Certification schemes?

[jrdwyer]

The certified lumber I have seen at the big box stores was 1" radiata pine from New Zealand and 1" pine/spruce from Scandinavia. I believe that the studs from Canada (like Canfor product to Lowes) are also certified but not individually marked.

I personally don't see much benefit to certification for small private landowners. There is high unit costs for certification with no tangible payoff. To address this, Classified Forests in Indiana are being evaluated for group certification through the Tree Farm System. So you get certification without the fees!

Philosophically, I consider certification to be a bit of a "slap in the face" to foresters who already perform forest management activities at the highest standards. It is also duplication of practices already in place like Kentucky's Forest Conservation Act, as one example.

If certification ever becomes required, then I would like to see a national certification "stamp" for ACF or SAF foresters practicing under specified guidelines that could also be used for chain of custody.

Finally, many private landowners are not willing to pay for management plans and plan updates that certification requires. Many are not interested in anything more than a commercial high-grade. I don't see how commercial high-grading can be viewed as a certified forest activity.

[Phorester]

RON, I did the same search at my Lowes and Home Depot last year.  There was nothing on the lumber that indicated any type of certification, and the clerks at both stores had absolutely no idea what I was asking about.  They were not even aware of the concept of wood certification, let alone that their store was supposed to be supplying certified wood.

[Tom]

Don't sell the private landowner short.  Many are interested in more than growing trees for a "quick" buck.

I feel that I have other interest and those are to perpetuate the natural invironment of the river swamp on my land.   If all I were interested in were high grade, I would have clear cut it, burned it and put in pine plantation what is now tended as natural stands.   My concerns run the gambit from timber to wildlife homes/snags and mast.  Palmetto proliferates for no other reason than deer browse and cover.  Much of my land may never be commercially cut.

Other small landowners in my area are of my ilk and would possible resent  certification for the same reason as I.  Certification is nothing more than someone, probably not a landowner, passing judgement on my land care and direction.  That someone has no viable interest in what I own but thinks they have the right to mandate how I manage it and control my markets as blackmail of my business as well as blackmail of my outlets.  All Certification is, is the need for some people to be in control.  They have their nose where it doesn't belong.

While many private landowners are not willing to pay for a management plan, it is preceded by the Forester's unwillingness to work with small landowners.  Most of the small landowners that I am aware, study Forestry themselves and do what they think is right because Foresters are more interested in Government land, Corporate land and large landowners who may offer them a management job when the State job runs out.  

If I treated my sawmill  business the same way foresters treat their profession, I would fail for sure.  I would buy a mill, take it home and lock it up in a barn.  Then I would tell a man with a lot of trees that I had a mill and go home to wait for him to bring me logs.  I might get lucky, but, the chances are that I would be looking for a new profession as a K-mart clerk in a few months when I found that he had gotten a mill of his own.

Could I have used a Forester?  You bet your bippy.  But He/She would have to do more than write a management plan.  Small Landowners are always under threat of Taxing agencies who wish to make their land single family housing.  Once that is done, the only avenue left is sell out to pay taxes. The small woodlot then goes the way of developed subdivisions.  Small landowners need educated and trained Foresters to stand up for them in the war against development.  A forester needs to be an intermediary who helps the small land-owner exist.   Today the Land-owner is left to his own devices.  If I could find a forester who did business like that, I wouldn't mind paying a fee.  I can't see paying a fee just because the guy went to college and wants to sell trees.

Forest Certification?   Give me a certified market.  I'm going to sell good lumber, show me your credentials  and greenbacks to prove you won't paint it and I might sell it to you.

[jrdwyer]

I'm not sure how the state of Florida handles private landowner assistance, but in Kentucky and Indiana forest management plans are done for free (taxpayer supported) by foresters working for the state. So it is pretty difficult to charge a fee for such and get a lot of interest.  Therefore, I concentrate more on timber sales, forest appraisals, and timber stand improvement work. I work on properties from 5-400 acres in size with the average being about 25.

I didn't mean to put down private landowners who actively manage their woodlands and take the time to learn all they can. I thoroughly enjoy working for such clients. I enjoy marking a stand selectively and using some thought about what to take and what to leave. It is definitely more challenging than marking and measuring a high-grade timber sale. I enjoy doing TSI in the winter (although my 39 year old knees sometimes complain). My light little Stihl MS170 is helping me finish a 200 acre hardwood TSI job right now (selective harvest was finished last March).

I have been involved with private landowners in this area since 1991 and I would say at least 40%-50% use high-grading as the means of cutting their woods. This is typically carried out without the use of a professional forester, but not always. I have had many clients who simply wanted to extract the maximum value while leaving some low value residual trees (hardwood pulpwood, crooked sawlogs, culls) for aesthetics. Oftentimes the property is sold after the timber sale. The client is happy because they get the highest return from the property by having separate sales for the timber and the land. This is definitely not forest management, but if BMPs are used and the tract hasn't been grazed hard or burned hot then hardwood regeneration is not a problem.

I think we are both looking at certification with a similar view. Someone else (who may know little about forestry or land management) passing judgment over what we have done or what we are trying to do with a forest and not offering any price premium for the effort.

My question is this: Where can I find certified steel or drywall or brick?

[333_okh]

I have worked on both SFI and FSC certifications and I can tell you that neither is easy, or self policing, but I do not like the regional differences given to people in other states and countries by FSC.  A standard is a standard and should be the same.  In essence, if a certain harvest methods of harvest sliv is poor in California, it probably is in North C., and Oregon.  FSC does not think so.

[Samuel]

I have worked on both SFI and FSC certifications and I can tell you that neither is easy, or self policing, but I do not like the regional differences given to people in other states and countries by FSC.  A standard is a standard and should be the same.  In essence, if a certain harvest methods of harvest sliv is poor in California, it probably is in North C., and Oregon.  FSC does not think so.

I tend to agree with you there, however there are differences in ecosystems and biodiversity that may change specific requirements.  For example logging in the swamp ridden boreal forest of northern Alberta is much different than logging on the Canadian shield in Ontario.  The operational requirements that you speak of are obvious though I agree.

The biggest thing that the NGO's were up in arms about here when the Victoria Secret thing was happening a couple months back, they did not care that the company printed over 1 million catalogs a day, they were more concerned with if the wood was certified to the rain forest alliance (FSC) standard.  Thats sustainable forest Management..

[333_okh]

Agreed!

Another thing is to look at the old growth policies and the clear cut acreage policies.

I understand the ecosystem and geology aspects, but in some cases it has nothing to do with either of them.

[SwampDonkey]

Tom, what I've found with some woodlot owners is if the logger presents the buzzword 'select cut', he thinks he's going to be doing the right thing for his land. What ends up being done is a high grade leaving multi-stemmed, flat-topped, skun up junk and a high graded woodlot. As soon as you offer a woodlot owner advice or stewardship of his ground with a fee attached, he's not interested because:

1) management plans have been subsidized by marketing boards and government. The marketing board wages are subsidized by taking a levy from private wood sales. So, already he has paid for service, but often times doesn't get it. And 3 or 4 marketing board staff cannot possibly service every land owner's needs. In the meantime the system puts the consulting forester at a financial disadvantage because he needs to eat to.

2) He sees the consultant as a middle man without rationalizing that a logger wants the pay the least possible in stumpage, where the consultant wants to make the owner the maximum he can from the sale of wood because it's going to benefit his pocket also.


Let's see   
100 acres with a cruised estimate of 2600 cords:
Logger
income to owner
stumpage:
            $15/cord pulp @ 1200 cords = $18,000
cost to owner:
            - no plan: results in high graded woodlot, $1000's lost in potential growth
            - longer periods between entries, logged once in his life.
            - higher rate of tax for casual woodlot owner not managing his ground or operating as business
net income for owner
stumpage - lost future potential = ?, $18,000 before taxes, no tax benefit since no plan,high graded woodlot.
Consultant
stumpage bid by tender:
            $25/cord pulp @ 700 cords = $17,500
            $125/mbfm sawlogs @ 30 mbfm = $3,750
            $450/mbfm veneer @ 2 mbfm = $900
            Total = $22,150.00
benefits to owner
     - multiple entries in his life time
     - improve future value of woodlot, since standing timber (growing stock) has less poor wood growing
     - tax benefits for following plan and operating as a business.
cost to owner:

plan:                - $4.00/acre of wooded ground, plus $350.00 for writeup = $750 'peanuts'
consulting fee:  - $8/cord @ 700 cords = $5,600 (often times the plan fee will be included here)
 
net income for owner
   
stumpage + multiple future entries $$ ? - consulting fees + taxable benefit on consulting fee = $22,150

If no tax benefit = $16,550 (before taxes) + $$ from improved woodlot and future entries

This is a big part of the problem, a lot of land owners look at today what will be in their pocket and don't see a future benefit. So, they go with the logger.  We just simply don't have a lot of hardwood sawlog and veneer growing stock, partly because of our climate and also past high grading. 

[Tom]

Swamp Donkey, I agree and am pro-forester.  But the logger you describe gets the ear of the woodlot owner because he is there selling himself.  I see forestry as a passive industry.  if you didn't know it existed, you would never know.  Why is it that every time a conversation comes up people, first of all, begin talking about loggers.  It's because the Foresters are hiding in the woods.  They haven't gone to the public and sold their "wares".  Most seem to think that the world will come to their doorstep.  It's not so.  Like any business, you have to sell every day. You have to be visible.  Foresters even have the inside.  They are hooked up with Universities, education, Government grants and all manner of venues for presentation.

In my neck of the woods, and I speak only for myself, I haven't seen a forester in years. I've not had one visit any of my saw jobs.  I do know where the Division of Forestry office is located but finding a forester there is a crap-shoot.  Usually those government types are so busy filling out paperwork that you have to make an appointment.

Contrary to popular belief, woodlot owners are not a bunch of dummies.  When there is something that needs to be done and they recognize it, they will get it done.  If that means going to a University or just a library and learning the stuff themselves, they will.

I had a one-up on most in that I had the opportunity to study Entomology and Botany in a University as a kid.  That didn't teach me Forestry, but, it did  make me aware that there was more depth to agriculture than meets the untrained eye.  There are many like me out there, doing it our way.

There were two Foresters in this area that were big on promoting Forestry and Foresters.  One was transferred away. He was a County forester and would show up at the darnedest times to have a cup of coffee and walk the woods.  He and I would have a grand time and he would give us landowners little talks on vegetation we had on our property.  When he showed up, I would get on the phone and gather as many of my neighbors as I could to come over.   Yes he was a State Employee, but, if he were to remain in the area after his stint with the State, I would have let him manage my place in a heartbeat.  He also had 6 or 8 of my neighbors who would have and the whole area I live in has another15 or twenty small land-owners that he visited.   I know that a handful of woodlots isn't going to make him rich, but this was just a touch of who he knew.  He cruised all over  the county not just my little corner.

The other was an old-time who used to be the Division Forester and retired to occasional management jobs.  He was involved in more politics than Richard Nixon ever dreamed. There wasn't a city council meeting that he wasn't there making comments on city growth.  He was always instrumental in gathering land-owners together for meetings to let them know what was coming down the pike.   He taught Forestry everywhere he went.  He also would "show up" and visit your "woods".  I enjoyed his visits  more than I ever would a free trip to Disney.  He was a gruff old son-of-a-gun and didn't let the city fathers run over anybody.  He stood up for agriculture in this county and set the record straight many times when some greedy developer tried to make a "presentation" to the city council.  He had enough sense to write the newspaper and had his forestry views published even though the paper has never been in his ballpark.

He died Last year and there is no one with his authority, education or background to fill his shoes.

He stood between those of us who were trying to grow trees and those in the county that wanted increased tax dollars by the re-zoning of the agricultural fields.  I think the death of old Frank Hill was the reason that our young Mayor was able to stand up in a political meeting a while back and announce that "there will be no agricultural land in Duval County in ten years."

[BrandonTN]

Inspiring story, Tom.

[SwampDonkey]

I see forestry as a passive industry.  If you didn't know it existed, you would never know.....

They haven't gone to the public and sold their "wares".  Most seem to think that the world will come to their doorstep.  It's not so.  Like any business, you have to sell every day. You have to be visible.  Foresters even have the inside.  They are hooked up with Universities, education, Government grants and all manner of venues for presentation.

I think a lot of effort has been put into getting the word out. It has so here, because it's a big part of the economy. A lot of times it falls on deaf ears, those that don't rely on their woods for a steady livelihood (which is the majority). They only go to the woods at times when they need fast cash to make a farm/tractor payment, divide the lot among siblings after a death, clearcut to pay for their father's nursing home bill, buy a new car, or for retirement income (clear cut), sell land (clear cut) or cut 10 cords of stove wood. And the older the land owner, the less likely you will ever cut his land because he doesn't want to loose his pension supplement. The average age of a woodlot owner around here is close 60 years old (baby boomers).

There are annual forestry conferences, but generally people outside industry and government won't attend because of registration fees. These things do cost money. They expect something for nothing if all they are used to are handouts and subsidies. There are annual marketing board meetings held in evenings for private woodlot owners (free), attendance is down unless you feed them. Then your only talking about 5 % of woodlot owners ever attending.

Why is it that every time a conversation comes up people, first of all, begin talking about loggers.

Because that's the competition. And yes, sometimes loggers are foresters that do good work, but not always. We could talk about woodlot owners I suppose, some of them are loggers to. Not all loggers are detrimental to woodlots, some are quite well educated in what they are doing. And what you've said yourself here....

Contrary to popular belief, woodlot owners are not a bunch of dummies.  When there is something that needs to be done and they recognize it, they will get it done.  If that means going to a University or just a library and learning the stuff themselves, they will.

I had a one-up on most in that I had the opportunity to study Entomology and Botany in a University as a kid.  That didn't teach me Forestry, but, it did  make me aware that there was more depth to agriculture than meets the untrained eye.  There are many like me out there, doing it our way.

...rings true with some owners, but is not the majority. And I know some folks that will not listen, no matter how loud you scream, point, demonstrate etc... It's their way and there is no other.

And I'll say it again, short term/quick cash flow speaks volumes. It's the carrot on the end of the stick. 

[SwampDonkey]

As a forester, I can't compete with $3/cord management fee from a marketing board with $millions of wood sales to subsidize that rate generated by a 2.2% levy. Many loggers have told me that if the owner wants a forester to manage their ground, then the playing field should be made level, where the owner pays for the consultant without subsidy. I've told anyone I've dealt with that the wood has to be there (on the woodlot) and the markets in place to make it work for all parties involved. I don't expect the logger to go broke paying high stumpage rates, building roads, paying truckers, pay cutters....it's all factored in when I look at a woodlot. The logger has some advantage here to you know, the decision of what the leave has been made, trails laid out according to terrain conditions, roads flagged. He also has a new opportunity he may not have known about. Certainly his competition is not going to be advertising it. If the forester is a Certified Water Course Alteration specialist, then the logger doesn't have to shuffle paperwork with the Dept of Environment, where he (logger) has to wait at least 30 days before approval.  Man have I ever seen some messes when it comes to woodlot roads. Holly Christmas!!