Ask the landowner

[woodtroll]

Landowners/forest owners,
I have been having discussions (A lot lately and over the last 15 years) of what and how much to include in a forest plan. Now I know what I would like to include, But how much would be read. The main argument I get is the landowner will not read their plan. "they read the cover, flip through the rest and go right to the volumes/acres". I also hear a lot of keep it simple and short landowners don't care. So what do you think? How much do you care to read?
I also understand the level of interest in your forests are higher then the normal, that's why you visit this site.

[Jeff]

Seems to me that those that only care about the volumes are not interested in a management plan at all, but only a timber harvest, or more accurately, the bottom line of a timber harvest.

 How can you not be interested in every little bit of data you can get if the interest is truly managing your forest?

[Larry]

I've had three forest plans...don't recall reading any of them.  Knowing myself I probably did read them but you can see what kind of impression they had on me. 

I went on a cruise with the forester every time...also attended training sessions and seminars to learn which trees to cut and why for TSI.  That part stuck with me pretty good.  And of course the trees to remove were marked so that acted as reinforcement when I took em out.

[Gary_C]

As a landowner and a logger, I say give them all you've got and let them use what they want. Isn't that what you get paid to do anyway?

This reminds me of the story about the old rancher in Wyoming that came to church one Sunday in a blizzard and was the only one there except the preacher. The preacher gave one of his finest fire and brimstone sermons and after the services the rancher shook the preachers hand and said "you were kind of rough on me weren't you?" The preacher said "well if you went to give your herd of cattle some hay and only one showed up, would you still feed him?" And the rancher said "ya, but I would not dump the whole load on him!" 

In the case of the forestry plan, you never know who will show up to use all the information. Trust me, I know what can happen when the logger shows up and does not get enough information to do the job.   

[Tom]

I have a  management plan and read it when it was created.  I also was part of creating it and the Forester went over it with me.  I get it out most everytime I'm thinking of doing something and read it again.  It's my Bible.  If the information isn't in there, I won't even get a chance to read it.  Where else could I go?

[Ed]

Seems to me that those that only care about the volumes are not interested in a management plan at all, but only a timber harvest, or more accurately, the bottom line of a timber harvest.

 How can you not be interested in every little bit of data you can get if the interest is truly managing your forest?

I've got to agree with Jeff.
If a property owner understands the principals of proper managment, TSI & selective harvest he will be better off.

Ed

[Ron Scott]

Most states have defined the minimum requirements for a Landowner Forest Stewardship Plan which are to be followed by certified plan writers and State approvals, especially for any cost sharing.

Goggle "Landowner Forest Stewardhip Plans" and you will find the requirements for an appropriate plan. Assessment and management direction for all resources should be addressed to meet the landowner's management objectives.

[woodtroll]

Ron, I have read lots of plans. Many met the minimum standard set by the states they were written in. They even met the standard of "stewardship plan". But they were short junk. The writers did the bare minimums to get paid, the reason, "the landowner will not read the plan anyway."

The requirements and quality of the information seem to be separate.

[DanG]

The writers did the bare minimums to get paid, the reason, "the landowner will not read the plan anyway."

That is a dangerous assumption, and one that will bite you in the ass eventually.  It doesn't matter if you're a Forester, Doctor, Lawyer, or anything else.  If you slough off your responsibilities, you will sooner or later run into a client who has done his homework, and your reputation will suffer along with your bank account.  I have noticed of late, that it is common for "professionals" to assume that others are stupid if they are not educated in the same field of expertise.  Your next client may be a lawyer who will study every word of your plan, or it may be an old farmer with a sixth grade education and a truckload of common sense.  It pays to do a proper job every time, and you won't have to worry about that sort of thing.

Thanks for bringing this up, Woodtroll.  I think it's a good topic and bears some discussion.

[Ron Wenrich]

Very rarely could I sell a management plan to a landowner.  They just don't want the expense.  Public owners and wealthy landowners were about the only exception. 

In each plan, I would have the maps, the growth rate, the volumes and the current value.  I would also have a short synopsis of the current stand condition, its past history, and recommendations.  Each area would be a page at most.  Language was kept where it easily understandable.  Landowners can pick and choose what they want to look at and what they want to follow up on.  The follow up is probably more important than current conditions.

I also would do a pre-sale cruise, even if I didn't write up a plan.  The reason is, you can't really do good work without some sort of data.  Yes, you can walk through a stand and convince yourself and others that you have the ultimate knowledge without any data, but I've proved myself wrong too many times to know that working without data isn't a good management practice.  Sometimes the writing of the plan has more to do with helping the forester than the landowner. 

[Jeff]

The writers did the bare minimums to get paid, the reason, "the landowner will not read the plan anyway."

The way I look at this is, I have both a dictionary, and a Bible here.  I have not read all of either, and have no current plans to do so, however neither is worth a hoot to me if they were missing the portions that I might need to reference at some point.

[Larry]

My plans were for Stewardship/cost sharing so maybe they were to the minimum and or junk.  The part about the existing stand and improvements needed was interesting/useful.  It was just re-stating facts as discerned on the original cruise.  The forester always took the time to explain what was going on and what was needed.  The rest...projections of growth rates, projections of when to repeat TSI, or have a sale were estimates by a trained professional.  A drought, fire, windstorm could make big changes in the projections.  I’ve never put much stock in estimates.  I thought it much more useful to watch the stand...when in doubt a quick call to the forester.  Maybe a question directed to the forester like “I’ve got a problem.  Can you stop by and take a look?”
   

[Cedarman]

Indiana Forestry and Woodland Owners Association , a group of timberland owners interested in good timber management, have about 800 members.  The state classified forest program which gives a tax break for putting the timberland in classified number over 10,000.  The 10,000 have to have a management plan.  Some use them, most don't.

[Ron Scott]

I guess it depends upon if one is a "certified" plan writer and forester. There are specific standards to be met in a quality manner along with ethical standards if one is to stay in business very long. Always do the best planning and resource management job you can for the landowner and they will remain to be your client.

I've done many Landowner Stewardship Plans as well as just providing advice on specific resource management direction and find that landowners will and do use their detailed Plan over time, especially if you continue to work with them.

When a landowner sells or transfers a property I've also found that the new owner or off- spring will also make use of the Plan.

[LeeB]

As someone who has never had a plan done and never had the land to have one done up till now, I haven't a clue as to what one would look like or what it's contents might be. I personaly would most likely read all the way through and come here for enlightenment on the parts I didn't understand. I would like to have someone come look at my place now and tell me what it needs to bring it up to snuff. I once again don't know where to start or who to talk to. I've tried the state boys a couple of times but they never rerturn my calls. How much would such a service cost? I'm not really as interested in harvesting as I am in preserving and improving what I have.

[SwampDonkey]

Seems to me that those that only care about the volumes are not interested in a management plan at all, but only a timber harvest, or more accurately, the bottom line of a timber harvest.

 How can you not be interested in every little bit of data you can get if the interest is truly managing your forest?

Exactly Jeff. I've done a lot of plans over the years and have found out within months of those plans what the motive was. They want that free cruise, then pick up a price list from a marketing board, multiply the numbers, and trees all the sudden become $20 bills. I would say, by looking at the state of the woodlots, that 9/10 go this route. I can usually gather from conversations with the owner about his goals and objectives, whether the woodlot will benefit from a written plan. When I have to "improvise" on those sections of the plan, because the owner in hesitant for what ever reason, and I basically am coaching for something to write, it throws up a red flag in the back of my mind. I was finding the other end of the spectrum to. They were hiring a logging to clear cut their ground, then after it was done they want someone to fix it with a management plan. 

So if your a landowner and are serious about woodlot management, spend some time with the family, before sitting with the forester, and discuss what your goals and objectives are. Remember to, that it is more than trees to consider. The forester should not be making decisions. They give advise, survey what's going on out there on the lot (past and present) and discuss methods to achieve your objectives and infer what results may be expected following that advise. Unfortunately in a lot of plans I've wrote, I feel like I'm the one whose goals and objectives I'm trying to satisfy when the owner isn't feeding me some info.  From the forester's perspective, he has to eat to, and a $800 -$1200 management plan is only a "week- week and a half " salary. So he's not going to refuse too many opportunities to a write a plan. It's different if your on the government payroll where you can be more "selective", your still collecting a pay cheque by weeks end. But, over the last 8 years I've refused to do plans on clear cuts. If there is thinning there, myself or many folks in my line of business, will likely identify it anyway for thinning. Planting is another matter, for me if it's regenerating naturally, even if it's aspen, I wouldn't be trying to convince a landowner to plant spruce. The trees are already established and reflect what was already growing there. I'm against total conversion with planting and herbicide, but prefer fill planting if there are large holes of nothing but non commercial plants where a tree would have a reasonable chance to grow and thrive. Trouble is, it is hard to get contractors or their labour to fill plant a clear cut. The rate is based on piece work, not an hourly wage. Some one has to identify the fill areas and mark out the areas. Costly. It comes down to the woodlot owner in most cases to do his own filling.

However, as far as the writing you don't want to put too much forestry jargon without a glossary in the back to explain terms that, to you and I, are just part of day to day conversation. Also, you've probably read enough of this forum and see some owners that ask what some of the forestry acronyms represent.

[Larry]

Lee, I called the state forester in Fayetteville.  He told me he would come out and mark trees for TSI along with making a plan, but at the time they were far behind.  This was a few years ago and I never followed up by getting an appointment.

[woodtroll]

I guess as foresters we (myself included) need to write good plans. Plans that can teach with out being full of jargon (like Swampdonkey said). Plans that along with our meeting the landowner will sell good management. But something else to that was mentioned, a plan that reaches the landowners objectives, it is their land.
If all a landowner wants is the $20's after a sale then we need to explain what benefits (monetary and other) proper management can bring.
The point of this thread there are to many bad plans, to short or way to long, full of junk and hard to read. To many lame excuses form foresters.  As a forester that is something I need to change on my level. Certification does not make a plan readable. We need to step up the quality of our presentations, write to our audience. 
Landowners make sure you get a decent plan. Ask for a sample of the foresters work before you hire them. If it is junk hire someone else.

[Woodhog]

I like to see the aerial photos thrown in the package, with the different management areas noted either on the photo or with a clear overlay, as well as the roads marked on it etc....

[Cedarman]

I don't know a landowner out there that does not like to look at a nice aerial photo of their land.  We had a big meeting with a lot of landowners in attendance and one of the consulting foresters had a computer hooked up to be able to download and copy anyones land in Indiana.  You had to make an appointment with him.  He stayed busy all day.