American Tree Farm Question

[Jeff]

With the American tree farm system, are you expected to do a timber harvest at some point? Or under their guidelines can you manage for other purposes?

[Magicman]

In a word.....NO.   There are no requirements for you to do anything.  You make your own management plan.  You are free to change it at your will.  The forester will offer guidance and opinions.  Making field visits with the forester, really expanded my thinking.  That was professional help that I would never have gotten otherwise.

[SPIKER]

there are several different programs that you can get into, it all depends on the place you live and the local tax man...
here there is a few requirements that you one be in some sort of management plan. (good thing) that this plan be administered by someone who has some knowledge (usually state forester as they are paid by state you dont pay them.)  and that you follow the plan.    I had to do some thinning of the standing pines and they got me free plantings (5000) trees of different types.  I been there about 8 years now.   I have to report yearly on what I have sold if anything and what plantings I have in the ground...
I had a 2 year followup with the forester and sent him email checkup for a while but never heard back so he may no longer be there?

Mark

[Ron Scott]

You manage your property to meet your objectives as determined by an approved management plan. If timber harvesting is not an objective, you aren't expected to do a timber harvest.

[Jeff]

Ron, since you are my Forester, do you think I would benefit in any manor by joining?

[Ron Scott]

The only benefits are those that come with being a member such as a certificate, attractive sign, magazine, and some forestry assistance in following your management plan.

You might also want to consider membership in the Michigan Forest Association.

[Ron Wenrich]

I started to look around on how the Tree Farm system is faring in PA.  There are no links to it, other than to say to contact the state director. 

When I was an inspector, it was run by the PA Forestry Assn.  The PFA still runs the program, but it is overshadowed by the PA Stewardship program.  There is only a casual mention of the Tree Farm system on the PFA website. 

There's a couple of reasons I think this has happened.  There's no push from industry for the Tree Farm system.  It used to be that the paper companies were the big push, but all of them have left the state except for one or two.  Pulpwood is no big deal.

Penn State has gotten behind the Stewardship program.  They run the extension program, and have country foresters (if there are any).  They have set up landowner organizations and that is at a shotgun approach where only a few counties have groups. 

Industry is also behind the stewardship program by requiring the loggers to take some courses on good logging techniques.  While I support the logging certificate, I kind of draw the line when they offer a course for the loggers on "how to buy timber".  Lets learn the basics on growing timber first.

I would give the stewardship program a little more credibility if they certified the foresters, which they don't.  When I was doing inspection work, many consultants used the Tree Farm roles as a way to troll for work. 

The Tree Farm system may be working great in other states, but I haven't seen too much in PA and have heard even less. 

[Jeff]

The Michigan Tree Farm Website to me was always pretty dismal, I see it is now completely gone. The domain name is not even owned by the organization, but by a web hosting company, but I think that is the way it always was.  I know several years ago my brother-in-law tried repeatedly to get his 40 down the road from my land into the program, and never could get any sort of reply back from them and eventually gave up.

[SwampDonkey]

They have been pushing a "Tree Farm" type system here for the last few years. And your right, the pulp industry was behind it. They were pushing it because they have all their forests certified to satisfy some of their larger customers like Time Warner. With a lot of players in the pulp industry gone and markets being flat the momentum has gone. There weren't many taking it up anyway, only a few hobbyists and retirees with small lots and with monetary incentives for as many participants as there was money to support and entice them. A few got little stories written up in magazines and newsletters, but never really did much to entice the masses. Some organizations were or are using the program as a carrot on a stick to access markets and assistance programs. I've never seen that approach work for the average woodlot owner. You beat me with that stick and I'll resist even harder. I don't think the local association can take me to many certified lots. I know for a fact that there is no one there that is going to push for it too hard. They haven't the resources to carry it far for starters. Government has taken away extension services from woodlot owners and left an information gathering organization that very few know about or even tap into. Not to mention the fact that most traditional woodlot owners are an independent lot. The fact that there are pretty much no consulting businesses; mostly loggers, truckers, contractors and marketing boards, pretty much speaks for itself. They are pushing the marketing end a lot harder than the management. That's what pays the bills, volume of wood sales.

[woodtroll]

Tree Farmer can be a good thing. But it is a landowner group on the local level started by big timber companies (think Big W). If they are not involved not much happens. At minimum it is a magazine that has some helpful info. I like how they try to give info and push for passing the forest to the next generation.
Local tree farmer groups can also have field days, see what the other guy is doing in his wood type of thing. There always seems to be a little input from the state or county foresters depending on their interest.
At best it is a new and easy way to certify your forest as green. For what that is worth.

[Ron Scott]

Michigan, pretty much follows the National system information and direction.

http://www.treefarmsystem.org/

[Phorester]

The American Tree Farm System (ATF) originally started out in the 1940's by forest industry to recgonize private and industrial landowners who did a better than average job in managing their woodlands.  So for several decades it was an award for doing good things in your woods. In the last few years it has also evolved into a forest certification program.  Timber cut from a certified Tree Farm is considered to be certified wood.

I'm capatalizing Tree Farm to indicate this program, not just that somebody says they have a tree farm because they own woodland. 

At least one pulpwood company in VA pays landowners more for their pulpwood if they are a certified Tree Farm, because it is Certified Wood.  So it literally pays a landowner to be a Tree Farmer.

[Tom]

The other side of the coin is, what is the difference in the certified wood that have a pulpwood company paying more for it?

[Texas Ranger]

Tom, a reward for trying to be a good steward of the land?  In Texas, the Tree Farm Association is one source of proof of being a working investment, rather than a hobby.  At least the landowner sees something on forestry a couple of times a year, if they pay any attention, that is.

[Tom]

But isn't there a fee associated with that acknowledgement?  I don't understand why "being a hobby" would be bad.

[SwampDonkey]

Certified forest hasn't meant higher prices up here, in fact the ones pushing it said it's not about price it's about doing the right thing to begin with. Currently there wouldn't be 1% of small private woodlots certified. Those that are, are on a trial basis with marketing boards to see what can be worked out for the woodlot owner without paying large sums of money and paperwork to become and remain certified. A good many of these certification schemes is just paperwork and someone comes verify what's one paper with reality. They are looking as a Canada wide certification for woodlots, and the Tree Farm system has been considered. I don't here anything about it now since so many mills closed and markets shut. All I see are annual woodlot owner of the year awards of which I have not seen our local board elect a single person for the award for 8 years or more. They aren't providing the services to the level I was involved with over the years there. There doesn't seem to be much involvement or newsletters being written unless it's a select few, you never hear much.

[WDH]

But isn't there a fee associated with that acknowledgement?  I don't understand why "being a hobby" would be bad.

No fee. 

[Phorester]

"The other side of the coin is, what is the difference in the certified wood that have a pulpwood company paying more for it?"  Physically, none. 

It's the entire idea of forest certification itself.  I've been told that some of this paper company's customers are only buying paper from companies that can offer paper and paper products made from certified wood. That's their marketing ploy, to advertise themselves as "green" and environmentally sensitive, blah, blah, blah.  So this company, NewPage Corp., is willing to pay more for pulpwood from landowners whose lands  are in a forest certification program, and the Tree Farm System is one. And it's free for the landowners, as WDH says.

[WDH]

When I sold a first thinning about a year ago, I saw where the buyer, a large pulpmill, was putting an emphasis on tracking the amount of certified wood that they were buying.  It was more of an information collection thing, maybe a prerequisite to focusing on buying a certain amount of certified wood.  I know this buyer very well, and I told him that my wood was certified through the Tree Farm System, and would he pay more for certified wood.  He raised the price by $.25/ton.  He might have raised the price anyway if I had asked, but anyway, I chalked the extra quarter to the certification.  That is not much, but it is better than nothing.  On the 2000 tons I expect to harvest in total, that is an extra $500.  Every little but helps  .

[Ron Wenrich]

What portion of the wood is needed to be certified for the end product to be called certified?  I know its not 100%, but it always seemed to be a pretty small number. 

The state of PA has 2 million acres of certified forest.  I have yet to see the buyer of veneer, logs, lumber, pulpwood or firewood that has said they were interested in certified wood. 

I've always said that if you certify the practitioners, then you'll have certified products.  We don't need to certify any acreage as long as the guy doing the work is working within the certification guidelines.  Sure is a lot easier than inspecting land.

[SwampDonkey]

Still need to inspect a certain % of the land base to see if they are following their certification. If nothing else I guess, call it part of a peer review of the member. In BC, RPF's get peer reviewed every 3 years. How many associations elsewhere do that? Most of them seem like it's just a written exam and your in, like getting a degree.

[Ron Scott]

One also has to have a "special certification" to be an auditor to certify forest lands.

[Tom]

I belong to the Association and have my sign, but what y'all are describing is the very reason that I don't like the idea of certification.  Words like peer review, audit, inspect, etc. are just other ways of saying that my land and trees aren't mine to do with as I want.  Go to a row crop farm and tell the farmer that his corn field is not meeting muster because his planting distances don't match the social norm and he'll tell you to get off of his land. 

There are good trees and bad trees.  The product earns the price.  Southern Yellow Pine is a crop that is  made up of four species of pines.  Some are better than the others for lumber.  But when you saw it and present it to the retail customer, it is all SYP (Southern Yellow Pine).  The Eco whackos don't even know the difference.

I appreciate all the opinions and suggestions I can get.  I'll even be willing to hire some of them.  But, Why should I have to have an organization verify that I'm a good guy and my farm meets there standards to be able to sell the product, when the product can't be separated from another farm on the other side of the county.  It just sounds like more social manipulation to me.  Everybody wants to be in control of everybody else's business.

I just don't understand why its the business of some sit-behind-the-desk-in-an-office business major whether I fertilize with commercial 6-6-6 or spread cow manure, whether I got my trees from a State nursery or a private one, or whether I manicure my lawn or let it grow likes it wants.   The telling tale is going to be whether I produce a product that will do the job.  If Lowes and Home Depot want to run from a bunch of namby pamby sign-carrying protesters, that's their business, but, as the saying goes, "An emergency on your part, doesn't necessarily mean an emergency on my part".

To people who live in a Society of Socialism, it may not make any difference.  They are used to being told what to do.  But, I will resist that with my every fiber.

[Ron Scott]

There are new standards as of Jan 1st. All Tree Farmers and inspectors need to be updated on them.

http://www.treefarmsystem.org/certification/AFF%202010%20to%202015%20Standards%20of%20Sustainability%20for%20Forest%20Certification.pdf

[WDH]

Tom, you make some good points, and I understand your position.

Certification generally focuses on assuring that the wood was produced with good sound proven management practices, especially as it relates to sedimentation, protecting water courses, properly placed and maintained roads, and the such.

Being non-certified does not mean that the producer is not following the Best Management Practices, only the they are not certified under the standard.  It is mainly a big company thing, like IP, the Big W, GP, etc.  It is their way of showing the customer that good stewardship is being practiced. 

Is it necessary?  Probably not for the most part in North America.

[beenthere]

This is another form of control. I'm with Tom.

I'm ready to revolt and start making signs.

[WDH]

We will see you two on the news shortly  .  Protesting is an inalienable right, right?

[Ron Wenrich]

Well Tom, I think we have to look at this a different way.  Why do they want certification?  From all the sites I've looked at, they want to guarantee that the wood harvested is being done in a sustainable manner.  

So, I got to thinking, what is the consensus of sustainable practices?  To better define that, all you would have to do is stop doing the things that are unsustainable.  I don't know of too many foresters, loggers or landowners that practice what I define as unsustainable practices.  So, I looked at sites to tell me what is considered to be an unsustainable practice.

You can probably guess which practice is in the forefront...clearcutting.  Another one would be the spraying of toxic herbicides and pesticides.  Illegal logging and stand conversion are two others that I have found.

Here is a telling quote from the FAO:

Many unsustainable forestry practices are explained by the difference between private and public interests. Private interests, i.e. those of individuals or small groups of individuals often focus on short-term returns, whereas public interests cover longer timeframes and a wider range of benefits. Environmental concerns are increasingly dominant, as is the concept of sustainability. Economic viability, and current private uses and interests conflict with the need for resource protection and the multiplicity of uses and interests of future generations.

This difference between private and public interests is easily determined when one examines the situation of Canada's privately-owned forests. Most are family-owned and are small in size - 45 ha on average (Rotherham 2003). Respect for ownership rights and their relative importance - they account for only 11% of Canada's productive forests - have long shielded them from the public interest. However, this is no longer the case. These forests are increasingly considered as a public asset and the communities do not hesitate to involve themselves in their management, which is a source of great irritation for their owners.

So, your little pine plantation is in direct conflict with some of the certifying organizations.  I don't see that as part of the Tree Farm criteria.  One of the reasons there seems to be battles between the various certifying organizations.  

After you tend to your crop, you'll probably end up clearcutting that and replant.  That's OK with the Tree Farm folks, if that's in your plan.  But, that's not really sustainable forestry according to some other folks.

The FAO, FSC, and some of the other alphabets think that sustainable forestry only involves doing for the community.  You should only be adding to the diversity.  That means that there should be all types of plants and animals on your property, so as the rest of the community can enjoy your forest for generations to come.  The Tree Farm certification is the industry's answer to the other types.  

I'm pretty sure I've picked at this scab long enough for Tom to get really irritated.  

[SwampDonkey]

Well here's one for ya's. You've heard of Patrick Moore? or maybe not. But, he's a founding member of Greenpeace. Guess what? He's on our side.   His story is interesting if you care to read it on his website. Just so you know, he gets invites from the forest industry all the time, recently the NB Forest Products Association. He's out championing things Greenpeace abhors.

http://www.greenspirit.com/trees_answer.cfm

Stepping away for Moore and relating to one particular region of NS for a moment here, and a particular forest company operating there. First though, there is an European perspective which relates by Dr. Alexander Jablanczy. He's a Hungarian forester who toured NS in the 1980's by invitation of the government. He warned that clear cutting for 3 rotations depleted the soil. It was what they experienced in Europe over the last two centuries. But, one thing to keep in mind is that they deal with small land parcels over there and it's intense, like a back yard garden. Secondly, Icelanders that immigrated to the Caribou Mines region in Nova Scotia to farm, wore the soils out before one generation was dead and buried. They pulled out in 1882. It was poor ground to begin with and is now back to forest. Finally, this forest company is now taking every stick off that land for biomass and are under fire for it, because the soils won't sustain it. Professor Paul Arp, a professor of forest soils at the University of New Brunswick, warned of soil depletion as well, when in 2008 he drew up guiding principals for biomass harvesting. "It is not to cause site nutrient deficits and base cation depletion; reduce growth potential of future forest stands, or lead to major soil disturbances, such as soil compaction, soil erosion, soil rutting." According to all accounts the forest company in question did not follow any such principals. In my mind, by looking at photos taken of the site, they basically mined the place. Biomass doesn't have to be and shouldn't be harvested that way. There is all kinds of junk wood just in regular forest operations, we don't need to mine the forest. Fine limbs and tops, stumps and roots should be left to help the soil. Even the rotting roots are good to help the soil structure. From what I seen of the photos it looked like a field ready for the plow. 

Just some tidbits from this months "Atlantic Forestry Review".  

[Magicman]

The answer to every question doesn't have to be "what's in it for me".

In my instance, I sat down with the certifying forester, and with his guidance, made a business plan for my tree farm.  Some things he suggested, and some of my ideas, he disagreed with.  The final plan had a good mix of both.  Certified timber was not an issue and was not even discussed.

For me, it's a pride thing.  Knowing that I've taken steps to protect the land and to provide an income for the property for many future years.

Plus.....I got my Sign !!!

[Phorester]

A couple of bottom lines as I see them;

Whether we like it or not..., and I don't..., forest certification is here to stay.  More and more end-product companies want to advertise that they are "green" and environmentally concious and get their raw materiels (wood fiber, wood chemicals, logs, veneer, etc.) from politically correct managed forests.   I don't like it because of many of the reasons Tom and others have pointed out.  But, as usual, professional management based on sound biological principles has lost out to emotionalism.  Clearcutting is bad for the environment, so let's ban it from our holier-that-thou forest certification system that we're setting up. Spraying chemicals is horrible; ditto.  Planting non-native trees is bad; ditto. All that is bull.  To me, a forest should be managed on biology and science based management.  Not by administrative decree.  Certification systems that do not allow those practices merely limit a forester's ability to properly manage a forest, and that is the real detriment to the environment.  And most certification systems are very expensive, several $1,000's,  for a private landowner to qualify for.  It is not worth the expense.

Second, The American Tree Farm System is the only forest certification program that I know of that allows a management  forester to make any management decision he wants; to recommend any practice to the landowner he feels is best. It does not limit the forester.   And it's free for the landowner. And in the States  where it has been certified as a forest certification program it has the potential to get a landowner more money for his trees, if a buyer is looking for certified wood.  These are the reasons why I support it.

[WDH]

I have been involved in this certification business for 15 years.  For the large players in the Forest Industry, it is basically a cost of doing business in the modern world.  So far, the customers don't give a Dang if a piece of wood they are buying for a project is certified as long as it is cheap.  Also, certification does not produce quality lumber, just lumber that meets a set of predetermined standards.  Plantation wood is considered sustainable versus the clearcutting of natural stands, especially those natural stands that are destined for development. 

Anyway, if Walmart approached me about buying my Tree Farm for a new Supercenter at $25,000/acre, I would do it in a heartbeat.  Economics drive humans, so this sustainability notion is somewhat romantic.  Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with sustainability.  It is how we should grow wood on land that is destined to only grow trees.  On other land, the mighty dollar will rule supreme.

Getting back to Tom's earlier vein, it irks me to think that society wants to restrict what I can do with my land to make them feel better about themselves and to view my property as an inalienable right for them to use as greenspace and forest.  Live on your 1/4 acre of concrete and preach from a high brow all you want.  If you want a forest, go buy your own and leave mine alone .

Like Phorester says, the Tree Farm Program's approach to certification is about the most common sense approach out there.  It does allow good biology and management based on the landowner's objectives.  It is the right thing to do, and that is why I manage my land under the Tree Farm Program.  FSC can go take a hike.

[Tom]

We are taking care (?) of the cats and dogs that the urbans bring out here and turn loose.  Does that count?

[WDH]

     That is surely one way around here that people like to use the greenspace  .

[chevytaHOE5674]

From what I've seen certification doesn't mean you are doing things sustainable or following BMP's; it just means you aren't getting caught breaking the rules. A large timber company in my area is certified through SFI, and they routinely cut into stream buffer zones, harvest steep hillsides along water courses and generally practice what most would call unsustainable (clear cutting cedar in a deer yard with 3-4 foot deep ruts in the mud, thinning a northern hardwoods stand to 20-30 BA leaving only the worst quality trees, etc) . Just so happens the auditors never see those sites and they get their stamp of approval every few years. They sell their wood as SFI certified and it fetches a little bit higher premium then its off to the mill and gets sawed alongside my "uncertified" wood that was undoubtable harvested much more sustainable, and with much higher regard for the environment.

[Texas Ranger]

Tom, only if you use them for fertilizer.

[Phorester]

I wonder if lead from the bullets could be considered a micronutrient for the trees.

[OneWithWood]

I am currently SFI certified through ATF and will soon be certified under FSC.  I fully intend to leverage the certification when selling timber or lumber.

There is nothing in either certification that has caused me to change my management style.  I was sustainable before it became a buzzword.

The chemicals banned under FSC are not chemicals I would use.  I can clearcut if a clearcut is in the best interest of sustaining a particular stand,i.e. oak.  I am planning two small clearcuts as part of an ongoing wildlife study in conjuntion with the Indiana DNR.  Indiana's state forests are FSC certified and the large clearcuts undertaken (40 - 100 acres) are not an issue.

No one forces anyone to acquire any of these certifications.  If you don't like the program, don't subscribe to it. 

One of the benefits of the American Forest Foundation, of which American Tree Farm is a part, is that they actively lobby in Washington, DC for individual property rights and the right to practice forestry.  One of the things I did while in DC was to meet with my electied officials to discuss forestry issues.  The AFF helps to level the playing field and inject reason into the discussions .  It is an effective counter to the 'cutting trees is a crime' lobby.  I live in a county where the county government and hence the county plan commission is dominated by folks who feel they have the right to tell me how to maintain my forest so they can have the view they feel they are entitled to.  AFT and the Indiana Tree Farm Committee have been very instrumental in my endeavors to explain to these folks that if it is truly the view and the health of the trees they are interested in that my management efforts are the best way to insure that view will be around for their children and their children's children.

AFF has clout because of the large membership and visibilty.  Keeping that clout and adding to the visibility by displaying my sign I think is a good reason to be part of it.

[WDH]

AFF has clout because of the large membership and visibilty.  Keeping that clout and adding to the visibility by displaying my sign I think is a good reason to be part of it.

Robert,

Excellent point.  The AFF is on the front lines representing the private landowner, and they are doing a good job!

I saw your and Linnea's picture in the new Tree Farmer magazine.  You were looking handsome as always  .

[Tom]

Kudos, Robert
I understand your very valid points
I also feel that there are some benefits to be had by Forestry, in general, from these organizations, when it comes to lobbying.  Not everyone benefits, but I suppose the majority must.
Being a member of the Tree Farm System was a requirement, I understood, to receiving agricultural tax benefits from the county.  It's called Green Belt here and the Tax man uses it to make his determination as to whether he feels you are a bona fied commercial operation.  Even that kind of sticks in my craw, but I guess that the governments must have some way of determining that we are doing what they allow.

It's not the Organization or that we are doing what the organization requires that bothers me.  It's the requirement that we follow other people's rules, not just to be in business, but to sell product. It smacks of blackmail and is just a means for people to express their authority over a segment of the population that they feel is subservient.

It has been noted in these parts that the real environmentalists are those with land planted in crops.  They are, and have been, the ones that protected the animals, groomed the landscape, took care of the wet spots, provided the outdoor recreation as well as food and fodder for the mills.  The certification process isn't being driven by those who live in that part of the society.  It's being driven by those who look at it from the outside with criticism, the same as they look at their neighbor's lawn when it hasn't been manicured as frequently as the neighborhood owner's group feels is appropriate.

I'm not in this to defend my actions.  I have a plan and follow it too.  Some of my land is in small plantations and some is in a fairly natural hardwood swamp. Some of my management is hands-off by design.  Some of my management has been curtailed by my health, some of it I hire out.  Why has some been curtailed?  It's because I want to do it myself and I don't want someone else's interpretation of my wants to change my ability to have it like I want.   There are times when you take one tree over the other because of esthetic's, or your idea of individual tree health, rather than that it is not at the intersection of a planting grid.

So, I applaud people like you who not only grow trees, but are able to fit into the political mellay such that those in charge approve.  I do not disapprove of your lobbying efforts.  They are needed.  But I also feel that that is the shame of it as well; that they are needed.  It's not just that you have to prove to someone that you are doing what they allow, but that the outlets of your product are also being held under the thumbs of people who have no interest other than that they can control someone else.  That I can see, certification hasn't much to do with the industry, the environment, or the esthetic's.  It has more to do with social grooming. 

No one forces anyone to acquire any of these certifications.  If you don't like the program, don't subscribe to it. 

The fact is that people are being forced to acquire these certifications and liking the program/organization has little to do with it.  As a Fraternal and Professional organization being a member is satisfying.  Needing to belong to perform one's life's goals is a travesty.

[Phorester]

I feel that forest landowners are forced to participate in some sort of forest certification only if they want more money for their trees or they feel there is some prestige in belonging and want that.  Example; every once-in-awhile a landowner will come into my office and say "I'd like one of those Tree Farm signs to put up".  When I explain that it's recgonition of belong to the Tree Farm System and not just handed out to everybody, some join and eventually do enough on their property to become a certified Tree Farmer, or they are just not interested in getting that involved.

If a landowner values being independent and is not looking for every cent he can get for his trees when he sells some, he doesn't have to join.

[Samuel]

Still need to inspect a certain % of the land base to see if they are following their certification. If nothing else I guess, call it part of a peer review of the member. I

Forest Certification depending on the scheme you are certified to receives an external third party review from your certifying body each year, as well the company is required to conduct an internal assessment against themselves.  This is true for the big 3, FSC, SFI and CSA. This is mandated as part of the protocol requirements.  We ourselves hire out the internal audit to a contractor to ensure we are getting the best picture of whats going on and we post all of our audits (internal and external) as further transparency to what we are doing/achieving.  If you are bored, feel free to review some of the reprots that are located at http://www.dmi.ca/about_dmi/dmi_in_alberta/prpd/certification/audits.html