Bad Forestry

[PAFaller]

PA has numerous outlets for low grade material, and more and more sawmills are harvesting it. I can sell all the low grade beech and birch I could find right now, especially if its 12 inches or bigger on the small end for making ties. It just needs to be bought at the right price. Not a huge money maker for anyone, but more often than not cutting out the low grade with the selected sawtimber will help mill A get a job over mill B. I understand what you are saying about procurement foresters need to buy sawlogs, but that doesnt mean they cant offer decent management at the same time.
My reason for starting this thread gets back to the money issue I see with a lot of landowners. As most here know I have a few years under my belt in the woods but a limited time out on my own here in PA. Where I want to take my business is in doing management work that yields a variety of material, stuff that many guys wont deal with. Before I started I took the time to foster relationships with different low grade end users, and can move plenty of product. Problem with low grade material is selling the idea to a landowner. As we here all know, if delivered wood only brings 28 dollars a ton, and the truck drive needs 11 dollars to get it there, its hard to pay out healthy sums to Mr. Landowner.
Part of me is having an ethics battle with myself!! I don't want to succumb to the idea that if you cant beat em join em and do the same high-grade harvests as everyone else just to put more bucks in the landowners pocket, but at the same time I need to keep landing jobs and keep the iron working. Perfect example, I looked at a piece this past weekend, cut over pretty hard 15 years ago. Logger cut it without a contract for an absentee landowner, and put a hurting on any valuable species. Oak was hit real hard, as was ash and hard maple aside from a few sticks waaay down over an ugly bank. So what I have to work with is a stand filled with some large but declining aspen, oodles of beech in all size classes and being hit by beech bark disease, and a few healthy but small oak poles. Its an awesome stand for some TSI and oak release, but thats a hard sell to someone who wants to make thousands of dollars again.
I started explaining what I would do in the stand and why, but knew pretty quickly that it wasn't sitting well with the landowner. He asked why the timber value wasnt there like before. Hence the problem in explaining bad forestry. I know there is an emotional connection people have with their forest, and to the uneducated a tree is a tree. How does someone in this business explain that past practices need to be remediated before any good stuff will be growing again, and how do you explain 'junk' trees without being that blunt about it?

[Tom]

Having been asked by the landowner, I would say that you are well within your rights explaining your opinion of the condition of the woodlot.

As far as a forester having his job in jeopardy because he is not bringing in pristine logs, I think it has more to do with "not bringing in Pristine logs for the money that the mill is offering."  Therein is the bite.  Perhaps those in the know and those who could make it happen, should get hold of the reins of the wood market.   The Landowner (partly through ignorance) is not selling his wood, he is providing his wood.  The mills make all of the dollar decisions and the landowner is nothing more than dog who's tail is being wagged.

Landowners need to be more in a position of setting price, or not selling.  There needs to be a whole lot more "not selling".   Where else, in the open market does a customer put the price tag on the product.  Well, maybe chickens, and corn and soybeans and...  It's the way the agriculture industry has done business, all except for maybe marijuana or cocaine. 

Commercial Fisherman, faced with a price that provides a loss, used to take their catch back out into the ocean and dump it.  Or, at the very least, not offer their catch to that fish-house again.  I've heard of corn being plowed under too, but it takes a determined farmer.  Chicken Farmers have never had a chance, they don't even own the chickens anymore.

One of the best things that could happen to the agricultural industry is the development of fraternal organizations.  I'm not necessarily speaking of co-ops,  I'm speaking of awareness.  Farmers/landowners who visit and talk and communicate and formulate opinions, educate themselves, are more in a position of wagging their own tail. 

Why don't people, in general, communicate anymore?  I think it is complacency and the "dark room" syndrome.  If it were nothing more than bologna sandwich and glass of tea a month, getting  people together would strengthen them.  One of the problems with the landowner organization is convincing landowners that they are part of the picture.  I know of many small landowners who have no idea that they are growing trees.  The land was bought on speculation with developers in mind, or left in will.  It is essentially laying fallow, with taxes becoming increasingly higher to the point that the land will have to be sold to pay them.  How many farmers could exist as farmers if they had to pay "single family housing" taxes on their land.  Do you think that the tax man tells them that there are ways out from under the hammer?  Nosiree bobcat!  But, the word would get out in a fraternal organization and the guy would be invited to attend, if I'm right about farmers liking to visit.

Would it help the forester?  I don't know.  It would allow him to go to the mill and say, "I found some pretty timber for $x.00's", instead of having to go to the mill and say, "what will you give me for this?"

What would you give for your next truck if you controlled the price?

[SwampDonkey]

Tried a harvest bonus scheme here with one mill. A wood cutter would get a $3.50/tonne bonus for doing a timber improvement in hardwood sites. It could be aspen that was taken out or thinned out the hardwood. Mostly ended up in high grades, and bonuses paid anyway. Had one land owner say, I'm sending my wood to that mill, so I want my bonus, even though he knew full well he didn't qualify. He made enough stink that they paid him. His lot was pretty much scalped by himself. Then some of the other methods were to use that bonus this winter to qualify for the funding. Next winter they didn't have to find another site to cut, they went back in and removed everything else.

If I had a whole stack of maps here in my hands to go check those sites and drew 10 to check, I bet 9 of the 10 are liquidated to this day.

[Tom]

If I had a whole stack of maps here in my hands to go check those sites and drew 10 to check, I bet 9 of the 10 are liquidated to this day.

Who would be responsible for the management decisions on those sites, a logger, a forester, the mill or a landowner?

[SwampDonkey]

Land owner and or his logger for the management. The land owner in these parts isn't interested in middle men. He's after the $$.  Forest technician or forester to explain the program and follow up for payment. No requirement to follow through with proper management. But that there is the trouble, it has to be the land owner who wants to do the right thing to begin with and not look at it as a money grab for an extra $10 a cord in his pocket. Can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink. You see a good many of these woodlots come in handy to pay farm debt. Some woodlots are cut in divorce cases and others to pay for the old man and woman's nursing home bill. Others, divided and cut among survivors in the family. Just talk to the woodlot owner and you'll eventually get the story. Some these divide and conquer stories among family will often lead to the land left to nature, they won't even have it thinned pre commercially when it's free. Most absantee won't have work done either.

[Tom]

How about a decent price, to the landowner, for Veneer and good sawlogs , do away with chip'n Saw, minimize pulp and treat bio (chipping for fuel) as land-clearing.  If a landowner should receive a bonus, it should be for providing a product that took the most effort (time).   When you look at the worth of the square foot of earth a tree takes up, over its life, and compare it with the wage of a sawmill laborer, the laborer probably comes out ahead.   What is the incentive?

[SwampDonkey]

That certainly is true Tom. But, mills don't have to compete over wood volumes to keep the mill going. Our trouble here is all that under valued crown wood we are competing against. Woodlots used to be primary source of supply to the mill under the crown lands and forest act. The Premier in 1993 took our right to fair price away. Now we are competing against "give away" wood off crown. I say give away because the companies don't pay a dime to do silviculture on crown, so it's a net zero sum.

[Ron Wenrich]

How about a decent price, to the landowner, for Veneer and good sawlogs , do away with chip'n Saw, minimize pulp and treat bio (chipping for fuel) as land-clearing.  If a landowner should receive a bonus, it should be for providing a product that took the most effort (time).   When you look at the worth of the square foot of earth a tree takes up, over its life, and compare it with the wage of a sawmill laborer, the laborer probably comes out ahead.   What is the incentive?

But, the mills do give an incentive to grow bigger trees by offering higher prices for better product.  The landowner is either convinced into cutting before they have a good value by someone doing the cutting, or they just allow someone with the free reign of the land. 

I can easily break it down into size classes, because there are very few hardwood trees that offer veneer value that are under 16" dbh.  That's why you see a diameter limit cut that says 16" and up.  Sawlogs need a 12", but better yet, a 14" dbh.  That will give about a 16" stump cut.  So, all good growing stock will be removed.  The absolute best profit will be realized when the sawlog goes over to the veneer class.  Why carry forth any trees that won't make veneer other than for spacing?  I know there are other ecological considerations, but I'm just talking from an economic standpoint.  Of the bid prospectuses that I have seen in the past decade, there are scant 12" trees marked and only a few 14" trees.  Most are 16" and up. 

The landowner is looking at a bunch of business plans that are being presented to him.  Most times, the landowner doesn't even know he has any value unless someone approaches him.  In those cases he can go with Plan A that would be to allow a logger to come in and cut 16" and up, for example.  Plan B would be to allow a consultant to come in and mark timber and solicit bids.  Plan C would be to have another mill look at it.  Plan D would be to pull the covers up over his head and tell everyone to go away.

Rarely is the word management plan in any of those plans.  I used to always do a preliminary cruise.  I could get a good valuation, and write a decent management plan.  I also knew what I was talking about.  I did this as a procurement forester.  Sometimes I bought the wood, sometimes I didn't.  If I didn't buy it, usually it wasn't cut.  It sure impressed the landowners.  Sometimes I even impressed myself.   

Landowners need to be convinced about forest management long before the harvest. 

[WDH]

I've been on both sides of the fence, both as a buyer and seller of timber.  My forest management advice was the same.  In other words, its the ethics of the forester, not necessarily who he works for. 

I could not agree more with this statement.  I was in wood procurement for 25 years.  I always gave the same advice whether or not a consultant or any other forester was involved.  Just because you work for a company buying wood does not spoil your ability to offer sound forestry advice to a landowner.  Ethical people who are foresters behave ethically.  Unethical people who are foresters may behave unethically.  Fortunately, I have had the pleasure of working with many more ethical foresters than unethical ones.   

[Ron Wenrich]

Wait a minute, if your a sawmill and your forester leans hard on bringing in low grade, how long is he going to have a job? Regardless if the mill pays him an hourly wage to mark the trees, it's in his interest to bring in some nice logs.

I thought about that statement, so I have to ask you.  How long would a consultant be in business if he marked low grade sales?  If he's working on an hourly or per thousand basis for the landowner, then no problem.  But, when commissions slip into that picture, then things change. 

Commissions are unfair to the landowner.  If the timber is of sufficient quality or quantity, its subsidized by the guy who did all the good work to get good timber, or the work doesn't get done because the consultant couldn't make any money. 

WDH

That's my point.  There are a ton of good procurement foresters doing good work, because that's what they do.  There are also a lot of good companies that support those foresters and pay good money for the timber. 

[SwampDonkey]

Ron, that depends on whether the commission is solely for good logs, or for total volume of sales. His commission may be in part from a second mill getting some pulpwood volumes. A good consultant knows his markets and can send product to a number of mills or one company that owns several facilities. If someone was working for Irving on commission, he has hardwood mills, pine mills, pulp mills, and softwood lumber mills to choose from. Less likely to high grade the woodlot. It all depends I suppose on the situation the consultant or procurer is stuck in. The marketing board here gets a $3/cord fee for the management no matter the product. The commission whether they do the work or someone else is a 2.2% wood levy off all products. It's very hard to generalize with a blanket statement that commissions taint the management. Everyone is different and the low ballers are never forgotten for a long time.

[Tom]

$3 a cord fee?!?!

That's pretty tough when the landowner is getting $3 a cord for his hardwood pulp.  That outfit best stay out of here. 

[SwampDonkey]

No, $3.5/tonne harvest bonus. That's $10 a cord. The pulpwood market price was worth $130/cord for 100 inch lengths on top of that. The $3/cord only involves about 0.001% of the woodlot owners who participated in the land services program per year. Yup 4 out of 4000.

[Jamie_C]

Around here most private lands are harvested by forest contractors without the use of foresters unless they were used to generate a cruise report with which the stumpage rate is calculated. The preferred method of harvesting here is clearcut with products going to up to 6 or 7 various mills depending on species composition and wood quality. This is sometimes followed by the land being planted from the different mills silviculture funds.

There are very few what i would call "true consulting foresters", those who actually write management plans focused on forest management not on commision based forest liquidation. A very sad but true state of the industry here.

[Ron Wenrich]

Swamp

I don't understand your commission setup there in NB.  How would someone be working for a mill (Irving) on commission?

The way the commission setup is here in my area, the forester marks a sale and puts it out on bid.  Usually, its 25% down at the time of signing, and the forester takes his 15% commission from that cut, which leaves the landowner with 10%.  Within the next year, the logger has to log the tract and make the final payment before cutting begins.  The logger sets the market for material, not the forester.

Jamie

I like that term "commission based forest liquidation".  I see that around here, but its usually under the guise of "select harvest".  We have very few true consulting foresters in my area, as well.  Most are timber brokers.

[SwampDonkey]

Ron, I guess I muddied the water somewhat. Most commission based forestry that I know of involves a marketing board. They tender the harvest to logging contractors. There is no deposit, all the wood goes through a marketing board if it's private wood. But, under a land services contract, where they supervise a harvest, they take $3/cord on the harvest, they also take a 2.2% levy, which generally comes from the guy that harvests the wood. He is called a producer of primary forest products, the landowner doesn't pay that out of his share. I have worked on some contracts where the land owner got as much as 40 % of the revenue from a harvest. That was in good harvesting conditions, not necessarily high value wood, just mostly dense stands of uniform tree size.

Irving procurement would most likely be a salaried forester and driving around in Irving painted Ford pickups, not involved in any management except on crown lands possibly, but I doubt it. The source of wood off private lands would be through marketing board contracts mostly.

I differ a bit from Jamie and "commission based forest liquidation". But there are not many real consultants doing the ground work. In my area I could count them on one hand and one is the local marketing board. They are the only ones in the phone book. Some out there call themselves consultants, but most sights they work are not following a plan. Once in awhile yes, if the plan was done by the local board. A plan is just a stumpage negotiating tool for most out there and management is by-passed. Don't go blaming the loggers because it's what the landowner wants 95% of the time. It's so easy for the land owner because he can pick up a price list for any mill the marketing board has a contract with and multiply the numbers with his cruise. Mostly loggers with either high school or post secondary education and no commissions involved, just mostly lump sum stumpage or periodic  payments. Not the same at all. It's mostly a clearcut mentality in this region, even on crown lands. We don't have the volumes per acre of "quality" hardwood they do in the south. That makes a lot of difference in what you can afford to do. Fir and aspen are those species that better be taken when mature, because it's going to be worm food before the next harvest. Both are weeds because it won't go away.

[Phorester]

In my area and in most southern States the burden for good forest management on private lands falls with the landowner. Granted, most don't know anything about that. But unfortunately, most also never have any idea about selling timber until a buyer knocks on their door and offers what they think is a princely sum for "taking out a few trees to improve your woods".  "Here's your check for $10,000.  I marked the trees I want with red paint. We can start next week".  Most landowners jump at it.  (Would you turn down winning an unexpected $10,000 on a lottery ticket?)

Also, as already stated, a lot of consulting foresters here get their jobs because they get a landowner a lot of money for their trees, and that means high-grading, not true selective harvesting, or thinning out poor quality trees. And of course they increase their commission by doing that.  Most landowners look to getting the most money from their timber now, not future growth or income 25 years down the road by doing the proper management now, when they'll be dead or no longer own the property  Granted, some do.  But most don't.

But that's what I try to get them to do in my job as a State service forester.  I get paid the same if I recommend they clearcut from property line to property line or if I recommend they not cut any timber for 50 years. I try to convince landowners that a timber sale should be part of a management plan for their forest, not as an end by itself.  That they can get money right now but also improve their woods by setting up a timber sale to reach their desires for better wildlife habitat, for making their forest healthier, etc.  That's it's better for society as  a whole to do that. Most don't care about society or future landowners.  They want their money now because they're either greedy, or they need it for immediate expenses and can't get money anywhere else. Most landowners consider their woods as a savings account in a bank that they can draw money out of when they need it, not as a future investment to be properly managed.

But I have seen over and over that landowners get a better logging job and top dollar for their timber by having a consultant forester handle the sale for them rather than selling it themselves, even if it's just a straight high-grade.  For the 10% - 15% commission a consultant charges, they will get 200% - 300% more for their timber. And they get a better logging job by having a consulting forester monitor it for them, meaning less damage to their remaining trees and good rehabing of haul roads and skid trails, good clean stream crossings, etc.  And maybe an ethical consulting forester can take a little less in commission by taking out some of the low grade trees, thereby doing a little good forest management at the same time he's getting his commission.

[Ron Scott]

Ditto! on the use of a consuting forester.

Most of the "certified" consulting foresters that I know practice "good forestry". There are strict ethics to follow to retain their certifications amoung their peers in the  forestry profession.

Many consultants work on a commission since landowner's often times prefer it since they can not pay the hourly rate required to do "good forestry" on their land.

I've also walked away from a number of jobs which I wouldn't put my name to, where the landowner wanted to practice "bad forestry".

Always seek out a certified consultant with experience, good ethics and forest management practices.

[Magicman]

It's also sad how much land has been bought using the same scheme over the years.  A knock on the door and the guy says "I'll give you $300K for your land.  The deal is done, and he sells that much timber.  Then he sells the cutover land.

Today's timber prices have slowed that a bit, but our land has such a high "recreational" (hunting) value, that shady deals are still happening.