Rant of the day

[Ron Wenrich]

Not too often do I get to walk over another forester's work.  Most of the time I get to drive past them, look into the woodlot, and think I know what kind of job they did.  This time, I actually got to walk through it and talk to the landowner.

The landowner is an older lady.  She likes her birds, cats, dogs and just about everything about nature.  She is living on a farm and is a member of the Grange.  I commented to her that I was glad that my Yellow Pages listing was so effective that she managed to call someone else.  She said she went with a forester that the Grange has listed. 

A few years before the logger I do work for walked over the property. He said it needed a few more years growth and made an offer.  The consulting forester came in with a much higher estimate and sold the timber for nearly double.  But, there's a catch.

After walking the job, I can see why he got double the price.  There is no salable wood left.  Its been totally gutted.  There are scant few oaks left, no tulip poplar, but the stocking seems not to be too bad.  What's left?  Beech, black gum, red maple, black birch, and hickory.  Some of these trees have been overtopped and have poor form.   The beech are overmature and should have been removed.  Some of those lesser quality species could have been cut and better quality trees left to stand.

So, where's the management that these guys are telling the landowners they get?  There isn't even a good seed source left.  But, to top it off, these guys are partners with the SFI in the state.  They are selling their services as being sustainable.  They also have 25 years of experience. 

Now I have to wonder on what type of remedy is there for this kind of stand.  Successive high grades have led to this situation, and this woodlot is not the lone example.  The asset has been liquidated, so there are little funds to do any type of investment.  The next stop for this stand is to clearcut and start over.  It would be one of those rare times I would suggest to plant trees.  I usually like to go with natural regeneration.  But, my professional opinion is not requested on this stand.  They already got their professional remedy and seemed to be pleased.  Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

What gets my shorts in a bunch is here is a landowner who did all the supposed right things.  They got information from a farm based cooperative.  They got the consultant.  They put their timber out on bids.  They had professionals handle everything and they still got hosed.  But, in a nice way.  The aesthetics are still there, but the quality of management I have to give it an F-.  I know loggers who could have done a better quality job.

End of rant, at least for now. 

[SwampDonkey]

I guess I can't offer much, never saw the site before to judge the aftermath.  But it does sound like a lot that I see around here. They come up with the same slogans as you mentioned. "Sustainable" kind of stands out. Sure you can cut wood again, but never the same quality as from a well managed woodlot. And it's known that more volume can be harvested per acre when using a true selection system versus clear cutting over the same time horizon. But, in my area most folks cash in if they can not do the work themselves. They are paid lump sum usually or installments so they haven't got to count loads leaving the front of the lot and worry about all the ones that went out the back. Rarely would a consultant be hired and government doesn't get involved with woodlots as far as harvesting. Up here we have an attachment to the woods and even if most don't have forestry degrees they're going to do it their way anyway. Most of us live in a rural setting and even if dad didn't cut wood, grandpa, an uncle or a brother probably did.  Lots of people will listen, but not necessarily follow advice. Well, I guess I kind of walked down a different path than what the thread started out from.

[chain]

Sounds like  Lone Ranger forestry. In other words, the forester masked his management as taking all the valuable stumpage while leaving risiduals of species less valuable.  Only the trained eye would have noticed; obviously most of the oak and poplar was even-aged mature? I know our late forester always told us that large even-aged stands of oak were the most difficult to manage. Opening up the canopy carefully and staying away from any nice pole stands of oak were usually the suggestions unless the oak was declining, mostly of  one species, then, prescription was to cut it fairly hard with stump re-generation..In our situation the mature oak came from an original clear-cut, not a easy thing to resolve.

[jeffreythree]

I really feel bad for someone that has something like that happen to them.  I am a landowner, not a forester, but I have educated myself as much as possible.  There are some great books to be had used on Amazon to at least learn some basics made specifically forest owners, and this site has been a real help. I have some small acreages around me that I am trying to buy where a similar cut to Ron's was made.  The owners all look at it and say all those nice trees must be worth a lot, when it is just a bunch of junky elm and green ash left over from when these small properties were logged as a group 15-20 years ago.  I see this as a problem since land around here is being subdivided into smaller pieces every year, increasing the number of forest owners with no clue.

[Jasperfield]

Even within professions, we are just now beginning to frequently see the effects of late-day public education, self satisfaction, instant gratification, child worship, etc. In example; Let's be nice, then when we get the job we'll "get in, grab, and get out".

I say: Stick to your guns and don't let the 8!@#%^&* grind you down.

You DO know how to manage forests and how to advise your clients. And they are "clients", not customers.

Keep the faith. Right makes might.

[Rick Alger]

I'm a logger not a forester, but I know that around here a forester makes his fee as a percentage of the stumpage based on scale slips. There can be a  conflict  between the paycheck and the long-term quality of the woods. This conflict can also influence the type of harvest - faster is often "better" because markets are so uncertain.

[Ron Wenrich]

I believe that's probably where I'm coming from.  I've written about this before and said that I really don't like sharecropping forestry.  I don't like it no matter if a forester does it or if a logger does it.  I've seen so much abuse of the forests by this method of harvesting.  Its a disservice to the landowner and to the industry as a whole.

That's not to say that good work can't be done by sharecropping.  I've done it in the past, but the economics don't add up.  There's always that lure of better income for lesser quality work. 

I fear its so ingrained in the consulting and logging industry that it will be hard to replace.  There has to be a better way.   

[bill m]

I am a logger also and the forester who gives me most of my work will not compromise his reputation for any amount of money. The future of the forest is number 1 and landowners objectives are number 2. If the landowners only objective is money he will try to still do what is best for the forest. If he just walked away they would find someone else who would rape the land. What I have seen in this area is that most foresters are good but a lot of times it is the landowner who is greedy.

[SwampDonkey]

Betty Brown, a local farmer and wife summed it up concerning farming and woodlots. The local processor, is an international food company producing 1/3 of the world's fries, McCain Foods. Old Harrison stood at the podium a good many times at the annual Bar-B-Q and said if you want a larger contract clear more of those trees off your farms for potato production and we'll give you that extra contract. Build more modern storage facilities so we can have supply year round and so the potatoes will keep better over a longer term. Today, or just this week, they announced they are cutting everyone by 30 % on their contracts. There's still buildings and land clearing to pay for.   Everyone still has to eat and I don't see McDonald's suffering for customers.

Everything is relative relevant.

[240b]

just because someone is edumecated doesn't me they are ethical. One issue I see around here is silivculture is about as objective as forecasting the weather. No two people will ever agree on what is "right".  Probably the most memorable comment I heard went told the abuters  were not happy w/ the "prescription" was, " Fjjh'em they don't own it."  People also seem to think if blue paint was sprayed on the trees it must be the right thing to do.

[Ron Wenrich]

I'm not saying that there all foresters or loggers are bad.  I'm saying that sharecropping is a poor way to practice forestry.  Let's not read too much into it.

I haven't been actively pursuing timber sales for a number of years.  But, I doubt if the landowner base has changed that radically that their ideals have changed.  Rare was the time that I ran across the landowner that just wanted to cut every tree on their property.  Usually it was for a land use change, like Swamp Donkey has just pointed out.  Mostly it was for housing development.

But, most of my encounters with landowners were that they wanted to do what was "right for the forest".  A good salesman can lead a buyer into things that they have no intention on buying.  I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a contract with a landowner that has said, cut all the worthwhile timber.  In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a contract that puts the landowner's wishes on paper.  I have seen contracts that stipulate which trees to cut - all trees over a certain size or all marked timber or all unmarked timber.  But, never what type of management the landowner is signing on for.  Kind of a leap of faith.

That's not saying there are no greedy landowners.  I just don't think their numbers are as great as I am lead to believe.

[barbender]

My buddy who is in central Georgia doing CTL logging runs into both types. Most all foresters down there that he works with are paid off of volume, some of them really rape the tracts because they want the money. Others do what is right for the forest. 

[chain]

You just have to have that 'forester-logger' trust,  I feel the trust  must be earned in some way. Go to others and ask, check out your professionals, walk over their work, most fellows will be willing to show you how proud they are of their operations and services.

We have 'Resource Foresters' here in Missouri who are assigned counties to manage State-owned forest lands and also serve the private forest owner. They train and educate owners like me on proper silviculure practices and give many free services including marking timber and the bidding contract process.

We also have some really fine consulting foresters with years of experience. It's not like there is some great veil hanging over the timber harvesting procedure. Just get out there and investigate your opportunties, there are many!

[wesdor]

Ron - I understand your rant completely.  Not much more to add from what you and others have said.  But I do want to remind everyone of what you said some time ago.  It is a quote now hanging on my wall and has your name for attribution.

"good forestry is more about what is left than what is taken."

Thanks for all your wisdom along the way.

[Ron Scott]

Any timber harvest contract should be teared to the landowner's Stewardship Managemnt Plan so that the landowner's objectives are met. However, I realize that most landowner's do not invest in a managment plan before they let their timber be open to harvesting by a forester's or logger's choice.

It's also a matter of professional judgement and ethics practiced by the forester and logger.

[Texas Ranger]

Yup, 100% right, but, and this is part of being a forester, some times a land owner walks in and says I want top dollar for my timber, clear it all.  I try to talk them out of it, but if it fails, I give the best clear cut there is, and get the best dollars possible.  In the end, I work for the land owner.

Some of my land owners I have harvested several times over the last 43 years, and they still have grade timber.  The ones I have clear cut on, have usually sold the property, and on some, I have been asked and have replanted.  I have loggers I trust, and more I wouldn't let near the land.  One of my competitors (bigger operation than mine) took a client away some years back.  Some 15 years ago.  In that 15 years i have observed (I manage the brother and sisters adjacent land) my competitor has made top dollar, and in so doing cost his client some $70,000.00 or so in missed opportunity, including ad valorum tax exemptions for timber production.

My clients know what forestry is, his are lost because of his three piece suit. 

[plasticweld]

I learned a long time ago to never offer one price. I start out with the price that the timber is worth if only the trees that are ready to be harvested are cut. Then work into a happy middle ground, instead of a ten year cycle to a twenty year cycle.  I then offer a price for everything but the bushes. I have lost too many wood lots over the years because someone came in and cut nearly double the number of trees that I had intended on cutting. Just about every landowner will tell me how they want to manage it correctly. When someone came in and offered more they were willing to compromise or sell out completly. I figure it is my  job to find out what the land owner is after, for some it may be a new car or college for one of there kids to vaction money. Some are going to sell the land right away others plan on passing it on to their kids. Only a fool would pretent that there is a one size shoe here that fits everyone when it comes to buying and selling timber

[bill m]

In Ma. on the last page of every cutting plan (that must be submitted and approved by the state ) there are two statements that the landowner must check one and sign. One says" Long term forest management, planned management of the forest to achieve one or more of the following objectives: produce immediate and maximize long term income, enhance wildlife habitat, improve recreational opportunities, protect soil and water quality or produce forest specialty products." The other says "Short term harvest, harvest of trees with the main intention of producing short term income with minimal consideration given to improving the future forest condition which often results in a forest dominated by poor quality and low value species."  Guess which one everyone checks and signs?

[Tom]

Why does the State have to approve every harvest?  Does the approval of the cutting plan cost the landowner?

[bill m]

If you cut more than 25 mbf in a year or there are wetlands involved you must file with the state.  After you file a plan with the state a state forester will come out and look at the site, make recommendations if needed, and issue a permit. There is no charge.