Rant of the day

[Tom]

Does it matter whether you have retained a qualified Forester of your own?  Can the permit be withheld?
Are the "recommendations" mandates, or truly suggestions?

I'm just trying to figure out why the State is involved in your cutting your trees. 

[bill m]

Anyone can file a cutting plan, you do not need a forester. I guess that's why they have to look at and approve every plan. Most of the recommendations I have seen are about things like monitoring invasive species or water crossings. I never work without a forester involved so I don't see a state forester very often but I would guess where no forester is involved they may check in more often especially if the logger does not have a good reputation.

[Phorester]

I walked with a landowner through his 30 acre grove of trees on his farm. He was bragging that it hadn't been cut since WWII.  During the rest of the walk I politely wove in the point that since it had not been cut in 50 years that he actually had a lower value forest than if it had been properly thinned over those decades.  Talked about how, yes, there are some big good quality trees here, but they were just now at the size that, if they had enough room to grow,  they could increase in value by 50% - 100% over the next 10 years because they would then be solidly in the veneer class and not just big sawtimber.  Instead of taking them out, the ones inhibiting their growth should be taken instead and let those big trees get bigger. He let us mark his woods for a pulpwood-small sawtimber thinning. I advised him how to sell it and gave him a list of pulpwood cutters.

He ignored my list and contacted the one logger he knew, a veneer buyer, who said we were in the process of ruining his woods and that if the landowner let him cut it his way he would give the owner 10 times the money than if it was cut the way we marked it. 

The landowner sold it to this logger.  One month after the logger cut it, he came back to the landowner with another check for several thousand more than the original price, saying that the timber sold even better than he thought and he wanted to treat the landowner right.

I know all this because at that point the landowner then called me and said he was very dissappointed that the State had given him  such poor advice, that his tax dollars were being wasted if this is the kind of service we provided, and the only reason he was not calling the Govenor was because the money he got for selling his timber the "right" way far eclipsed our measly little marking fee.

Not blaming the logger.  The landowner called the shots and went for the most money rather than good forestry.  Many landowners think that good forestry means lots of money right now, not in the future.

[Ron Wenrich]

There's a few things I would like to point out.  One is that many states do not allow their service foresters to do very much on private property.  The consultants and forest industry have pretty well squeezed them out in our state.  The service forester cannot mark any timber.  He doesn't inspect any jobs and he doesn't give any approval or disapproval of any job.  Any forestry work ends up being that the service forester provides the landowner with a list of "qualified" professionals that will do the work.  Qualification amounts to a BS degree in forestry from a credited institute.  There is no licensing requirements for loggers or foresters, but there is one for barbers. 

In the end, the decision on who to use does end up in the lap of the landowner.  But, how do landowners make those decisions, and where does the information come from?  We always talk about going to the extension service.  I imagine some of that goes full circle to the service forester who pulls out the list.  Or they go to some other group that they have confidence in.  They also have a list.  But, who verifies quality on that list?  Years of experience is worthless if the practice hasn't been any good.  Belonging to organizations usually means that they pay their dues.  But, the landowner has to put their confidence in someone and if they can't trust other organizations to provide competent information, who should they trust?  After the jobs done, its too late.

We talk about ethics on an individual basis.  But, what about the ethics of the profession?  When a landowner hires a forester, isn't the forester taking on the stewardship responsibilities or is that supposed to be left on the landing along with the trees?  I'd like to think of the profession as being a little bit better than being a hired gun.  If industry is really serious about policing their own, they better do a better job than offering a few courses and collecting dues. 

I listened to the head of the DCNR on the radio last week.  Wouldn't it be great if they actually put someone in there that had some technical knowledge.  Our acting Secretary has a background in administration and is a former mayor.  He struggled with answers about clearcutting and other forest management techniques.  He had no problem pointing out that we should be working on the impact of climate change on PA's forests and he's hard at work on it.  Although most forests in PA are privately owned, the issue of landowners and information has apparently been settled.  Pass the ball to someone else via the list.

So, the consensus remains that the landowner deserves the management that they get.  We won't pay too much attention to them until its payday.  We'll allow someone to pull the shell game on them and guess which one has a pea under it.  If they're wrong, well, it was their choice.  Is this sustainable forestry?

[LeeB]

Amen brother. You can't always trust the stae boys to help you either. I have tried several times to get our local fellow out to look over my place. I have about 150 acres and have no desire to make money from the trees but I do want to maintain or improve the forest health. Seems to me that most of the info you get around here is geared toward profits although I will have to say that the state boys won't talk anything about money or value. I just wish they would come and have a look to see what is here and give me a basic plan. All I did get was a generic peice of paper meant to cover the very basics for the whole area. Not much help as far as I'm concerned.

[SwampDonkey]

There's a watercourse alteration course put on several times a year in a couple Maritime provinces. It's basically having someone on site when installing stream crossings and filling out the paperwork. But the catch is, there is no requirement to hire such individual. A landowner can file his own paper work and wait 30 days and maybe an environment inspector will show up to inspect the job. Mostly they just look at aerial photos and maps of the site to determine if it's a high risk area. 9/10 times no one sees the site. And the government doesn't place a lot of priority on it here, since there may be 5 environmental watchmen in the whole province. So why would a forester or technician take the course? Chances are they would only be used if they worked for a forest company on crown or freehold forest lands.

Kinda the same situation with cutting and selling wood.

[Ed_K]

 Tom, not only does the state have control over logging using best management pratices and cutting permits,now they want to change the rules that landowner's have to have a counsulting forester plan and submit the cutting plan.They have already made law that if you have land in chapter 61 program's,you have to have a forest management plan on forested property. I believe this is due to their planning ahead to when there is more cutting for biomass. People building biomass plants see all trees as an endless supply of product.

 I do work for a service forester that believe's the same as Ron,its nice working under him and knowing that I may be able to log again on jobs done now or people after me will have good trees to cut. I also cut on land that I submit the paperwork,and try hard to get it right and the state forester is always call to look at the stand and give comments. There are other logger here who hate the state and being watched.But most of the cut and run loggers have left our state.

[Tom]

Is this a lead-in to a mindset that all trees belong to the State, who puts their care on the landowner who pays the taxes?

If that's the case, will there be a question about the incentives provided for a private landowner to grow trees?

I know that things like the medical profession are controlled, to a certain extent, but when your body fails, you still don't have to get a government permit to see a doctor.  The controls are placed on the Doctor, rightly or not.

I get real leery when Government tentacles begin to control rather than service the public.

[Magicman]

When I planted my pines in '05 and oaks in '09 and '10, I received NO government help....none, nada, zilch. 

My land, my trees, and my decisions, (with good advice from my forester).

[jeffreythree]

Amen brother. You can't always trust the stae boys to help you either. I have tried several times to get our local fellow out to look over my place.

Same here, took a while to get one out and all he said after one look was clear cut and plant in pine.  Took him longer to pee behind a tree than to look around  .  Now I can't get one back out to officially measure what is probably the national champion nutmeg hickory(definitely state champ).

[CLL]

I think its a load of crap for the government to tell you how, what or when you can cut trees on your own property. Same goes with out west where they control your water. Won't be living in any states like that if I can prevent it.

[Phorester]

In Virginia most of my co-workers and I anywhere from 6 months to 2 years behind on managment plan requests.  People want ours because they are free.  Other things like measuring trees to determine if they are champions, checking a yard tree to see what's killing it, giving a talk to school class, etc. either cannot be considered or have to be worked in along with other work when we are in that locality, which may or may not occur.  Priorities are normally based on the season.  Right now we're in fire season and planting season.  I drop anything else to tend to either of those, which then puts me further behind. Summer and fall prescribed burns take priority.  Then if there is a declared state emergency, like a hurricane, flood, or the deep snows this winter when I was pushing snow with our dozer for 2 16 hour days, that takes precedence.  In 2006 I worked 57 days in a row when I had to spend 3 weeks in Oklahoma for their prarie fires and right back into my own fire season when I got back home.  Personally, I've been a one-man office since January when my forest technician had knee surgery. He might be back in early April, might not since his knee won't heal right.  I cover 2 counties.  The forester south of me covers 3 with one technician.  East of me covers 2 with a shared technician that covers 5 counties.  west of me is West Virginia, who are in worse shape than we are.

We were about 480 employees in the mid-80's.  Now we are about 280. That's including mechanics, janitors, secretaries.
The phone rings more now because there're more people living in the area, no matter that there're fewer people in our office to answer it.  Part of my answering machine message says that it might be several days before I can return your call.  People get mad.  People will say to me, "when you have some free time, come on by the house and see how my trees are doing".  We don't have free time anymore. They won't make an appointment because "it's not that important". Then they complain when a year goes by and I haven't been there.
 
We're continually asked to do more, both from the public and our own administrators.  We have less to do it with.  I'm sure other States are in the same boat.  Very frustrating when we just can't do as much work or get to it as fast as we did years ago. 

Okay, done venting.   

[SwampDonkey]

A lot of our woodlots were cut to pay inheritance taxes and subdivide between the heirs. I never saw a woodlot around here spared from the tax man. Some ground was even cut off to pay for senior citizen care in nursing homes. You used to have 3 years before you went into the home to prepare yourself and title your land over to a family member or else the government took the asset. Could even take the house. Basically if your as poor as a church mouse and have nothing to surrender your just as well off as the rich man whose sweat and blood when into his estate.

Up here there are no big demands except thinning and planting during the snow free months. Everything else to do with management of woodlots is very low key. I always said, if the demand was as high to provide management advise and seeing that a job is done properly then the marketing boards would be swamped with that type of work all the time. They are not. And government doesn't manage woodlots in my area. We have not had an extension service for over 10 years. We lost it because of low demand. They were not reaching the guys that did most of the ground work, they were reaching the guy that cuts a very small volume of wood in his spare time. Most of them didn't rely on the woods for their income. The guy that does isn't going to loose a days pay with 3 or 4 employees demanding his time and be half a asleep in a warm theatre wishing he was home sleeping or fixing a crankcase to be ready for tomorrow morning.

[LeeB]

....  Okay, done venting.   

I'm sure a lot of the same thing exists here also. Arkansas is a poor state without a whole lot of resourses. I would however love to get a call back to set up an appointment or even just to say he can't help me. Some acknowladgement that I called. As for it being free, I pay my taxes just like the big boys do and most like a bigger percentage on income and value than they do. Is it wrong for me to want some of the sevices to?

[stonebroke]

You could do like NYS and give up writing management plans. NYS (I think) is just gradually phasing out out forestry. They are  doing it nice and slow so everybody adjusts and nobody really notices.

Stonebroke

[John Mc]

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.   

Ron -

Your post sparked a memory I had of a conversation with a forester who hosted a workshop in my area. We were discussing ways of having the logger work for the landowner (and overseen by the landowner's forester). I knew I would be much more comfortable if the logger worked for me, rather than the buyer. That way, I got to pick who did the work, and they were answerable to me.

As it turns out, he had just experimented with a concept he termed "Lump Sum Plus" as an alternative way of selling timber. I could not remember the specifics of it, so I emailed him. Here's his response:

I have come to the conclusion that we have to essentially re-invent how we conserve, tax, manage, and otherwise relate to forests. The issues are significant. Selling timber is one of them.
 
Lump Sum-Plus (LSP) -- a VFF invention actually -- structures timber sales so that the logger works for the landowner and not the purchaser. This way the landowner has much more control over the harvest. There are many elements but the key is to completely design the pre-, during-, and post-harvest elements. A high quality logging operator suitable for the particular sale is shown the job and the details of payment between landowner and logger are determined. Then the operation is put out to bid. Prospective purchasers are shown the timber and asked to bid on what they would be willing to pay for having the marked trees harvested, scaled, and prepared for shipping by the particular operator chosen by the landowner. LSP is not without challenges. One is that being that the logger is working for the landowner, there are tax and insurance issues that need to be carefully addressed.

It worked well in that instance, but it does requires that the landowner have the knowledge or relationships to find a good forester and logger. (Ideally, this is a forester with which the landowner already has an ongoing relationship). In this case, the logger had a great reputation, and is well known by the local buyers, foresters, and other organizations. The landowner was also somewhat educated in sustainable forestry (probably at least in part due to his ongoing relationship with this forester).

I could see that this method could help create some recognition and demand for foresters and loggers who "do it right". Of course, it can still be abused, but it's an interesting alternative to a commission sale.

John Mc

[downeast]

Appreciate the intelligent discussion: informative, practical, real. Nice job !

As a new woodlot owner back in the 90's we had to learn the how of managing . Consulting Foresters were interviewed carefully as well as transecting the woodlot with them. I must have read 8+ books on "Managing the Woodlot" and Forestry Practices...a brainful of info for this neophyte. Mostly it was who would work with us for the short, medium, and long term goals for this small 60 a. woodland. A couple of the so-called "consulting" Foresters were the "I know what's best for you" types; no way to hire them. We also had to deal with the "owners" of the conservation easement on our land. The one we hired was actually the most expensive short term, since he worked for a large agency that worked the Northeast. But the days spent walking the land and planning and listening were enjoyable for us and it turned out to be a *DanG productive harvest for us financially and sustainably. Besides, I was biased since he was a Marine.

Since the "patch cutting" in 2000, the woodlot has done the job with T.S.I., some pulp, and mostly 6-8 cords of firewood a year. There are bad apples in all professions. A lot of the problem is with us, the landowners to do due diligence, educate ourselves, tell the forester our goals. If the owner wants to high grade, get the most $$$ in the short term, it's their decision, as poor as it seems to a professional Forester.  It's America.

[plasticweld]

John currently I am doing a wood lot under similar cirumstances. I am working by the board foot not by a percentage of the value of the timber. It works out ok for me, I make a more than normal my cut and skid rate, it works out well for him because it costs a much to harvest a veneer tree as it does a piece of pulp wood. He does not make much if anything on the lower grades after logging costs but puts the largest percentage of the  higher valued logs in his pocket, he has someone experienced in how and where to market the different types of wood.

Trust is the main issue, this only worked because he knew of me and my past reputation. He had been offered different amounts for his timber and this confused  him even more when trying to figure out which route to go. I told him up front that we could do a few loads of wood if he did not like the way it was going we could stop at any time, a gamble on my part. If I did this full time I would not really want to commit to a arrangement like this, The landowner is a retired business man  so has a better understanding of what is needed for us both to make out and still be fair, I am not convinced the average guy would be comfortable working this way. Lum sum purchases still make most land owners the happiest. anything done on a percentage seems to make them worry about how many loads did the actually get paid for and did the mill and the logger have a side deal. The bottom line is that logging is one of the few proffesions where the price paid is subjective to so many variables.