Silviculture work pays off

[jocco]

I'm surprised how little importance is placed on early Silviculture in the US.

Assuming harvesting costs are the same, an un-pruned  tree may be worth $100. A pruned tree might be worth $350. Assuming $50 to harvest and transport. Unpruned tree is worth $50, properly managed tree is is worth $300. Cost per tree to prune and thin, $10?. Good investment? Sure is.

The local species are pretty much non-commercial, 200-400 year rotations is just a bit too much. The timber is fantasic and very valuable, but very limited supply. Sure they will regenerate, just not in our lifetime.. or our children's, or even our grandkids.

Ian

Guys I am no where near the level of what you fellas are at, but I learned alot of what I know from cruising timber, marking for thinnings, then followed by crop tree releases, prunings and alot of reclaimation work...sure planted alot and I hope to go back and visit and see how they are now.

But one thing I have noticed around here, and this may go for other parts of the country...private landowners are not looking to the future, they want the $$$ NOW.  They don't seem to understand the benefits of proper forestry practices, and in alot of cases think its a waste of money.  They can't see how $10 dollars now, will turn a profit 35-50 yrs down the road, or longer.  You try to explain it, and they look at ya like you're crazy.

Being predominatly hardwoods around here, that does put a damper on return vs time.  But there is so much that can be done, even by the landowner.  Easy stuff too.  I dunno, its all back to the buck.  They mostly seem to want to cut it all NOW and screw the next generations.  When it should be "Leave the best, Cut the rest."  IMHO  We all gotta eat.

I have had the pleasure of doing several private stands, and its amazing if you take before and after pictures...Landowners are shocked and it sure makes ya proud to know ya had a hand in it!

Very well said on private land owners not investing I think they need to be forced Example if land is in a tree tax program they have to do something to it. Many just let it set ideal.

[SwampDonkey]

I don't think anyone should be forced into anything. Sounds like someone trying to drum up business based on government regulation. I just equate it to changing times. People don't rely on the woodlot for their income. It's mostly an emergency source of funds, heirship liquidations for cash, or source of funds for that new car or it's just land with trees they enjoy. Many that I deal with are detached from their woods and not interested in how it's growing, but that they have "woods" and land. Most of the time around here if a parcel of land is for sale the owner will liquidate it before the sale. Or it was cut within the last dozen years or so before the sale. If they had to pay for silviculture it would never get done. They have no money for it with day to day living expenses. Some don't even have the will or enthusiasm to thin it themselves, the armchair is much more comfortable. I've seen a number of woodlot owners take on a project like PCT, never done it before, then quit after the first acre or two because they lack the tools and experience to work smart.

[rwthom279]

Education is the Key!!!!!   Many landowners really don't know whats out there, better harvesting methods, etc.  If a stand could be done, or have an example to take them to...nothing like touch and feel...I think the attitude would change.  IMHO, WV's Forestry Dept. is lacking all many fronts...and has for years, but underfunding, cutbacks, etc. over the last 30 yrs is to blame, not the people.

If they had to pay for silviculture it would never get done. They have no money for it with day to day living expenses. Some don't even have the will or enthusiasm to thin it themselves, the armchair is much more comfortable. I've seen a number of woodlot owners take on a project like PCT, never done it before, then quit after the first acre or two because they lack the tools and experience to work smart.

I'm sorry, but I call alot of that just being LAZY.  Again...EDUCATION.  There are programs that will help a landowner "Cradle to Grave".  But like you said "Armchair is more comfortable"... No money to get it done is no excuse either....Dept. of Nat'l Res. has stuff where the landowner can possibly have no capitol investment...WE NEED MORE EDUCATION!!!!      

I'll shut-up, gettin' pithed just thinkin about it.   

[SwampDonkey]

Yeah, I read your point of view. But, you overlook the scenario where there are no handouts. You can't always go to the government for your job. If it's out of pocket, one will buy bread and milk before spacing bushes for no pay.   The armchair guys will never do anything, except wait for the logger to deliver the cheques.

[Phorester]

I'm surprised how little importance is placed on early Silviculture in the US.

Assuming harvesting costs are the same, an un-pruned  tree may be worth $100. A pruned tree might be worth $350. Assuming $50 to harvest and transport. Unpruned tree is worth $50, properly managed tree is is worth $300. Cost per tree to prune and thin, $10?. Good investment? Sure is.

The local species are pretty much non-commercial, 200-400 year rotations is just a bit too much. The timber is fantasic and very valuable, but very limited supply. Sure they will regenerate, just not in our lifetime.. or our children's, or even our grandkids.

Ian

Guys I am no where near the level of what you fellas are at, but I learned alot of what I know from cruising timber, marking for thinnings, then followed by crop tree releases, prunings and alot of reclaimation work...sure planted alot and I hope to go back and visit and see how they are now.

But one thing I have noticed around here, and this may go for other parts of the country...private landowners are not looking to the future, they want the $$$ NOW.  They don't seem to understand the benefits of proper forestry practices, and in alot of cases think its a waste of money.  They can't see how $10 dollars now, will turn a profit 35-50 yrs down the road, or longer.  You try to explain it, and they look at ya like you're crazy.

Being predominatly hardwoods around here, that does put a damper on return vs time.  But there is so much that can be done, even by the landowner.  Easy stuff too.  I dunno, its all back to the buck.  They mostly seem to want to cut it all NOW and screw the next generations.  When it should be "Leave the best, Cut the rest."  IMHO  We all gotta eat.

I have had the pleasure of doing several private stands, and its amazing if you take before and after pictures...Landowners are shocked and it sure makes ya proud to know ya had a hand in it!

I started to reply with the same observation, but can't say it any better.  I have had practically no success in getting private landowners in my counties to cut trees if they cannot sell them for a profit.  (precomercial thinnings, crop tree release, etc.) 

They just think the woods will take care of themselves.

[jocco]

I don't think anyone should be forced into anything. Sounds like someone trying to drum up business based on government regulation. I just equate it to changing times. People don't rely on the woodlot for their income. It's mostly an emergency source of funds, heirship liquidations for cash, or source of funds for that new car or it's just land with trees they enjoy. Many that I deal with are detached from their woods and not interested in how it's growing, but that they have "woods" and land. Most of the time around here if a parcel of land is for sale the owner will liquidate it before the sale. Or it was cut within the last dozen years or so before the sale. If they had to pay for silviculture it would never get done. They have no money for it with day to day living expenses. Some don't even have the will or enthusiasm to thin it themselves, the armchair is much more comfortable. I've seen a number of woodlot owners take on a project like PCT, never done it before, then quit after the first acre or two because they lack the tools and experience to work smart.

Swamp: I respect you on here but we differ a little bit. Here in the states there are tree/forestry programs that give a tax break many just enrole and (set it and forget it) There does need to be some standards. Here are examples that tick me off Some conservation group buys land and has no intent to do any forestry, small parcels get put in it that are not commercially viable for forestry all get tax breaks. Last there is no after tought from harvest like replanting  tsi etc.

[SwampDonkey]

Wood land taxes here are very low, it costs more for the government to make out the paperwork and send it for their $27 on my 70 acres.

I can't get my head around tying up land unless it's a unique area that maybe represents a past era or something that they want to make parkland out of. Some day, when all the land gets tied up, then someone will come along and ask themselves why they are importing wood.  It just goes to show you like I've said, people don't rely on woodlots as they once did for income.

[OneWithWood]

Here, in Indiana, there is a lot of talk about booting folks out of the classified forest program if they do nothing.  With the pressure counties are under to squeeze as much as they can from property taxes the talk is starting to become more of a rumble.  Personally I would like to see more teeth in the program which I believe will result in more active mamagement of the resource.

[rwthom279]

Having a woodlot is like having a garden.  If you don't weed it out, all you end up with is a big pile of trash, and little crop.  People gotta eat?  Well I'm sorry but they would already have viable income from their woodlots if they, or previous generations, would have treated the woods like a garden.

Alot of private holdings are now "weed patches" cause no one did any work!!!  Now the costs/labor involved are extremely out of ratio compared to recovery of QUALITY timber.  Most of the good timber is gone, and now we're stuck with OSB, MDF, etc..  Grant it, these materials have come about from waste recovery technology, but they've also come about from nessesity...not enough good timber coming in. 

I'll shut up, maybe I should stay outta this one.  *steps off soapbox*

[beenthere]

I'm on the side of the Gov't butting out for the most part.
Way too much of "forcing" the landowner to do what someone else thinks they should be doing with their land.
Our early goals in WI with woodland in the tax program (early 60's) was to stop farmers from grazing and burning their land. Those were the only two qualifications to enter the program. A forest management plan was approved by the DNR to enter land in the program, and it could be written by the landowner.
Then the jealous ones started to get their oar in the water and slowly changed over to needing more and more Gov't control over the lands in the tax program. As the libs became more aware that they could foster more control over their neighbors property, so the program rules have changed to now require a full blown professional forester management plan that costs minimum of a couple thousand dollars. Along with the changes came the certified forests to fit the other liberal program that Gov't needs to control where the wood products came from, etc. etc. adinfinitum.
To counter the decision that the landowner would opt to keep his/her forest out of the tax program, the tax base of forested land jumped three fold, so any woodlot of any size is assessed at close to residential land and corresponding high taxes. That is how the Gov't takes your land from you.
The last forester that wrote my woodland plan decided my large red oak trees must be removed as well as some walnut trees needed to be bulldozed so the aspen could come back as aspen was good for deer (but we already had an overpopulation of deer). I preferred to keep the large oak for wildlife until they fell over and then I'd turn them into firewood. I preferred to manage the walnut over putting up with the short lived aspen. I don't think the forester had any idea or could care what I wanted. He was writing it so it looked warm and fuzzy to whoever else might read it. Maybe for a career feather in his hat.
I suggest not looking down our noses at the way someone else is enjoying their land, even tho it isn't how we would do it or want to see it done. i.e. don't covet thy neighbor
'nuff rant.

[jocco]

Wood land taxes here are very low, it costs more for the government to make out the paperwork and send it for their $27 on my 70 acres.

I can't get my head around tying up land unless it's a unique area that maybe represents a past era or something that they want to make parkland out of. Some day, when all the land gets tied up, then someone will come along and ask themselves why they are importing wood.  It just goes to show you like I've said, people don't rely on woodlots as they once did for income.

swamp: taxes are low  Originally in my state the program was started to encourage land to be in forestry and to stop a wood lot from being turned into a subdivision. It has worked but there are always issues. My whole problem is  many areas use tsi, pre com thinning, replanting and there is very little of that here. Sems like cut it and forget it. I do a lot on my land as well as cut others but i believe in This type of work (and enjoy it) I due think some people buy wood land but do not realize what it entails its not a get rich quick thing. I do feel dome of this work will pay out in 30-50 years and landowners need to contribute. Look at how much employment all this silverculture brings in.

[Wood Doctor]

One thing for sure; we will make mistakes! Silviculture is not a mistake. It is a proven practice with promise for our future. Forcing the issue may be out of bounds. Promoting and educating will gain headway to avoid a crisis or prevent some of the harmful practices we have allowed in the past. I am a novice and am just on the beginning of my journey into forest. My hope would be to make something of my efforts and labor, and not just "moola". A forum like this with sharing and understanding, even arguments will teach us all. It will help our Mother Earth keep us warm and breathing.  Yeah! F.F. ~m~   

[Doppelganger]

I use to do thining for profit.

Had more work that could handle and the profit was successful.  you have to be geared to do it and not take too many trees out.  In NZ wuth the growth rates of pine on can do two thinings, the second is for saw logs.   The final harvest is the most profitable as the size of trees means less handling under 10 logs to fill the bunks. 

the first thingings is pulp, firewood, Fence post and fence timber, boxing for concrete work.  low grade useof timber.  this can be done at any time here at 10 to 15 years.  There is no profit for the grower but can be done at no cost to the grower.
The second is 25 to 30 and is saw logs   About 2 feet in diameter and as the trees have been pruned and thin these are clears .  can be used for every purpose. 

The final and anything up to 60 years are trees at 4 feet in Dia.  less trees to cut down to make a load.this gives the greatest profit.  the amount of wood is about the same as if had not been thined.  Basically you loose no volume in thining to a stand that is not thinned overthe same preiod of time.