The Forestry Forum

General Forestry => Forestry and Logging => Topic started by: Samuel on January 15, 2007, 10:48:20 PM

Title: Forest Certification
Post by: Samuel on January 15, 2007, 10:48:20 PM
As a new member to the Forum, I thought I would share a few pictures of our so-called clear-cut cut blocks from the past couple winters.  Also I have noted (although have not dug very far), there does not seem to be a lot of chat regarding the fine controversial subject surrounding Forest Certifications, as this is my interest and responsibility within the company (DMI) that I am employed with.

DMI practices "sustainable forest management" under an ecological-based approach employing continual improvement and innovation that is guided by science and third-party audits of its activities.  DMI's approach to forest management employs a combination of coarse-filter strategies, fine-filter practices, consultation, integration of activities, and collaboration in ongoing research.  Since inception in 1999, its ecological-based forest management practices have attempted to reflect the spirit of the six key forest stewardship principles set out by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM):

1.   Conservation of biological diversity
2.   Maintaining healthy forest ecosystem condition and productivity
3.   Conservation of soil and water resources
4.   Continued forest ecosystem contributions to global ecological cycles
5.   Providing multiple benefits to society
6.   Involving Aboriginal communities and the public in sustainable development

We are currently ISO 14001:2004 certified on our way (2008) to be CSA Z-809 Certified.  If anyone has any experiences, nightmares, questions or comments you would like to share, feel free to drop me a line.  Check out our website at www.prpd.ca

Try clicking onto the pics as it should take you to where they are posted at --Photos MUST be in the Forestry Forum gallery!!!!!--:



Links to off-site photos are not allowed
please use the Forestry Forum Gallery
for Photos used in posts.
admin
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: beenthere on January 15, 2007, 10:50:56 PM
Try setting up your photo gallery, and put the pics (that we can see) in there for us.  Please.  :)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: beenthere on January 15, 2007, 11:30:16 PM
I see they are in your gallery now. Didn't before. ::) My bad

However, if you would make them 400 pixels (rather than 100) they would be 4 times bigger and 'easier' to see. Seems they are stamp size now. Do appreciate you taking the time to post, and hope this is taken as a friendly suggestion.  :)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: beenthere on January 15, 2007, 11:40:27 PM
Click on "Help" above (second button from left) and near the top you will see something about a Tutor to post pics in the gallery.
I crop them first, then resize to get the 400 pixels longest side  then save to lowest compression. Hope this helps. :)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Ron Wenrich on January 16, 2007, 06:01:39 AM
Back to the discussion at hand.  We've talked about certification before here on the forum.  I doubt if things have changed very much over the years.

There is little to no demand for certified forest products here in the States.  The largest hardwood forest in the US that is certified is that owned by the State of Pennsylvania - 2 million acres.  Lots of fine cherry, oak, and maple, and the state does a fine job of management....better than most others in the state, including consultants.  But, I have never heard of anyone getting requests for certified wood.  It seems to be more European.  The North Americans want cheap above anything else.

Since this isn't a market driven issue, there is no reward for the landowner.  We have a rough enough time getting anyone to do any cultural work let alone actually think about doing any planning. 

Most people don't want anything to do with the 3rd party stuff.  The industry is pushing the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and is trying to get certification.  The Tree Farm system is trying to do the same thing.  The problem with SFI is that it is an industry trying to do self regulation.  It doesn't work.

I've seen a lot of stuff that is called sustainable.  It is basically high-grading under a new name.  Take out all the good stuff and leave the rest.  It still looks like a forest, but all the good growing stock has been removed.  The residual stand is usually poor form, inferior species, and the like.  And foresters are involved in many of these sales.

The only good to come out of the SFI program is that they have taught loggers how to do a better job.  I see all the past damage to trees in the sawmill on a continual basis. 
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Riles on January 16, 2007, 05:48:07 PM
I guess we would have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a clear cut. You left a lot of nice vertical structure. Looks pretty, but I'd have to call it a seed tree cut.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Ron Scott on January 16, 2007, 08:03:11 PM
A "Search" will bring up quite a bit of discussion on "Forest Certification" on various Threads.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Samuel on January 16, 2007, 09:56:55 PM
Quote from: Ron Wenrich on January 16, 2007, 06:01:39 AM


Since this isn't a market driven issue, there is no reward for the landowner.  We have a rough enough time getting anyone to do any cultural work let alone actually think about doing any planning.

For our company with our Asian and European markets, Forest Certification has been written into our contracts and is nearly mandatory to enable us to sell our product. 

As far as private land timber purchases we do, the scope of our Environmental Management System includes activities we conduct on private land since we have our contractors do the work.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: extrapolate85 on January 16, 2007, 10:00:04 PM
Speaking as an individual, I have to say that the pictures look like sound forestry to me given what little I know about the particulars in the Peace. The $64,000 question to me, is whether there has been a fundamental change in forest practices since gaining certification, or did you find out that pre-certification practices were already sound and thus certification is just putting a stamp of approval on something that you were already doing?

While it is true that North American consumers are not the driving force behind certification. Many of the larger retailers have mandated it in response to extortion by many of the preservationist groups, Earth First, WWF, Sierra Club, etc. (e.g., you either demand certified products or we will send protesters dressed as Ninjas carrying placards blaming "your retail chain" with destroying the environment). Bottom line, it was a business decision. That said, I have to say that I disagree with Ron regarding SFI and the industry policing itself; SFI serves a purpose, which is to put a stamp on something that meets a certain standard, and this fulfills the requirements of those that buy large quantities of forest products (it is also useful in carrying a message to the urban dwellers, that those of us that dwell in forested areas care about our forests and the critters that live there). While this may not be on the radar of small businesses, it is certainly important to large forest and forest products companies (which supply North America the vast majority of our forest products and jobs for our rural forestland communities. As for industry self policing, the industry has a history of doing so and has done a great job in other facets such as lumber grades, standardized product sizes, etc., so my hat is off to AF&PA for taking on such a daunting project and getting something workable in place.

I think that it is great that DMI is in a position to carry a positive message to the public regarding forest use; and perhaps prevent being shut out of government-owned-timber lands (something that many of our communities in the Northwest US would give a lot for if they could go back to 1990).
 

Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Samuel on January 16, 2007, 10:01:09 PM
Quote from: Riles on January 16, 2007, 05:48:07 PM
I guess we would have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a clear cut. You left a lot of nice vertical structure. Looks pretty, but I'd have to call it a seed tree cut.

Provincial legislation of Harvesting activities on crown land dictate that a certain percentage of the vertical structure is left behind.  The stipulation is that this retention is to represent the previous stand.  Our Aspen blocks have no problem regenerating themselves so the retention left behind serves as an ecological feature providing habitat and wildlife cover.  The blocks are harvested to emulate a fire and as such we are having great success with our regeneration etc.

Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Samuel on January 16, 2007, 10:10:42 PM
Quote from: extrapolate85 on January 16, 2007, 10:00:04 PM
Speaking as an individual, I have to say that the pictures look like sound forestry to me given what little I know about the particulars in the Peace. The $64,000 question to me, is whether there has been a fundamental change in forest practices since gaining certification, or did you find out that pre-certification practices were already sound and thus certification is just putting a stamp of approval on something that you were already doing?

I think that it is great that DMI is in a position to carry a positive message to the public regarding forest use; and perhaps prevent being shut out of government-owned-timber lands (something that many of our communities in the Northwest US would give a lot for if they could go back to 1990).

Thanks for your response.  How I like to refer to certification is that we simply write down what and how we do things, and have an auditor prove we do what we say we do.  I am not sure if there was a fundamental change, however trending environmental incidents since our EMS have been implemented, incidents are way down as we are getting better at orientating and training our operators.  Any improvements to your business such as this justifies the existence in my mind, however having a process in place outlining your business is the benefit that we have gained.  For example, just locating the most current version of a cut block map from amendments etc. sometimes proved to be a challenge, but now everyone, including our contractors know if they go to our website (where all of our documents are stored and controlled) they can print off the most current version.

As far as certification goes, if any of you were watching the news lin the past month may have noted that a large forest company in Alberta lost a contract with Victoria Secret due to pressures from NGO's with respect to certification issues.  Victoria secret prints over 1 million catalogs a day so this was substantial loss to the company.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Phorester on January 16, 2007, 10:50:20 PM

Who does the third party audits on your operations?

Are your management plans required to be written by Foresters with a 4 year degree in forestry?
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 16, 2007, 11:05:23 PM
Good discussion going on in here. I thought I'de give my spin on it.  ;D

I was under the impression from the beginning that it was the markets in the US that demanded it. That's what they have been telling us up here. Any mills in Maine that are in close enough proximity to NB for markets are demanding it. Some want the assurance that the wood they buy is certified now, some are leading us into it. A lot of the markets in the US our sawmills cater to demand certification. But, I agree with Ron on what they are sometimes calling certified. For some markets, it's simply staying within a calculated AAC and being able to follow a paper trail. And recently our marketing boards had the calculations done for each of their management areas. Also, there are management plans, which sadly are rarely followed. Anyway it seems to have been enough to satisfy the current market situation. Trouble is AAC works best under even-aged management. When they talk of age-class distribution as part of determining AAC, that is simply how much area of each age class (20 year classes typically), and where is it. It's even-aged stands. What if I want to manage hardwood stands, which are naturally uneven aged. It's easy enough on a small woodlot, but not so straight forward on a huge forest with more than one cover type.

All our crown lands in NB are certified. In 2006 our government told the industry to go and cut more from the buffer strips and cut closer to the water bodies, since most companies were leaving a bigger buffer than required. Also, they're allowed 30 % removal from the buffer, which says nothing about basal area retention, wind throw hazard, soil compaction hazard, rutting hazard.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Samuel on January 17, 2007, 12:56:57 AM
Quote from: Phorester on January 16, 2007, 10:50:20 PM

Who does the third party audits on your operations?

Are your management plans required to be written by Foresters with a 4 year degree in forestry?


Our 3rd Party registrar for our Woodlands Operations is KPMP Performance Registrar Inc.  In Alberta, there is a Regulated Forestry Profession Act governing the right to practice Forestry in Alberta.  In order to practice forestry, Foresters (degree program) and Technicians must apply to the College of Alberta Professional Forest Practioners.  Based on education and experience, members become a conditional member, and within one year of application, must successfully pass the 3 hr exam (ethics, forestry, land use/oil & gas, legislation etc are a number of the topics on the exam).

There are three types of plans completed in Alberta.  The higher level strategic plans calculating AAC, management units, retentions levels are called Detailed Forest Management Plans (DFMP's) and are submitted on an 10 year basis.  Annually we submit a General Development Plan.  The primary components of the General Development Plan (GDP) includes a forecast of the areas scheduled for harvest over the next 5-year period which should align with the approved Spatial Harvest Sequence (SHS) outlined in the Detailed Forest Management Plan (DFMP). Any deviations from the approved SHS or any long-term access plans shall be illustrated in the respective Final Harvest Plan (FHP) and summarized in the GDP.

The GDP must also include the current status and forecast of the deciduous and coniferous Annual Allowable Cuts (AAC's) and cut-control period for each of the operators within the planning area.

In addition to outlining the projected fibre supply forecast, the GDP shall also include details regarding road requirements, silviculture activities, and strategies to address fire management, forest health, and fish and wildlife issues within the planning area.

Specific Operational plans are also submitted annually for approval and we call them AOP's or final harvest plans.  The primary components of a Final Harvest Plan (FHP) include a map and report that clearly illustrates and documents the harvest area boundaries, roads and watercourse crossings within an individual compartment.

Unless otherwise approved by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD), the FHP will follow the harvest sequence illustrated in the General Development Plan (GDP) and subsequently the Spatial Harvest Sequence (SHS) outlined in the Detailed Forest Management Plan (DFMP).

Final Harvest Plans (FHP's) are developed for each compartment scheduled for harvest. Unlike the DFMP and GDP, which focus on landscape-level goals and objectives, the FHP addresses specific stand-level objectives for the harvest area. Although the scope of the FHP focuses on stand-level goals and objectives, these goals and objectives remain consistent with the landscape-level goals and objectives identified in both the GDP and DFMP.

The FHP shall illustrate the location of each harvest area, road(s), watercourse crossing(s), as well as a detailed reforestation plan specific to each harvest area. In addition, details regarding access management and reclamation, as well as specific strategies to mitigate impacts to watersheds and other sensitive sites within the compartment must also be identified in the FHP.

All of these plan are completed and signed off by a Forestry Professional (degree and technical diploma).  Sorry for the long winded response, but I am an individual with many words.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: sawguy21 on January 17, 2007, 04:14:18 AM
No problemo. As a former Alberta resident who has been involved in the forest industry, I am enjoying this discussion. Welcome aboard. As extrapolate suggests, a lot of this has been driven by extortion by special interest groups who are competing for audiences. In the long term though, I believe that overall programs such as these will benefit the forest industry. Now if we could just get rid of the silly inconsequential regulations imposed by those both in and outside of the industry looking to jump on the bandwagon and put their personal stamp on it.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 17, 2007, 07:05:39 AM
I also welcome you to the forum Mr Elkins, and it's nice to have some input from the industry in Canada. I've been looking for this perspective for some time now. You sure use a lot of big words. ;D I understand what they are, but a lot of folks will have to read that a couple of times.  ;) ;D

Now lets get down to brass tacks,  ;D any grits up there in the north? Do you have a wood working hobby? Do you own a woodlot to tinker away at? We are an inquisitive bunch and like lots of photos.  8)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Samuel on January 17, 2007, 10:29:55 PM
Quote from: SwampDonkey on January 17, 2007, 07:05:39 AM
I also welcome you to the forum Mr Elkins, and it's nice to have some input from the industry in Canada. I've been looking for this perspective for some time now. You sure use a lot of big words. ;D I understand what they are, but a lot of folks will have to read that a couple of times.  ;) ;D

Now lets get down to brass tacks,  ;D any grits up there in the north? Do you have a wood working hobby? Do you own a woodlot to tinker away at? We are an inquisitive bunch and like lots of photos.  8)

I have been accused of a lot of things, but never speaking in big words.   :D

The picture posting process seems to be somewhat challenging to me even with the directions as it seems most of the photos that I take are on the highest setting of the camera, however once I get them to a size that will enable me to upload them, the photo is the size of a small stamp.  What I may do is post a link to --Photos MUST be in the Forestry Forum gallery!!!!!-- or something where I store my family pics, and make an album of forestry like stuff.

As far as hobbies go, I consider work as my hobby and spend a heck of a lot of time doing it.  I am an avid hunter and this part of the world enables me a wide variety and opportunity of wildlife- white tail, mule deer, elk & moose as well as geese, ducks and various varieties of "prairie chickens" (grouse).  I do not have a woodlot, as having any amounts of land as a newcomer to the area would bring a substantial price tag with the crazy housing market in this area.

Those of you not familiar with Northern Alberta, it exemplifies  integrated land management with Forestry, Oil & Gas exploration & development, agriculture/grazing and 1st Nation concerns all wrapped up into one ball of wax.  I will locate some ariel shots of these integrated operations, and am due to be doing some flying in the next few weeks and will takes lots of pics to share with all.

Thanks for the warm welcome and I look forward to future conversations and information sharing.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: extrapolate85 on January 18, 2007, 12:08:06 AM
In additional comment that I will make regarding certification, is that the intent of many of the vocal "special interest groups" such as Earth-First!, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club, is to put the timber industry out of business (they make no bones about it), but one organization that always appears to take the "moderate" stance is the WWF. This organization is relatively low-key in North America (mainly known for their suit against the Worldwide Wrestling Federation), but they have been very successful at wielding influence with many key global institutions, e.g., the World Bank, the European Commission. etc., and they have a huge propaganda machine in place in Europe, which carries their message. Their message regarding forest certifications is: only the FSC is credible, everybody else is not. If you happen to be from a poor country who would like a loan from the World Bank, you better listen to them. They are also here in North America (an office in the District of Columbia) and we will be hearing more from them in the future. These folks have an agenda and it is not based on the science or sound forest practices that we understand; it is based on a "do as I say, not as I do" view toward social engineering, e.g., I drive my Range Rover to the WWF office in Gland, Switzerland everyday from my large country estate in the Jura Mountains, but the rest of us should live in a solar heated 800 ft2 (72 m3) apartments and walk or ride bikes to your jobsite (which is hopefully a non-profit-small business that utilizes plantation grown trees on a very small scale). They along with their IUCN colleagues, have a plan for your forests, which they will work on via your policymakers, because they know what is best for the uninformed rural dwellers. They are experts at their task, which is press releases, media hype, celebrity endorsement, and releasing erroneous study papers. These folks are not the "typical" dreadlock sporting, cannabis cultivating folks driving around in a Volkswagen bus with the Zigzag man painted on the side and a save Tibet bumper-sticker, on their way to pour metal filings in the crankcase of your skidder. They are, however, well dressed, well healed, planning your future and drinking a glass of Sherry with your forest policymakers, while you are bickering with the rest of us over whether certification is relevant or which certification entity has credibility.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SteveB on January 18, 2007, 12:13:28 AM
Certification - in Canada, certification is driven mainly by the big clients.  I don't have the correct figures, but something like 80% of our product goes to the southern neighbor.  You want a contract with home depot?  Better be certified to the flavor of the year.  In Ontario, the governmet is pushing for all crown lands to be certified to a 3rd party standard (FSC, CSA or SFI).

Rubber stamps, etc. - yes, many of these certifications seem like a pat on the back to recongnize you've been doing the right thing all along (why pay $, just to prove to someone else?), but being involved in certification really does encourage us to be more aware and critical of our own actions, and ultimately raises the bar.

Re management plans and the need for a degree.  All Canadian provinces require an approved management plan to harvest crown land.  Most are some variation on the process sbelkins detailed.  A 20 yr strategic plan and 5 or 10 year operational plan, with yearly schedules or plans of work to meet the higher level planning commitments.  In most areas, there is a lengthy review and government approval process, and in some provinces during the plan writing you have to include representatives from all stakeholders in the area covered (local communities, aboriginal gorups, snowmobile clubs, hunting/fishing guides and camps, enviro. groups, etc).  Most (All?) provinces require the plan to be approved by a registered professional forester.  That would be someone with a degree, 18 months-2yrs experince, a review and references, and then exams in order to gain "right to practice", if the profession is regulated by a provincially legislated "act".  In Ontario, legally, you need to be an RPF to write a forestry "prescription", even if it's for private land, although the provincially regulated tax incentive/management plan program (MFTIP) doesn't require plan approvers to be an RPF, as long as they are certified to the program's standards.

Someone earlier asked about calculating AAC in partial cuts.  A computer model is used in much the same way as clearcuts.  Obviously clearcuts are slightly more straightforward.  This is a simplification, and will be modified based on local growth rates, histories of natural disturbance, etc. but basically in our single-tree selection (maple dominated) stands we cut 1/3 of the BA on a 30 yr roatation (remember this is slower growing conditions than you southern guys).  So basically we can sustainably cut one 30th of our maple ground every year.  In a 4 stage shelterwood for white pine, you are already starting to grow your next crop before you've finished cutting the previouse one.  So if you do your seeding cut at 80-100 yrs (the stage of management when you creat conditions for seedligns to become established)  that's the age that you use to model your rotation by, even though you might do a "first removal" cut at 100-120 and final removal at 120-140 (the two releasing cuts for the regen you established in your seeding cut). This is probably harder to follow than trying to explain how clearcutting can be ustainably managed, but really it's the same principle, if your modeling is area-based. 

Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 18, 2007, 06:09:12 AM
Steve, haven't you seen some hardwood sites that that 30 % does not fit? I have, especially in uneven aged stands. You sometimes get a significant number of big trees scattered in through a lot of little ones. The tendency is the remove the big ones which are most of the 30 % because of their distribution and size. Doing this knocks you back almost to even aged management. I don't think it's appropriate for long lived species, especially in our area were they grow slow. I think if the harvest is planned to take so much from each diameter class range (14-20; 22-30; 32-44 etc), then you can return to the forest much sooner instead of waiting half a lifetime. On private land, if I owned 300 acres of long lived species, I might only take 15-20 % of the basal area, that would keep me busy for years if the markets are good. Plus my harvesting would be to release healthy trees, not suppressed and flat-topped pulpwood.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 18, 2007, 06:48:00 AM
When I was out in BC, I told the boys I was here for the adventure. On those days where it was pouring down sideways with wind, and sliding is goose goop on the hillsides, they'd ask me "are you having fun yet".  ::) :D :D
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Tom on January 18, 2007, 10:35:48 AM
Certification is about "control".   These outfits may find some factions in the USA that embrace "control".  Some States could be pointed to that seem to have citizens who enjoy being led around.    But, there are States, areas of the country, citizens who abhor the loss of the freedom of decision and the ability to manage their personal property as they see fit.

When these organizations move from their comfortable homes in the areas that accept them to the more independent areas, these controls will hit the fan and they may have more confrontation than they bargained for.  It's a shame that so many citizens are so complacent when it comes to these "controlling" situations and wait until it affects them directly because it makes for a lot hotter fire.

I'm not for Certification as a private landowner.  I see no reason for it in our National Forests.  It's another effort at blackmailing the public, creating soft jobs for the unworthy and keeping a segment of the US population under another bureaucratic thumb.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 18, 2007, 10:59:32 AM
Reminds me of Jean Arnold, who gets government funding and some private funding to go around telling us what we don't know and what we are doing is no good. While at the same time she's getting her $40-50,000 from these source and people around her are barely existing on $20,000 farming and woods work.  ::) I seen a position she posted a couple years ago for an RPF with pay of $6.50/hr.  :D :D :D
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Ron Wenrich on January 18, 2007, 06:33:13 PM
I went to Lowe's last night, just to look for certified wood.  I figured maybe Weyerhauser would have some certified hardwood.  Not true and neither was their guarantee to be defect free (another story).  I looked at hardwood veneer.  Not certified.  I looked at the studs and plywood.  I looked at the stamps.  Nowhere did it state certified.  I looked in the moldings and the cedar section.  I just can't seem to locate it.  There is nothing advertising the lumber as certified.  I even asked at check out and the cashier didn't even have a clue.  So, it apparently isn't being driven from this end.

Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SteveB on January 18, 2007, 06:37:44 PM
I guess my take on Certification would be a bit different.  I think of the kind of 3rd party certification we're talking about as giving the people more control and less beuracracy.  When it comes to private land, if you want to certify your woodlot to someone elses standard, go ahead.  If you don't like certification, do it entirely your own way.  Ultimately the consumer gets the biggest vote, and that's the basis of our western economies.  If the consumer wants (to pay for) FSC certified products to make them feel warm and fuzzy, retailers will figure this out, mills will produce it for the retailers, and they'll look to private or public lands as the source.  If you don't beleive in certification, the answer is to find like minded mills and ultimatley consumers to buy your wood.  

What's worth it for one person, company, land management trust, etc. might not be worth it for the next.  There's lots of chioce out there FSC,SFI, CSA (Canada), Forestcare (alberta), ISO, etc....  

When it comes to public land, citizens that don't trust big companies or big business, don't like the idea of one or both of the aformentioned to have the single-handed right to make all of the decisions "for us" without some type of additional check or balance.  These types of people see 3rd party certificaton as another way to help ensure "our" public land is being managed appropriately.


Swampdonkey,

When it comes to selection in uneven aged stands, you're right, the idea is usually to harvest a bit from all size classes, not focus on the big ones.  That's why we use tree marking here to regulate this type of cutting.  The bush is marked to the prescription, the marking is checked/audited to make sure the prescription was implemented through marking properly before it is approved to be cut, and then we make sure the trees are cut according to the paint.  Obviously, the marking also has to focus on taking out the disease and defect trees in order of priority, while meeting targets for the retention of a specified number of supercanopy, mast producing and cavity trees for wildlife.  The prescription will specify the ideal residual basal area per diameter size class, which become the targets for the tree-marker to strive to mark to.  The provincial recomended residual basal area distribution varies by region (average growing conditions) and is detailed in the Ont. Tree Marking Guide, and A Silv. Guide for the Tolerant Hardwood Forest in Ont.  The rpf uses the guides and local knowledge, experience to create the prescription and give the tree markers direction.  If you don't have these guides I think you'd probably be interested in them.  I don't agree with every word of them, but they are based on a lot of reserach from around here as well as throughtout the N.East US.  I remember seeing refrences to them somewhere in New Brunswick's forest management policies/manuals.  All of this stuff is suposed to be based on science, but obviously there's lots of judgement that come into play (I guess an art as much as a science).

OK.. enough hot air :)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 18, 2007, 07:00:58 PM
Steve, I have those guides actually and have molded some of my prescriptions in hardwood stands using those as guides. But, woodlot owners in this part of the country don't always follow plans or hire consultants to implement them. Right now in our marketing board area there is hardly anyone interested in a plan, because they have to pay the full cost. We've suspected that when plans are subsidized, they become cheap cruises and the woodlot gets liquidated a lot of the times. This just helped reaffirm the suspicion. But, that's getting into another issue.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SteveB on January 18, 2007, 07:06:46 PM
Ron,

In the past I worked for a company that supplies lowes with lumber, and we were SFI certified, but who knowes if they end up stamping that on anything?  I think a lot of the retailers want to buy certified wood to say that they do in case anyone complains or challenges them, but they might not advertise it.  I have seen moulding and doors at the local Home Depot with FSC on it.  Actually, FSC is the only certification I've ever noticed. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if they only market the certified stuff in areas where they figure the market cares.  I could see them having "FSC" on wood in the cities, but not go to the trouble of advertising it for the farmers/logging areas.  I've seen it stamped in magazines and catalogues that are intended for a "green" audience, and I've seen it advertised in print shop windows in big cities.

As far as hardwood lumber and veneer goes, I've noticed that they don't tend to be into certification as much as the pulp and softwood guys.  The fierce foreign competition in the hardwood sector is coming from tropical contries, where there's not much certificaion, so if consumers demanded it and we were able to become certified, we'd probably be in better shape in north america than we are.  Sawmill manager was complaining the other day that they figure their tropical competition's  got chaep wood supply since their trees grow fast, AND they're obviosly not heeding too many enviro rules if they're cutting off public land witout the right to, and not paying any stumpage.  (local hwd. veneer mill also just anounced shutdown yesterday)  I think the softwood and pulp companies are more into certification because they're bigger, and bigger means a bigger target for the enviro's.  The Sierra Club's of the world probably figure they get more bang for their buck by attacking the big guys (the lawyers of the "non-profits" probably make a hefty one).
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Samuel on January 21, 2007, 06:13:27 PM
So are any of you specifically involved with managing Forest Certification schemes?
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: jrdwyer on January 21, 2007, 09:09:21 PM
The certified lumber I have seen at the big box stores was 1" radiata pine from New Zealand and 1" pine/spruce from Scandinavia. I believe that the studs from Canada (like Canfor product to Lowes) are also certified but not individually marked.

I personally don't see much benefit to certification for small private landowners. There is high unit costs for certification with no tangible payoff. To address this, Classified Forests in Indiana are being evaluated for group certification through the Tree Farm System. So you get certification without the fees!

Philosophically, I consider certification to be a bit of a "slap in the face" to foresters who already perform forest management activities at the highest standards. It is also duplication of practices already in place like Kentucky's Forest Conservation Act, as one example.

If certification ever becomes required, then I would like to see a national certification "stamp" for ACF or SAF foresters practicing under specified guidelines that could also be used for chain of custody.

Finally, many private landowners are not willing to pay for management plans and plan updates that certification requires. Many are not interested in anything more than a commercial high-grade. I don't see how commercial high-grading can be viewed as a certified forest activity.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Phorester on January 21, 2007, 09:47:38 PM

RON, I did the same search at my Lowes and Home Depot last year.  There was nothing on the lumber that indicated any type of certification, and the clerks at both stores had absolutely no idea what I was asking about.  They were not even aware of the concept of wood certification, let alone that their store was supposed to be supplying certified wood.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Tom on January 21, 2007, 10:03:20 PM
Don't sell the private landowner short.  Many are interested in more than growing trees for a "quick" buck.

I feel that I have other interest and those are to perpetuate the natural invironment of the river swamp on my land.   If all I were interested in were high grade, I would have clear cut it, burned it and put in pine plantation what is now tended as natural stands.   My concerns run the gambit from timber to wildlife homes/snags and mast.  Palmetto proliferates for no other reason than deer browse and cover.  Much of my land may never be commercially cut.

Other small landowners in my area are of my ilk and would possible resent  certification for the same reason as I.  Certification is nothing more than someone, probably not a landowner, passing judgement on my land care and direction.  That someone has no viable interest in what I own but thinks they have the right to mandate how I manage it and control my markets as blackmail of my business as well as blackmail of my outlets.  All Certification is, is the need for some people to be in control.  They have their nose where it doesn't belong.

While many private landowners are not willing to pay for a management plan, it is preceded by the Forester's unwillingness to work with small landowners.  Most of the small landowners that I am aware, study Forestry themselves and do what they think is right because Foresters are more interested in Government land, Corporate land and large landowners who may offer them a management job when the State job runs out.  

If I treated my sawmill  business the same way foresters treat their profession, I would fail for sure.  I would buy a mill, take it home and lock it up in a barn.  Then I would tell a man with a lot of trees that I had a mill and go home to wait for him to bring me logs.  I might get lucky, but, the chances are that I would be looking for a new profession as a K-mart clerk in a few months when I found that he had gotten a mill of his own.

Could I have used a Forester?  You bet your bippy.  But He/She would have to do more than write a management plan.  Small Landowners are always under threat of Taxing agencies who wish to make their land single family housing.  Once that is done, the only avenue left is sell out to pay taxes. The small woodlot then goes the way of developed subdivisions.  Small landowners need educated and trained Foresters to stand up for them in the war against development.  A forester needs to be an intermediary who helps the small land-owner exist.   Today the Land-owner is left to his own devices.  If I could find a forester who did business like that, I wouldn't mind paying a fee.  I can't see paying a fee just because the guy went to college and wants to sell trees.

Forest Certification?   Give me a certified market.  I'm going to sell good lumber, show me your credentials  and greenbacks to prove you won't paint it and I might sell it to you.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: jrdwyer on January 21, 2007, 11:36:19 PM
I'm not sure how the state of Florida handles private landowner assistance, but in Kentucky and Indiana forest management plans are done for free (taxpayer supported) by foresters working for the state. So it is pretty difficult to charge a fee for such and get a lot of interest.  Therefore, I concentrate more on timber sales, forest appraisals, and timber stand improvement work. I work on properties from 5-400 acres in size with the average being about 25.

I didn't mean to put down private landowners who actively manage their woodlands and take the time to learn all they can. I thoroughly enjoy working for such clients. I enjoy marking a stand selectively and using some thought about what to take and what to leave. It is definitely more challenging than marking and measuring a high-grade timber sale. I enjoy doing TSI in the winter (although my 39 year old knees sometimes complain). My light little Stihl MS170 is helping me finish a 200 acre hardwood TSI job right now (selective harvest was finished last March).

I have been involved with private landowners in this area since 1991 and I would say at least 40%-50% use high-grading as the means of cutting their woods. This is typically carried out without the use of a professional forester, but not always. I have had many clients who simply wanted to extract the maximum value while leaving some low value residual trees (hardwood pulpwood, crooked sawlogs, culls) for aesthetics. Oftentimes the property is sold after the timber sale. The client is happy because they get the highest return from the property by having separate sales for the timber and the land. This is definitely not forest management, but if BMPs are used and the tract hasn't been grazed hard or burned hot then hardwood regeneration is not a problem.

I think we are both looking at certification with a similar view. Someone else (who may know little about forestry or land management) passing judgment over what we have done or what we are trying to do with a forest and not offering any price premium for the effort.

My question is this: Where can I find certified steel or drywall or brick?
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: 333_okh on January 21, 2007, 11:45:03 PM
I have worked on both SFI and FSC certifications and I can tell you that neither is easy, or self policing, but I do not like the regional differences given to people in other states and countries by FSC.  A standard is a standard and should be the same.  In essence, if a certain harvest methods of harvest sliv is poor in California, it probably is in North C., and Oregon.  FSC does not think so.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Samuel on January 21, 2007, 11:58:59 PM
Quote from: 333_okh on January 21, 2007, 11:45:03 PM
I have worked on both SFI and FSC certifications and I can tell you that neither is easy, or self policing, but I do not like the regional differences given to people in other states and countries by FSC.  A standard is a standard and should be the same.  In essence, if a certain harvest methods of harvest sliv is poor in California, it probably is in North C., and Oregon.  FSC does not think so.

I tend to agree with you there, however there are differences in ecosystems and biodiversity that may change specific requirements.  For example logging in the swamp ridden boreal forest of northern Alberta is much different than logging on the Canadian shield in Ontario.  The operational requirements that you speak of are obvious though I agree.

The biggest thing that the NGO's were up in arms about here when the Victoria Secret thing was happening a couple months back, they did not care that the company printed over 1 million catalogs a day, they were more concerned with if the wood was certified to the rain forest alliance (FSC) standard.  Thats sustainable forest Management..
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: 333_okh on January 22, 2007, 12:28:08 AM
Agreed!

Another thing is to look at the old growth policies and the clear cut acreage policies.

I understand the ecosystem and geology aspects, but in some cases it has nothing to do with either of them.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 22, 2007, 08:01:54 AM
Tom, what I've found with some woodlot owners is if the logger presents the buzzword 'select cut', he thinks he's going to be doing the right thing for his land. What ends up being done is a high grade leaving multi-stemmed, flat-topped, skun up junk and a high graded woodlot. As soon as you offer a woodlot owner advice or stewardship of his ground with a fee attached, he's not interested because:

1) management plans have been subsidized by marketing boards and government. The marketing board wages are subsidized by taking a levy from private wood sales. So, already he has paid for service, but often times doesn't get it. And 3 or 4 marketing board staff cannot possibly service every land owner's needs. In the meantime the system puts the consulting forester at a financial disadvantage because he needs to eat to.

2) He sees the consultant as a middle man without rationalizing that a logger wants the pay the least possible in stumpage, where the consultant wants to make the owner the maximum he can from the sale of wood because it's going to benefit his pocket also.


Let's see   
100 acres with a cruised estimate of 2600 cords:
Logger
income to owner
stumpage:
            $15/cord pulp @ 1200 cords = $18,000
cost to owner:
            - no plan: results in high graded woodlot, $1000's lost in potential growth
            - longer periods between entries, logged once in his life.
            - higher rate of tax for casual woodlot owner not managing his ground or operating as business
net income for owner
stumpage - lost future potential = ?, $18,000 before taxes, no tax benefit since no plan,high graded woodlot.


Consultant
stumpage bid by tender:
            $25/cord pulp @ 700 cords = $17,500
            $125/mbfm sawlogs @ 30 mbfm = $3,750
            $450/mbfm veneer @ 2 mbfm = $900
            Total = $22,150.00
benefits to owner
     - multiple entries in his life time
     - improve future value of woodlot, since standing timber (growing stock) has less poor wood growing
     - tax benefits for following plan and operating as a business.
cost to owner:

plan:                - $4.00/acre of wooded ground, plus $350.00 for writeup = $750 'peanuts'
consulting fee:  - $8/cord @ 700 cords = $5,600 (often times the plan fee will be included here)

net income for owner
   
stumpage + multiple future entries $$ ? - consulting fees + taxable benefit on consulting fee = $22,150

If no tax benefit = $16,550 (before taxes) + $$ from improved woodlot and future entries

This is a big part of the problem, a lot of land owners look at today what will be in their pocket and don't see a future benefit. So, they go with the logger.  We just simply don't have a lot of hardwood sawlog and veneer growing stock, partly because of our climate and also past high grading.  ::)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Tom on January 22, 2007, 12:07:06 PM
Swamp Donkey, I agree and am pro-forester.  But the logger you describe gets the ear of the woodlot owner because he is there selling himself.  I see forestry as a passive industry.  if you didn't know it existed, you would never know.  Why is it that every time a conversation comes up people, first of all, begin talking about loggers.  It's because the Foresters are hiding in the woods.  They haven't gone to the public and sold their "wares".  Most seem to think that the world will come to their doorstep.  It's not so.  Like any business, you have to sell every day. You have to be visible.  Foresters even have the inside.  They are hooked up with Universities, education, Government grants and all manner of venues for presentation.

In my neck of the woods, and I speak only for myself, I haven't seen a forester in years. I've not had one visit any of my saw jobs.  I do know where the Division of Forestry office is located but finding a forester there is a crap-shoot.  Usually those government types are so busy filling out paperwork that you have to make an appointment.

Contrary to popular belief, woodlot owners are not a bunch of dummies.  When there is something that needs to be done and they recognize it, they will get it done.  If that means going to a University or just a library and learning the stuff themselves, they will.

I had a one-up on most in that I had the opportunity to study Entomology and Botany in a University as a kid.  That didn't teach me Forestry, but, it did  make me aware that there was more depth to agriculture than meets the untrained eye.  There are many like me out there, doing it our way.

There were two Foresters in this area that were big on promoting Forestry and Foresters.  One was transferred away. He was a County forester and would show up at the darnedest times to have a cup of coffee and walk the woods.  He and I would have a grand time and he would give us landowners little talks on vegetation we had on our property.  When he showed up, I would get on the phone and gather as many of my neighbors as I could to come over.   Yes he was a State Employee, but, if he were to remain in the area after his stint with the State, I would have let him manage my place in a heartbeat.  He also had 6 or 8 of my neighbors who would have and the whole area I live in has another15 or twenty small land-owners that he visited.   I know that a handful of woodlots isn't going to make him rich, but this was just a touch of who he knew.  He cruised all over  the county not just my little corner.

The other was an old-time who used to be the Division Forester and retired to occasional management jobs.  He was involved in more politics than Richard Nixon ever dreamed. There wasn't a city council meeting that he wasn't there making comments on city growth.  He was always instrumental in gathering land-owners together for meetings to let them know what was coming down the pike.   He taught Forestry everywhere he went.  He also would "show up" and visit your "woods".  I enjoyed his visits  more than I ever would a free trip to Disney.  He was a gruff old son-of-a-gun and didn't let the city fathers run over anybody.  He stood up for agriculture in this county and set the record straight many times when some greedy developer tried to make a "presentation" to the city council.  He had enough sense to write the newspaper and had his forestry views published even though the paper has never been in his ballpark.

He died Last year and there is no one with his authority, education or background to fill his shoes.

He stood between those of us who were trying to grow trees and those in the county that wanted increased tax dollars by the re-zoning of the agricultural fields.  I think the death of old Frank Hill was the reason that our young Mayor was able to stand up in a political meeting a while back and announce that "there will be no agricultural land in Duval County in ten years."
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: BrandonTN on January 22, 2007, 01:02:49 PM
Inspiring story, Tom.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 22, 2007, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: Tom on January 22, 2007, 12:07:06 PM
I see forestry as a passive industry.  If you didn't know it existed, you would never know.....

They haven't gone to the public and sold their "wares".  Most seem to think that the world will come to their doorstep.  It's not so.  Like any business, you have to sell every day. You have to be visible.  Foresters even have the inside.  They are hooked up with Universities, education, Government grants and all manner of venues for presentation.

I think a lot of effort has been put into getting the word out. It has so here, because it's a big part of the economy. A lot of times it falls on deaf ears, those that don't rely on their woods for a steady livelihood (which is the majority). They only go to the woods at times when they need fast cash to make a farm/tractor payment, divide the lot among siblings after a death, clearcut to pay for their father's nursing home bill, buy a new car, or for retirement income (clear cut), sell land (clear cut) or cut 10 cords of stove wood. And the older the land owner, the less likely you will ever cut his land because he doesn't want to loose his pension supplement. The average age of a woodlot owner around here is close 60 years old (baby boomers).

There are annual forestry conferences, but generally people outside industry and government won't attend because of registration fees. These things do cost money. They expect something for nothing if all they are used to are handouts and subsidies. There are annual marketing board meetings held in evenings for private woodlot owners (free), attendance is down unless you feed them. Then your only talking about 5 % of woodlot owners ever attending.


QuoteWhy is it that every time a conversation comes up people, first of all, begin talking about loggers.

Because that's the competition. And yes, sometimes loggers are foresters that do good work, but not always. We could talk about woodlot owners I suppose, some of them are loggers to. ;D Not all loggers are detrimental to woodlots, some are quite well educated in what they are doing. And what you've said yourself here....
QuoteContrary to popular belief, woodlot owners are not a bunch of dummies.  When there is something that needs to be done and they recognize it, they will get it done.  If that means going to a University or just a library and learning the stuff themselves, they will.

I had a one-up on most in that I had the opportunity to study Entomology and Botany in a University as a kid.  That didn't teach me Forestry, but, it did  make me aware that there was more depth to agriculture than meets the untrained eye.  There are many like me out there, doing it our way.

...rings true with some owners, but is not the majority. And I know some folks that will not listen, no matter how loud you scream, point, demonstrate etc... It's their way and there is no other. ;D

And I'll say it again, short term/quick cash flow speaks volumes. It's the carrot on the end of the stick.  ;)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 22, 2007, 03:08:07 PM
As a forester, I can't compete with $3/cord management fee from a marketing board with $millions of wood sales to subsidize that rate generated by a 2.2% levy. Many loggers have told me that if the owner wants a forester to manage their ground, then the playing field should be made level, where the owner pays for the consultant without subsidy. I've told anyone I've dealt with that the wood has to be there (on the woodlot) and the markets in place to make it work for all parties involved. I don't expect the logger to go broke paying high stumpage rates, building roads, paying truckers, pay cutters....it's all factored in when I look at a woodlot. The logger has some advantage here to you know, the decision of what the leave has been made, trails laid out according to terrain conditions, roads flagged. He also has a new opportunity he may not have known about. Certainly his competition is not going to be advertising it. If the forester is a Certified Water Course Alteration specialist, then the logger doesn't have to shuffle paperwork with the Dept of Environment, where he (logger) has to wait at least 30 days before approval.  Man have I ever seen some messes when it comes to woodlot roads. Holly Christmas!!  >:(
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: 333_okh on January 22, 2007, 03:54:47 PM
"In my neck of the woods, and I speak only for myself, I haven't seen a forester in years. I've not had one visit any of my saw jobs.  I do know where the Division of Forestry office is located but finding a forester there is a scrapple-shoot.  Usually those government types are so busy filling out paperwork that you have to make an appointment."

Tom--

Here it takes at least 60 days to get a harvest plan approved.  You get at leas three reviews by the Depatment of Forestry, plus routine inspections of the harvest sell operations itself.

Not only that but we also have the Fish and Game Department doing the same.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 22, 2007, 04:02:21 PM
Sam, as far as certification schemes here, I'm not personally involved. I know the marketing boards are looking at going under the Pan-Canadian certification as many other provinces are as well. I haven't seen much published lately in papers/magazines, but once in awhile it gets brought up. I think a lot of stuff is behind the scenes and driven by those that are heads of the respective Woodlot owner Associations and the average woodlot owner doesn't get involved. They are informed about it at meetings, but the decisions are being made by the better informed at the top. If you talk to the average woodlot owner about it, they kind of buck the idea and want to see a premium paid for their efforts. I don't blame them. This certification just seems to be another method of turning away folks that would ever be interested in forestry as a career, to give a few that get through the hoops a better advantage or to make themselves look good. 'We're in the club now boys, let's pat each other on the back'
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Riles on January 22, 2007, 04:27:04 PM
The state of North Carolina did my management plan for me free of charge. It was a condition of giving me state subsidy money for planting trees on the farm. And reducing my property taxes. That motivated me to go and get a forestry degree with my GI Bill.

Your tax dollars at work.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Tom on January 22, 2007, 06:59:44 PM
I can understand the feel for the need to be defensive.  I have that same need when I hear what landowners will not do, won't pay for or don't care about.  Still, you have to take what I say with a grain of salt.  It's only my opinion from the viewpoint of a single landowner in an ecosystem, political and social environment different than most.  I can only speak for what I would have done as I brought myself up through the learning phases of tree farming and the care of a non commercial venture in the sustenance of a Southern tidal swamp and its wildlife.  I can also see where there is a great divisiveness in the agricultural and Urban worlds with Governments being mostly attentive to the Urban needs because "that's where the money is".  The lack of community with leaders trained in the field has led to agriculture being being the red-haired step-child and, to paraphrase and old saying, "drinking from the faucet in the  back".

What efforts I've seen to bring this community together have been thwarted by the varying industries of agriculture.  Cattlemen are the best organized and seem to fair the best but each is afraid that the other is going to get some favoritism than he can get.  Forestry seldom  has a spokesperson who has been University trained in All aspects of the Industry.  A farmer trying to fill the slot will soon find himself sorely lacking in general knowledge.

An uprising by the masses is a revolt and, unled, leads to mayhem such as experienced in the French Revolution.  Most farmers are too smart to be drawn into that kind of organization.

Certification of Forest Products just adds another layer of treadmill on the woodlot or forest owner from a bureaucracy that has no concern for his well being or livelihood.  The agenda favors the business aspects at the user end at the expense of positive education and freedom of the true producer.

I have spoken my piece to the depths of my knowledge and can offer no more.  The subject is one that can go on forever with those who live in the community.  Those of us who are outside of it can only offer glimpses of our interpretations which affect us.  Then we must sit down.  I'm going to sit down now.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 22, 2007, 08:02:09 PM
Tom, my emphasis at the end of a couple posts back was concerning roads. Wasn't trying to slam ya. ;) I don't get too excited, maybe a little long winded. I had some other stuff typed but it got deleted. :D :D :D
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Ron Wenrich on January 22, 2007, 08:49:57 PM
I don't think its so much that the forester isn't visible, I think its because landowners don't know the difference between a logger and a forester.  We had a poll about that back in 2004.  https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=8022.0 

Another problem that foresters have is getting in contact with landowners.  When I was active in consulting forestry I would routinely make mailings to landowners of 20 acres + in a 10 county area.  The results from the mailings were less than .1%.  Then, we got those calls of "I have a black walnut in my front yard". 

I also offered a course at the local community college.  It was night courses, so it would be more convenient to potential students.  I got an interest from 3 people.

I helped organize county landowner organizations.  They all folded due to lack of interest.

If the landowners really got together and formed a co-operative, they would have a better chance of getting their lands certified.  They could also market their timber better, especially those with smaller acreages.  They could also manage their timber better by getting good rates from foresters to write plans, or hire their own foresters. 

I tried to form one in PA by going through the state Grange.  I felt the Grange was a good organization to try, since farmers know about co-ops and use them in marketing some of their products.  It was shot down when it went to their forestry board, which is influenced by consultants.  They didn't want the competition.

As for SFI, I think they do a really good job of certifying loggers.  But, I didn't think too much of them offering courses on "How to buy timber".  They were quite ready to sidestep foresters all together.  They also offer courses in forest management, but they are very basic.  After awhile, the line gets really blurry of the difference between a forester and a logger.  It also helps to minimize the importance of foresters, especially in the eyes of loggers. 

Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Ron Scott on January 22, 2007, 08:50:51 PM
Canada Leads the World in Forest Certification

December 31– According to the Sustainable Forestry Certification Coalition, Canada is the world's certified forestland leader, with 305.7 million acres certified to the three sustainable forest management certification programs in use in Canada. Only one-tenth of the world's production forests are certified and yet Canada's contribution is greatest, accounting for over half of the certifications recognized by the global Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes and almost one quarter of Forest Stewardship Council certifications worldwide.

Refer to the Canadian Sustainable Forestry Certification Coalition website for more details.



Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 22, 2007, 09:14:21 PM
Ron, that poll rings true to. I can't tell ya how many times I heard 'so and so is a forester who logs', then when asked for details, you find out he was a high school graduate that logged for 20 years with his father and recently took over the business or ventured on his own.

I have to go dig through my files for a couple reports or surveys done in NB over the years. I think they were 80 and early 90's.

Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 22, 2007, 11:21:02 PM
From the report Framework for action (1986)
- survey of woodlot owners indicated that most woodlot owners have forest land for other than timber production. Firewood production and the satisfaction of owning land were the most common reasons cited for land ownership.
-average woodlot owner receives less than 10 % of their annual income from woodlots.
-many woodlot owners who intended to do silviculture or harvest activities did not have the time.
-woodlot owners lack the resources to undertake many woodlot management activities.
-woodlot management plans must be developed by woodlot owners and their regional woodlot owner organizations. Government and industry will give support with financing and information. Planning must be voluntary. Woodlot management encouragement programs must make woodlot management economically attractive and reduce the need for public assistance for woodlot management activities. Woodlot owners must participate on their own free will, and not be forced to undertake any management activity.
- A commitment has been made in the Crown Lands and Forests Act (1982) that wood from private forest land should be considered the primary supply.



From the Report Private Woodlots: What Does the Future Hold? (1981-83)

-10,013 responded to a survey out of 31,500 woodlot owners that received the questionaire.
-Average woodlot size is 130 acres.
-consultations in the study were carried out in 3 ways: written submissions followed by 8 public hearings
throughout the province; a survey of woodlot owners; and regional workshops

- average softwood volumes are known to be lowest on small woodlots (5.5 cunits/acre), sawlogs volumes (1.8 cunits/acre) are less than half of crown land. More volume per acre has been harvested off private woodlots (28 ft3/acre compared to 9 ft3/acre on crown).
-woodlots are a source of extra income in hard times such as economic recession, some woodlot assets get liquidated to derive this income.
- private woodlots require intensive management to produce their full potential and meet industrial supply needs.

-forest extension services were started by the University of New Brunswick, with support from various government departments, who hired a forester on a part time basis. It provided practical advice to farmers and small woodlot owners. There were field days, experiments, demos, and management plan preparation. They organized woodlot contests, forestry conferences and tours, gave talks to school children, and provided marketing info. In 1953, a tree farm certification program was established for well-managed woodlots. The program continued from 1960-76 thru the Dept of Agr. and Rural Development. In 1976 the Dept of Natural Resources picked up the ball (until 1999 ?). [Now run by Infor]

-many woodlot owners  had a view point that money and time spent on management should be rewarded with protection from insects and a guaranteed access to markets with a reasonable profit to recover management costs. Most believed they could not afford the full cost of forest management.

- 13% of owners were not NB residence
-woodlot owners surveyed had various occupations: 19.2 % fishermen, farmers and woodsmen; 21.8 % truckers, wage earners or skilled tradesmen; 26 % retirees or housekeepers; 22 % were professionals or business people. 56% bought their land, 30 % inherited, 14 % combination of both.
-40 % harvested some wood with a 5 year period, 20 % used wood for home consumption, and 40 % never harvested wood in the past 5 years (29 % do not intend to harvest wood).

- our board area of Carleton and Victoria counties had farming as the second reason for owning woodland, as it was part of the farm. And commercial timber production was the least important of all board areas and most harvesting is done by logging contractors. Along the east coast the woodlot was used mostly for a source of firewood.

- surveys showed that half of woodlot owners were dissatisfied with work of logging contractors

- individual landowners in NB have the right to own property and to be assured that society respects this right. Government excludes the use of coercive legislation to force private land owners to behave towards their woodlots in a way which would not be theirs by choice.

- current income tax legislation only provides tax relief for farming or business run woodlots in forestry operations. The survey indicated that only 7 % derive more than 10 % of their income from the woodlot. If the woodlot is not part of a farm business, the owner will be hit with capital gains tax if the ownership is transfered to another family member, resulting is having to sell or liquidate the woodlot to pay the taxes.

see attachment for some interesting statistics

cheers  :)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SteveB on January 23, 2007, 12:04:20 AM
The issues around certification are much different for the small private woodlot owner vs. public land manager.  

As Ron in MI pointed out "Canada is a certification leader", and that's mainly because the overwhelming majority of the landbase is owned and managed by the provinces (state).  It's relatively easy and cheap compared to trying to certify private woodlots 20ac. at a time.  Crown forests across canada are generally broken down into individual mamagement units at a scale that yields 500,000 to 1 million tonnes/year, and no-one's lining up to "develop" it (at least nothing above ground).  This is a big factor, and leads to crys of subsidy, but the truth is, forestry companies are the only ones that want anyting from the land in most of canada, so supply and demand dictates that the price for the right to cut isn't near what it is in more hospitable and inhabited parts of the world.  In this country where most land is Crown, people that don't trust (or understand) how the government manages it on their behalf want assurance from an "impartial 3rd party expert" (yes, most are from the city and wouldn't really care to understand anyway).  

There are exceptions here too, such as New brunswick/NS, southern ontario/southern quebec, and a very small sprinkling throughout the rest of the contry where a significant portion/majority of wood is cut off of private land.  And I would guess a good portion of the Canadian's on this site are more involved with private land, but it's a whole different ballgame than crown management.  Where I've seen certification happen on private land it is the associations of woodlot owners that have become organized (common concerns/ issues /needs) that have also become certified.  It's too complicated, costly and doesn't fit the landowers needs if it's not somehow done (and desired) collectively.

I can see where many, such as Tom in florida are coming from.  The local woodlot conference is coming up (put on by the woodlot association), and it's very well attended by farmers/woodlot owners wanting to know more about how to make their own management decisions.  (and some of these types are the same ones that are certified). Not sure how they get so many people interested, and I'm sure there are many more that arent' attending, but there are definitely a good number that do come.  And yes, there are private land loggers there too, (at least one that I know for a fact is a professional forester).  I know good loggers and excelent land owner/managers are out there, it's just that there are also many that stand out for the wrong reasons.  Training and supervising loggers with only private land experince to work to public land standards does tend to create biase and stereotypes, and makes you wonder what goes on in many private woodlots.  
 
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Gary_C on January 23, 2007, 12:53:40 AM
Here in Minnesota, the DNR has now obtained FSC and SFI certification on all state managed lands. Our governor has pledged "no new taxes" although he has raised almost every fee the state charges.

The problem that I now see is the orders from St. Paul to the field offices are to maintain maximum sales levels while there is a glut of wood available is just a budget driven edict. This way cut levels are going to be pushed to the maximum to satisfy the budget needs for state spending. And they can still claim this is sustainable forestry.

Is this what certification is all about?

You can read the latest recommendations here: Minnesota Marketplace (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/forestry/marketplace/winter2007.pdf)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: jrdwyer on January 23, 2007, 01:50:29 AM
Gary_C,

I read the Minnesota Marketplace and WOW aspen pulpwood/OSB stumpage down 59% from the same time last year! Boom to bust?

For comparison, prices here are generally around $12.5-$17.5/cord stumpage for hardwood pulpwood. Of course, we don't have OSB plants and only have hardwood pulp/paper mills that buy directly/indirectly to around 3" DIB and pallet lumber producers that buy to around 6" DIB at the top and that takes in the "better" pulpwood logs.

Our governor has also pushed and gotten higher harvest levels on state forest lands. Not unsustainable levels, just 100% higher than the last governor. The mills are all for it. Indiana tends to have very competitive stumpage markets. I am somewhat against the idea because it can reduce certain private timber sale bid numbers and prices and I also fear the income will be wasted on some unknown govt. entity or program. Most government agencies are not as frugal as they could be and always want more funds.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Ron Wenrich on January 23, 2007, 05:57:56 AM
Certification for small landowners is can be relatively simple.  Certify the forester and logger that carry out the work.  The biggest problem that small landowners have is their short ownership patterns.  In our state, land turnover is about every 7 years.  Government and corporate ownership lasts much longer.

Usually, a small landowner will only have 1 or 2 shots at having anything done on their land.  The most common practice is to do diameter limit cuts and high grading.  It is done by SFI certified mills, consultants, and anyone else working the woods.  Pulpwood sales are practically unheard of, and rarely will you see pulpwood in with sawtimber at the private level.  Government sales are always mixed. 

Is that considered sustainable?  I guess, if you don't particularly care about the future forests.  You'll have trees, but the genetic quality will be diminished as will the stand makeup. 
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 23, 2007, 08:25:55 AM
People hold onto land here for a much longer time. Most who sell have liquidated the lot and many times it's between siblings or other family members. Or it's a farm sale in which case 99 % of the woods are usually clear cut before the sale to increase the revenue and take advantage of capital gains. Some land will be sold to industry, which concerns a lot of small woodlot owner groups, and some are tax sales. Why is it a concern? Because once it's assimilated into industry you and I as small woodland owners can never buy that land and after awhile it's all industry controlled. In PEI they have land laws against industry buying up the land base. Believe it or not, if your a farmer on contract to sell potatoes for instance, that company has your farm as a lien and can aquire it when you can't deliver even when the company does not adhere to a delivery schedule and your potatoes rot and run out the door.  Just one scenario. ::)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Gary_C on January 23, 2007, 09:00:51 AM
Those aspen stumpage prices in the Marketplace do not tell the whole story. In the last 3 years aspen stumpage has been running from $120 to over $165 per cord. The problem is only certain loggers with "sweetheart deals" with the mills could bid as most of the smaller loggers were being paid $80-90 per cord for aspen delivered to the mills. I have even sat and watched as one large logger that can cut 50 semi loads a day or 2000 cords a week bid against the same mill where he deliveres all his pulpwood. Now that mill and all the other mills have complained that prices are too high and the state should put up more wood. And the DNR is doing exactly that at a time when all but those large loggers do not have any quota for this quarter and may not get any till next summer or fall. I currently have about 6 semi loads of maple pulp from a state sale all cut and sitting on a landing waiting for quota to deliver and that mill likes maple over aspen because they can buy it cheaper.

Does that make any sense at all?
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 23, 2007, 10:51:29 AM
Whoa, there's some differences in definition of stumpage here. What your calling stumpage sounds to me like mill delivered prices before stumpage is paid to the owner of the wood. $140-160 a cord was paid here for mill delivered price as well, back in 2000-2003 period, but stumpage was $25-45 a cord for stumpage paid to the owner.


Gary, it used to be that way here, when mills tried to dissolve marketing boards. There was a suspicion that independent wood brokers were paid more than marketing board contracts, so loggers would obviously go to the private wood broker. There was no levy collected from brokers. Although, it was against the law, a law that was rarely enforced (I heard of a couple instances where the board came collecting). All private wood has to have levy collected by the local board. The wood broker was taking his levy to run his business, but no one was putting some of it toward a forest management fund to my knowledge, only the marketing boards. Also there were quota systems because only a few made logging their livelihood and with mill contracts you have to have a way to make those deliveries. The casual logger or owner could not have the market access that the quota holders had. You didn't know when he was going to cut wood or how much. Often he had to deliver on someones quota or it sat in the yard and rotted, or he simply didn't cut any wood.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Gary_C on January 23, 2007, 11:02:34 AM
SD  No, that is not a mistake. That $120-165 was bid on state auctions and paid to the state (or county) for stumpage. I have no clue how much those large loggers were being paid at the mill.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 23, 2007, 11:41:32 AM
Those loggers must be getting a lot of cheap wood some where to make up for it because if the mill is paying a delivered price on top of that, then they have no idea what the global price of wood pulp is and will soon sink. Then again maybe we up here don't know as much as we think about the global price of pulpwood.  ::) We can only get $87-$95 a cord delivered here of late and the mills still think that is high.  ::)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: BrandonTN on January 23, 2007, 03:05:49 PM
I've been reading this thread, and following it as I can...I don't understand many things being said, but Is the problem of foresters having trouble with getting in touch with landowners partially due to lack of effective advertisement?
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Ron Wenrich on January 23, 2007, 05:14:18 PM
So, where would they advertise?  I put ads in the TV section of our local paper when we had gypsy moth consuming huge areas of woodland.  The TV section was something everyone looked at, and they kept it for at least a week.  No response.  As I said, I had mailings to landowners in the form of a newsletter.  Little response.

Landowners are so diverse that it is very hard to target them through advertising.  The way the loggers are doing it is they go and knock on everyone's door in a given area that they are working.  Been there and done that.  Its about the only way to reach the landowners, but it isn't always an effective use of time. 

Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Ken on January 23, 2007, 05:37:14 PM
I too have tried newspaper articles and mail outs with little success.  The only tried, tested and true form of advertisement is word of mouth that comes about as a result of doing quality work for a reasonable rate.  Getting a woodlot owner to include you in his forest management planning or woodlot intervention often involves talking to the owner wherever you can.  Be involved with the community and advertise yourself.  You are your own best salesman. 

Many woodlot owners can be a finicky bunch who often think they know about forest management because they read a couple of books or spent a few hours walking with gramps in the back forty.  Try being too pushy with them and you will often find they won't even talk to you anymore.  I always find that if I can find an opportunity to do some roadside harvesting or silviculture work it is well worth the effort to take a bit less money, do an extremely neat job and put up a sign.

 
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 23, 2007, 06:48:36 PM
Ron and Ken, I agree. I have always thought of the signage angle to, like Ken said. They are required to sign lots on crown lands, so why not eh? :)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: extrapolate85 on January 24, 2007, 01:04:21 AM
Quote from: SteveB on January 23, 2007, 12:04:20 AM
The issues around certification are much different for the small private woodlot owner vs. public land manager.  

As Ron in MI pointed out "Canada is a certification leader", and that's mainly because the overwhelming majority of the landbase is owned and managed by the provinces (state).  It's relatively easy and cheap compared to trying to certify private woodlots 20ac. at a time.  Crown forests across canada are generally broken down into individual mamagement units at a scale that yields 500,000 to 1 million tonnes/year, and no-one's lining up to "develop" it (at least nothing above ground).
 

Here in the west of the US, Federally owned timber lands dominate (everything above the valley floor is USFS), much like most of Canada. The USFS does not certify any of their lands, primarily because the environmental standards which guide the management of their forestlands, virtually eliminates timber harvest. Excepting for a few small-fire-hazard-reduction sales (small wood only) the entire USFS timber sale program rests on fire and blow-down salvage (less than 25% what it was in the mid 1980s). When they do put up one of the sales mentioned, there is a huge public hearing process, review from their "ologists", and then the thrash of appeals from the environmental groups. Their criteria for harvest includes: how folks in Los Angeles and Seattle feel about them cutting a tree in Idaho, what judges in San Francisco have to say about it, and what their staff of wildlife biologists, hydrologists, anthropologists, etc. have to say. In the end, what is best for the forest has little to do with the decision of what trees to cut and what the end consumer thinks about it. Bottom line, the criteria for cutting a tree on USFS lands is so strict and reviewed by so many so-called "stakeholders" that it is a wonder that anything at all gets harvested, and no wonder that all are "below-cost". By the time you cover the cost of having so many scientists review the harvest plan, wade through the public feedback, and finally settle on harvesting the timber via helicopter logging (so you don't build an ugly road that could give the public access), the revenue from the timber does not cover the cost of putting it up. In the end, only Satan could design a more strenuous process to insure that USFS timber is more sustainable managed (FSC would be a cake-walk in comparison). No wonder the USFS does not worry about getting third party affirmation that what they are doing is good stewardship. The few that are left in the USFS that are still trying to put up timber sales deserve to be saints as fare as I am concerned.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 24, 2007, 10:41:50 AM
Quote from: Samuel on January 16, 2007, 10:01:09 PM
The stipulation is that this retention is to represent the previous stand.  Our Aspen blocks have no problem regenerating themselves so the retention left behind serves as an ecological feature providing habitat and wildlife cover.  The blocks are harvested to emulate a fire and as such we are having great success with our regeneration etc.

Sam,I understand your retention is mostly for wildlife. I'm just throwing my thoughts and experience out here.

Have you tried this with white birch stands? The overwhelming evidence here demonstrates that retaining white birch or yellow birch for that matter, will give you lots of pecker poles in 3 or 4 years, but not much for future sawlogs . There probably won't be much to mimic the previous stand for long and it looks like your dealing with short lived pioneer species, except for the spruce which is the climax species I'de gather. Maybe you don't have much of a sawlog (or veneer) market for birch. The birch tend to be sun scalded when opening up the canopy beyond more than 20 % or so. So when you do silviculture you have all these dead tree snags and blown off tops to worry about. Even timing the harvest so that you don't burn up the softwood regeneration can be a challenge. I've seen sites with fir undergrowth before a harvest and go back 5 years later and the fir is sparse or mostly gone. Those shade needles are different than full sun needles and they show different growth characteristics (color, stem orientation, size, shape). Even leaving islands of wood has to be planned, which I'm sure it is in your woods, and some sites you just can't do it. The edge trees blow over/break off and it's perpetual until the island of wood is a cross pile of dominoes. Now, what do you do? Poplar is just as liable to blow over as a spruce, probably even more likely in sandy soil (our boreal here tends to have sandy soils). I see it all the time on old grown up fields that are not necessarily wet and not high in sand content. When leaving sparse hardwood here on sites it's usually slow to die, starting with the top most branches (I noticed in the pictures that the retained trees where mostly small clumps). It would be ok for wildlife or pulp, but for future sawlogs it won't make it. Once those upper limbs start dying, you can make a safe bet that the heartwood is increasing and possibly full of rot or mineral stain. With maple, it's the sapwood that is desired for logs and veneer. I know, it's a big challenge to look after wildlife needs, safety of your silviculture crews, and providing decent residual trees for future benefits, not to mention other forest uses. I had to bring 'other forest uses' into it, but the reality is no one would be there unless the forest roads were in place, mostly because of the remoteness. There are very few folks this day in age that explore by water and hoof great distances like in my grandfather's time. You can't even get the majority out of the house for a casual walk. :D ;)

cheers  :)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SteveB on January 24, 2007, 07:55:50 PM
SD,

From my (brief) expience in Alberta I don't think there are many (any?) industrial hardwood sawmills (I'm sure there's the odd guy with a little portable mill), and all of their poplar (aspen as they call it) is chipped for pulp in the bush or roundwood to OSB mills.  FOr the most part, white birch is very few and far between, with no pure stands I ever saw.  Definitely no yellow birch or maple.  When they chip in the bush in Alberta, I don't beleive they ever have grapple saws on the chipper infeed to cut out the sawlogs, as they commonly do in NB.  Those trees they retain are purely for wildlife trees and arguably asthetic (?).  The safety concern is minimal in most boreal operations because they're almost 100% mechanized, and with poplar stands there will be O silviculture.  Obviously, by the time the stand is eligible to clearcut in the next rotation, those clumps will be long gone. 

Although almost any tree left out in the open is quite prone to windthrow, poplar is quite a bit more windfirm than spruce, since it has deeper roots.  (those shallow spruce roots are good for life on thin soils and staying out of high water tables, but not for being windfirm).  Most biologist will tell you white birch has much less wildlife value relative to poplar too.  THse two factors make poplar the favored "retention" tree under most Boreal conditions. 

Similar to the pictures from Alberta, Ontario's new (a few years ago) fire emulation guidelines dictate that you have to leave 25 relatively evenly spaced residuals (both live and dead) standing per ha.  On top of that you have to leave a % of your total cut area in islands, and peninsulas (the %'s vary depending on original forest type, and there are lots of stipulations about size, shape, makeup of these patches).  As you would imagine, a lot of this stuff blows down, but the bioligsts like "coarse woody debrise" on the ground too :-\  The biologists also encourage us to get buncher operators to reach as high up some standing trees, cut off the top and use it, and leave an 8-15' stub.  The idea is that those stubs are more windfirm (since wind-catcher is removed), so they've got more chance to last for the peckers, and you still get to use "some" of the tree (obviously you're leaving the high volume butt log, but we're not talking veneer grade as the wildlife trees are suposed to be close to dead).   ...I like it when people say "Foresters just use clearcuts because they're simple"
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SteveB on January 24, 2007, 08:39:58 PM
This is a jackpine "clearcut".  Yes... the individual jackpine in the foeground will all blow down, but there were proably no better options to leave in the imediate area.  They were left to meet the 25 tree/ha requirement.  Beyond, the clump of red pine regen that was protected meets the minimum height and stocking, to it goes towards meeting the % of area needed in islands, and beyond you can see a mature white pine left to meet "supercanopy" requirements (1 per 4ha).  The white pine is also a desirable seeed source for silv. reasons.  In this case 6 diseased poplar over 40cm dbh would be left per ha as future cavity trees.  8 trees/ha would also also have been left to produce mast, but there wouldn't have been very many suitable ones to meet the guideline in this case.(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/13439/clearcut.jpg)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 24, 2007, 09:03:39 PM
Steve, I know there is no yellow birch or hard maple in Alberta, unless it's on someone's lawn.  ::)  :P I was just drawing comparison's. But, I'm quite sure there are white birch stands (maybe not pure), because it's part of the boreal forest and i've seen stands of it in the northern part of BC as well. In fact white birch has a wider range then trembling aspen, but mostly overlaps. But, I do understand that there are large tracts of aspen out there. There could be a market for spool wood, sawlogs and veneer, but I'm thinking it does not grow as big as here. I'm not sure of the markets up there, but I don't know that you are either. ;) Mostly what I saw in stands was under 10 inches. Fir (sub-alpine and balsam overlap in Alberta-to the south bank of the Peace, as far north as the vicinity of the town), pine and spruce grow extensively in the northern portion of the prairies to my understanding. Aspen wouldn't be thinned in pure stands, but they would be if softwood where part of the greater component of the new stands. Here aspen (and white birch) is a nurse tree for softwood, they are pioneers.

Hmmm...

QuoteMost biologist will tell you white birch has much less wildlife value relative to poplar too


What biologists have you been talking to?  :D I never heard that one. Lets see white birch seeds for birds in fall (aspen-too tiny), catkins for grouse in winter (aspen-flowers are in buds, but grouse do find them), browse for deer and moose, pecker poles. Attracts: voles, shrews, deer, moose, hares, porcupines, redpolls, siskins, chickadees, ruffed grouse, beavers, yellow bellied sapsuckers. Equally as important I'd say.

Poplar hasn't much for deep roots at all, how do you suppose they sucker so well? As I said they are as prone to blow down as the spruce, I see it all the time. Ok, yeah you find them on a rock pile in a field, but also you find spruce doing the same and just as windfirm because they have grown in that environment all their life. Different than cutting and opening up a forest stand where it grew more protected. ;)

I don't follow your fire emulation guidelines ("have to leave 25 relatively evenly spaced residuals-both live and dead-standing per ha."), sounds more like a policy than an actual ecosystem requirement. Like any model you can play with the inputs until you get a result 'that looks good and manageable' whether or not it has any ecological significance at all. ;)

QuoteAs you would imagine, a lot of this stuff blows down, but the bioligsts like "coarse woody debrise" on the ground too
Can't the non-merchantable stubs and windfall that get broken off and knocked down suffice? Rotten wood, never did make good pulp. ;)

QuoteThe biologists also encourage us to get buncher operators to reach as high up some standing trees, cut off the top and use it, and leave an 8-15' stub.

I'll bet Workers Comp isn't around, and i wouldn't encourage it. ;) ;D


Quote...I like it when people say "Foresters just use clearcuts because they're simple"

I don't know that this statement will be much appreciated by some members, but maybe you'll get a laugh.  :D  :)

cheers
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 24, 2007, 09:14:28 PM
Quote from: SteveB on January 24, 2007, 08:39:58 PM
In this case 6 diseased poplar over 40cm dbh would be left per ha as future cavity trees.  8 trees/ha would also also have been left to produce mast, but there wouldn't have been very many suitable ones to meet the guideline in this case.

Aspen weren't considered for mast were they? Birches and alders are considered soft mast, and the beech family (beech, oak, chestnut) and shrubs like beaked hazel are hard mast. I suppose if you consider the flower buds mast, that could fit in soft mast, but I don't think it's considered a mast tree, as mast pertains to fruit and seeds. ;)

I like the idea of your super canopy trees, it's done here all the time as well as hemlock, even on private woodlots.

Ok, I'm going to leave you alone Steve. ;)

Have a good evening :)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SteveB on January 25, 2007, 12:36:57 AM
SD, you are right, there is white birch in AB, but my point was there's far less on their predominantly fine textured soils than you find further east in the Boreal.  As far as sawlogs, if anything, their poplar is bigger than in the east, and I'm sure there's good saw material in it, they just genearlly don't bother with it.  There could very well be the odd mill that saws poplar in Alberta, but I never came across it when I worked there, and i've got friends there that say the same. The big players in Alberta are far away from markets (relative to us), but their advantage is in being set up to be low cost producers of comodites (softwood lumber, OSB and pulp) by prouducing huge volumes.  Sawing poplar generally  doesn't work this way, although Buchanan's poplar sawmill in Thunder Bay would be an exception (it's set up like a big, high production softwood mill).  In the east, it's usually flexible, small to medium sized sawmills that saw some poplar, in addition to hardwood, and/or r/w pine.  There aren't as many of these types of specialty mills in Alberta because their industry is younger, and their forest is a bit less diverse (tree species wise)than Acadian/GreatLakes forests.

Quote
You're right about the Aspen/Spruce.  In mixed stands, harvesting the poplar first, then the spruce was something the company I worked for was experimenting with / refining at the time.
Quote
I'm not a biologist and don't claim to be, but as a forester I have to work with them and use their input.  I wouldn't dispute that white birch (and all trees) have unique wildlife values.  I should have qualified my original comment about po vs. birch.  As far as leaving mature residuals specifically for future standing snags/cavity trees, the accepted practice (not just my opinion) is to favor poplar over white birch.  The reasoning (and research) is that once an area is harvested, mature birch left on the site tend to die and fall apart very fast.  Large diameter poplar will tend to stay standing longer, and the common heart-rot will be attractive to woodpeckers looking for a big (relative to most birch) shell, with a soft center to easily excavate.  Following this logic, if maple or other larger diameter longer lasting species with signs of internal decay are available, they would be prefered over poplar, to be left to meet cavity-nesting habitat requirements.  Leaving habitat trees for specific wildlife purposes shouldn't be confused with, or used to justify high grading though.  When it comes to shelterwoods and selection, from a silvicultural perspective(as a forester) you still want to weed out the junk first, but to keep everyone happy (including yourself if you happen to like wildlife) trees that meet specific wildlife objectives should be retained. 

In terms of retaining mature mast trees, I wasn't originally intending to get into the details.  Again, these are guidelines that the biologist/ecologist "powers that be" have come up with, but they do seem to make a bit of sense to me as well.  Oak, beach are considered high value mast trees due to the number of species that use them and their high nutritional value.  The rare species, and ones at the edge of their range here, such as black cherry, butternut, hickory, etc.) are also high on the priority list.  Basswood and Ironwood are considered OK, but they're suposedly not used by quite as broad a range of species.  I guess you could argue birch have some value as mast producers, but since they produce seed so early in their lives (say compared to oak) and are relatively common (as well as others like alder that produce very similar types of seed), birch isn't condiered a significant type of mature mast tree to keep around here.  The buds of poplar are also suposedly eaten in the spring by bears, but the main reason for leaving poplar is as a future cavity tree, not for mast. 

Spruce vs. poplar wind firmness.  I agree that anything open grown all it's life will be relatively windfirm, and the opposite for forest grown stuff opened right up.  I've marked lots of single poplar and spruce to be retained in clearcuts, and then went back to see which ones are left standing a few years after it's cut.  Both blow down quite a bit, but my experince tells me more spruce than poplar.  Poplar's not deep rooted like oak, but it definitley tends to be more so than spruce (on average, under similar conditons).

Quote
The "natural disturbance pattern emulation" ("NDPE") guide is a requirement here on crown land.  I have to follow it, and I've studied the rational behind it, but I didn't write it and am definitely not going to defend it.  I agree with you, I'm just giving some insight into the mountain of guides and manuals we have to folow.  The "coarse filter" NDPE was suposed to help reduce the reliance on the multitude of "fine filter" individual species guides that we have to follow... (the policies/manuals rival the original BC for. practices code) 

Haven't heard of any ministry of labout complaints about buncher-made stubbs yet, and it's become pretty common practice, but you've got to remember that generally, everyone involved is in an enclosed FOPS cab if this is happening. 

...I like it when people say "Foresters just use clearcuts because they're simple" ... you can either try to find some amusement in other people's forestry ignorance or it'll drive you crazzy

Quote
No problem, keep me on my toes ;)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SteveB on January 25, 2007, 12:39:23 AM
Ok, so I'm not a master of the quotes yet (see above)  :D
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 25, 2007, 09:09:07 AM
Hey, Steve, some more toe curl/strain. ;D

QuoteSD, you are right, there is white birch in AB, but my point was there's far less on their predominantly fine textured soils

I would have to agree with the 'fine textured soil', same here. I call a lot of it poplar swamps. In my area balm (balsam poplar) will colonize a cedar clear cut, then the cedar grows up under and you get some large balm sometimes before they become decadent (20 inch or so).

We have big aspen and balm here to, and large toothed grows even bigger than trembling (which is not on the prairies). But, I've seen some 24-32 inch trembling to up on the Tobique and on my woodlot. ;D When your driving highways here the wood looks small, so the average traveler would not realize. That's because it was easiest for a woodlot owner to get to, a bit of ground on big lots way back never get much attention. Although, they are scarce now. White birch can grow as big as gun barrels (40 inches) and the bark will go all platy, I've seen many on crown land, not so much on private.

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_whitebirch-001.jpg)

18 inch white birch on my uncle's lot, and they grow bigger. We lost a lot of big ones in the 'Great Birch Die-Back' of 1937-47.

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_BigTrees-TAsp2.jpg)

26 inch trembling in a cedar stand (fir decadent)

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_largetooth-big-001.jpg)

32 inch large toothed

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_largetooth-big-002.jpg)

same tree - crown

Widow Makers
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_WidowMaker1.jpg)

Trembling aspen with false tinder conk (24 inch, ~ 77 feet tall)

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_WidowMaker2.jpg)

wide spreading crown of trembling

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_WidowMaker3.jpg)

Edge blow down (aspen on sandy clay loam, high water table, imperfect drainage, shallow root balls)

So how big you want'm? (https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=17352.40)

QuoteI guess you could argue birch have some value as mast producers, but since they produce seed so early in their lives (say compared to oak) and are relatively common (as well as others like alder that produce very similar types of seed), birch isn't considered a significant type of mature mast tree to keep around here.

Maybe less important to retain since its so abundant and tends to die from major disturbances while your other species are less common and may be more tolerant to harvest activities. Since most of our forest management in Canada  (east of the rockies at any rate) isn't geared to producing climax forests, with predominately long lived species (just a scattering of super canopy trees, long rotation trees and similar categories/names), they could also be considered less important to some, unless going beyond 80 year rotations and retaining a lot more of them, like uneven aged hardwood management practices. Managing for hardwood is a relatively new concept here in NB. They were always considered weeds. Cutting hardwood ridges, spraying and planting black spruce.  ::) But, in everyone's defense, I'll admit that a lot of that old growth hardwood , the vast majority, was pretty poor wood. ;) Most of my thinnings last year were in hardwood or stands with a significant hardwood component.

QuoteHaven't heard of any ministry of labour complaints about buncher-made stubbs yet

Maybe because they haven't been around any of those operations. And if they do, maybe the supervisor tells them they had better keep the head low. ;)  I never see them here and I give DNR information on where I'm working as we need permits to work in the woods, even on private, in case of fire. Government departments rarely interact and tend to make their own policy with their staff on the same issues their governing. :D

I'd be as equally concerned about tipping the machine over and costing someone some money. I don't think they were designed for that purpose.

Have a good one.  :)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: jrdwyer on January 25, 2007, 12:41:42 PM
SteveB and SwampDonkey,

Very interesting discussion. I have learned a few things about the complexity of the northern forests and their management.

One big difference for us further south is larger diameter trees and manual chainsaw/skidder harvesting. A 24"-28" DBH oak with 2-3 16' logs almost exceeds the limits of a Timbco. That is what we are trying to grow with selective harvesting/group selection in 70-80 years time. So this is much lower production using a chainsaw, but for much higher value trees. Indiana is known for excellent white oak and walnut. The tulip poplar and red oak are pretty good too.

At the same time, younger stands and/or previously high-graded stands are more often harvested with a Timbco and skidder setup for higher production.

As our selective harvesting is converting forests to more hard maple on medium to higher quality sites, I am trying to learn more about the growth habits/white sapwood interaction of sugar maple. Unlike up north, our maple isn't uniformly sap/better or white.



Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SteveB on January 25, 2007, 01:16:20 PM
SD,

You bring up good points about retaining wildlife trees vs. safety,and yes it's a common question around here too.  One of the key policy related biologists here is really good at keeping all the factors in mind (safety, industries needs).  It's a refreshing approach, and I can't say the same about them all, but I think this guy gets more by-in to his ideas because he's so easy to take.  Everyone knows (ok.. should know) that safety will trump wildlife policy every time, so the wildlife guys tend to consult with ministry of labour about what they're preaching.  In terms of the buncher-stubbing issue, they've worked out a technique that most are ok with.  You won't last long as a supervisor if you look the other way regarding safety.  When I worked in NB, the logging jobs I supervised were regularly inspected by gov. safety types, and it's the exact same here.

Although poplar tend to be prefered cavity/snag trees, partl because they tend to be larger diameter, those big old plately-barked birch are an exception.  Asking people to identify the super-old yellow birch with rough bark can sometimes "stump" people, and on very rare occasion you get a really old white birch that's just as plately as an old yellow.

It's funny how we all tend to remember really odd supersize trees.  The biggest yellow birch I ever saw was towards rogersville in NB.  As I remember it, it was about 6-8' in dia.  but I'm sure if you got out the D tape the number would come down ;).

The biggest single oak I ever saw was in Ontario, and I hardly ever encountered oak in NB, but the best stand of oak I ever came across was east of Fredericton.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 25, 2007, 02:50:18 PM
How big are these ones Steve? ;D

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_Tobique-YB.jpg)

(https://forestryforum.com/images/04_01_03/bark%20001.jpg)

This one is on my lot, I'll take a tape and the camera tomorrow. ::) I planted a bunch of yellow birch, but they got eaten.  ::)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 25, 2007, 10:33:31 PM
Steve those aspen in the photos a couple posts above are on the same lot and within 100 feet of one another. We cut over 300 cords of aspen on 10 acres, that was besides the maple, birch and softwood left. It was since harvested in follow up. Those aspen are roughly 90 years old, originated from a fire. I've found several old burnt out cedar stumps and the fire was in my grandmother's time, born 1900.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Ken on January 25, 2007, 10:40:35 PM
SD

Is that one of those big old Yeller birchs?  If so and it is sound it looks like one of those that could have a pinkish heart which sometimes looks a great deal like cherry. 

Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 25, 2007, 11:00:27 PM
Yes, they both are. The first one is up Tobique it didn't have a very good top, but the bottom one is on my lot and looks sound and the crown is huge and wide spreading. No dead branches. It's actually beside those big aspen to. I've always suspected it could be a red heart birch. I remember C. Kennedy cut some at his mill and i could have bought all he had for $0.90 a foot. I would never cut this tree though, it has value to me just standing there. ;D I've got to get a better picture.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Samuel on January 26, 2007, 12:55:24 AM
Wow guys, I go away for a few minutes and an entire discussion takes place. :D

I will try and answer some of your questions and concerns.

First off, most if not all of our Quota Certificates for the different management units within our Forest Management Area only give us the access or timber rights to poplar or aspen.  Most stands we are working in are predominately aspen/spruce mix, with the odd potential for birch in low lying wet areas.  As far as a commercial size or value, the wood is generally in my mind trash as it is limby, crooked small diameter stuff that is better left undisturbed.  Shoudl we knock some down for road construction etc. we will skid them up with the rest of the poplar, and chip it.  The softwood harvested on our blocks gets shipped to the quota holder in tree length form to a sawmill.

As far as biodiversity vs. safety concerns, large and small clumps of trees left behind in the block in my mind pose little to low risk for future activities.  Since the most common form of regeneration we have is the leave for natural, the only people in the blocks are surveyors 5-7 years post harvest.  The block edges and harvest design emulate fire, so there are no straight boundaries, as we follow stand types.  All of our cut blocks are sequenced by a computer model, and ground truthed to ensure the forest cover matches what is on the ground.

There are a lot of opinions out there as to what retention is, however a true meaning is an accurate depiction of the previous stand.  Leaving under-story behind is a good practise, however in our company that is not considered part of the retention that is left behind.  In most if not all of our plans, the average retention level is 15 % which is made up of approximately 5-10 % ribboned out prior to harvesting, and the remainder is made up with the bunching.  For example if 7 % remains, the operator knows for every 100 trees cut, 7 remain standing.  We try, with the buncher retention, to keep in in small clumps for wind firmness, however if it does blow over, it will be utilized for ground mammal habitat etc.

Our blocks as I indicated below, would represent a fire should it go through a forested area as small and large areas are left unburnt, with no straight edges for boundaries.  If timber blows over, it serves as the same purpose as a natural forest with habitat for moles and voles.

Coming from an extremely operational background rather than my current strategic planning level position presently, I felt retention to be a huge pain in the ass and operationally dis-functional for skidding as the standing timber slows the process down.  Taking off the Fibre Head hat (as I was commonly referred to as), I now see more of the big picture of the ecological forest management practices and SFM we have committed to as a company.

I hope I answered most of your questions, and if not keep them coming.  If I can't answer them, our in house Biodiversity stewardship guru loves to chat about this stuff and I will post his responses.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 26, 2007, 08:35:23 AM
Don't forget the softwood blow down so the marten can catch them little critters in winter. ;D

I've just got to get up in that country some day. I've only been as far north as Edmonton. It's such a vast area. So much to see, so little time. Same old story.   ;D

Sam, does your province produce a book of GIS maps for the public?

https://www.web11.snb.ca/snb7001/e/2000/2900e_1.asp
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 26, 2007, 02:32:46 PM
My yellow birch with more pics.  :)

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_yellowbirch-wlt-014.jpg)

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_yellowbirch-wlt-023.jpg)

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_yellowbirch-wlt-022.jpg)

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_yellowbirch-wlt-021.jpg)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 26, 2007, 02:35:37 PM
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_aspenroot-wlt-019.jpg)

Aspen shallow root ball, no tap root or deep anchor roots of any kind. ;D
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Mooseherder on January 26, 2007, 07:56:50 PM
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/13635/Blow_Down_Tree.jpg)
Got sum of them. ;D The trees are still living. At least they were last year.
Probably have a few more this year.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on February 04, 2007, 08:58:38 PM
Here is an excerpt from an editorial by Andrew Fedora in Atlantic Forestry Magazine, 'Stumbling Blocks of the woodland owner'. Fedora is executive director of the Federation of NS woodland owners in Stewiacke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodland owners take tremendous pride in being self-sufficient and many are leery of others telling them what they should and should not do on their land. The clearest example of this is multi-generational woodland owners who have worked and lived off their land since birth. Traditionally, they have tended their woodland with little help or influence from anyone else. They have managed as they deemed fit and sold their wood to local mills when needed. Every generation has successfully managed the property on its own since it was acquired.


[paraphrasing]Self isolation and the reactionary approach many woodland owners take to managing their lands leads to fragmentation. Landowoners usually do not consider woodland issues until immediately confronted by them, or it is too late. [/off]

There are countless examples of how organized unions and groups can effectively create change and protect their interests. The effect of fragmentation and disorganization are evident in the past and current situation of the small private woodland owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This has pretty much been my message as well as a few others. Just thought I'd share another perspective.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on February 07, 2007, 08:40:42 PM
 Canadian Sustainable Forestry Certification Coalition (http://www.certificationcanada.org/english/)

Some info on certification schemes being used
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 15, 2009, 06:37:05 PM
Starting to see companies from financial institutions to tissue paper makers stamp their products with these certifications more and more now.


(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_Cert.jpg)


(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_SFI_Irving-tissue.jpg)
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Samuel on January 19, 2009, 04:59:32 PM
Its becoming more and more apparent that the customers are demanding certification and its not just any certification, its FSC Certification.  It has been touted now as the global benchmark for certification.  The interesting point with this all (North America speaking) that a 25 year old senior executive working with Walmart is pulling all the strings as the North American Big 3 (Kimberley Clear, Georgia Pacific, and Proctor and Gamble) rely so heavily on sales to Wal-Mart (67% or something in that neighborhood), that this individual will guide forest certification in North America.  Interesting...

I have heard all the arguments for and against certification and there has been some definite benefits for us in system developments, but its coming down to now if you want to sell your product, you will have this certification, or you will be out of business.  It is becoming that black and white for most of the pulp and paper industry anyhow and most likly moving into multi-dimensional sawmills as well.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 19, 2009, 05:10:44 PM
Well if it helps level the field for everyone involved in the global economy, it's a real plus for me. Why should we operate under stiffer environmental rules than some renegade outfit off shore and allow that outfit to profit by being a slob of it. Heck it's more than the environment, it's decent jobs at stake, and profitability and not having to depend on some one else to meet our needs.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Ron Wenrich on January 19, 2009, 05:28:58 PM
I have not heard of any rumblings on the hardwood lumber side of things about certification.  Not even European veneer buyers are asking.  We have exported lumber and logs and not even a peep about certification.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 19, 2009, 05:34:17 PM
I've not heard anything from Columbia Forest Products either Ron and that is a pretty big outfit in the US. Our most stable market, and they send a guy out to scale at the wood yards of our marketing boards. Pulp and paper industry seem to be the leaders in certification. We had the first rumblings here in 1994. I am wondering what is stamped in the box stores. Just have not paid any attention because I wouldn't buy a piece of hardwood from them to start with.

http://www.columbiaforestproducts.com

The only thing I see is Habitat for humanity mentioned on their site, nothing about certification.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Ron Wenrich on January 19, 2009, 05:53:51 PM
So, we're more concerned about our toilet paper being certified than our other products.   :o  That makes a great deal of sense. 
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 19, 2009, 06:07:59 PM
No it don't, not to me. But, proof is in the pudding as they say.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: beenthere on January 19, 2009, 06:17:59 PM
Seems it is now, and will be more so in the future, just "lip service" and something more to write in the specs and put on a front (like the Walmart exec).
Very similar to having to belong to a fraternity to do business. Won't make a tinkers DanG regards the wood. Those who benefit will be the ones doing the "certifying" and those taking the money to get someone to do the certifying.  Just my "negative" take on it.  ::) ::)
The forest owner won't see more in his pocket, as it is from his pocket that the money will come for paying the extra certification services.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: mad murdock on January 19, 2009, 06:24:19 PM
As far as certification goes, I work for a company that contracts across the pacific NW and Northern Cal.  Most of our customers, i.e. Weyerhauser, Plum Creek, Green Diamnond, require that we be versed in SFI, and the majority of the REIT's that we work for are SFI certified.  Most of them have their own EMS programs to satify SFI requirements, and we even have to write EMS training into our contratctors manual, and instruct our personell on an annual basis to keep them current on EMS.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 19, 2009, 06:33:30 PM
I somewhat agree with you there beenthere. But it's meant to be a little more than that. I'm just not sure that it's doing any better a job than best management practices. It seems for woodlot owners, they have adapted the tree farm system style of management, as far as I know that is best management practices. I guess I'm more concerned with how forestry is practiced where there are little or no rules compared to our standards. Maybe I have no reason to be, maybe things aren't all that bad to begin with. Hard to make a judgment about forestry practices some place else if your not there to witness it I suppose.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: woodrat on January 19, 2009, 08:31:14 PM
About ten years ago I was involved in a organization that worked with SmartWood, and we ran a small R&D mill cutting, drying and selling smartwood certified tanoak in northern CA. There was an emerging market for it back then, but we hard time finding enough smartwood logs to buy.

Sometime in the next year or so, I will be writing up a land management plan for my 15 acres and submitting it for FSC certification. I have no intention of clearcutting my place anyway, so the plans I already have fit with FSC just fine and it will only cost me $200 or so and then a small yearly fee. If I harvest and sell products the fee is more but still under $300 for a parcel my size.

In Chehalis, WA there is a alder mill that just switched over to FSC alder and my parents have a small parcel nearby that would be a perfect match for that, but it is such a small parcel that unless we clearcut it, we'd have a hard time justifying the road that needs to be built to access it. If I can work out a deal to use another road there, I may get that piece certified too, and start cutting a few nice sawlogs and some firewood out of there every year. I also am starting to grow shiitake mushrooms in alder and I think I could put an FSC label on that product, too.

As far as SFI goes, I think that is just industry greenwashing. The big boys were never interested in certification until it started to gain a little traction in the marketplace. So then they set up their own label so they could look "eco-friendly" without actually doing anything different.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Gary_C on January 19, 2009, 11:54:52 PM
Quote from: Samuel on January 19, 2009, 04:59:32 PM
Its becoming more and more apparent that the customers are demanding certification and its not just any certification, its FSC Certification.  It has been touted now as the global benchmark for certification.  The interesting point with this all (North America speaking) that a 25 year old senior executive working with Walmart is pulling all the strings as the North American Big 3 (Kimberley Clear, Georgia Pacific, and Proctor and Gamble) rely so heavily on sales to Wal-Mart (67% or something in that neighborhood), that this individual will guide forest certification in North America.  Interesting...


Certification in the pulp/paper business is being driven by the largest buyer of paper in the world and it's not Walmart, it's Time, Inc. And what is allowing this growth is the "mixed source" rule that allows mills to buy from various sources and maintain records that show the percent of wood from various sources. Early on the problem was there was not enough wood from certified sources to meet demand. Now with the mixed source rule and the fact that many government agencys have certified their wood, the companies that have gone along with this certification under the mixed source rule are doing well, even in this economy.

So yes, now some large companies, and certainly Walmart can be an influence also, are controlling how and what wood is being purchased and sold.  And it has not seemed to matter that FSC has had more than one embarassing situation over the large overseas companies that have atrocious records for operating according to the rules. Those large companies are reaching their tenacles further and further into the wood business.

What's next, hardwood or softwood (dimension) lumber?
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Ron Wenrich on January 20, 2009, 05:47:57 AM
I don't think its going to be the hardwood market.  Simple reason is that it is way more fragmented than the paper business.  Lots of little shops and a lot less big players in the market.

The local pulp market wants wood only from SFI certified loggers.  Certifying the producer makes a lot more sense than certifying the woodlot.  If you want to certify management, than certify the forester.  It makes things so much simpler and more efficient.  FSC is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare with lots of confusion and corruption. 
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Gary_C on January 20, 2009, 09:41:11 AM
Ron certifying loggers will not be enough and I hope that will not happen. There are now ways to become a certified "master logger" but it is time consuming and expensive to go thru the process and must be updated (means pay a fee) every year.

Here in MN, WI, and MI you must get the pulpwood from certified sources. Yes I also have to sign a paper saying I will harvest according to the rules and they have specific practices that are prohibited, but I do not yet have to be certified.  ::)

But I do have to fill out chain of custody papers on all wood from certified (SFI and FSC, but not Tree Farm as yet) sources.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: thompsontimber on January 20, 2009, 10:31:05 AM
Here in the Carolinas, certification is still a paper monster with no teeth.  The big pulp players are doing exactly what has been described, with the bulk that I deal with meeting certification under SFI at the mill level, as a "mixed source supplier."  Weyerhauser would give SFI landowner handouts to their wood suppliers and ask them to give them to landowners, but nothing was required.  They would then conduct a survey at year's end asking how many landowners you gave a sheet to and if the management conducted on those stands was conducted in a sustainable way.  What they did with their survey results I can't tell you, but one would assume it served as part of their "evidence" of sustainable wood sources.  The lands were not certified of course, and the landowners certainly don't benefit in stumpage rates or services provided.  Suppliers didn't get any bonus for handing out flyers either.  All of the pulp mills as well as some of the plywood and dimension lumber mills do require logger certification in the state in which the supplier is based (that being Pro Logger in NC, TOP Logger in SC, Sharp Logger in VA, etc).
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Samuel on January 20, 2009, 12:18:05 PM
Quote from: Ron Wenrich on January 19, 2009, 05:53:51 PM
So, we're more concerned about our toilet paper being certified than our other products.   :o  That makes a great deal of sense. 

I think the biggest reason as its the most visible product as everyone (or I would think at last most everyone :)) buys disposable paper (Kleenex tissues, toilet paper, etc).  Greenpeace has such an active campaign against the boreal forest right now its driving the executives around the bend from giants like Kimberley Clark and it seems the only thing that mitigates this right now is FSC certification.  Does it make the wood any better, no it does not, but it puts everyone on a level playing field so to speak giving consumers confidence.  Is the label misused- absolutely.  Are there questionable certificates issued- absolutely.

There is no easy answer to any of this and it is a very controversial issue that is not going to go away.  When pulp mills are faced with the reality of certification (FSC or otherwise) vs closing the doors and packing it up, it makes no difference whether you believe in it or not, you do it for the sake of business.  I see some positive merits in it, (being actively involved in certification endeavourers) and some negative stigmatisms from mislabeling products, but I think the positives out weight the negatives.  Keep in mind FSC was set up for global markets in countries where wood was illegally harvested and traded with people losing their lives over it.  Taht is where this all started.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Kodiakmac on January 20, 2009, 01:31:39 PM
The only rural Landowners in this neck of the woods who will have anything to do with 'forest certification' or 'sustainable development' are city folks who have moved out here from the cities. 

Long-time rural Landowners and Farmers get nervous when they hear words like that - with good cause.  Too many of them have gone down the 'Managed Forest' route with good intentions, only to have some, or all, of their property put under government 'protection' because it is deemed to be a wetland, an old-growth forest, or a loggerhead shrike was spotted.  'Protection' means you can't touch anything.  Your private land has been seized for the public good. It's legislated theft.

So we don't let people into out forests.   What they can't see won't hurt us.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 20, 2009, 03:30:22 PM
 :D :D

Most of the time you wouldn't have to worry about anyone being there as long as there is no road. People are generally lazy when it comes to walking in the woods. Only people like me and folks passionate about their woods will ever leave the roads. Ask the majority of woodlot owners here when they last walked their woods and most will tell you hardly ever and can't remember. :D
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: thompsontimber on January 20, 2009, 03:52:49 PM
That's true around here too SwampDonkey.  Run across quite a few landowners that don't even realize they have timberland until someone tells them.  Recently purchased a tract of timber adjoining another tract I was working on...it was 79 acres of mixed hardwood and Virginia pine, and from the ajoining property I could see a rather large disturbance had taken place within a portion of the pine stand.  I made my way over to inspect it closer and it indeed had a pocket of dead pine several acres in size from an old SPB infestation.  I contacted the landowner to inquire on the forest management aspects of the property, and they were surprised to hear they had enough timber to worry with forest management.  It was inherited land and they simply paid the tax bill when it arrived, and assumed that the acreage was small since the tax bill was relatively small.  They actually thought I had contacted the wrong people and was mistaken about the property, but when they retreived their tax records were surprised to realize they did indeed own 79 acres, and every bit of it in timber.  I had to privelage to walk them over their woods for the first time. 
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Kodiakmac on January 20, 2009, 04:08:23 PM
Well, the breed of eco-nuts that we have in this province are not lazy.  They're sneaking about in our creeks and bushes.  5 years ago my brother refused entry to his 100 acres of hardwood to a few harmless-looking summer students from the local Conservation Authority; they just wanted to do a 'species inventory'.   That didn't deter them.  They made their observations from neighbour's lands and the next thing we knew, my brother's forest (and the neighbours') had been declared an "Area of Natural and Scientific Interest" ...ANSI for short. 

It is now 'protected'....even from him.  He still has the right to pay taxes of course, and he can walk in it, but that's about it.  He certainly can't log it.   

Welcome to the new Ontario, where public management of private lands is the new reality.  Land seized for the 'Public Good' without a penny of compensation.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: SwampDonkey on January 20, 2009, 04:39:04 PM
I'd cut what I wanted to cut and challenge the bums in court, wouldn't give them notice of intent or what I was up to.  :-X If the government wasn't creating their job they would be home bumming off their parents.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: thompsontimber on January 20, 2009, 04:44:27 PM
ah, can understand your tone after hearing that story Kodiakmac.  Not quite that bad down here, but its bad enough.  We can thank public domain for one of our state forests here though.  A private developer had purchased the land and built very nice roads and wooden overhead bridges, very nice place.  His plan was to sell off lots with acreage for high end homes.  The local enviromental groups started applying pressure to halt development on the property and pushed for the state to purchase the land from the developer.  The state made an offer for it that was far beneath its market value, and with the improvement expenses already invested in the land, the developer refused the offer.  After added pressure, the state simply condemned it and took it.  Now the state has a forest with very nice roads and bridges. 
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: thompsontimber on January 20, 2009, 04:52:23 PM
Back several years our eco-nut problem was worse.  We had a local group that purchased an airplane back in 2002.  The purpose for the airplane was to survey active logging sites in the county from the air and report BMP violations to the Department of Natural Resources.  They commenced to seeking out the bad loggers and began making their reports to the county forester.  State law requires him to investigate any complaint by citizens for harvest activities and make sure regulations are being followed.  The county was undermanned and were getting swamped with complaints from this group.  Every time they would spot a logger, they would file a complaint for insufficient streamside buffer zones.  Problem was, this remained true even for logging sites with no stream on it.  Didn't take long for the DNR to get fed up with complaints about stream damage when no stream existed.  Not sure if they are still flying the spy plane, but the harrassment has since ceased. 
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Kodiakmac on January 20, 2009, 05:18:04 PM
The local Conservation Authority has just finished a million dollar waste of tax-money on a 'Natural Heritage Strategy'.  One of the recommendations (that they have passed on to County government) is that ALL woodlots be 'protected'...that will mean that you'll need permission to cut a tree on your own property.  This is the situation today in many rural areas of this province.

We can blame the eco-nuts, but it's only happening because rural Landowners - because of their laziness, lack of curiosity, lack of concern for neighbours or downright cowardice - are allowing it.
Title: Re: Forest Certification
Post by: Ron Scott on March 01, 2014, 05:02:28 PM
IKEA Subsidiary Loses Forestry Accreditation

Supply Management.com (February 25) - A subsidiary of IKEA that supplies timber to the furniture maker has been stripped of its Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) accreditation following an audit.

Swedwood Karelia had its FSC certificate suspended after an audit in Russia found a number of problems, including harvesting of "key biotopes", or important wildlife habitats; the lack of a proper environmental impact assessment; and lack of protective equipment for workers.

The E-Forester