is the forest service screwed up every where.

riggin rat · February 06, 2009, 12:17:09 PM

I was wondering if the f.s. was as screwed up everywhere as the are here in wa. we have to paint and brand each end of every log, then when it gets to the mill the load has to be scaled seperatley from other loads so the mills have to have seperate set of skids.but before any of that can, you have to get a scaling agreement set up with the mills, the mills have to provide maps of there logyard and where they will be decking the logs. most mills won't do this as they don't need the logs anyhow.then to top it off the stacker can't pickup the skids with f.s. wood on them till there is another load to take it's place.just trying to sell some federal wood and needed to vent a little, thanks.

Ron Wenrich · February 06, 2009, 01:20:19 PM

Is that due to some sort of certification? We don't have much government land in my neck of the woods.

Dodgy Loner · February 06, 2009, 01:53:16 PM

I don't think that's the Forest Service's fault. You can blame the influential environmentalist movement that you have in your area. My county is about 60% USFS land, and we certainly don't have as restrictive a system as you have. Then again, we really don't have much of a forest industry to speak of in my immediate area. Most of the land is just too steep. To be fair to the environmentalists, though, I do think the USFS screwed things up pretty badly in some areas of the Pacific Northwest in regards to their management of old-growth forests.

DanG · February 06, 2009, 02:59:52 PM

Looking at things from my perspective as a casual observer of one particular Nat. Forest over a half-century, I have to agree with Dodgy Loner. In the Apalachicola Nat. Forest, most everything is planted pines, and from what little I know about it, they've done a great job of managing it. It is difficult for an environmentalist to get real worked up about a thinning cut when he can shift his focus a few degrees and see the results of previous cuts. Also, it happens so fast that nobody really notices...thick one day, and thin the next. Forests like this don't attract a lot of sightseers, either. You gotta really love pine trees to get any excitement from a trip through there! :

:D :D

About the only thing that stirs any emotion around here is controlled burning, and even that has become widely accepted by the public. The FS, at both the Federal and State levels has done a decent job of public education on that subject.

All in all, I suspect that the FS folks in the PNW have done a better job than is probably apparent to you, in light of the circumstances they've been given to work with. It is difficult for anyone outside the organization to know what sort of roadblocks they are having to side-step, just to put a sale together. Perhaps you could try to cultivate a little better rapport with some of the FS Foresters in your area, so you can each understand the challenges the other faces. It may or may not make your job easier, but it can sure make some of the bitter pills easier to swallow. ;)

RynSmith · February 06, 2009, 03:04:52 PM

Quote from: DanG on February 06, 2009, 02:59:52 PM
Forests like this don't attract a lot of sightseers, either. You gotta really love pine trees to get any excitement from a trip through there! : :D :D

I'll never forget my first drive through a southern pine plantation - I got the 'corn row' effect that I was used to in Michigan :D

Jeff · February 06, 2009, 03:14:11 PM

What part of Michigan was you in to get that? Not my part.

RynSmith · February 06, 2009, 03:15:49 PM

Quote from: Jeff on February 06, 2009, 03:14:11 PM
What part of Michigan was you in to get that? Not my part.

Southeast. I would tell you that I was born and raised in Ann Arbor, but I'd be afraid you'd hold it against me ;D

Jeff · February 06, 2009, 03:16:49 PM

ah, all of that is greater Detroit. Not Michigan as I know it.

SwampDonkey · February 06, 2009, 03:32:18 PM

DanG I like pine forest: red pine, white pine, jack pine. I give those species because I'm used to them. Doesn't mean I can't get used to SYP species. ;D I think a natural jack pine forest looks nicer than a planted one. The natural forest seems to have straighter trees and pruned up well, planted jacks are generally as crooked as a mag's staff and have some branches growing almost like cedar candelabras. ;D

Tillaway · February 06, 2009, 04:00:31 PM

Welcome to Region 6 log accountability. It also sounds like the mills are using this to jack you around. Your having a tough time getting a purchaser order I gather? Or perhaps the mill you want to sell to is not set up to take federal wood.

Brand and paint on both ends is a little extreme but not unheard of. The check scale has to as as presented so if its roll out scale the logs have to stay rolled out unmoved until the next load takes their place. You usually have to have X number of loads down available to check at all times. Once scaled the logs become your property which really means the mill owns them.

As far as decking separate in the yard the FS wants to ensure the logs are not exported so they want to know where they are in case they want to look around to check. This part is ridiculous since the mill can always say we processed them even if the logs left out the back gate on the way to Longview or Kalama for export.

SwampDonkey · February 06, 2009, 04:08:00 PM

Wouldn't you just scale them on the cut block landing, then scale them at the mill yard at destination to see if the volume jives? Licensed scalers are supposed to be unbiased toward mill or logger.

Tillaway · February 06, 2009, 04:27:00 PM

SD,
You could, but the cost of the remote scale is too high and the logs have to be scaled as presented. Since most mills roll out the check scaler has to look at the logs the exact same way as the scaler, rolled out same sides facing up in the same order. Truck scale the logs are measured on the truck, the stacker removes the whole load from the truck in one bite and places in bunks to simulate how the logs were presented on the truck. The check scaler scales the logs in the bunks the same way they were scaled on the truck.

We do send an occasional load that was scaled in the woods if we think we have a problem with a scaler at the mill. We have the loggers set out a load of the nicest logs they can find. We scale them, the logger loads them and hauls the load to the mill to the unsuspecting scaler. We usually try to time the loads to be sure that the scaler of interest is working that day.

The third party scaling bureaus that scale the logs are suppose to be unbiased, however, if one scale works a little too long in one yard they might get a little biased. Fishing trips, a nice bottle of whiskey or a trip the the local exotic dancing establishment tends to cloud the scalers judgement at times. ;)

rigginrat · February 06, 2009, 05:46:37 PM

dodgy loner it is the f.s. fault it's their policy and yes you are right about their management of old growth forests, they over did it to an extent but nowadays their is really no need to try and save the old growth because most of it is junk anyway. Very few mills can saw old growth anyway. you can barely sell a 30 inch. fir, so trying to sell rotten, wind shook old growth is uslees.the mills are jackin me around because they don't want or need the wood, so there is no reason for them to jump through the federal hoops. so my thought proccess is to run it through a scale ramp, have it trucked scaled and pay em on that,then haul it home,resort it and see if markets open up alittle. It's a small salvage sale only mabey 500, 000. ft.

SwampDonkey · February 06, 2009, 05:59:56 PM

How many handles (user names) you going by? ;D

riggin rat · February 06, 2009, 06:33:55 PM

typograghical error is my guess. :-\

Gary_C · February 06, 2009, 08:31:47 PM

No doubt the FS is just that. Not at the local level, but for sure from the top of the chain.

Almost the same is true about the MN DNR. They have many good foresters frustrated with the orders from St. Paul. :

I say almost because they are not as bad as the USFS.

Here is a good example. Back in 1999 there was a fierce storm on the fourth of July that devastated the Boundary Waters Canoe Area that lies mostly in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota. It was not a tornado but was about a thirty minute wind storm with 80 to 100 MPH winds that blew down an estimated 25 to 30 million trees. The stories of the people camping it the BWCA during that storm were frightening. They told of laying in their tents while huge trees were crashing down all around their tents. Resort owners had many buildings destroyed with falling trees and guests were terrified and left the next day.

The next day there were plenty of tears shed at all the destruction on private, county and township, state and of course federal lands. But that day the cleanup started on the private lands, the county and townships started with in a week, and the state of Minnesota took a month to get contractors in to clean up state lands. However I saw a report that was done by researchers at the U of M some five years after the storm and the USFS had yet to do anything. They had to go to congress to get an exemption from the rules prohibiting any cutting in the BWCA and congress had eventually granted that exemption. But by then there was nothing left to salvage.

And the pictures in the study showed the mess that remained on federal lands while all lands in other jurisdictions showed little evidence of the storm destruction. I think that Minnesota actually bought a flying tanker partly because of the threat of fires in the BWCA and the rest of Minnesota forests because of the leftover mess in the Superior National Forest.

There are many western states that are preparing for a fight with the US congress to stop holding so much land in those western states. There are proposals to turn over much of those federal land holdings to the states where some can be put to productive use and back on the tax rolls. And especially so those lands can be better managed for the public good which does include using some of the vast resources that reside on those lands. Far preferable to letting it burn.

Rocky_Ranger · February 06, 2009, 08:39:40 PM

Somebody hit on the answer – log export restrictions and the fact it is west of the 100th meridian. Meaning, branding and painting is required unless waived. Also, the logs are not "really" paid for until scaled. They do have a payment bond covering the amount of timber to be cut and decked over a 30 day period or so. Don't blame the forest service for this, back in the 50's and 60's when all these logs were going over seas the mill workers got Congress to add this little enlightenment to all Federal contracts. Seems it kept a few more jobs on the mainland until "the owl" undone everything. I used to scale mill deck and yard back in the late 70's, couldn't be bought neither. I was a Fed back then (nothing has changed, really), five mills in one town, now there are none. Scalers kept track of all logs not just the Feds by the brands; otherwise the loggers wouldn't know how much they were moving or what they made per load. That thick chunk of Sears catalog that make up a timber sale contract is basically written to cover the interests of the American public. Too bad in a way, but just is........

Rocky_Ranger · February 06, 2009, 08:53:15 PM

You folks need to come visit a real forest service where we cut 100 million board feet/year, are growing 150 million board feet/year, have Wilderness areas, ground as steep as a cows face, Wild and Scenic Rivers, more deer, turkeys and bear than you can count, and on and on...... When we have salvage, we can respond in as little as two weeks. Attitude is partially where a person is located in our great big beautiful country, we're not all cut from the same cloth when it comes to management strategies. Timber prices are in the toilet right now and the mills and loggers are struggling to keep treading water. We're doing everything we can to make sure groceries remain on the tables for our hard working timber industries. Just come'on down and check out the Ouachita......

Tillaway · February 06, 2009, 08:55:52 PM

Riggin Rat

You are not the only one not getting a purchase order. I have sold 5 salvage sales with the same problem. Mills are not buying. Some guys have about 70 loads decked before they ran out of money to pay the crews. They are not going to log anymore until the current bunch makes it to the mill. If and when the mills start up again I will bet if you are a new log supplier to the mill they will not buy them. You can't expect them to take your logs if the regulars are not able to sell theirs. They will play favorites.

See if you can get your timber sale administrator to scale the logs and approve alternate delivery locations, like your back yard. Their hands could be tied but it does not hurt to ask.

There is a small demand for 18" or greater min 6 ring count DF log. If you have them there is a good price available. A couple of mills are running low on logs. Small spruce is selling too but the price is truly awful.

Gary_C · February 06, 2009, 09:21:40 PM

Rocky Ranger, what forest service is that you work for?

I just remembered another part of the problem with the BWCA and the way the USFS manages the US Forests. The state of Minnesota has for many years owned land inside the area that congress designated as the Boundary Waters. The state land prior to the BWCA designation had been managed by MN DNR and was designated as School Trust Lands where the proceeds from any logging or other resource activity is to go to support public education in the state. With the ban on logging in the BWCA that source of revenue has been lost. The state has tried for years to get the feds to reimburse Minnesota for that lost income, but I don't believe their efforts have been sucessful. So the result has been a "taking of land" from the people of the state of Minnesota.

I absolutely think it is time for the US Congress to turn much of those vast land holdings over to local control. Then the USFS could have less land to screw up.

Rocky_Ranger · February 06, 2009, 09:31:15 PM

US Forest Service! Part of BWCA is the designations that made that thing what it is. Once again, the USFS can't designate these lands as Wilderness, that has to come from Congress. And, they don't think of these things themselves, they have too many folks telling them what they need to do and not enough telling them to hold their horses for a spell. You won't see forest service lands being turned over to states - constitution won't allow it. Called Federalism (sovereignty).
Federalism is a system in which the power to govern is shared between national and state governments, one can't take the others mittens (or knitten), etc. There are some examples of co managing federal lands in Colorado and supposedly Oregon called Good Neighbor Authority. I used it a lot in Colorado and it worked well. It allowed the state to sell and administer forest service timber. Was part of a funding bill in 2001 and extended until 2011, I believe. That's about as close as you'll find for what you are thinking..........

Tillaway · February 06, 2009, 10:17:47 PM

Rocky,
Good Nieghbor Authority... it is available in Oregon... maybe. That has got my wheels a turning. Any links or FS publications on this? Details man... I need details. ;D ;)

Gary_C · February 06, 2009, 11:39:06 PM

Rocky, that is what I thought, but your description of what you were doing did not sound like it was compatible. ;D Good for you if that is true.

Yes the BWCA is a great place although the locals did not agree. Many believe they lost a lot when congress made that designation and the state was also not happy either when it effectively lost their income from those trust lands with no reimbursement. That may be one of the reasons why the U of M did that study five years after that July 4 storm and was so critical of the USFS management of the BWCA. There are still some hard feelings about that designation.

I know there will be a tough battle in congress to let go of some federal lands, but I would not be surprised if the issue does not arise sometimes soon. There is a huge disparity in both the amount and percent of federal lands in the east vs. west and it has been a festering issue since the Owl issue decimated many local economies in the west. There does need to be more local control over these federal lands.

SwampDonkey · February 07, 2009, 07:22:02 AM

The Feds here mostly manage National Parks, Native Lands, and Military Lands and some coastal property. In New Brunswick that isn't 10 %, I think the official figure is 2%. In Canada we have both Federal lands and Crown lands. Crown is managed by the province.

Rocky_Ranger · February 07, 2009, 08:15:29 AM

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/news/2008/world-water/CFSFGoodNeighbor.pdf

This is only for Colorado so I don't know if there is anything different in Oregon or not - Oregon is in the same authority. Congressman Wyden, I believe, sponsored the Bill in 2000. It worked very well in Colorado, it depends on a managers how they use it. I stumbled onto it in 2001 working with CSFS and found out nobody knew anything about it. Looked like a good opportunity to adapt it like ya want to so, we did.

Forest Service has about 193 million acres in the US, seems like around 15% of that is Wilderness.