ATTN: NH Foresters and Loggers

[mrnero]

Mrnero, what kind of vehicle do you drive?

1999 tahoe, last of the 2 doors. I get under 50 miles per gal :D :D
Its enviromental dark blue in color  ;D ;D and I use summer air in my tires year round. 8) 8) Two more payments and I own it  : :

[woodmills1]

I did not put the adress for comments in my post because all comments needed to be submitted by Nov 20 which came and went long before I put up the post.  My point was that I could not find any more recent info about the revisions to the stream crossings.

[DanG]

Congrats on the impending payoff of the truck, mrnero. 8) 8)

Now I'm going to assume that the speedometer on that truck goes up to 120mph, implying that the truck will go that fast.  How would you feel about it if you had to pay for a 120mph speeding ticket every time you enter a roadway?  If that was the case, you probably wouldn't drive very much, would you?  That absurd scenario is exactly the same thing you are proposing with this oppressive stream crossing rule...fining someone in advance for something they may or may not do in the future.

The stream crossing issue doesn't only come up when you are logging wetlands.  There are plenty of situations where you have to cross a stream when dry-land logging too.  It is plain to me that this rule was written with the intention of stifling logging in general, by a bunch of whiners who haven't a clue of what good Forestry practices are all about.

[mrnero]

Congrats on the impending payoff of the truck, mrnero. 8) 8)

Now I'm going to assume that the speedometer on that truck goes up to 120mph, implying that the truck will go that fast.  How would you feel about it if you had to pay for a 120mph speeding ticket every time you enter a roadway?  If that was the case, you probably wouldn't drive very much, would you?  That absurd scenario is exactly the same thing you are proposing with this oppressive stream crossing rule...fining someone in advance for something they may or may not do in the future.
Answer; Let me see, If I was to get a 120 mile per hr speeding ticket every time I entered the roadways or what we call as "public right of way" I would then probably start to consider using the bike trails to drive on. ;D ;D

The stream crossing issue doesn't only come up when you are logging wetlands.  There are plenty of situations where you have to cross a stream when dry-land logging too.  It is plain to me that this rule was written with the intention of stifling logging in general, by a bunch of whiners who haven't a clue of what good Forestry practices are all about.

Answer; "There are plenty of situations where you have to cross a stream when dry-land logging too." (e.g.; crossing a wetland area to log or harvest logs from a dry area. That is an excellet point that I didn't consider before. This would be simular to the same scenario as I seen on the discovery channel as logging in Alaska. I gather, its more costly to build wood lot roads and apply for wetland crossing permits in Alaska, so therefore they fly the logs out to a landing that accessable by logging trucks via a helicopter. If this logging method been working for years in Alaska, then this same harvesting method should work here in NH and maybe other parts of the country. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I also saw this same helicopter logging practises in western Canada a few months ago. I'm sure there will allways be a better solution in the logging industry than we presently have.
PS; btw, you are right, I really dont have a clue or experience on any good logging or forestry practices. I guess most of you allready know that by now.

[Tom]

C'mon DanG!   you're trying to put individual responsibilities into this. Where is all the money going to come from if you keep doing that? I  hadn't thought of the speeding ticket thing.  If those toll booths get put up at the border and the tariffs imposed, that fine against the possibility of exceeding the speed limit could be imposed there at the toll boot.  Furthermore, if it were to be called a permit (for the use of the road) then fines imposed at the time of the speeding violation could still  be imposed.   There's lots of money to be had here, assuming that the borders will continue to be crossed and that current population remains.  

Have you looked at some of the opportunities provided by the Mass.(es)?  They have 3.2 million acres of private forests as opposed to 285,000 acres of State Forests.  So, the imposition of strict rules in the State forests would be easy to get and they would, by default, fall over into the private sector where all of that money is being held, just for the taking. "The Department of Conservation and Recreation is accepting applications and nominations for a member vacancy of the Forester Licensing Board.  ...Duties of Board members include examining the credentials of license applications and investigate license complaints on a volunteer basis."  That already insures that Foresters can be held beneath the thumb of the agency.

"In April 2009, Scientific Certification Systems (SCS), a certification body accredited by the
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), was retained by the Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs to conduct a re-certification evaluation of the 550,000 acres of forest lands
managed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and the Division of Fisheries
and Wildlife (DFW). Certification by the FSC is professional acknowledgment that the
landowner is practicing responsible forest management that is environmentally appropriate,
socially beneficial, and economically viable."  It would be just a small move to include the private acreage and intimidate those landowners into higher taxes.  See how this works?  You just have to think ahead a little.  As long as it's the Government that is Allowing the ownership, freedom, or whatever, rather than the individual, being assumed to just have it, then the impositions become much easier.  After a while they just lay down and give up, kinda like an Opossum when you stomp your foot.

"Please contact Tom Ryan at 413-784-1828 ext. 123 or tom.ryan@state.ma.us if you
have questions concerning the application-nomination process or the Forester
Licensing Board duties and responsibilities."  Getting lined up with this board might insure that you have an easier time holding onto your Forester License. There seems to be one seat open.

Do you want to be a Forest Steward?

To enroll in the Stewardship Program you will engage a licensed consulting forester...

Individuals, joint owners, groups and associations, non-profits, long term lease holders, and corporations without publicly traded stock are all eligible. Owners principally engaged in the primary processing of raw wood products are not eligible.

There is no minimum acreage, except that properties of less than 10 acres are not eligible for Forest Stewardship Plan preparation cost-sharing. Participating landowners may own a maximum of 1,000 acres, (or up to 5,000 acres with a special waiver).

I know this all sounds like a helping hand, but you won't find this information readily available to the public.  They have to know where to look.  So, any rules imposed could happen well before the public knew of them.  Then, when the need for funds arises, the permits are already in place and all that would be needed would be the raising of the tariff.   Easy, huh?

I know we don't have much of a chance of getting involved in MA politics.  Lord only knows, they would hold 2 1/2 strikes against a Southern appearance anyway.  But we have this Mrnero fellow who is already convinced that the Government taking money is a valid tack, so maybe we could get aligned with him and get some kind of consultant fees, when he gets in a position of authority.  I'll see you in the back room of the meeting hall later and we can discuss it.

[chevytaHOE5674]

so therefore they fly the logs out to a landing that accessable by logging trucks via a helicopter. If this logging method been working for years in Alaska, then this same harvesting method should work here in NH and maybe other parts of the country.

I'll bet that NH doesn't have enough valuable trees to warrant a helicopter. Running a heli is expensive, so they (Alaska, Canada, Western states) cut large trees that are worth a lot of money, they also cut large acreages (100's-1000's of acres), and harvest huge volumes of logs.

A 5-10 acre parcel that has a ditch that needs crossing (thus needing a 5k permit) wouldn't generate enough revenue off the entire harvest to pay for 5 minutes of heli time.

[mrnero]

Mrnero, what kind of vehicle do you drive?

Guessing a Prius or Aveo or something along those lines.

I was thinking more of a hybrid (spelling??) or maybe a solar motorized bicycle !!

[mrnero]

so therefore they fly the logs out to a landing that accessable by logging trucks via a helicopter. If this logging method been working for years in Alaska, then this same harvesting method should work here in NH and maybe other parts of the country.

I'll bet that NH doesn't have enough valuable trees to warrant a helicopter. Running a heli is expensive, so they (Alaska, Canada, Western states) cut large trees that are worth a lot of money, they also cut large acreages (100's-1000's of acres), and harvest huge volumes of logs.

A 5-10 acre parcel that has a ditch that needs crossing (thus needing a 5k permit) wouldn't generate enough revenue off the entire harvest to pay for 5 minutes of heli time.

"............wouldn't generate enough revenue off the entire harvest to pay for 5 minutes of heli time. ChevytaHoe, Ever think of renting a cheeper or smallerhelicopter ?? or maybe logging smaller acre parcels with larger kite's ?? 8)

[Tom]

Mrnero,
Helicopter logging is very expensive.  If "all" trees were taken by helicopter, you wouldn't be able to afford your house.  Besides, sometimes Helicopters fall out of the air and all the permits in the world won't stop it.  If you require that helicopters get special permits to log, just in case they fall out of the sky and spew fuel in a pristine lake or mash trees, or cause forest fires or endanger people on the ground, then that operation could be stopped as well.   That's the biggest problem with the "environmental" movement.  Those who claim to be acting in the cause of environmentalism only pick some detrimental thing to fight, that they can see from the road, without giving much thought to the long term results of their proposed actions. Taken to their extremes, they have the human race being a detriment to the environment and the resulting opinion that there should be no human race.  

It is little known, because of all of the turmoil caused by these groups, but Foresters are environmentalists. Rather than shooting from the hip, they have gone to school to accumulate generations of knowledge in leaving the forest a better place. Loggers aren't usually Foresters, but the legitimate ones are environmentalists too.  If they destroy the forest, its the same as the soldier who craps in his mess kit.  He has to know how to use the tools of his trade and will rely on the instructions of a Forester for guiding the harvest.   Logging is a messy proposition and doesn't fare well in the eyes of most Urbanites who are used to "order" and neatness and places of disposal, with the work being done by "someone else".   A logged property looks to be a mess alongside of the judgments of those people. Actually, the forest will benefit from some of the same situations that the untrained think of as detrimental.  Streams aren't intentionally dirtied, but those that do get dirty clean themselves. It's natures way of passing nutrients down stream and nature's way of keeping house.  We don't stop to look at it that way until we can blame a "man" for the unsightly site.   Of course we judge unsightly by what, an opinion made by an untrained eye?  Forests develop in human generations, not snapshots in time.  Those same limbs left in the tailings of a harvest would have naturally been dropped where they lay anyway.  And, just as those that fell naturally, the tailings will return to the soil as well.  Why doesn't it look good?   It's because we humans think that the floor should be swept and that the furniture should all go back where it was in the beginning and that the janitor should not leave any footprints on the carpet.

We all do a lot of Monday morning quarter-backing.  Every one of us who has bought a sawmill has pointed out things we would have done differently.  Nobody buys a car that does everything they want.  Even our best friends will tick us off now and again, and it's all because we stop gathering the information at some point to make a decision rather than looking beyond to the end.

The fellows on this board, while not all college trained, have a different viewpoint of the Forest floor than someone who sees the forest from a window in town.  While their social skills might not be pristine, they don't want the woods torn up.  It's easy to anger them because they care so much.  They also see a bit down the road.   "Environmentalists" seem to enjoy picking on little points of contention to make other's squirm. When they don't have to suffer the results of their picking, their intimidation, their fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants rules, it makes it a game.  They become the consultant who is the bird that craps in another bird's nest and leaves.  But, it's not a game to those who make their living there and can be a dangerous ploy.  

You know what scares me worse than the logger who muddied the stream?   It's the short-sighted, politically correct actions and views formed by the untrained bureaucracies of the Federal, State and City governments who are interested in making mandates that will threaten the freedoms of private ownership for generations to come.   We must all be careful of that which we wish.  

[woodmills1]

Here is a link to the man many consider to be the first conservationist/environmentalist and he was a forester

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot

[SwampDonkey]

The department of the Environment, UNB, and Service NB have built a wetland prediction layer (WPL) of the entire province of New Brunswick and is available for viewing on the GEONB map view website.  http://geonb.snb.ca/geonb

Some screen shots from GEONB website.









As the site explains, the boundaries are not legal descriptions for location and area (scope) of a wetland. Any work around wetlands may require a notice of intent and application for a permit to the department of environment. The responsibility for identifying and complying with the laws is still on developer, logger, woodlot owner.

Don't you just love it when the government comes up with a new tool and steps back from any responsibility if someone uses it and screws up? :D :D

From what I have heard over the radio recently, is this has created confusion. The environment minister is hosting seminars around the province in the coming months. I wonder how many people are going to get the information they need and how long after these seminars does the memory of it fade and distort. I would not expect the minister to be doing much more than finding the flaws and hearing the complaints. She most likely knows little about wetlands or has the knowledge or expertise to make suggestions. ;)

[RPF2509]

Well chiming in from California - Regulations have inflated the cost of harvesting so much that a government approved harvest plan can cost $20K and up and take over a year for approval.  Stream crossing permits are $1200 for each.  Helicopters won't move in unless you have 1/2 million bf and will cost $3-400/ mbf.  Fortunately smaller landowners have some relief in the regulations but the crossings will still cost you.  Maybe that's why CA imports 80% of its lumber.

[SwampDonkey]

The Minister of Environment announced a reprieve March 18, on the new mapping and regulations which had declared 23% of the land cover as wetland, 50 meter buffer (from 30 m), and required site assessment. It will now be using  DNR  forestry mapping which indicates 6% of the land cover as designated wetlands, and both the 30 meter buffer and permit application as before. The only difference is the old maps will not be used, they had 4% wetlands. The meetings around the province have been packed with a lot of upset folks over the proposed changes, and the folks in the Saint John meeting applauded the Minister for reverting back to the status quo. Environmentalists did a little whining, but that's expected.