iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

For and Against Forest Certification

Started by Tom, June 28, 2010, 02:54:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tom

In an effort to continue an on-going relationship with the forestry Stewardship Program, I proposed an opinion, questioning the value of forest certification.  My cohort within the program replied:


Hi Tom, I’ll comment on the USGBC issue first.  Certification isn’t the problem.  The problem, as you pointed out, is the USBGC’s LEED building product standards (not forestry standards) only recognize one certification system for forest management (wood production), that is Forest Stewardship Council, which leaves wood from the vast majority of US forests disqualified.  This is an outrage as FSC audits are extremely costly and their standards are not appropriate to the scale of most US landowners.  FSC has basically hijacked the system, and it’s more about money than being “green”.  This is a huge problem.   The big point here is wood is the most sustainable and “green” building product out there and should be recognized as such by LEED standards.  We can’t change society’s or the construction industry’s desires to want to build energy-efficient buildings.  I think this is a good thing.  But we can speak up and make sure that wood is a player in this tremendous and growing market.  It takes a lot more energy to produce concrete and steel than it does to produce lumber, and wood is RENEWABLE.  Green standards need to recognize this and they currently do not (under USGBC standards).  That’s the problem and it is virtually eliminating a market for forest landowners. 


There were embedded hyperlinks provided here for contact with gov. officials, etc. but I couldn't get the links to copy.  I'll figure out something later, perhaps, even though the deadlines for reply are July 4th.
  Tom

http://www.forestfoundation.org/press_green_building_counil.html
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/leed/

Regarding your comment about certification being equal to more government involvement in private forestry, I disagree.  Certification systems are voluntary, and their standards and operations are developed and carried out largely by private or nongovernment entities such as the forest industry, consultants, NGOs (like Florida Forestry Association), forestry colleges and such.  That is the case with SFI and Tree Farm, the most common certification systems in the US.  In Florida, members of the FL Forestry Association, which is primarily an industry and landowner association, administers the SFI and Tree Farm programs.    The only government-sponsored  “certification” program, the Forest Stewardship Program (which funds me), isn’t even a true certification program because it does not have a set of uniform standards.  Each state operates it differently.  In some states you get certified if you have a management plan (written by agency or private consultant).  In others the agency subjectively certifies landowners based on how much of their plan has been implemented (which is how FL works).



Anyway, hope all this clarifies the issue and inspires some action.  We need all the help we can get on this one.  Spread the word.


Texas Ranger

Quote from: Tom on June 28, 2010, 02:54:40 PM
Regarding your comment about certification being equal to more government involvement in private forestry, I disagree.  Certification systems are voluntary, and their standards and operations are developed and carried out largely by private or nongovernment entities such as the forest industry, consultants, NGOs (like Florida Forestry Association), forestry colleges and such.   

The camels nose will be in the tent, and there will be requirements to be "green" that will become more intrusive into private land ownership.  An example was that some cost shares on pond improvement on private property opened the land up for private use.

There will be a battle as to who may certify and by what rules.

I am not in favor of certification unless by a totally free organization, tree farm might work, but again, I am from the government and am here to help you, keeps coming to mind.
The Ranger, home of Texas Forestry

OneWithWood

I concur with Tom's cohort.  Whoever it is has a good take on the situation in my opinion.

There is currently a letter being circulated in Congress by Reps. Schrader and Goodlatte addressing the issue of USGBC and their LEED certification. 

Here is a copy of the letter:

Support Full Inclusion of Wood Products in LEED Standards
[/b]
From: The Honorable Kurt Schrader
Sent By: ethan.pittleman@mail.house.gov
Date: 6/18/2010
Dear Colleague:

American-made wood products grown on our nation's family forests and other timberlands are an important environmentally-friendly building material for the growing green building market. Wood products manufacturing also supports over 1 million dependable, family-wage jobs in rural America.

Unfortunately, one of the nation's largest certifiers of green buildings, the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), oversees a green building standard known as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, which discourages the use of American-made wood products in green building construction. The federal agencies that Congress oversees are supporting this standard as evidenced by the over 30 percent of all LEED certified buildings owned or occupied by the United States federal government—including buildings constructed by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

If builders wish to use wood products in their LEED certified building, they are awarded the wood certification credit only if they use products certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which are represented in only 28 states. LEED fails to give credit for wood products from two of the largest forest certification systems in the United States: The American Tree Farm System (AFTS) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), which together certify over 80 million acres.

Please join us in asking the USGBC to recognize wood products from all credible American forest certification systems in their standard and give greater recognition to the environmentally-friendly attributes of wood products. 

For more information about the letter or to sign on, please contact Ethan Pittleman (ethan.pittleman@mail.house.gov) in Congressman Schrader's office at #55711 or Brent Blevins (brent.blevins@mail.house.gov) in Congressman Goodlatte's office at #55770.

Sincerely,



________________                                                    _________________
KURT SCHRADER                                                    BOB GOODLATTE
Member of Congress                                                    Member of Congress



I would encourage everyone to contact their Representative and ask them to co-sign this letter.  I believe there is a July 1 deadline so please act promptly.
One With Wood
LT40HDG25, Woodmizer DH4000 Kiln

cdemers

Tom's cohort here - thanks for posting that letter - very helpful.  Contact your Reps with that.  The time is right to get this thing fixed so that more landowners can take part in this market.

Regarding the camel's nose in the tent - unfortunately that's among the hard realities now.  I guess I'm a camel  being funded by a forestry agency program.   So please excuse my nose in the tent.  I also wear the landowner hat (if only by marriage).  In Florida and other states the people in the state forestry agencies are also members of the forestry association so you are absolutely right, the camel's nose is indeed in the tent.  That said, private foresters, landowners and industry are also in the tent and have as much weight, if not more (dare I say it) in delivering the Tree Farm and developing the standards.   So, in the case of Tree Farm and SFI the playing field is reasonable for private rights.

For the sake of being a devil's advocate and putting on my camel hat, if the state decided, for some reason, to adopt certification standards, it would be to our (landowners') benefit if those standards were developed by this mix of landowners, foresters, industry and forestry agency people, rather than bureaucrats alone or a group who is interested peripherally in forest conservation but doesn't have the interests of landowners or industry in mind.  That's why it's important for Tree Farm and SFI, which represent landowner and industry interests, to be recognized by LEED standards. 

Of course, and taking my camel hat off, being more of the free market and liberty mindset, I'd very much prefer certification staying voluntary and if landowners can gain some product price premium for being certified, all the better.  But the "green" movement is not going away.   It is growing and unfortunately becoming institutionalized, where it loses its meaning and reason and becomes more coercive and prohibitive than constructive.  I see landowner/forestry associations, SFI and Tree Farm as organizations by which landowners and industries can assert and maintain their rights and communicate the benefits their lands provide to society.  I think the bottom line is we (landowners) will have to be organized in order to maintain our rights in the long run.  Whether that organization is by way of associations, certification or some combination, or something else altogether, is a debate I'm interested in taking part in.

Tom

Welcome to the Forestry Forum!

This is a good subject, one that has been bantered about here for some time.   We have both Pro and con on board, so the discussion should be interesting.

I'm of a  mind that anything the "Industry" can do to promote Foresters, is in the best interest of us all.  Forestry "organizations" tend to just talk to the choir.  The SAF even pulled its newsletter from open distribution to keep their politics behind closed doors.  Little is known of stewardship programs or forestry/agricultural programs  by the general public.  It would astound some to read current news releases from the USDA and determine that bureau's direction.

Here is an opportunity for Foresters to be promoted by actually speaking up for their Industry and the people.

I look forward to everyone's take on what we will have to do to survive and what perceived freedoms we retain.

Sure am glad to have you aboard to join the voices of our other Forestry experts.  :)

Ron Wenrich

I have all sorts problems with certification.  First of all, there isn't that great of a demand for the products.  The only demand you're seeing generated is artificial and not from the consumer.  Its being regulated and steered by a third party.  Then, to boot, they want to tell you what is sustainable forestry and what isn't. 

Our state has their public forests certified by FSC.  That's 2 million acres of available timber.  But, ask the wood wholesalers how many inquiries they have for certified wood and they tell you none.  And these are guys who export to Europe.

We've exported logs and lumber to Europe, China, Canada, Vietnam and Pakistan, among others.  We also send veneer logs to plants in the US.  There has never been an inquiry for certified wood. 

Certification is a boom only to one group of people....the certification units.  FSC, Tree Farm, and SFI are vying for the honors.  Tree Farm and SFI are both industry units.  The green movement isn't going to recognize them.  They have more political clout.  Both have money, so the struggle continues.

I think the landowner should be take out of the equation.  Too much pressure for certification lies in the landowner and his pocketbook.  There is no financial return for the landowner at the other end.  But, they want him to jump through the hoops of having an audit and management plan.  The majority of landowners aren't all that interested.  If they were, they would have been enrolled in the Tree Farm system a long time ago. 

Who should be put into the equation is the forester and harvester.  They are the ones that are responsible for doing the work.  Certify the professionals and the rest takes care of itself.  If you want to sell certified work, these pros come in and do the work by the books.  The landowner gets a better job, the certifying agency has an easier job by auditing the pros, more forestland and products get certified, and the wood gets to market. 

I can't see how a mill is going to be able to sort out certified from non-certified wood.  We've had a few sawyers on this board that work in mills that do 1 MMbf/wk.  That's 40 loads per week.  How do you sort that out, and how do you keep the lumber separate?  The answer is you don't.  Put a premium on certified wood and I'll guarantee that there will be so much non-certified wood in the mix that the auditors won't be able to keep up with it. 

This whole thing is about bureaucracy and control.  If the FSC wants to regulate the forestlands, let them put their money into those lands, take the risks, pay the taxes and the management fees.  If you put too much bureaucracy and control onto the landowner, he will just opt out of managing the land completely.  But, maybe that's the goal. 

Getting off the soapbox for now. 
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

jim king

Here in the Amazon the FSC , WWF and many others classified as non profit organizationns are nothing but a joke and huge scandel.  When someone tells me that they are selling certified wood from the Amazon all one can do is laugh.

We have the same forestry law for the mountains, desert and the Amazon and there has never been a forestry study done to know what is out there.

This said it doesnt matter much as no one pays attention to that mess and just keeps on paying bribes and working as usual.  The only people that benifit from a certification program here are the crooks managing it and stealing the money.

I could go on for days on this subject.  The FSC certification and WWF money donated by the US government is without question the largest cause of the increase in cocaine production.  It is easier and more profitable to work in cocaine and slash and burn than get a permit to cut a tree on your own property.

Just Google "FSC Watch".   


Gary_C

As far as the LEED Standards are concerned, I think they should be thrown out rather than modified. They have been under attack from many professionals for at least two years that I know of and they are full of more politics than science, engineering, or just good plain common sense. Here are some comments I posted previously about LEED Standards.

There seems to be an increasing amount of criticism of the Green Building Council's LEED standard. Here is an excerpt from an article I saw a year ago.

The Green Building Council's LEED standard is being attacked because the 25 to 30 % reduction in energy use is "less than 50 % that a group of prominent architectural firms recently declared necessary and achievable." Plus "LEED's point rating system is capricious, rating measures such as providing a bike rack equally with buying 50 % of a buildings energy from renewable sources." And Jim Bowyer of the University of Minnesota points out that whereas the LEED standard favors steel framing with 35% recycled content over non recycled wood framing, this preference actually "would result in more than twice the energy consumption and more than four times the fossil fuel consumption to produce the framing members," in addition to proportionally higher waste emissions.

And Minnesota Govenor Pawlenty has sent a letter the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) regarding their Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards.  The LEED standard penalizes Minnesota family forestland owners by excluding timber products produced from the more than 1,800 tree farms in our state.  In the letter, Governor Pawlenty stated "I find it difficult to understand how a LEED-certified building that contains bamboo from overseas would be more sustainable than one that uses wood from a certified tree farm in Minnesota."  The governor strongly encouraged USGBC to reconsider the treatment of wood credits and recognize all credible forest certification programs in the LEED standard.  


And then there was this link that was also posted.

Prioritizing Green—It's the Energy Stupid*

And there is another article in that link tittled MIS-LEED-ING that tells about when you take the fradulent statements out of the data, that buildings constructed under the LEED Standards have essentially the same energy efficiency as any other building built under ASHRAE 90.1.

So what's the point in trying to improve a completely faulty building standard, even if they do call it "green?" I'd rather see it fall on it's face because of the many internal faults they have created.
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

SwampDonkey

Just wanted to add that there are several pulp mills in northern Maine that do look for a certain volume of certified wood. Huber is one that comes to mind, since it is a close mill. I have never seen a saw mill or veneer buyer yet ask for it. They come form Columbia and buy all the veneer hardwood they can get their hands on and none of it is certified. The only system we have that can trace the wood is our transportation certificate that had woodlot tax ID number. You can go to an online map provided by Service New Brunswick and see where it came from. But, the woodlots are not certified by anyone. Most of that wood comes from clearcuts and high grades. Not that clearcuts are invalid because with something like fir and aspen it's "use it or loose it" and you can actually cut some sizable trees twice in your lifetime if you start young. ;) I've had fir here 18" in 45 years and 8" large tooth in 12 years. Hardwood however, once it cut it'll be a whole lifetime to get it 12" again. Birch is usually a fast growing tree, but yellow birch isn't. It's a denser wood than paper birch.
"No amount of belief makes something a fact." James Randi

1 Thessalonians 5:21

2020 Polaris Ranger 570 to forward firewood, Husqvarna 555 XT Pro, Stihl FS560 clearing saw and continuously thinning my ground, on the side. Grow them trees. (((o)))

Gary_C

As far as the certification part of this, I have been involved with certified wood in the pulp and paper supply chain for some years now and in spite of some misgivings at first, it seems to be going OK. In fact most all of the pulp I cut is from MN State lands and is certified and that has given me some advantage recently, only in my ability to get quota from some paper mills and not any price advantage. I have also had two of my jobs audited by the paper mill and was supposed to have one job audited by the SFI audit team but it rained that day and the auditors specifically asked to NOT see any more boring pine stands. It also seems like the COC requirements are now pretty much standard and you must have a load ticket as well as identify the location where the wood is coming from when you arrive at the mill.

And I have been told the third party that has driven this move to certification in the paper industry is Time, Inc. who is reported to be the largest single buyer of paper in the world.

But as Ron has said, in the hardwood lumber business there is seemingly no interest in certification at the present time.

The wild card in all this certification is going to be the private landowner. Since there is no financial incentive to get certified and it is so expensive to be certified and maintain that certification, it is hard to tell how this will progress. Certainly the American Tree Farm System is in an excellent position to have an effect on the outcome, it seems like it would be wise for all small woodland owners to belong and thus have a say in the outcome.
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

OneWithWood

Cedemers, welcome to the forum.  This is a good place to be.  Hopefully your post is the first of many  :)

Certification is the red herring in all this.  The real problem is the USGBC.  It would appear that the USGBC has a very anti management of forests agenda.  That agenda is helped by keeping wood products from having any meaningful point value in the LEED scheme.  This group has followed the example of some of the well intentioned but misguided and misinformed groups that have kept the USFS from doing the job that needs to be done in many of our national forests.  By convincing the federal government that LEED was a politically correct thing to do USGBC gained the upper hand. 

The fight to re-educate legislatures and the general public about the positive impacts of sustainable wood products in building design and construction will not be won without the groundswell of woodland owners coming together and engaging with members of Congress, state goverments and the general public.  The AFF has been active on this front for some years with Project Learning Tree.  PLT provides curricula to teachers in intermediate and high schools that enables a better understanding in students about forests and what forests mean to the world.

My woodlot is FSC, SFI and PEFC certified.  Due to my invovlement with the Indiana Classified Wildlands program and Tree Farm the certification comes at no cost to me.  I manage exactly as I did before - only now there is a bit more recognition and understanding of why I do what I do in my woods.  Though I may not see a direct financial reward for the certifications the management philosophy behind the certifications will ensure a higher quality of timber and that does equate to dollars.

Certification is not the main issue but it may be through certification the real issues come to light.
One With Wood
LT40HDG25, Woodmizer DH4000 Kiln

Ron Wenrich

But, most of those issues have been around for a really long time.  When I graduated from college, the issues of high grading, mono culture, habitat fragmentation, clear cutting and proper management were all with us.  40 years later we still have it.

The mantra since WWII was all we have to do is educate the landowner.  I've seen it tried several ways by the paper companies, forest associations, and government agencies.  I never saw the great groundswell of interest with the landowner.  I think there are 2 problems there.

The biggest problem is that no one really thinks about forest management until its time to cut trees.  Well, that's usually too late for the current cutting cycle, but not too late for the next one.  But, the landowner is more interested in getting the money he deserves and a little less interested in the management.  Landowners have no way in knowing they'll be getting a quality job.  After the harvest, its way too late.  Even then, they cling to the idea that they did right, even though they didn't.

The other problem is that over the course of the forest's lifespan there will be several owners.  Not all of them will have the same objectives, and usually there is someone who wants to liquidate the asset, whether its time of not.  Most often that's done right before the sale of the land.  If the forest is certified, but the harvest is not up to par, does the wood still carry the certification?  My guess is that it does.

If you can't get a groundswell of landowners interested in their own land, how are you going to get them interested in contacting their legislator?

Maybe its time for Smokey to get off his butt and do something besides preaching against wildfires.  Its the most successful campaign that the USFS has run.  Maybe he should be talking about the benefits of good management. 
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

SwampDonkey

Ok you guys. Who sent me the email from Brazil, about selling FSC certified wood, including price, product and species ready for sale. Some Dutch buyer is moving too slow on the offer. I've been offered the product, but for some reason the seller is setting the price. Can't be farming or forestry that I know. :D I suppose retail. I'll be like Irving and slash his price below production costs. :D :D

I kid you not.  ;D
"No amount of belief makes something a fact." James Randi

1 Thessalonians 5:21

2020 Polaris Ranger 570 to forward firewood, Husqvarna 555 XT Pro, Stihl FS560 clearing saw and continuously thinning my ground, on the side. Grow them trees. (((o)))

Samuel

Interesting question you pose Tom.  Since this is my day job, to look after the forest certification "stuff" at our organization (from organizing audits, system maintenance, internal audits, contractor training, etc), I for one would have to say I am definitely a supporter of forest certification.  Are all forest certifications equal or of the same rigor?  Not particularly- and depends entirely on your certification body.  I believe I have gone on more than one rant about FSC and its requirements on the FF in various posts, but simply put, FSC really has very little to do about on the ground forest principals, rather more of the social aspect ("warm and fuzzy feeling") side of forestry.

Do I disagree with public input into forest practices?  Absolutely not, especially when crown forests are owned by the public in essence, we just have a social license to operate in them.  Our woodlands (2.5+ million hectares) are certified to the CAN Canadian Standards Association (CSA Z-809) which rivals the American SFI system that perhaps more of you are familiar with.  Each management system (CSA and SFI) recognize each other and mills are able to feed each into the system and call the end product "certified", as long as they have a recognized "certified" chain of custody certification in place.  Anyhow...I digress...

As far as companies looking for certified products, that is a for certainty in the pulp markets for without it, we likely would not be able to sell most of our product, nor would we be as competitive on the world market. Many "niche" sawmills in our area are also getting pressures from the Ronas, Home Depots and Ikeas to become certified as they are starting to change thier fibre procurement policies and sourcing more and more certified raw materials for thier product lines.

As far as FSC vs. SFI & CSA, that was one of the main reasons for our company being a signatory on the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement with many other large forest companies, to come up with a certification standard that would put to bed the notion that there was only one certification- FSC.  Again Tom in his wisdom is right- these certification schemes are voluntary, however we as a company have recognized a number of cost savings (both direct and indirect) and business efficiencies since adopting an EMS (ISO 14001) and CSA certification over the past 6 years.

If anyone has any specific questions about certification, please feel free to drop me a line, post a question, or check out our company website www.prpd.ca as I post all certification related information, including certificates and audit reports for our customers and public to view.

____________________________________
Samuel B. ELKINS, RPFT (AB)
Senior Consultant (Owner)
Strategic HSE Systems Inc.
Web: HugeDomains.com - StrategicHseSystems.com is for sale (Strategic Hse Systems)
LinkedIn http://ca.linkedin.com/in/samuelelkins
Software Solutions-
DATS | Digital Action Tracking System by ASM

Tom

We seem to be brushing everything with a broad brush. 

Why do we need to be Certified?

What will it really mean to me, the small land owner?

In my mind, Certification indicates that something is being done wrong and someone who knows better is going to fix it.  Why do I need someone to vouch for my honesty?   Better yet, why does someone, who has nothing to do with my farm, think that they need to vouch for my honesty

Who is driving this idea that the lower rungs of the provider ladder need to be managed by an industry or user who is farther up the ladder?

Would it not make more sense for the end user to have to be certified and prove the legitimate use and final disposal of my product before I release it to him.  I'm sure that we could arrive at a price that I would accept if he could prove to some certifying body that he was not to cause a detriment to the earth.  I would even feel better about releasing my wares to an unknown if the certifier accepted the responsibility for its use.

Perhaps that is tongue-in-cheek, but not every grower of trees is on his knees begging someone to take his product off of his hands. As a matter of fact, there might even be some resentment there, if he is led to believe he must kowtow.

Gary_C

Tom, my simple answer to your question is there are not enough knowledgable and interested landowners of these smaller woodlots to be able to organize and dictate terms to buyers. Here in Minnesota there was a program that was produced by the Univ of Minnesota about "threats to our forests" and I don't think it was well received by the urban environmental activists. Probably because it did not name logging as the number one threat but rather concrete, asphalt, and parcelization of woodlands into weekend retreats for urban dwellers. And the program also said that these small parcels for the most part will never see any management again.

So you and the other small landowners are destined to be the tail of the dog that gets wagged and not the other way around. Seems that your fellow small landowners are either in it for the investment and are absentee landowners or they are there for the recrecration use only and wish to save the trees for eternity.
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

SwampDonkey

Right at present I haven't much wood for sale, but when the time comes I'll look at who is still standing and "negotiate" on volume and price, not have it dictated to me. ;D I'm a small woodlot owner and it's not a source for income to sustain my existence. So, I'm in a position to accept or reject any offers, I'll still be able to buy the groceries for the week. ;D That is the situation for the vast majority of small woodland owners, thus lack of participation for or against the wave of change.  ;)

Also, I would add that the government is responsible for many thousands of acres of clearcuts on small woodlots in this province. Inheritance taxes and liquidations to pay for senior citizen care, where the senior kept the land in his name until the end and either had no heirs nor deeded it over before they got too old. Government policy in the past was the seize all assets to pay your way, while the guy with nothing pays nothing. ::) It also provided sawmills owners opportunity to swoop in and get forest land cheap from tax sales. Once a mill gets it, it will become "industrial freehold" for ever. It's not that it won't be managed, it's the fact that the goal is to take from the many to put in the hands of the few. One mill comes to mind when we want to talk management. Why would a softwood mill buy hardwood and aspen lots to flatten them, is it management or money? ;)
"No amount of belief makes something a fact." James Randi

1 Thessalonians 5:21

2020 Polaris Ranger 570 to forward firewood, Husqvarna 555 XT Pro, Stihl FS560 clearing saw and continuously thinning my ground, on the side. Grow them trees. (((o)))

Tom

Certification of Forest lands seems to be a subject, whether a fix or a problem, in the news of every country. Canadians tend to mostly bring up the subject of "Crown Lands".  I'm supposing, without knowing for sure, that Crown Land is synonymous with National Forest in the United States.  Certification of the timber from National Forests in the United States is not really a part of the small land-owner equation, even though it might have been part of the foothold that began the movement against them.

If small landowners are considered the tail of the dog by loggers, Foresters and the Government, then I can see where you might think that it is an easy part of society to control.  In a scenario where we are considered tenant farmers, the dog wagging the tail might work.  That's because the people who consider themselves "the dog", think that they own the land.

I am one of those citizens who believes in the ownership of private property.  That includes the land, the buildings and the crops that are on it, "Heaven high and Hell deep".  When I sell my crops, the Government will get the due percentage of the proceeds.  But, because that money is due the government, does it give the government, its bureaucracies or big business, the right to meddle in its management beyond the laws set up for all citizens?

We speak of small landowner organization (Unionization).  The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP), The American Tree Farm System (ATFS) The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI),and The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), etc., as being voluntary.  Is it voluntary when the markets are set up such that there are penalties if one doesn't belong?  Are there penalties for not "belonging" to the Southern pine Inspection Bureau (SPIB)?  Will we be able to draw an analogy between tree farmers and the non-union mechanic who applies to a teamster shop?

The Forestry Forum has small landowners as members.  Would their involvement in this conversation be a measurement of activism, defensiveness, or complacency?

fishpharmer

cdemers, welcome to forestry forum, great to have someone of your knowledge and experience.

I am very interested in the "American Tree Farm System", thinking it was something of an organization representing private landowners. Apparently not.  Now I am relatively new to the concept of "forest certification" and have much to learn.  Tom and I share the same mindset concerning ownership of private property. Some feel behooved to dictate to others concerning private matters.  Seems like any "forest certification" should be voluntary.  Or eliminated altogether.  Yet, I, as stated have much to learn about the matter.

cdemers, as well as others I look forward to further discussion.
Built my own band mill with the help of Forestry Forum. 
Lucas 618 with 50" slabber
WoodmizerLT-40 Super Hydraulic
Deere 5065E mfwd w/553 loader

The reason a lot of people do not recognize opportunity is because it usually goes around wearing overalls looking like hard work. --Tom A. Edison

SwampDonkey

Tom, crown lands are held by the province (state). Most federal land is national parks, military bases, institutions (eg. Natural Resources Canada, Health Canada, Parliment, Fisheries and Oceans, Canada Post), light house property and maybe some lands in the far north.
"No amount of belief makes something a fact." James Randi

1 Thessalonians 5:21

2020 Polaris Ranger 570 to forward firewood, Husqvarna 555 XT Pro, Stihl FS560 clearing saw and continuously thinning my ground, on the side. Grow them trees. (((o)))

Tom

OK.  Crown Lands equate more to our State Forests.  I think I understand.

Jamie_C

Tom, pretty much 100% right ... what we refer to as "Crown Land" would be about the same as your "State Forests" with one major difference when it comes to forestry. There is no open bidding or closed bidding for harvesting timber on any Crown Lands here in Nova Scotia. Most of the Crown Land has been allocated to different pulp and saw mills for their exclusive harvesting rights with the exception of some protected areas.

BaldBob

Tom,
Although Crown Lands Are owned by the Provinces, their administration is not at all comparable to either our State or National Forests. Individual companies have licenses to specific tracts of Crown lands. Unlike our State or National Forests, where the controlling agency prepares timber sales and then puts them up for harvest by the highest bidder; on Crown Lands the licensee prepares the management plan (subject to Provincial approval) and determines what areas will be cut in a given time period, is responsible for most timber management activities on their license area, has exclusive rights to all timber cut on the license area, and pays a stumpage rate determined by the province.  In many areas, these license areas are large enough to essentially provide most- if not all - the supply needs of the licensee's mill(s) in that area. At least that's my understanding of the situation.

jim king

The FSC and the WWF are nothing but giant Ponzi schemes and do nothing here but steal money and legalize illegal wood.

SwampDonkey

Bob, pretty much summed it up Tom.  ;) That's one of the things that isn't fair here and makes you scratch your head when they still go broke.  ::) They actually don't go broke, they just go away when the government stopped giving more concessions. If you don't have a crown land license your procurement and management is a higher cost because you have no way in knowing where, when and how much for years down the road, only on a limited amount of freehold you may own will you be able to know these things. You have no say about how someones woodlot is managed.
"No amount of belief makes something a fact." James Randi

1 Thessalonians 5:21

2020 Polaris Ranger 570 to forward firewood, Husqvarna 555 XT Pro, Stihl FS560 clearing saw and continuously thinning my ground, on the side. Grow them trees. (((o)))

Thank You Sponsors!