Ideas for Leave Tree Marking?

[wbedient]

I work for a federal agency so we have to get accountability of our leave trees.  This means we either put paint on them or describe leave trees in the contract (called designation by description or D by D).  Lately we've been trying to figure out ways to make D by D work so we can save some time and get more volume.  Because of regulations, no tree over 21" DBH can be cut.   Also, we're doing selective harvesting  in second growth uneven terrain with high variable species mix and size classes.

We have a mix of species and a lot of disease.  We had the idea of using D x D to describe leave trees but are having trouble finding appropriate descriptions.

Example:  We would like to eliminate the painting of any trees over 21" by putting in the contract that the logger cannot cut any tree with a diameter over 24" at 4" above ground (approximate stump height).  The problem is we have a lot of larch that have butt swell and are 26" at the stump and only 17" at DBH.


Ideas?  Any other ways to mark more efficiently?

[beenthere]

What federal agency?

[Texas Ranger]

The old time reliable is to mark the take trees, or mark the leave trees, depending on type of cut.  But, that is in the commercial world, I realize feds do it differently.

[wbedient]

We currently mark every leave tree.  This costs a lot of money because of time and paint.  We also have a crew half the size it should be due to budget issues so we won't be able to complete our sale on time without getting innovative.

I work for the US Forest Service.

[Texas Ranger]

Paint levels the playing field, contracts are good in setting conditions, as long as both parties are straight up honest.

[beenthere]

I guess the USFS has forgotten about sampling techniques.
I'm aware that the enviro's have made the management of our timber very difficult and a good indication of that is having to mark every "leave" tree. Just no way that we, the taxpayer, can afford to do that. IMO

Will get all those trees marked, and someone will send in a postcard to a judge and bring the entire sale/operation to a halt. No cutting, at least as long as the paint lasts. Then do it all over again.

[wbedient]

Beenthere: I don't know what the sampling techniques comment is about.  I'm just talking about marking.

We are trying to use D by D because if we don't, that means timber sales won't make it out the door.  Trying to help loggers stay in business, mills stay in business and improve forest health.

We don't have the budget to paint every tree.  Sale administrators (who ensure contract compliance with the purchaser/logger) will have more work to do when we use D by D but what other options do we have?

[wbedient]

Texas Ranger:

Just to be clear, we have harvest inspectors which ensure the terms of the contract are being met (i.e. no timber trespass, no timber theft, all improvements are protected etc. etc.).

[Ron Scott]

Are all the unmarked or undesignated trees then to be cut? We usually selectively mark the trees to be cut.

[wbedient]

We currently mark a unit with one of two colors: "cut trees" with blue paint OR "leave trees" with orange.

Usually we mark the leave trees because more trees are being cut than are being left standing, so marking the leave trees saves us time and money.  So yes, in a leave tree marked unit any trees without orange will be cut.

If we've got a unit in which <50% of the trees will be cut then we'll use the blue paint.

[Rocky_Ranger]

Why use a stump height diameter limit instead of DBH?  If it is NEPA driven then run you a regression to compensate for the diameters due to butt swell (I know a young lady or two that have that), and use DBH.  D X D is difficult to pull off unless you have experienced operators.  Great for prep, but hell on the administration.  I wish we could do more D X D, but if that is what you really need to do then work with the loggers.  If it is more critical for meeting your desired future condition, I don't know any way around paint.  Leave tree always results in a better stand condition - always.........

[lumberjack48]

I've cut hardwood sales where everything 10" DBH had to be left. It was up to me to make sure they didn't get cut. I carried a cloth sewing tape in my pocket. If i wasn't sure by site, i'd grab the tape an measure it, if 29" cut it, and if 31" cut it. These were State sales out of Blackduck, MN. I'd worked with this office many yrs they trusted me, but they randomly checked. You all so could not skin up the stumps of these trees or look at a fine or triple stumpage.

The Federal sales in the Chippewa National Forest painted the take trees yellow DBH and the stumps to. When cutting you had to cut above the paint on the stump.
I got a Federal sale out of Cass Lake, MN. where the guy that marked it didn't take enough for a skidder to get around. I knew the head Ranger very good, he came out and told me it would take a week to remark it and cost x dollars
to do it. In stead of remarking he had me keep track of the trees i had to cut to get the skidder though. This was Norway Pine row cut, the rows were marked to narrow.

I went on a nice Norway pine sale, marked yellow the same as always. I'm cutting away and i thought boy this marked nice. This was before cell phones, so i ran in to town an called the Ranger Station. They sent a Ranger out to take a look at it, he's looking an starts shaking his head. Here who ever marked it marked the leave trees, i guise they have Green Horns to. They were sure glad i stopped cutting.

[Ron Scott]

What did the sale prospectus and contract say on what trees were to be cut? Didn't they make any mention of the leave tree marking?

[lumberjack48]

This was Co. bought timber, i counted what i had to take. The Ranger stoped out twice a week to get the count from me. The Co. payed stumpage by an estament on how many trees per cord, by the 10 cord loads, 120 trees a load, 12 trees per cord. They payed the stumpage rate for Norway pulpwood at the time.
The Ranger trusted me on the count, if he would have found a reason not to, they could have gone back an counted all the stumps with out paint on them.

NO, at the time i had about 20 yrs of cutting marked pine, this is why i knew something wasn't right, it was marked to get to be true. This kind of marking had nerver been used in the CNF at that time.

[BaldBob]

Many years ago, the timber company that I worked for was so unhappy with the quality of the marking - both silviculturally and operability wise - on one particular NF, that we convinced the Region 6 timber staff to come out and see for themselves. We were all in a bus that we had provided, and toured a number of units while they listened to our complaints. The region timber staff stayed pretty tight lippped throughout. On the way out we went by a small unit that had just been felled that day.  The head of timber for the region said "Stop". "Now look at that. There's an example of a perfectly marked shelterwood cut. They picked excellent trees to leave, well spaced, and I can't see anything wrong with that marking job."
Both the FS Timber Sale Administrator and our logging supervisor turned red and held their mouths tightly shut. It seems that the contract called for that unit to be cut tree marked, while it had been felled as if it was leave tree marked unit.

[Pullinchips]

I work for a federal agency so we have to get accountability of our leave trees.  This means we either put paint on them or describe leave trees in the contract (called designation by description or D by D).  Lately we've been trying to figure out ways to make D by D work so we can save some time and get more volume.  Because of regulations, no tree over 21" DBH can be cut.   Also, we're doing selective harvesting  in second growth uneven terrain with high variable species mix and size classes.

We have a mix of species and a lot of disease.  We had the idea of using D x D to describe leave trees but are having trouble finding appropriate descriptions.

Example:  We would like to eliminate the painting of any trees over 21" by putting in the contract that the logger cannot cut any tree with a diameter over 24" at 4" above ground (approximate stump height).  The problem is we have a lot of larch that have butt swell and are 26" at the stump and only 17" at DBH.


Ideas?  Any other ways to mark more efficiently?

Only read your post no replies yet.  But sounds like you work for the forest service!  Im a Fed forester my self, i work in timber harvest and supervise harvest contracts.

I worked while in grad school for a forester who bought diameter by distribution or spacing sales. There were a nightmare. I was the guy that marked them for his loggger so that he could avoid penalties by the logger messing up. They had no trees over 18" to be cut 3" from base or something like that. The spacing i think was like 12 feet or so?? That is the most screwed up marking system there is. Since i was privite industry side then, we highgraded that stand when ever possible, since all i was told to go by was the stum diameter. If a junked up tree with a big stump was by a smaller healthy tree we HAD to leave the cankered bigger tree. 2 trees side by side, one CNS the other Crooked pulp tree, same diameter, we left the pulp and took the CNS.

In my opinion it was the stupidist way to mark timber but on the hole the stand looked decent in the end. Then in typical forest service fashon they burned the [I have typed a profane word that is automatically changed by the forum censored words program I should know better] out of the stand and killed everything on the ridges in a stand with barely any burn history.

I like op select or marking it.

[BaldBob]

This thread brought to mind another tree marking/cutting incident that I experienced many years ago. It's humorous in retrospect, but at the time I didn't find it so funny.
We were logging a timber sale that, before it was sold but after it had been laid out and marked, had suffered an outbreak of Douglas-fir Tussock Moth. So prior to selling it, they re-marked the trees to account for the dead and damaged trees. And then after the sale sold, but before it was awarded they had to re-mark it again to address some issues raised in an appeal by an environmental group. The result was four different colors of paint used on some units (including Black to "erase" some marks).
Shortly after we started cutting I got a call from the FS Timber Sale Administrator telling me that we had cut 6 trees in trespass on one of the units. I rushed out to meet him on that job to see what was up. Sure enough there were 6 trees on the ground that were marked with the wrong color paint. I collared our logging contractor and had him bring over the cutter assigned to that strip.  Long story short, that cutter was color blind.
We quietly paid the fines and damages and that cutter found another line of work.

[Ron Scott]

I've had that problem with a color blind operater on a processor. The cut trees were marked with blue paint and he couldn't see blue. The trees had to be remarked with another color ahead of him. ;D 

[wbedient]

Thanks for the responses and interesting stories.  Just to clarify: we usually mark leave trees.  All marked trees will have a butt mark and a band at DBH.  This prevents timber theft because if a tree was stolen the stump would have paint left on it and our harvest inspectors would catch it.

The only reason we're looking to use "designation by description" is to save marking time, but at this point it doesn't look like a tool that is very well suited to our stands, prescriptions and operational restrictions. 

[Pullinchips]

I totally understand the reason behind it, and if you probably have fairly equal distribution and similar diameters and quality of trees will end up ok.  I mean we operator select quality pine thats 80 years old. its the stupidist method i know of, but we end up with a decent stand in the end, most trees are quality, and we dont have the money to mark it either way. 

I only have a small pool of loggers that work on our property anyway and all are trusted. If i see one i dont like, i correct and try to show them they way it needs to be done based on contract spacing etc, if they still dont comply i kick them off and get another crew.

The problem with The DxD thing is that its an ADmin nightmare that i see, you need way to many people that would be thier job to check behind them and then talk each new contractor though how confusing that it is.  I see you also taking way less money for the timber cause in my case i was just marking it for the purchasing contractor. 

The USFS pays one way or the other, either in house through marking or in the sale of timber at a lower stumpage rate cause the buyer will have to mark it then anyway. I would get a markiing contract like they do around here and mark it the way you want it before its sold.

Also stumps marks are not fool proof, paint gets pulled off from skidding, they cut them really low, but if you have doubts you do not need that logger.  My contracters if they have to cut leave trees call me and tell me. We cut them but most of my sales are by the ton so we get paid anyway, not like a lumpsum where you have to talley them up and price them out.

[beenthere]

Thanks for the responses and interesting stories.  Just to clarify: we usually mark leave trees.  All marked trees will have a butt mark and a band at DBH.  This prevents timber theft because if a tree was stolen the stump would have paint left on it and our harvest inspectors would catch it.The only reason we're looking to use "designation by description" is to save marking time, but at this point it doesn't look like a tool that is very well suited to our stands, prescriptions and operational restrictions.

A thief can't simply remove the paint mark?
As pullinchips points out, way too much administrative cost.  I like the "trust the logger" or get someone else on the job.

[Pullinchips]

As i pointed out and others its just the cost to do business, some higher ups dont like that answer though.

As i pointed out, your not going to end up with a total junk of a stand in the DxD method but as i pointed out when on the private side of things we took every opertunity to take the "better" tree when allowed to by the contract specs. All they went by was stump diameter remember. So you could often times leave a low value pulp tree and take several smaller yet saw timber trees from around it, and all this was specified in the wording.  Also like i pointed out it was crazy like always a tree is markers choice but this case its a marker with a vested interest. Two identical trees same stump Dia  the lesser quality tree is left and i take the better one. 

Thats the part that i did not like about it.  But the stands i marked looked good after all the timber was removed!!  Untill the FS sent fire through there and burt the trees on the ridges and had it crown out killing them all.  ;D

[BaldBob]

I'm pretty sure that the stand types and species mix of the industrial timberland that I managed in the Blue Mts of NE Oregon/SE Washington for many years are very similar to your conditions. We were always looking for ways to lower our cost of doing business - including timber marking. In over 25 years the number of units that we were able to use what you call Designation by Description while achieving our desired post harvest stand conditions  and lowering overall costs (marking costs+ administration costs + logging costs) was in the low double digits - out of probably 1000 -1500 units total..  It requires a stand without excessive variability in the trees to be designated (either cut or leave) and specifications that are easy for the contractor to understand and follow. It's not easy to find those conditions, especially if you have large units with a variety of conditions. Sometimes you can carve out smaller units to meet these criteria, but if too small, the added boundary marking effort needed overcomes the marking savings. About the only place it worked well was when we wanted to strongly discriminate  or strongly favor trees of a specific species, e.g " Cut all merchantable Lpp and GF. Leave all live merchantable DF, WL, PP, & WWP. not marked with Blue paint."

[wbedient]

After looking at it and trying out some DxD combined with marking we decided DxD using diameters isn't going to work.

Basically, we are going to mark as usual but use DxD when a whole species is to be kept or removed (i.e. don't paint any pine and write in the contract to save all pine).

[Gary_C]

Ideas?  Any other ways to mark more efficiently?

I have been watching this discussion from my logger perspective and have been hoping you would come up with good answers to this question. But after just seeing a rehash of the same old issues, I think you've asked the wrong question.

I think the question should be, How can foresters stop being tree painters and how can management learn to allow decisions to be made on the ground and in the woods?

Your D x D method is flawed because trees are not made in factories and are not all uniform. For example if you put 21 inch diameter limits on the cutting, you will get poorly formed 21 inch diameter trees left behind while nearby 20 inch dia trees are cut.

And surely the foresters that mark trees to be cut have heard the complaints from loggers that the paint marks are not visable from all directions which takes a lot of paint. Plus unless the cutting follows the same path as the marking was, it is not possible to cut the stand as it was marked.

Here in MN there has been good progress in having the softwood thinnings done by operator select to a prescribed BA. So much progress that I don't believe a marked softwood sale would bring a decent bid price. And the DNR doesn't have the manpower anymore to do the marking. On most of the pine thinnings I have done, the forester has told me to take a little more that I start out cutting. But yes, I've seen some jobs where they have thinned from the top down, but that is due to faulty or total lack of supervision of the job.

I sincerely hope that someday I see no more painted timber sales. Perhaps it will take some new computer program/locater chip in trees to get that done. Or it may take more trust between loggers and foresters.   

[Ron Scott]

Ways to stop paint marking trees for cutting have been discussed for years especially as a way to relieve the costs of timber sale preparation. It always comes back to the quality job wanted and management objectives desired, the timber types to be harvested, stand features, skills of the logger receiving the bid, harvest equipment being used etc. etc. It's hard to prepare a timber sale for logger bids when you don't know the skills and knowledge of the logger and his cutters before hand.

A row thinning of red pine may only need every 3rd row designated with a minimum ot tree marking where a selection cut of grade hardwoods requires individual tree marking.

The Organic Act which applys to National Forest lands requires that all trees removed from N.F. lands be individually marked for removal under the supervision of a professional forester. One needs to review the Monongahela Decision on clearcutting to see the effects when the USFS did not mark individual trees for cutting. State laws regulating timber harvests may vary however.

At least we have moved from marking cut trees with a branding axe to using tree marking paint. ;)

[beenthere]

May just need to stop the bleeding and move to the agriculture technology of the chip (used to keep track of cows) or the GPS (used to plant and harvest fields), and leave the logger with all the information where each individual 'take' tree is located.
But too many rules have been passed down (IMO) from the top due to too many people in the kitchen and trying to please too many enviros (they never will be pleased) and too much easy, free money on the fed side to make any good, common sense decisions on the ground.
I tend to think along the lines of Gary_C that the decisions be left up to the logger and the forester monitor the progress of the timber or reduction sales. If not making the right decisions, stop the cutting. Any damage will grow back in time, and the whole process cheaper in the long run.
Then, maybe "cheaper" isn't the ultimate plan of the Feds... any excuse to increase the size of the federal work force and have more control (not less) comes to mind.

[Gary_C]

At least we have moved from marking cut trees with a branding axe to using tree marking paint. ;)

Yes Ron, some progress has been made.

Actually a lot of changes, though I will not call them progress, have been made in recent years with state budget problems. The states need for more revenue has created a huge need for more timber sale revenue. Put that together with a early retirement program for the most experienced foresters and the resulting lower staff levels and you have a prescription for change, but not progress.

Here most state sales are now poorly set up, are very short of wood, and are not supervised very well in part because the foresters have little time for that activity, can't keep up with the speed of logging by the larger loggers, and are just plain tired of hearing about the poor quality of the sale prescriptions. And yet the legislature is pressing for more sale volumes and an accounting for the "missing wood."

Part of that problem is because now the raw cruise data is sent back to the main office where their computer program exggerates the volumes to make it look like the sales volumes are higher and the DNR is meeting their goals.

It's now a "just do what you've got to do to get the job done" attitude and yes, many loggers, especially the larger and more experienced ones are taking advantage of that "progress." 

[Pullinchips]

Ideas?  Any other ways to mark more efficiently?

I sincerely hope that someday I see no more painted timber sales. Perhaps it will take some new computer program/locater chip in trees to get that done. Or it may take more trust between loggers and foresters. 

Sadly this can not be done. There are simply to many loggers that dont have the employees with the skill to operate like this. And sadly there are still those that will high grade when given an inch. That said i dont think i have any that have cut for me, in the latter aspect. Sure i have had plenty of operators that were not the most skilled but that happens in an open bid setting.

If this was a paying customer (if i was a consultant) there is no way that i would turn anyone but a most trusted logger loose in wood worth up to $5000/acre!!!!!

[Pullinchips]

Not all "feds" operate under the laws that you quote. Those i think relate only to usfs lands. DOD lands do not comply. See my sig where i list my employer.  I have several hundred acres of clear cuts a year, at  a minimum 100.  These are not all one big area. But are several stands uaually with some edge effect left in place.

This year i had a near 200 acre clearcut that is basically a trapezoid shape. We pretty much have straight lines and clearcut everything inside it. This is for range expansion (machine gun range) on an army base though. Army gets what it wants.

In the past i have even had clearcuts for military construction where we have cut abandoned RCW cavity trees(with USF&W approval!!!), to facillitate troop accomidations.  Some of you probly could have inadvertantly heard about some of the effects of the sale.  Remember a few years ago when they said the Army will no longer train its troops in Bayonette Assult? This particular cut was on the main basic training facility for the army. The new footprint of the area encompassed part of the existing "bayonette assult" course. It was shortly after the sale which they stopped training with bayonnetes (other than here it is and this is how to affix it. they use to train for hours on a course with dummies). Not saying the sale had this effect as im sure it was a fore thought that they would stop it just saying this was the time frame and it forced it as part of the training area was taken over.

[Gary_C]

Sadly this can not be done. There are simply to many loggers that dont have the employees with the skill to operate like this.

And perhaps there are not enough foresters with the courage and the freedom to step away from old methods and attitudes and embrace a new method of getting the work done.

[Pullinchips]

Sadly this can not be done. There are simply to many loggers that dont have the employees with the skill to operate like this.

And perhaps there are not enough foresters with the courage and the freedom to step away from old methods and attitudes and embrace a new method of getting the work done.

Im not trying to get into an argument here with you. I never said your employees could not do it, and Yes there are plenty of unskilled foresters or opinionated foresters. But IF you read my previous posts i work for an agency that DOES operator select harvests. I sell over a thousand acres a year that way, in dollars it has worked out to over 1 million dollars this FY! I work with plenty of loggers that are able to do a good job and operate better than i could hope. Some better than others and i also have had to kick a logger off a Marked thin where he did not even have to make any decesions?  ???  This was due to the repeated cutting of leave trees that were marked (over an acceptable amout to operate) and then after he had cut what "it took him to operate" he still ran over and knocked the leave trees and broke roots and caused many to lean, and got the bark off most of the others.  Stragely enough the buyers replacement logger did not have to cut any leave trees beyond reason and did not manage to run any over!

Again, we have many places where if we get the "right" logger we will add hardwood areas into a sale and then allow that cutter operator to pull the pines out of this area. Other guys we wont even mention it, cause we know they will bust the tops out of the trees doing it.

[Ron Scott]

Yes the enabling Acts for each Federal Agency are different for the purposes for which they were established. The National Forests, National Parks, BLM, F&WLS, DOD lands, etc all operate under different laws, rules, and regulations.

An army base is quite different in purpose than NF lands. Clearcuts on NF lands are no larger than 40 acres unless they are authorized for a special purpose such as critical habitat for the endangered Kirtlands Warbler at 370 acres. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 now directs management of all National forest system lands. The environmental watch dogs aren't as concerned with the management of a military base as they are with the National Forest's management. 

[lumberjack48]

I knew guys that logged 40 yrs and still could not do selective cutting, no method to their madness.

When i cut painted take trees, you had to cut above the paint on the stump or face a fine.

When selecting what trees should be cut when it isn't marked, i was taught to take the defective trees first, then thin as needed.

[Gary_C]

Im not trying to get into an argument here with you.

And I'm not trying either. I am just saying there are hardened habits and attitudes on both sides of this discussion. And in trying to make changes like this, a good long term memory is not an asset.

[Rocky_Ranger]

I've used D X D in plantations of the south and had excellent results.  Prep costs there (marking and cruising) can run $20/Ccf ($80/acre), while administration is 1/4 - or less that cost.  Here in 4-FRI country our costs are about $60-$70/acre for marking (tracer paint at $14.00/quart ) and cruising.  Our first contract is 300,000 acres, or 18 - 21 million dollars just for marking.....  Now, how does DXD sound?  We have used DxD successfully in the past and will count on it for the future.  Most all equipment are operator/cab controlled - you can't find a chainsaw here anymore.

DxD is an acceptable form of tree designation, as are clearcut boundaries (ah, the good old days).  Doesn't have to be paint.  LTM always gives you a better stand, but why spend 50% more to gain a 10% return?  We got enough troubles without bankrupting the Treasury.....

[banksiana]

DxD with leave trees marked with a band at about 6 feet and a good stump mark is the only way you can mark your timber and account for it.  Sorry, but it is true.

[pappy19]

For many years Boise-Cascade used the diameter cut routine(16" and above) on their own lands, with the end results of very poor leave stands and bad genetics over time. The Idaho Department of Lands went with a modified leave tree mark and manditory cut on the remainder. They also had a $1,000 damage penalty on leave trees. I don't really see any way around the marking of timber leave/take except for some mechanical thinning contracts. Interesting discussion.

[Phorester]

GARY_C: "And surely the foresters that mark trees to be cut have heard the complaints from loggers that the paint marks are not visable from all directions which takes a lot of paint. Plus unless the cutting follows the same path as the marking was, it is not possible to cut the stand as it was marked."

We always mark on the same side of each tree.  The marking crew may put all chest marks, say, on our "left" side on the first line, but when we turn and come back we then put the chest marks on the "right" side of us, so all marks are on the same side of each tree. This also helps us see our previously marked trees as we are marking the next line.  The side marked is designated in the marking report as a cardinal direction; "Trees to be cut are marked on the south side with blue paint..."  The stump mark is usually put on the same side as the chest mark, but it doesn't have to be, since the faller is looking for the chest mark. Then the faller only has to look on the same side of each tree to see if it's marked.  Yes, he may have to walk around one side of a tree if he is coming at it from the unmarked side, but he knows he only has to look on the designated side of the trees for paint and doesn't have to walk all the way around each tree to see if it's marked or not.

On two occasions where the marking ended before a property line was reached, where it would not be obvious that the end of the marked area had been reached, I painted the word "END" vertically on some of the last trees marked in each of our lines and painted a solid circle around them at chest height, so the fallers knew they had to walk/cut no farther.

[beenthere]

So Gary_C just has to get out of his harvestor and walk around the tree, or try to drive the harvestor around it.   :

Am sure it isn't easy, regardless of how the markers try or how the loggers are frustrated finding marks.

[1270d]

The marking I was cutting on this past summer was excellent.  Large slash in bright orange on both sides of each take tree.  The manner in which it was marked was another thing altogether.  Some of the time a perfecct tree is marked while one next to it with a big cat face or canker at 15 ft wasn't.  It does seem that the markers never look up or back.  Im with garyC in the belief that a good forester/logger team will do much better with op select.  I have gotten to work on blocks of ttimber that our company has selective cut 3 times. All operator select cutting and 36 years later we are harvesting high grade hardwood veneer where there was once trash.  Of course there was a forester involved, but a trusting relationship was allowed to develop with the logger.  This was a high production tree length operation. 

The forest is much healthier, diverse and valuable now.

[Phorester]

Beenthere; "A thief can't simply remove the paint mark?"

It's not that easy to remove paint from a stump. Take a close look at trees. About any tree stump regardless of species has furrows or is otherwise pretty rough. The paint gets down into the rough spots, and it would take a large deep slice into the stump bark to remove all the paint.  If it was indeed scraped off, a bunch of scraped stumps would be a dead giveaway.  Sometimes a stump mark will come off with a strip of bark pulled from the stump as the tree falls or is pulled away from the stump, etc.  But if a lot of stump marks are missing, it's a signal that the logger could indeed be your thief.

[SwampDonkey]

I would think 10-15 acres a day could be marked and in two weeks over 100 acres marked by one person. You telling me that is expensive versus what the sale generates. You need to raise stumpage. The trouble is under staffing usually, the person has to be in 3 jobs in a day. To me it doesn't add up, because if your cutting wood your generating income for both sides. If your just out there to chew the fat and watch and stare, then there is the problem.

I am not in the same camp as operator select, I have not seen good results in only but a select few and that was in good wood. In my experience the dominant trees are targeted by the saw. But I do believe on uneven ground and hills that the operator chooses his trails. Marking, in my experience, takes the guess work out of the cutting, he just goes to work and it actually speeds things up in single tree selection. Nothing is as fast as a clear cut obviously. You need both sides to communicate with one another and know what they are doing...or more important, pay attention to what your doing and realize the alternatives or consequences.

I always marked trees with orange dot on multiple sides, a lot less paint than lines and very visible. I usually marked trails on even ground, so for sure marks are always in line of the trail, but also to the sides as the operator may need to reach in off an adjacent trail. All wood in the trails obviously don't need marked. It's all going to be cut. I would never expect a logger to make a trail like a snake.

I do notice on crown land they never mark trees in hardwood, most of those cuts are high grades by diameter. If they don't, then the natives do anyway and leave 25 foot long tops. Ten years later they go in and clear cut it anyway after the poor stuff begins to die back from shock. Most of the soil is sandy glacial till full of boulders on those blocks, so you couldn't grow much for hardwood sawlogs.

[petefrom bearswamp]

As a private consultant forester here in central NYS, the majority of the sales of northern hardwood I  marked were of the single tree selection method to achieve the desired basal area. some were group selection and a very few clearcut usually for conversion to AG use.
Of course, it usually only meant harvesting 20 to 25 trees per acre from the overstory, removing the culls and some pulpwood to achieve the BA. In doing this I walked completely around every tree that i pre selected and at days beginning put the biltmore stick on several to adjust my eye for merchantable height. In my prime I averaged 10 to 20 acres per day depending on terrain.
My son is a nys forester and most of his sales are single tree selection also.
I retired before the hardwood stumpage market took a big dive
Pete