Timber Theft

[Ron Scott]

http://gowood.blogspot.com/2013/10/timber-theft-little-noticed-but-serious.html

[enigmaT120]

My neighbor recently tried to sell some of my trees to a logger.  Luckily he was honest, and came to visit me so I could show him the property corners.  I don't think my neighbors really know where the line is, and don't seem interested when I try to show them.

[Tmac47]

I attended a timber theft conference last month that was attended by Weyerhauser, Mead-Westvaco, International Paper, GP, etc.

They're trying to increase the legislation for timber theft in GA to the standard they've set in South Carolina.  They've put a good many people in jail up there.

In Alabama and South Carolina, respectively, they do about 180 and 125 timber theft investigations.  In Georgia they do zero.

What are the laws like up in the Northwest?

[Texas Ranger]

I used to have a cottage industry investigating and testifying in timber theft cases, then Texas passed a basic chain of evidence sor of thing with teeth in it, and a lot now never gets passed the sheriff/DA's office.  Good for the landowner, bad on my business. 

[Tmac47]

I used to have a cottage industry investigating and testifying in timber theft cases, then Texas passed a basic chain of evidence sor of thing with teeth in it, and a lot now never gets passed the sheriff/DA's office.  Good for the landowner, bad on my business.

A cottage industry?  I'm assuming that's a typo, heh.

Are you a timber theft investigating consultant?  You should move to Georgia or even Tennessee, haha.  Plenty of business to be had.

[Texas Ranger]

Yep, forester by trade, practicing to be Sam Spade.

[Tmac47]

Yep, forester by trade, practicing to be Sam Spade.

Hopefully part of the practice is wearing the same outfit! Emphasis on the hat.

[petefrom bearswamp]

When practicing I did about 1 timber  trespass job about every 3 years.
Almost all landowners got restitution,  treble damages if intent to trespass was proven.
An excellent reason to have your property lines well marked and maintained.

[Texas Ranger]

Don't care much for foresters in 3 piece suits, no mud on their shoes, not driving a pickup, etc.

[Tmac47]

Don't care much for foresters in 3 piece suits, no mud on their shoes, not driving a pickup, etc.

Sam Spade isn't much without his suit  8)

[Raider Bill]

Good looking hat though. ;D

[SwampDonkey]

Timber theft is common up here at times when timber is hot. Those that are absantee owners are the biggest targets. Many folks will buy land up here, and for decades will never go near it. And the thieves in the area know it. Prosecution in timber thefts is almost always a loosing battle. I cruised a piece one time for a family who lived in NY state. Someone had been living in a makeshift tar paper shack they put on the place and cutting wood for firewood, tamarack. But before that, someone had cut the place off about 15 years before I ever set foot on the place, the owners didn't. They left a buffer along the roads, but once you went in a little ways off the road it was obvious. Lots of land here bought up during the Vietnam war era.

[Tmac47]

Timber theft is common up here at times when timber is hot. Those that are absantee owners are the biggest targets. Many folks will buy land up here, and for decades will never go near it. And the thieves in the area know it. Prosecution in timber thefts is almost always a loosing battle. I cruised a piece one time for a family who lived in NY state. Someone had been living in a makeshift tar paper shack they put on the place and cutting wood for firewood, tamarack. But before that, someone had cut the place off about 15 years before I ever set foot on the place, the owners didn't. They left a buffer along the roads, but once you went in a little ways off the road it was obvious. Lots of land here bought up during the Vietnam war era.

Do you generally see the same parties doing all the thieving?

[thompsontimber]

Tmac, I certainly couldn't speak for SwampDonkey and his experiences, but I'd imagine its that way everywhere and with most categories of crime.  I know if I read the local paper, the same names show up in the arrests section every time, and you are left wondering how can the same people get arrested for the same thing over and over...where is the deterrent?  Do the punishments fit the crimes?  seems not.  For one thing, they must never be in jail because they keep getting arrested, and that would be hard to do behind bars where they seem to belong.  Anyways, enough of that rant.  Back to timber theft--I work about half and half between NC and SC and agree that the timber theft laws in SC have teeth that the NC laws lack, and it is a welcome thing I wish NC would follow.  However, that being said, the same folks do seem to be the ones thieving every time, and their reputations tend to precede them, but it doesn't keep them from working steady, getting caught red handed from time to time, and marching right on.  That goes for both NC and SC and I'll share a couple of SC stories I'm quite familiar with.

[thompsontimber]

Let me brag a bit on SC and their handling of timber theft cases.  I speak a little bit of my understanding of the law, though feel free to correct me where needed as I'm no expert on the law, just work a lot in SC and am familiar with the law.  If you buy on a pay as cut basis (or I guess on any basis if you haven't paid the landowner prior to finishing the job), you have 45 days to submit payment in full, which seems an adequate and rather lenient time frame.  If you fail to do so, they can come after you for timber theft.  Buyer must also provide landowner with scale ticket information that includes date, location, product, volume, and origin. The great thing about the SC law is that the Forestry Commission has enforcement officers and investigators on staff.  If you suspect timber theft and file a complaint, the Forestry Commission will investigate and send knowledgeable investigators on your behalf to track down loads, subpoena records from receiving mills, conduct stump cruises, and assess damages.  If its proven to be intentional theft or amounts over 5K, it can result in a felony conviction and they even have the authority to seize equipment and auction for restitution.  Gets better though, as the Forestry Commission will also post arrest info and pictures of the theif!  Shame more landowners aren't aware of such publicly accessible information that could save them from doing business with such people.  Check it out.  http://www.state.sc.us/forest/b022713.htm

In NC, landowners still have the burden of taking their concerns through local law enforcement with no knowledge of timber.  Some are advised that its a civil matter, others are given no guidance at all.  More hoops for the landowner to jump through, and requires them to file charges, go through the expense of a court case and appointment of an arbitrary forester for stump cruise, etc.  Just a more intimidating process and landowners with no knowledge of their rights don't know where to turn for help.  The proactive enforcement in SC is a welcome thing and great for landowners. They are more apt to know where to turn and find help.

[Tmac47]

If you buy on a pay as cut basis (or I guess on any basis if you haven't paid the landowner prior to finishing the job), you have 45 days to submit payment in full, which seems an adequate and rather lenient time frame.  If you fail to do so, they can come after you for timber theft.  Buyer must also provide landowner with scale ticket information that includes date, location, product, volume, and origin.

We're currently developing (beta testing with a few timber companies) a smartphone app that tracks timber from the landowners property to the mill and updates all relevant data in real time.  This includes: date, location, product, volume and origin.  However, we also track tonnage and a lot of accounting info.

Sharing this information with a landowner is as simple as sending an email or giving the landowner a login to the website so they can actually participate in the process and get updates when wood is delivered to the mill.  The industry refers to the system as a "loader log", but we just call it www.loggerlog.com, haha.

The great thing about the SC law is that the Forestry Commission has enforcement officers and investigators on staff.  If you suspect timber theft and file a complaint, the Forestry Commission will investigate and send knowledgeable investigators on your behalf to track down loads, subpoena records from receiving mills, conduct stump cruises, and assess damages.  If its proven to be intentional theft or amounts over 5K, it can result in a felony conviction and they even have the authority to seize equipment and auction for restitution.  Gets better though, as the Forestry Commission will also post arrest info and pictures of the theif!  Shame more landowners aren't aware of such publicly accessible information that could save them from doing business with such people.  Check it out.  http://www.state.sc.us/forest/b022713.htm

The head guy of their enforcement office came and spoke at the Timber Theft Conference I attended back in October.  He was hilarious and had plenty of good stories.  Georgia is trying to create similar laws and using South Carolina as a case study.

He shared a story about a guy who moved from stealing timber in GA to SC.  He was in SC for a month before they caught wind of him, but he would bounce between states and they never could nail him down.  They eventually figured out where he lived about a month later and contacted the Sheriff there.  It turns out the Sheriff knew who he was, went to the same club together, but the Sheriff knew he was a sleezeball and said he'd love to help out.

Well, one night he got a call on his cell phone saying, "We got him!".  He didn't know what the guy was talking about until he explained who he was, haha.  So, they held the timber thief in their jail and the SC Forestry Commission came down to GA, picked him up and hauled his butt to jail in SC.

[thompsontimber]

Thanks for the info, I'll definitely check "loggerlog" out.  Glad they were able to collaborate and nail the guy that was bouncing between the states.  As for the state line crossing crook I linked to earlier, unfortunately I have to report that he is still in business and cutting wood despite arrests.  I know the SC law has teeth and threatens serious imprisonment times, but how hard convictions are to get and severe sentences are to achieve I have no idea.  I do know that with the particular logger cited, he is still logging in SC, he has been accused of more timber theft instances since his arrest earlier this year, and he is logging with better equipment today than he was a year ago despite many markets refusing his wood.  Very frustrating.  Been telling ourselves in the local industry that their time will run out and will get what's coming to them, but of course we have been telling ourselves that for 20+ years and it has yet to come to fruition.  I'm still of the belief that it will though

[Tmac47]

As for the state line crossing crook I linked to earlier, unfortunately I have to report that he is still in business and cutting wood despite arrests.  I know the SC law has teeth and threatens serious imprisonment times, but how hard convictions are to get and severe sentences are to achieve I have no idea.  I do know that with the particular logger cited, he is still logging in SC, he has been accused of more timber theft instances since his arrest earlier this year, and he is logging with better equipment today than he was a year ago despite many markets refusing his wood.  Very frustrating.  Been telling ourselves in the local industry that their time will run out and will get what's coming to them, but of course we have been telling ourselves that for 20+ years and it has yet to come to fruition.  I'm still of the belief that it will though

I googled his name and that press release came up.  So, all you have to do is type his name into google and you see he's a crook.

If people don't at least google someone they don't know before they do business with them, well, it's hard for me to feel empathetic.

[thompsontimber]

Tmac, I totally understand your point and can't say I disagree with you totally.  People do have a responsibility to look out for themselves, do their due diligence.  However, that being said, keep in mind that most of the people that are taken advantage of by this and other crooks are elderly, good, trusting people.  Believe it or not, many still don't even know what a "google" is.  I have grandparents that are in this category, don't even know how to turn a computer on.  Its actually quite common still, even in our modern technology age where it seems people must have a working knowledge of technology just to survive.  These landowners still trust, which may not be prudent nowadays, but I don't look on it as a bad thing.  Harkens back to better days and the way things should be.  These landowner's think a man's word means something, and a handshake matters.  When a crook takes advantage of that, it isn't the landowner's fault that he was victimized.  The criminal is the problem.  I can't be of the mindset that "well if you didn't check him out you got what you deserved."  No one deserves to be robbed.  The people that are victimized usually need the money from the sell and that's why they sold.  This guy and others have been doing this through generations and gotten by with it.  He is a good salesman.  Most crooks are.  Smooth talking, promise the world, gain trust, then rob you blind. 
On another note, where I do have less empathy, this same logger bought a bid thinning sale several years ago from a well known, highly reputable consultant forester in NC.  The forester caught him stealing and ran him off the job and had to get someone else to come in on a half harvested job and clean up after the man.  I attended an SAF meeting where the forester was receiving induction as an SAF Fellow, and after the meeting was standing around talking with several other foresters and academics.  I unintentionally insulted the man when he entered into our discussion and the subject of his experience with the thinning crew that he had to run off came up.  I said something to the effect of  "oh that was you that let them thin that.  I'm surprised a man of your reputation would allow them an opportunity to do such a thing."  Everyone in the circle knew the logger's reputation.  Its well known in the industry without doing a google search.  You can simply do a "colleague" search and learn plenty if they are unknown to you.  His answer was "They offered the highest price."  Even a professional fell prey to empty promises.  He should have known better.  He had the resources at his fingertips to find out better.  I didn't feel sorry for him and his experience, he asked for it by using them.  But I still felt bad for the landowner who trusted him to make their harvesting experience a smooth one, and I felt as much disdain for the crook as ever.  And if a highly regarded forester can be fooled into trusting them and giving them a chance, why should anyone expect landowners with no knowledge of their timber or the industry to simply know better.

Now on a different note, I attempted to buy a small tract of poplar from a man that lived close to this particular logger.  They had been trying to buy it and wanted to buy it by the unit, but the man knew of their reputation and didn't want to sell to him.  He contacted me and wanted to sell lump sum.  I offered him 14K for the tract.  He told me to draw up the paperwork and meet him the next afternoon.  Next morning he calls and says the other man now says he will pay 14K cash and the IRS won't have to know about it.  Asks if I can do the same.  I say no, we will pay with a check and send you a 1099, and I wouldn't advise you to try to get over on Uncle Sam with this guy, it very well could bite you.  He says he will talk it over with wife and call me back.  Calls back and says other guy will pay 14K cash and stump it.  Can I stump it?  Hell no I can't stump it, I have offered you 14K with a check and that's my offer, take it or leave it.  He leaves it, sales to the crook.  Did he get his money?  I have no idea.  Did he get it stumped, nope...had to pay a local grader to stump it 3 months later after he finally gave up on that empty promise.  Did I feel sorry for him, of course not.  He knew better going in and still did it.  Greed can allow otherwise reasonable people to lose sight of reason and common sense and believe what they are told cuz they want to believe.

[Tmac47]

Tmac, I totally understand your point and can't say I disagree with you totally.  People do have a responsibility to look out for themselves, do their due diligence.  However, that being said, keep in mind that most of the people that are taken advantage of by this and other crooks are elderly, good, trusting people.  Believe it or not, many still don't even know what a "google" is.

You're right.  I was being a bit harsh.  My data definitely shows the vast majority of landowners today are in their 70s and 80s.  Which is why we're going to see a big trend in new landowners over the next decade.  That's when we're going to see a big influx of Google searches.

I have grandparents that are in this category, don't even know how to turn a computer on.  Its actually quite common still, even in our modern technology age where it seems people must have a working knowledge of technology just to survive.  These landowners still trust, which may not be prudent nowadays, but I don't look on it as a bad thing.

I think there are a majority of companies that are trustworthy.  Unfortunately, you still have to watch out for the minority.

The criminal is the problem.  I can't be of the mindset that "well if you didn't check him out you got what you deserved."  No one deserves to be robbed.  The people that are victimized usually need the money from the sell and that's why they sold.  This guy and others have been doing this through generations and gotten by with it.  He is a good salesman.  Most crooks are.  Smooth talking, promise the world, gain trust, then rob you blind.

I'm definitely a proponent of timber theft laws with teeth in them.  I'm also not against giving the forestry commission enough power to pursue them, as long as they shrink other responsibilities to compensate.
 

On another note, where I do have less empathy, this same logger bought a bid thinning sale several years ago from a well known, highly reputable consultant forester in NC.  The forester caught him stealing and ran him off the job and had to get someone else to come in on a half harvested job and clean up after the man.  I attended an SAF meeting where the forester was receiving induction as an SAF Fellow, and after the meeting was standing around talking with several other foresters and academics.  I unintentionally insulted the man when he entered into our discussion and the subject of his experience with the thinning crew that he had to run off came up.  I said something to the effect of  "oh that was you that let them thin that.  I'm surprised a man of your reputation would allow them an opportunity to do such a thing."  Everyone in the circle knew the logger's reputation.  Its well known in the industry without doing a google search.  You can simply do a "colleague" search and learn plenty if they are unknown to you.  His answer was "They offered the highest price."

If the forester is representing the landowner and the landowner tells him, "I want the highest price no matter what."  How should he respond when someone with a bad reputation gives the highest price?

Obviously, I don't know the situation, but I know it happens.  Many times, landowners don't want to listen to the forester, even when they're paying them a commission.  Financial advisors are the same way.  Mine told me, "The trick is getting people to listen to you and follow your advice.  Making money is the easy part if they'll just do that."

Even a professional fell prey to empty promises.  He should have known better.  He had the resources at his fingertips to find out better.  I didn't feel sorry for him and his experience, he asked for it by using them.  But I still felt bad for the landowner who trusted him to make their harvesting experience a smooth one, and I felt as much disdain for the crook as ever.  And if a highly regarded forester can be fooled into trusting them and giving them a chance, why should anyone expect landowners with no knowledge of their timber or the industry to simply know better.

Well, I think something can be said for the degree to which the forester was taken advantage of.  How much did the logger steal?  Apparently the forester was aware of his reputation, so he could've been keeping a closer eye on him.

I think there's still a big difference in this situation and a landowner losing $50k to a logger, because they didn't use a consulting forester to represent them.

Now on a different note, I attempted to buy a small tract of poplar from a man that lived close to this particular logger.  They had been trying to buy it and wanted to buy it by the unit, but the man knew of their reputation and didn't want to sell to him.  He contacted me and wanted to sell lump sum.  I offered him 14K for the tract.  He told me to draw up the paperwork and meet him the next afternoon.  Next morning he calls and says the other man now says he will pay 14K cash and the IRS won't have to know about it.  Asks if I can do the same.  I say no, we will pay with a check and send you a 1099, and I wouldn't advise you to try to get over on Uncle Sam with this guy, it very well could bite you.  He says he will talk it over with wife and call me back.  Calls back and says other guy will pay 14K cash and stump it.  Can I stump it?  Hell no I can't stump it, I have offered you 14K with a check and that's my offer, take it or leave it.  He leaves it, sales to the crook.  Did he get his money?  I have no idea.  Did he get it stumped, nope...had to pay a local grader to stump it 3 months later after he finally gave up on that empty promise.  Did I feel sorry for him, of course not.  He knew better going in and still did it.  Greed can allow otherwise reasonable people to lose sight of reason and common sense and believe what they are told cuz they want to believe.

Haha.  Yup.  This kind of attitude, although not quite as bold in the tax evasion category, is incredibly prevalent with older landowners.  I haven't seen it at all with younger landowners.

They pretty much just want someone to tell them what to do, handle the management, and pay them for their time.  Easy peasy.  That's why I'm excited about the future of the industry.  If I can educate new landowners on the benefits of management, then they already understand the value of a forester and will be willing to pay them what they're due.

[thompsontimber]

My experiences regarding landowners would mirror your own I'm sure, and I also find younger landowners to be more receptive and eager to take management advice.  I rarely have trouble writing and implementing management plans or purchasing timber from young to middle aged professionals.  Doctors and lawyers are relatively easy to do business with in comparison to some of the old farmers that represent a good deal of the land ownership class.  They tend to have less formal education, but more healthy skepticism of someone coming in to "tell them what to do" and a genuine curiosity as to "what's in it for you."  Not to mention a distrust and often times contempt for the government and a strong distaste for having to "give their money to some government stuffed shirt with nothing to do but hold their hand out and take."  There is an art to learning and knowing each situation, each landowner and their motivation for any forest management activities.  If you are having to do the motivating for such activities, you need justifications for your recommendations beyond revenue.  I think all landowner classes, regardless of age, understand and appreciate that. I don't think its hard to get a landowner to appreciate and desire professional advice once they get a little.  From that standpoint, I like many of the points you make and appreciate your own ambition and youthful exuberance.  I can relate as I'm not much older than you and hit the woods with a similar passion. 

You state, "I'm definitely a proponent of timber theft laws with teeth in them.  I'm also not against giving the forestry commission enough power to pursue them, as long as they shrink other responsibilities to compensate."   Care to elaborate?  Shrinking what responsibilities in particular?

[thompsontimber]

If the forester is representing the landowner and the landowner tells him, "I want the highest price no matter what."  How should he respond when someone with a bad reputation gives the highest price?

Obviously, I don't know the situation, but I know it happens.  Many times, landowners don't want to listen to the forester, even when they're paying them a commission.  Financial advisors are the same way.  Mine told me, "The trick is getting people to listen to you and follow your advice.  Making money is the easy part if they'll just do that."

Even a professional fell prey to empty promises.  He should have known better.  He had the resources at his fingertips to find out better.  I didn't feel sorry for him and his experience, he asked for it by using them.  But I still felt bad for the landowner who trusted him to make their harvesting experience a smooth one, and I felt as much disdain for the crook as ever.  And if a highly regarded forester can be fooled into trusting them and giving them a chance, why should anyone expect landowners with no knowledge of their timber or the industry to simply know better.

Well, I think something can be said for the degree to which the forester was taken advantage of.  How much did the logger steal?  Apparently the forester was aware of his reputation, so he could've been keeping a closer eye on him.

I think there's still a big difference in this situation and a landowner losing $50k to a logger, because they didn't use a consulting forester to represent them.


You are right, you don't know the situation, so I'll elaborate a little.  First of all, let me preface my comments by saying that I try my best not to judge another man's work based upon limited information.  Another words, when I drive past a horrendous looking high grade, I don't allow myself to immediately jump to the conclusion that an evil was perpetrated against the landowner by some sorry logger, timber buyer, or forester.  Perhaps bad advice was given, perhaps deception was used.  Or perhaps good advice was ignored.  I believe that a forester or anyone in a forest management position has an obligation to give good advice, but ultimately we as forestry professionals work for the landowner.  The landowner is ultimately the boss and all we offer is professional advice.  It is still just that, advice, and the landowner is under no obligation to follow it.  Its their land, and if they want a high grade they can have one.  I'm not here to cast stones at the forester for the services he provided, as I don't know what the landowner demanded or how he attempted to meet those demands other than my witnessing the aftermath of those decisions. 
All that being said, the situation at hand was this....the sale was about 150 acres of 18 yr old loblolly to the thinned and was sold on a unit basis.  So the "highest price" might be a major motivating factor for the landowner, but a unit sale is different from a lump sum sale, and the amount of wood actually making it from the woods to the truck comes into play even if every load is being paid for..The logger had a well known reputation for taking short cuts to up production and leaving felled trees scattered over properties, topping wood in bunches in topping saws and buck saws to facilitate less handling, etc.  They were known to "waste" a lot of wood.  Don't for the get the aforementioned propensity to STEAL! Very well known for it, and fairly successful at it at times.  These are red flags for today's "most money to the landowner" scenerios.  Now let's not forget that we are managing for the future as well.  This landowner has some concern for the future, otherwise he/she would just clearcut rather than thin.  Residual damage should be a concern, and no doubt addressed by the forester with the landowner.  The logger has no proven track record of thinning such stands.  In fact, he has been known to do extensive damage in stands he has thinned.  He has been ran off of thinning jobs before due to harvest methods and residual damage. The red flags just keep popping up.  Add to all of this the fact that I know of several reputable companies in the immediate area that received no bid invitation for this sale.  Can't tell you why, but the "most money" was from those who were invited to bid and chose to bid.  Knowing the industry, the competition, and the situation as I do, I am very confident in my opinion that the forester did less than a stellar job for his client in this instance.  I can't speak of all the factors as to why, but I stand by my feelings that the logger was not suited for the job and did get caught doing what everyone around knew they would do.  Every bid sale I've ever bid on included the right to deny any bid regardless of whether it was the "highest" or not.  Quality and reputation can matter as well, and that includes your own reputation and what happens to it after you hitch yourself to that cart. Can I say that the landowner didn't in fact demand that this logger do the job?  Nope, that may have been the case.  If so and the forester felt compelled to oblige such a demand, so be it.  I wouldn't do it though. I have a list of loggers I will not use under any circumstances. I am a professional and I can watch over a suspected thief as good as anyone.  If I am suspecting him before he starts though, I'm not gonna work him.  Just because I feel pretty good about my abilities to catch him doesn't mean I'm tying my reputation to him and babysitting him through the work.  I'll work reputable people and keep an eye on them.  I need to make money as much as the next man, but some things don't have a price

[Tmac47]

I wasn't accusing you of judgement, just throwing out some "devil's advocate" type questions.  So, I hope I didn't come across that way.

A lot of your descriptions of how they operate in the woods sound like an average logger to me honestly.  It's pretty rare to find a crew that creates skid trails, cleans up the loading areas, etc.  And when you do find them, you're definitely not going to get the highest price.

I'm not defending the use of this particular logger or the forester's choice to use him, but it doesn't sound too out of the ordinary unfortunately, minus the "propensity to steal", which is a huge concern.

I think this draws spotlight on another problem in the industry and that's the amount of regulation + gas prices + the cost of operating.  There just aren't as many options as there used to be and I'd bet a very small minority of loggers stay in business by taking a little off the top.

It costs time and money going above and beyond and cleaning up a logging tract. Landowners who aren't familiar with the process and who don't have a representative they trust (aka, are willing to listen to) simply look at the biggest figure and go with it.

This can go all circle back to landowner education and valuing a forester.

In the end, if they're selling timber on a per unit basis and the forester is working for a commission, that logger isn't just stealing wood from the landowner, he's stealing it from the forester too.

[thompsontimber]

Perhaps I'm guilty of reading too much between the lines, or maybe I'm just reading too close to bedtime, but I can't help but get the feeling that you are painting the logging side with a pretty broad brush.

A lot of your descriptions of how they operate in the woods sound like an average logger to me honestly.  It's pretty rare to find a crew that creates skid trails, cleans up the loading areas, etc.  And when you do find them, you're definitely not going to get the highest price.

I think this draws spotlight on another problem in the industry and that's the amount of regulation + gas prices + the cost of operating.  There just aren't as many options as there used to be and I'd bet a very small minority of loggers stay in business by taking a little off the top.

Maybe things are different where you are from than they are here, but I don't find it to be rare at all to find a trained logging force that implements BMPs and do good work that they take pride in.  What is more rare is to find loggers buying their own wood (purchased stumpage) the majority of the time.  Most are cutting for procurement foresters because logging is a full time job, and when they purchase tracts on their own they can often pay competitive prices because they are making more than they are accustomed to making since one less hand is in the pot. These tracts come to them rather than them soliciting the business oftentimes. It just seems that you continually imply a dire "need" for a consultant forester.  Do consultant foresters have a place, absolutely.  Do some landowners need such an advocate due to their absentee status, lack of time and interest in being involved in the sale process, etc?  Absolutely.  Do I buy timber from consultants?  Yes.  However, I sure don't see all consultants the same any more than I see all loggers as the same.  You seem to view the logging force as a second class entity and the consultant forester ranks as a "be all end all solution."  The fact is that most sales involving a consultant forester are sold to a wood mill forester or a procurement forester.  Another professional with the same ethical standards and expertise in the practice of forestry. (And before we stumble into the discussion of industry biased decision making and the all mighty dollar, let's remember that these consultants are making a commission and are subject to such profit based temptations as well.)  The timber isn't worth more because of who is selling it.  I pay the same whether I buy it direct or from a consultant.  So do the majority of my competitors.  The timber is worth what's it worth.  That doesn't mean a consultant isn't earning his money, it just means that a landowner who wishes to be involved in his sale can obtain the value for his timber without hiring a consultant should he wish to call a few reputable buyers in the area and shop it himself.
The consultant is getting a cut, the buyer is getting a cut, the landowner should be getting compensated well, and the logger is making the least cut & haul rate that the buyer can get by with paying him. The reality is that the logging force has to be very efficient and resourceful just to survive, and they have the most overhead in the equation.  You acknowledge these issues and suggest that a minority of loggers might skim to make ends meet.  I'll grant you that, it happens I'm sure and I have even heard a logger who was caught stealing attempt to justify his actions with that very argument.  However, it is indeed a minority. A crook is a crook and will find a way to steal.  Its what they do, and it can't be simply solved with oversight.
I know both industry foresters and consultant foresters who make some questionable management suggestions at times.  Bad ones do exist, just as bad loggers definitely exist.  I wouldn't dare attempt to disparage consultant foresters as a whole based upon my knowledge of poor ones.  I don't think loggers deserve it either.  I've had some terrible experiences with loggers and learned many lessons the hard way.  I've often been guilty, especially early on in my career, of believing too much in certain loggers.  I think I've tempered that over time, and don't wanna come across as too one sided here, but I don't wanna see them getting overly lumped together either. They are the backbone of the industry and the engine that drives the profits for the mills, consultants, and landowners. I've heard it asked of a group of foresters at a meeting I attended recently, "Should a logger be driving a nice vehicle?"  Followed up by the question "Is it ok if that logger is driving a nicer vehicle than you are?"  I believe way too many of us on the professional forestry side need to give that question more thought.  The majority of loggers aren't getting rich.  The majority are very hard working and have invested anywhere from a quarter million to multiple millions of dollars into a harsh, heavily regulated business with a high failure rate and little return on investment.  The majority do not steal!

[Tmac47]

I wasn't trying to paint with a broad brush, so I apologize if it seemed that way.

I'm actually developing a mobile app that helps large logging operations with ticket reconciliation, fleet management and accounting all in one simple web interface.  Obviously, crooks won't use it and the market of honest operations is large enough to warrant a $500,000 app. So, I definitely support that side of the industry as well.

My larger point, that I did a poor job of making apparently, was that logging companies do not represent the landowner. Are there honest logging companies? Of course there are and I know plenty of them.

However, I look at it like real estate. There's an agent that represents the buyer and an agent that represents the seller.  If a landowner sales land once in a lifetime, would it help to be represented?

I got a call today from a fella with 89 acres near Carrolton, GA. Him and his brother are selling their timber and went out to get three bids.

Bid 1 - $17,000
Bid 2 - $25,000
Bid 3 - $32,000

So, they called us and figured they could use some help, since the bids were so diverse.  Thankfully, they knew enough to get several bids.

For landowners who aren't educated, contacting a forester is a lot easier/simple to remember than becoming a novice or expert in selling timber once every 25 years.

Foresters aren't going to cut you out of a job. You said as much with your procurement statement.  However, I'd be inclined to say that if foresters were marketed properly, the market for timber would actually increase (because more landowners are managing) and loggers would benefit financially.

I think you've helped make my point, in a way, that the industry is fragmented.  I was in no way vilifying loggers, yet you argue that foresters are unnecessary with reputable loggers.

It's difficult to create a simple and concrete message for an industry that constantly makes a case against the importance of their peers.  I'm not saying this simply in response to your post, but to the industry.  Your post simply reflects the feelings of many loggers I've heard or talked to personally.

[Tmac47]

And for what it's worth I said that "a very small minority steal".  I'd say less than 3% of the industry. South Carolina returned over $300,000 (I believe was the number) in timber theft money this year.

Every year, there are nearly 300 investigations in Alabama and South Carolina alone, but I haven't seen statistics for how many turn up legitimate.  Georgia doesn't actually investigate timber theft reports, so their number is zero.

I aplogize if I offended anyone. I was just making observations.

[SwampDonkey]

I'd wager that the harvesting is three ways like up here. You have the guys cutting for industrial owners, then there is the crowd that knocks on doors or acquire work simply by reputation, then there are the woodlot owners themselves doing the work. The percentages are likely quite different, but elements of all three exist. As far as the timber theft aspect, there are elements in all three groups. We've had wood stole by neighbors on about every piece of woods we owned. One neighbor liked to cut his firewood in the dark, and it wasn't his wood. One of them fellas that logged off all his hardwood ground for a quick buck, and was faced with no more firewood. ;) Worked an absantee lot one time, the firewood from that lot could be traced to the neighbors yard. Skid trail into his back yard. Another fellow that had cut off all his hardwoods, faced with freezing to death or helping himself to wood where the owner lived in Europe. ;)

[thompsontimber]

No need to apologize to me Tmac.  I'd venture to say that you and I would agree on much more in this industry than we disagree about, and I'm not saying that points you are attempting to make are invalid.  I do feel you are failing to understand my point, which is simply that it isn't an either/or argument. Another words, I don't think it is as simple as saying "hiring a consultant forester is the good and right way to sell your timber whereas marketing your timber directly and selling to either a logger or an industry or procurement forester is bad and wrong."  Its easy to interpret your points that way, and I don't see it that way.  Nor do I see in the way that you interpret my points.

[quote author=Tmac47 link=topic=69989.msg1059591#msg1059591 date=1384932527

Foresters aren't going to cut you out of a job. You said as much with your procurement statement.  However, I'd be inclined to say that if foresters were marketed properly, the market for timber would actually increase (because more landowners are managing) and loggers would benefit financially.

I think you've helped make my point, in a way, that the industry is fragmented.  I was in no way vilifying loggers, yet you argue that foresters are unnecessary with reputable loggers.

[/quote]

All of your posts read to me like you use the terms "forester" and "consultant forester" interchangeably, and don't really consider anyone who is a non-commission based consultant as a forester capable of giving landowners sound management advice and educating them. That may not be how you feel at all, but it is how it comes across when I read it.  I do not argue that foresters are unnecessary.  I do not feel landowners should go without an advocate and without sound management advice and the means to have proper management activities implemented.  I don't even argue against the value of consultant foresters.  I simply argue that landowners do have sound alternatives to hiring a consultant and that some landowners may be in a position and more inclined to be more involved with the process than others.
Some loggers have a great deal of forestry knowledge while others have none whatsoever.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard of landowners being advised by some logger to "cut all the money trees and leave the little ones to grow."  I am as strongly opposed to landowners being taken advantage of as you are, and I am completely for educated landowners in management just as you advocate.  I just can't stand the generalization put forth that landowners are making a mistake and costing themselves if they don't hire a consultant. That can certainly be true in many cases, but in many others it isn't the case at all. Its a blanket statement attitude that just isn't accurate. 
I educate landowners every day.  I provide them with sound management advice.  I write management plans and help them get tax deferment.  I help them with reforestation plans and cost-share money.  I provide such services at no cost to the landowner but simply as a part of doing business.  I'm not alone in such services, most of my legitimate competitors offer these services as well. My point is that landowners can obtain such services without hiring a "consultant."  They can also obtain them with a  consultant forester.  Their is nothing "wrong" with either route.   I am not arguing against consultants despite your feelings to the contrary, and I have no problem with your desire to market the consultant profession.  Where my issue comes in is with the strategy that seems prevalent in marketing consultant forestry, which is to vilify any alternatives.  The easiest way to convince an uneducated landowner to hire a consultant is to convince that landowner that whoever buys the timber is going to rob him while raping and pillaging the land unless he hires someone to prevent it.  I understand the path of least resistance, and people will be quicker to hire out of fear and for protection than they are willing to pay for a legitimate service.The truth is that a consultant forester provides legitimate services that he should be compensated for, but its a shame the profession must struggle to stand on its attributes alone without vilifying the rest of the industry and their peers in the process.  I'm not worried about "foresters" putting me out of a job.  I am one!

[thompsontimber]

I'd wager that the harvesting is three ways like up here. You have the guys cutting for industrial owners, then there is the crowd that knocks on doors or acquire work simply by reputation, then there are the woodlot owners themselves doing the work. The percentages are likely quite different, but elements of all three exist. As far as the timber theft aspect, there are elements in all three groups. We've had wood stole by neighbors on about every piece of woods we owned. One neighbor liked to cut his firewood in the dark, and it wasn't his wood. One of them fellas that logged off all his hardwood ground for a quick buck, and was faced with no more firewood. ;) Worked an absantee lot one time, the firewood from that lot could be traced to the neighbors yard. Skid trail into his back yard. Another fellow that had cut off all his hardwoods, faced with freezing to death or helping himself to wood where the owner lived in Europe. ;)

That's a fair and correct characterization of things here as well.  I'd even say its most accurate to create a 4th category of "small independent loggers."  I haven't addressed this type of logger in previous posts as I've been more focused on the consultant/industry/logger dynamics, but in sheer numbers, these small independent loggers outweigh the larger producers by far.  Here, firewood and landowners play a role, but its probably not nearly as prevalent as what you see.  Fewer and fewer folks burning wood, and our winters aren't terribly severe. We have lots of fragmented ownership though, heavy parcelization and many tracts of 10 acres and less.  These small ownerships don't draw the interest of many larger mechanized production loggers as there just simply isn't enough timber to justify costs.  Likewise, consultant foresters and industry foresters rarely deal with these tracts.  When a landowner has no other outlets to harvest his timber, he must do it himself or sell it to a small logger.  Often they work by themselves, use a small skidder or farm tractor and a straight truck, etc.  Many loggers of this type seem to reside here on this forum.  Most I encounter here are honest, hard working folks who do a great job.  Like you said, timber theft happens in all the different categories and no area is immune to it.  The problems that crop up in this class of logger though are abundant.  Many don't have any insurance, even general liability coverage.  Many sell to small mills and woodyards that don't have stringent requirements as to recording origination information, logger certifications, or insurance (in other words, if it comes in it can be sold from whoever without any questions asked.  Get it on the truck, you can sell it.) Many don't have any logger training (NC has ProLogger certification and SC has Top Logger) which is required to sale to most of the larger mills. Lack of such training means many of these loggers have no knowledge or interest in BMPs.  That's not to say some aren't very good land stewards, but often I see a lack of BMP implementation on such tracts. Again, despite the absence of many safeguards against theft, most of these guys are honest and don't steal, but there are certainly those that do, and there is very little means of catching it and policing it by trusting landowners.  All the more reason why we do need more educated landowners, and why there isn't an easy solution to getting that message across to those that need it.  The state forestry agencies remain the easiest source of information and free management advice for such landowners, and they are notoriously understaffed to handle the role of "the free source" of good advice, and they also tend to fall into cookie-cutter management regimes where one-size-fits all.  A landowner that does have the forethought to go to the local forestry office for help might simply get a form letter in response to his/her request.

[Tmac47]

Where my issue comes in is with the strategy that seems prevalent in marketing consultant forestry, which is to vilify any alternatives.  The easiest way to convince an uneducated landowner to hire a consultant is to convince that landowner that whoever buys the timber is going to rob him while raping and pillaging the land unless he hires someone to prevent it.  I understand the path of least resistance, and people will be quicker to hire out of fear and for protection than they are willing to pay for a legitimate service.The truth is that a consultant forester provides legitimate services that he should be compensated for, but its a shame the profession must struggle to stand on its attributes alone without vilifying the rest of the industry and their peers in the process.  I'm not worried about "foresters" putting me out of a job.  I am one!

My point, is that the vast majority of landowners aren't tree farmers or a part of families that manage timber enough to be self aware.  In such cases, even when they use reputable loggers, they're not represented.  At the end of the day, there's a buyer and a seller.

If a landowner isn't familiar with the industry or ever sold timber, they're easily taken advantage of.  The probability of them being taken advantage of increases dramatically.  Does it not?

Consulting forester provide landowners, who are unfamiliar with the industry, proper representation.  There's a reason Realtors are required, by law, to inform homeowners when they're representing another party.

[Tmac47]

These small ownerships don't draw the interest of many larger mechanized production loggers as there just simply isn't enough timber to justify costs.  Likewise, consultant foresters and industry foresters rarely deal with these tracts.  When a landowner has no other outlets to harvest his timber, he must do it himself or sell it to a small logger.

Selling it is a pretty liberal use of the word.  Getting their timber cut "for free" would be a better description, heh.

The problems that crop up in this class of logger though are abundant.

There's actually a shortage of loggers in Georgia right now.  Mostly because it's hard to find well-run operations.  So much so, that there are contractors that are investing in lots of gear to start in-house logging operations.  I know a few of them personally.

Many don't have any insurance, even general liability coverage.  Many sell to small mills and woodyards that don't have stringent requirements as to recording origination information, logger certifications, or insurance (in other words, if it comes in it can be sold from whoever without any questions asked.  Get it on the truck, you can sell it.) Many don't have any logger training (NC has ProLogger certification and SC has Top Logger) which is required to sale to most of the larger mills. Lack of such training means many of these loggers have no knowledge or interest in BMPs.  That's not to say some aren't very good land stewards, but often I see a lack of BMP implementation on such tracts.

I don't know if I would limit this to "small operations".  I would venture to say that the small operations on this board do really good work and can take the time that bigger operations with lots of overhead simply can't afford.  It's more a matter of economics.

Logging companies that can't afford to be good stewards won't be good stewards.  I don't think it's limited to large companies or small companies.  However, logging companies that are run like a tight ship do really well, large and small.

Again, despite the absence of many safeguards against theft, most of these guys are honest and don't steal, but there are certainly those that do, and there is very little means of catching it and policing it by trusting landowners.  All the more reason why we do need more educated landowners, and why there isn't an easy solution to getting that message across to those that need it.  The state forestry agencies remain the easiest source of information and free management advice for such landowners, and they are notoriously understaffed to handle the role of "the free source" of good advice, and they also tend to fall into cookie-cutter management regimes where one-size-fits all.  A landowner that does have the forethought to go to the local forestry office for help might simply get a form letter in response to his/her request.

I think it's difficult to educate landowners in such a way that someone who has 50 acres and sells timber once in a lifetime can handle a timber sale.  The simpler solution is to put them in touch with someone who does it every day.  Again, much like the real estate industry.

I would also say that state forestry agencies fall pretty far outside of the gap of providing management advice.  It's not something they do.  They're not even allowed to participate in timber sales in Georgia.  If it's handling simple tactical situation like burning, I'd say they're a good source of help.

Also, the information state agencies provide to landowners, if it's written, is going to be very technical and industry specific.  Getting a landowner to dig in deep to become educated enough to run their own timber sale, manage their own timber and follow BMP's would be quite a feat.  I'd even say impossible.  So, again, the simpler solution is to give them representation in the process.

There's thousands of pages of information on state forestry websites that are hidden in PDF documents, which are impossible to search through search engines.  Yet, another example of how state agencies are great resources for information, yet the pipeline to accessing the information is broken.

If a landowner has thousands of acres, runs a family farm and manages to make money on their own, that's one thing.  However, I'd venture to say that they're the exception and not the rule.

[thompsontimber]

Um, where to start?

These small ownerships don't draw the interest of many larger mechanized production loggers as there just simply isn't enough timber to justify costs.  Likewise, consultant foresters and industry foresters rarely deal with these tracts.  When a landowner has no other outlets to harvest his timber, he must do it himself or sell it to a small logger.

Selling it is a pretty liberal use of the word.  Getting their timber cut "for free" would be a better description, heh.

No, not a liberal use of the word at all.  An agreed upon price between a seller and a buyer and services rendered, I'd call that a sale.  Very little "free" wood harvested around here, though there is some.  Tracts of a few acres in size are sold all the time.  Usually the transactions are fair as well.  These owners are simply limited in their options of finding a reputable and insured logger because they can only sale to those who can cut small areas.  Not a bad thing in and of itself, just a limitation that leaves them more susceptible to the problems I mentioned. 

The problems that crop up in this class of logger though are abundant.

[/quote]There's actually a shortage of loggers in Georgia right now.  Mostly because it's hard to find well-run operations.  So much so, that there are contractors that are investing in lots of gear to start in-house logging operations.  I know a few of them personally.[/quote]

I'm not saying we have an abundance of loggers. Quite to the contrary, we have a shortage of loggers and the problem is getting worse all the time because there is no incentive for the younger generation to go into logging.  By and far, it isn't profitable!  No return on investment and lack of available financing for such a high risk business means that many who are capable of making up that next generation of loggers are going to seek opportunities elsewhere where a half million dollar investment would net them a return.  What you quoted from me is actually me saying that of the loggers we have, a large number of individual business owners who log for a substantial portion of their living are "small loggers."  They own their equipment, often work by themselves, produce low volumes, can harvest very small tracts, deal with landowners directly, and can actually still be profitable as loggers.  Many of those types here.  Never said we have plenty of them, I said they make up a large number of what we do have in the logging industry.  As for gearing up for in-house operations, those that are do so out of necessity.  It is nothing new, the industry has tried that route in the past and it failed!
They found out it is much more profitable to "hire" a logger than it is to be a logger.  When industry decides to operate the logging side itself, it is out of necessity and desperation due to a lack of a sufficient qualified logging force to meet the demand for such service. It is going to become more widespread because loggers continue to go out of business.  Over regulated, constant cost increases, and too little compensation will do that.  When the old generation of loggers are gone, there is no one ready to step in their place.  Retirement and bankruptcy are gutting the ranks. 

"I don't know if I would limit this to "small operations".  I would venture to say that the small operations on this board do really good work and can take the time that bigger operations with lots of overhead simply can't afford.  It's more a matter of economics.

Logging companies that can't afford to be good stewards won't be good stewards.  I don't think it's limited to large companies or small companies.  However, logging companies that are run like a tight ship do really well, large and small."

A good point you are making here, but not exactly in line with what I was talking about.  I'm not criticizing the quality of work of smaller loggers.  I actually agree, smaller operations tend to be able to do better work because of lower overhead and less need to be so production oriented. They can also better sort products and therefore be more profitable ton for ton.  However, my point was that at least in my area, larger markets that pay the highest prices have requirements for their suppliers to be properly certified and insured.  Many small operators sell to secondary markets that pay less but have less stringent requirements.  The logger can handle lower prices because he has lower overhead.  However, if the logger has no insurance, the landowner has yet another liability attached to the harvest.  If the logger has no training in stewardship, he may not be best equipped to provide proper stewardship.  All that being said, I know very small operators that are both certified and have insurance.  I'm just pointing out that when it isn't required, many won't have it.  Its simply expense to them.  You are right in saying that good stewardship isn't limited to small or large companies, I didn't mean to suggest that.  Can't argue with you there.  Certification and training also do nothing to assure that an operator will practice what he has been taught.  It simply proves he went to class and knows better. 

Finally, on the topic of state agencies, I'd agree with you that they fall short on the management advice front.  I know that in the Carolinas, they do provide plenty of technical advice to those who request it, and they can provide an abundance of educational materials as well as lists of local buyers and consultant foresters. They also provide management plans, reforestation services, help to streamline cost share requirements, do some timber marking, etc.  They aren't exactly void of management service, but they serve at best as a good conduit and means to put landowners in touch with good forestry professionals who can help educate them and carry them through their management objectives.  When it comes to being an advocate for the landowner, they are the one management aid that can truly claim to be unbiased as the individual has no financial gain from a sale. The agency employee in theory is simply doing their job and gets paid regardless of what decisions the landowner makes.  However, I realize through experience that getting any real help of value through the state agencies can be near impossible and can do more to confuse a landowner and make them dread attempting proper management more than they ever did before seeking help.  The state agencies should make good forest management enticing and fulfilling rather than making it look like a terrible chore! 

[Tmac47]

No, not a liberal use of the word at all.  An agreed upon price between a seller and a buyer and services rendered, I'd call that a sale.  Very little "free" wood harvested around here, though there is some.  Tracts of a few acres in size are sold all the time.  Usually the transactions are fair as well.  These owners are simply limited in their options of finding a reputable and insured logger because they can only sale to those who can cut small areas.  Not a bad thing in and of itself, just a limitation that leaves them more susceptible to the problems I mentioned.

The majority of landowners that contact us own 20 acres or less.  I can't even begin to tell you how difficult it is to find someone to go out there and cut it, much less pay the landowner a good price for it.  It simply isn't economically viable or worth their time.

That's my personal experience here in GA anyways.

What you quoted from me is actually me saying that of the loggers we have, a large number of individual business owners who log for a substantial portion of their living are "small loggers."  They own their equipment, often work by themselves, produce low volumes, can harvest very small tracts, deal with landowners directly, and can actually still be profitable as loggers.  Many of those types here.

I guess it depends on what you define as a small logger.  1 crew? 3 crews? 10 crews?  When I think small logger I'm thinking 1 - 4 crews working on separate tracts.

As for gearing up for in-house operations, those that are do so out of necessity.  It is nothing new, the industry has tried that route in the past and it failed!

They found out it is much more profitable to "hire" a logger than it is to be a logger.  When industry decides to operate the logging side itself, it is out of necessity and desperation due to a lack of a sufficient qualified logging force to meet the demand for such service. It is going to become more widespread because loggers continue to go out of business.  Over regulated, constant cost increases, and too little compensation will do that.  When the old generation of loggers are gone, there is no one ready to step in their place.  Retirement and bankruptcy are gutting the ranks.

The logging industry is no different than any other.  When it pays to enter the market, people enter the market.  That's what you're seeing.  There's a shortage of good loggers that larger companies are willing to employ, therefore there's business to be had by someone that can enter the market and do the right kind of work.

I'd say its simply economics, not desperation.   When the gold rush occurred out west, did every man hunting gold find it?  No.  The same is true with this situation.  There will be some companies that enter in and succeed where others fail.  It's an unbiased statistic.

All that being said, I know very small operators that are both certified and have insurance.  I'm just pointing out that when it isn't required, many won't have it.  It's simply expense to them.  You are right in saying that good stewardship isn't limited to small or large companies, I didn't mean to suggest that.  Can't argue with you there.  Certification and training also do nothing to assure that an operator will practice what he has been taught.  It simply proves he went to class and knows better.

Haha, agreed.
 

However, I realize through experience that getting any real help of value through the state agencies can be near impossible and can do more to confuse a landowner and make them dread attempting proper management more than they ever did before seeking help.  The state agencies should make good forest management enticing and fulfilling rather than making it look like a terrible chore!

I had a landowner in Tennessee, who owns 2,300 contact me last week.  He said he's had a state forester come on plenty of times and they're pretty friendly.  I asked him if he had a management plan. He doesn't.  He also said he has no idea what to do.

When state foresters visit landowners, they're pretty much "Official Question Answerers", from my experience at least, and if you don't know what questions to ask, then you're going to have a hard time benefiting from any advice they give.  Agreed.

[thompsontimber]

The logging industry is no different than any other.  When it pays to enter the market, people enter the market.  That's what you're seeing.  There's a shortage of good loggers that larger companies are willing to employ, therefore there's business to be had by someone that can enter the market and do the right kind of work.

I'd say its simply economics, not desperation.   When the gold rush occurred out west, did every man hunting gold find it?  No.  The same is true with this situation.  There will be some companies that enter in and succeed where others fail.  It's an unbiased statistic.

I'm not gonna argue free market economies, supply and demand, etc.  I understand the basic economics and am not suggesting that there isn't growing opportunity.  To the contrary, that's the message I carry to concerned loggers who are doing things the right way and struggling to survive and wondering if it is worthwhile to continue the struggle.  I do believe better times and more opportunities are on the horizon for those that can persevere and for those willing to expand, as well as new entrants into the industry.  However, I don't agree that the logging business is just like any other industry.  Its actually a very independent-minded group of entrepreneurs with so many various backgrounds, education, financials, etc.  I could go on and on about ways that the markets and procurement entities manipulate and control the logging force by taking full advantage of that fragmentation and the immense number of individual contractors that are dependent upon the wood and the limited markets.  I'm not familiar with other industries in the way I know the timber industry, but of course there are parallels across the spectrum of business.  But the timber industry is primarily a family business.  There aren't that many classes for the timber harvesting profession. Most who do it grew up doing it.  They have lived it.  Grandfather logged, and then son logged, and now grandson logs.  Sawdust in the veins and slim margins failed to deter the love of the work and the desire to continue the family legacy.  But when it becomes near impossible to make a living, dad starts telling son to please go do something else, anything else!  The traditional logging force begins to slowly but surely die out.  There is no substitute for the lost experience and the lost knowledge.  Yes, when things improve, and they will, logging can be more profitable than it is now.  If its profitable enough, financing will become easier to obtain, and new folks will jump in in the hopes for that "gold strike."  The problem is, the bulk of these will be what we call "fly by night" loggers, jumping in the good time and quickly failing when "normal" returns, but while they survive they do terrible work as they "learn on the go" and try to get rich doing something they know very little about.  The influx of this type of "new" logger that results from such a depleted logging force will not enhance the industry.  The good ones that make it will flourish.  We need to help find ways to stop losing the good ones we have now though.  They need incentive to survive.  You can't simply "replace" good loggers when the time comes that its critical to have more. You may have no concern over the state of the logging force, but I guarantee you there are concerns about it at your local mills somewhere along the ranks.  They don't wanna have to return to financing and controlling logging operations in-house.  If it were so profitable to do they wouldn't run from it every chance they get to do so and rely so much upon these lowly subcontracted loggers that get such criticism.  They would simply do the job right by doing it themselves. 
I hope you are right in thinking simple market corrections will sustain the industry and hardly create a hiccup along the way, but I fear its not that simple.  The market side would be best served to find a way to better compensate the logging ranks now or they will face harsh consequences in the near future. The logging force is a different dynamic, and I don't think quality can be replaced easily from the uninitiated masses by throwing a few extra dollars out once a large percentage of the traditional logging force is gone.  Keeping grandson in logging now is simply smarter.

[Tmac47]

Great post.

I want to respond to it when it's not so late :D

[NWP]

Well said, thompsontimber. I've been following this thread. Interesting and respectful discussion.

[SwampDonkey]

The logging business, at least the way it has been run up here where mills contract the loggers, it seems the reward for efficiency is dropping the harvesting rates. What other job that you can think of rewards you by dropping your pay?  :

They have been doing the same with pre-commercial thinning to and wondering why it's hard to find anyone. That's DNR and the mills doing. Everything is ash backwards.

[thompsontimber]

Thanks NWP, glad to know some others are finding the discussion of interest.  Nice to have a place like this to have such discussions with others as there are so many different perspectives.

The logging business, at least the way it has been run up here where mills contract the loggers, it seems the reward for efficiency is dropping the harvesting rates. What other job that you can think of rewards you by dropping your pay?  :

They have been doing the same with pre-commercial thinning to and wondering why it's hard to find anyone. That's DNR and the mills doing. Everything is ash backwards.

Its exactly the same way here SwampDonkey, and I'd venture to guess that is how the industry operates in general.  So much of what I've been attempting to say in so many words you can sum up in those few words.  Loggers must be efficient to survive, and the industry always strives to make the logger more efficient and drops the pay in the process.
You can discuss the problems of landowner knowledge, advocacy, and compensation for their timber at length, but the truth is, those that make any effort at all to vet a potential buyer/logger and seek additional offers can get fair compensation for their timber.  By asking for references, talking to others that sold to the buyer, and soliciting from other buyers and taking those same steps, landowners can make a fairly informed decision.  The reason this is true is simple--competition.  Its a highly competitive business, and those that control the wood control the logger.  Landowners are the last to be taken advantage of because they aren't beholden to the buyer, they can simply sell to someone else who offers more money and has a better reputation.  So you pay as much as you can and build a good reputation.  If you have the wood, you can get it logged.  That's been the industry mantra here for decades.  That's what I was taught when I took my first traditional timber procurement position.  Control the wood, control the logger!  Pay the logger so little that he has to borrow money from you to stay afloat, and then he has to cut for you to pay his debt off.  A vicious cycle of control...you will cut it for this rate or you will not cut it.  If the logger's decision is not to cut it, he is soon out of business because he has to cut wood to be in business.  When the logger realizes he simply can't cut it for that rate, then he is told all the reasons that is his fault.  He must become more efficient so that he can afford it.  Logger X and Logger Z can cut it for that rate, so you must. 

Herein lies another major problem with the logging force in general.  The fact is that there is a very good chance that Logger X and Logger Z have no idea what rate they "can" cut at.  Many simply accept the rate because they have to work, the wood is good, and they are too far in debt to simply turn down work.  They don't know their cost per ton, they don't know how far they can profitably drag or profitably truck from the site.  Loggers are a diverse group and many know the ins and outs of logging but not of business.  They only know if there is enough money in the checkbook at the end of the week to pay the fuel bill or not, and many weeks there won't be.  I'm not suggesting those loggers who fall into this category are not at fault for not understanding the operation of their business better, but I am saying the industry takes full advantage of that and that our various certification programs claim to include a "business" side of the training, but my experience is that you get a lots of redundant training in BMPs and safety while business is largely ignored in the training.  Business training is seen by many on the industry side as bad business I'm afraid.

Once a logger accepts a job at a lower rate than the prevailing rate (and their is always pressure to do so), then others will be pushed to cut for that same lower rate.  Mills pay more when demand is up and supply is down.  This often happens when weather and ground conditions in a region dramatically slow production or when broader upturns in the market happen.  Reason would dictate that logging rates should increase in such conditions to improve supply and incentivize the logger to work in harsher conditions, abuse his equipment, work longer hours, burn more fuel, etc.  Instead such increases usually go directly to stumpage (thus why some times are such great times to sell your timber).  As fuel has increased dramatically over time, some mills have implemented "fuel bonuses" that are intended to go directly to logger compensation.  However, they often end up going instead to stumpage or to profits for the timber buyer.  Its just an extra 50 cents/ton of profit that the logger never sees.  I've heard such things justified because "if you pay them more now, they will expect more later."  That's a prevailing attitude I fear.  Keep the logger on the lowest rung and kick him in the head if he starts to climb.  It has worked for so many decades that it is simply "the way its done."  But we live in a changing world, and costs have increases at unprecedented rates while the housing industry has suffered tremendously.  Its no longer sustainable to hold down the logging force under the industry thumb, because in short order their will be no reliable logging force left.  They can't log today for what they logged for 10 years ago, yet that's what most are doing. 

[Tmac47]

However, I don't agree that the logging business is just like any other industry.  Its actually a very independent-minded group of entrepreneurs with so many various backgrounds, education, financials, etc.  I could go on and on about ways that the markets and procurement entities manipulate and control the logging force by taking full advantage of that fragmentation and the immense number of individual contractors that are dependent upon the wood and the limited markets.  I'm not familiar with other industries in the way I know the timber industry, but of course there are parallels across the spectrum of business.  But the timber industry is primarily a family business.

I'd agree that the timber industry is largely a family business, much like America. Family businesses are the backbone of our economy, so to differentiate the timber industry based on it being family oriented misses the larger trend.

Much like the stock market, you want to enter an industry when there's room to grow. Our gut would tell us to get in while it's good, but this actually propagates trends like you're describing.

Companies that can survive in the down/growing times tend to have a lot more staying power than the alternative.

Companies that survive are those that can pivot. Growing in good times and running lean in bad times. How a company responds to these economic cycles largely determines their success, not merely the market itself.  This isn't unique to the timber industry.

There aren't that many classes for the timber harvesting profession. Most who do it grew up doing it.  They have lived it.  Grandfather logged, and then son logged, and now grandson logs.  Sawdust in the veins and slim margins failed to deter the love of the work and the desire to continue the family legacy.

Agreed. But again, this isn't unique to the timber industry. "Family business" is a cultural norm.

But when it becomes near impossible to make a living, dad starts telling son to please go do something else, anything else!  The traditional logging force begins to slowly but surely die out.  There is no substitute for the lost experience and the lost knowledge.

Right, but the ability to adapt to the times and market forces determines the marketability of a company. This is why we have a smartphone app that tracks timber delivery to mill and reconciles accounting.

Why did we spend $250k on this software? Because it removes multiple bottle necks in the logging process.

1. Reconciliation
2. Chain of Custody
3. Quota Management
4. Fleet Management

And most importantly, it allows us to involve landowners in the process and digitizes their records and mill tickets, making them easierto access and share.

It saves a ton of money and landonwers like having access to their tracts info via website.

It effectively responds to maket forces in a way no other company can. The only two other companies that have anything like it are Plum Creek and Rayonier. However, they overpay (millions) for their system if you ask me.

Yes, when things improve, and they will, logging can be more profitable than it is now.  If its profitable enough, financing will become easier to obtain, and new folks will jump in in the hopes for that "gold strike."  The problem is, the bulk of these will be what we call "fly by night" loggers, jumping in the good time and quickly failing when "normal" returns, but while they survive they do terrible work as they "learn on the go" and try to get rich doing something they know very little about.  The influx of this type of "new" logger that results from such a depleted logging force will not enhance the industry.  The good ones that make it will flourish.  We need to help find ways to stop losing the good ones we have now though.  They need incentive to survive. 

Making money isn't a good enough incentive? Heh.

I think the problem you describe exists in any industry regardless. There will always be good companies and bad companies, good mechanics and bad mechanics, efficient workers and inefficient workers.  Those that run efficiently enough to make more money than they spend and maintain a decent reputation will be the ones to survive, always.

The biggest difference with the timber industry, which you address and we agree on, is that most landowners are older and more easily taken advantage of. I see this trend changing dramatically over the next decade.

You may have no concern over the state of the logging force, but I guarantee you there are concerns about it at your local mills somewhere along the ranks.

As a self-proclaimed middle man, I'm directly effected by the state of loggers, so I do care.  However, I'm a realist when it comes to breaking down how we got here and how to get out.

I'm far from wise, but at least a few of the factors are obvious to me. You don't have to be a timber expert to recognize market forces and trends.

I think "IF" a lot of timber companies recognize the need to run more efficiently, remove needless bottlenecks with tech, and start including landowners in their process, there will be a drastic shift in the industry for the better.

[Ron Scott]

Cambodian Leader Threatens Log Smugglers With Rockets

(Phnom Penh, Cambodia – February 25) – Cambodia's tough-talking prime minister said he has authorized helicopters to fire rockets at smugglers illegally harvesting timber.

[AfraidChocker]

It is interesting that this is not an old problem. My Great, Great Grandfather lost his life in 1898 from timber trespass.

He was working for Great Northern Paper Company as their foreman at the Katdain Iron Works, a well known place in Maine. Loggers had been cutting on GNPC Land and he had just visited the attorneys to start litigation when he was "accidentally shot" by hunters. It was November, and he did get on horseback and got back home to LaGrange, Maine but died of his injuries.

Thou shalt not kill is a pretty big sin in the Good Book, so why would someone resort to such measures? Katadin Iron Works was one of few places that had access to a railroad and as such it could be logged year around. In 1898 it was also virgin timber and they were cutting "Long Logs". I know it is nothing for those on the west coast even today, but I'd like to see a grove of white pine today 56 feet long and a foot through on the small end!

I have his diaries right up to his last entry the day of his death. A lot of boring stuff, but interesting nuggets of information too. "I spent the day with Joe hammering out scoot parts", it said in a few places. He was referring to Joe his blacksmith while few today even know what a scoot is; an essential logging item in 1898.