How Much Left

[terry f]

    To any of the foresters, how much money is left from a load of logs to the owner after the logger, trucker and forester are paid. Say a four thousand foot load at 350 a thousand with under 50 miles to the mill, how much of that load goes back to the landowner.

[Ken]

A few other questions would need to be answered first.  Does the logger have to build a road?  Is it a clear cut or partial cut and what is the average volume/acre or piece size/tree?  Lots of variables to every job which will determine the return to the landowner but around here 25-40% after trucking is the average.   Trucks average the better part of $100/hr.

[Ron Wenrich]

If you're selling your timber by the thousand on the stump, then what goes back to the landowner is the amount you were quoted.  If they said it was $200/Mbf, then that's what you get.  If a forester was involved, their commission comes from the stumpage if he was working for you.  Landowners aren't taking any risks past the growing if timber to marketable size.  They sold timber for whatever reasons, and if markets go up or down is of no concern.

If you're doing it by a split, you get whatever split you agreed to.  These sales are usually between logger and landowner.  Now the risk gets to be greater, as you have no control over record keeping, or the logging skills of the logger, as well as their marketing skills.  If the logger is a poor bucker, too bad for the landowner.  If the logger picks a poor markets to send the logs to, too bad for the landowner.  If the logger is dishonest and skins a few loads, too bad for the landowner.  Its not a good way to sell timber, but lots of folks do it.

Trucking, road building and logging costs are the burden of the logger, not the landowner.  The value of a stand of timber goes to the logger.  His profits are the value of the logs less operating costs less stumpage.  The landowners profits are stumpage less operating costs. 

Landowners have several options for increasing profits.  You can increase growth or lessen operating costs.  You can also grow for a different market.  In hardwoods, your ultimate market should be veneer if the site supports it.  There are lesser markets in the thinnings.  Ignoring the lesser markets usually lowers growth rates and profits.  Other options are to go to secondary products such as hunting rights or botanicals  that can be produced in conjunction with other forest products.  Too often landowners only think of profits during a sale, and not all the other things that go into growing timber. 

[ashes]

Very well said.^^

[terry f]

    Ron, using the 200 stumpage figure as a floor, lets say the forester finds a better market or the market goes up 100 during the process of getting the wood out, who gets the added value? The logger shouldn't get any since their service would be the same if the price was 250 or 750 a thousand. Does the mill or forester own the logs from day one and reap the added value or is it the landowner.

[BaldBob]

Terry,
It all depends on how you sold the timber and the type of contract you have with either the logger or the mill. For instance if you sold the timber as stumpage and the logger takes ownership as soon as it is cut, then you get the original agreed upon price per MBF regardless of what the logger gets from the mill. You get no reward if the price the mill pays goes up, but you also take no risk of the price going down. On the other hand if you retain ownership of the logs until delivered to the mill, then the logger essentially becomes your contractor rather than the purchaser of the timber. In that case the logger has no risk or reward with regard to mill price fluctuations ( unless he is logging on shares, but that type of contract is extremely rare in Northeast Oregon), the landowner does. There is a myriad of ways to structure timber contracts and many variations of the two examples I gave. What is best for you is certainly a subject for discussion between you and your forester.

[Ron Wenrich]

The price of diesel goes up and causes logging and trucking costs to go up.  Should the landowner shoulder that expense?  If you sold your timber during a down market cycle, it isn't the fault of the logger.  He didn't put a gun to the landowner's head to sell the timber. 

I used to think that it was possible to sell landowner logs and have a logger come in and contract log it.  Logs would be taken to a central yard to be sorted and sold.  Pretty much what a co-op should be doing.  I figured the extra money in the higher value of logs would pay for the added expense in marketing.  But, a couple of guys have tried it, and failed.  I don't know if it was their marketing skills or not.  The only ones to succeed at this are loggers.  I think a lot of that has to do with the fixed price of the stumpage.  They also leave a lot of junk in the woods that a forester might not, which lowers the ultimate current dollar yield.

I also used to think that landowners would be interested in co-ops where the co-op owned their equipment and possibly their own mill.  Its done in Sweden where co-op mills produce about 25% of the wood.  But, my experience has been that landowners are only interested in selling timber, not growing timber.  As a base, they remain fragmented and they will continue to be marginal as a marketing force.

[Clark]

But, my experience has been that landowners are only interested in selling timber, not growing timber.  As a base, they remain fragmented and they will continue to be marginal as a marketing force.

Ron  - I appreciate what you write on the FF, your insight is always spot on.  The above statements about private, non-industrial landowners should be repeated to every class in forestry schools and reiterated at every continuing education class offered because it so succinctly sums up what landowners (in the US at least) want and what their actual market position is.

Clark

[OneWithWood]

It is sad but true.  As a landowner who is very much into the growing of the trees as well as harvests, I often feel the lack of awareness and interest of other owners keeps the landowner at the lower end of the value received for the trees.

[kytimberman]

Terry, around here a common method of selling is on a "shares" basis, with the landowner getting 50% of the mill's delivered price.  All the costs of logging, hauling, roads, etc., are paid by the buyer, out of their half of the gross.  It's a good way of selling only if you're dealing with a reputable buyer.

[SwampDonkey]

What Ron says about coops exists right here. The biggest factor to make it all work is a market and price, when the veneer market dries up so does the idea behind the central wood yard to move, buck and market the hardwood. Same for log prices, if the extra effort to buck and sort logs has no reward in price, then it just goes to the pulp mill and not fooled with. Plus we don't have an open market like in the US, we compete with cheaper crown wood that have diminishing returns as harvest efficiency goes up. Resulting in devalued timber, which is not sold by bid so unionized mills can take all the profits. Are you going to cut good logs for pulp prices, not me.

[terry f]

    If I could take this in a different direction, what type of return would someone expect when investing in small acreage timberland (20 to 80) acres, to make it a worthwhile investment. Aside from the love of the land and the "fun" you have playing in your woods, it would be tough to beat the stock market over any 20-30 year period. It seems land appreciation and tree growth would have a tuff time keeping up, but it must or no one would do it.

[SwampDonkey]

Bare land is going to be worth a lot more than forest land. Up here it is. Huge areas of forest land are sold or traded quite often for about $250-400/acre when you do the math. You don't see 500,000 acres + of farmland sold in one swoop. Woodland value up here goes with the price of wood and stumpage. When cut we only get about $300-400/acre for brush land at best and some cases when bundled in with the farm, $50/acre if your lucky. The biggest gains, is the property you bought from the old widow lady that figured $80,000 was a lot of money for 300 acres. Then logged it during a market upswing. That went on a lot here over the years. Everybody knows somebody.

[enigmaT120]

    If I could take this in a different direction, what type of return would someone expect when investing in small acreage timberland (20 to 80) acres, to make it a worthwhile investment. Aside from the love of the land and the "fun" you have playing in your woods, it would be tough to beat the stock market over any 20-30 year period. It seems land appreciation and tree growth would have a tuff time keeping up, but it must or no one would do it.

That certainly is a different direction!  I have 32 acres that I live on and manage.  The return is probably too variable to estimate.  I bought my house and 4 acres for $75,000 in '91, then the surrounding 28 acres of re-planted clear cut for $17,000.  I've sold $7,000 of trees to Weyerhauser in 2004 -- some the 1989 logger missed.   I guess within 10 years I should have some commercial thinning ready to go, but I won't sell it unless prices are pretty good.  Except for a few poorly stocked patches, I don't expect to clear cut anything.  I do expect to make money, but I guess my biggest reason for all this is, as you say, "the love of the land and the "fun" you have playing in your woods."

[BradMarks]

Interesting topic, particularly rate of return.  Industrial timberland owners often times appear to be run by "bean counters", maximizing return for investors(stockholders) at a rate of maybe 3% annually, certainly not as good as the stock market 'may' be.  But I'm sure there are a lot of folks out there whose 401K turned into a 201K in recent years, particularly bad timing when nearing retirement. So the timber investment is slow and steady, and harvest is sustainable - except when timberland is sold or converted into a REIT. Then it's ball's to the walls as the return must justify the investment or must keep up with the stock market.  The result is overcutting the remaining product to produce revenue, with the end result many communities feasting in the short term before famine sets in. Oversimplified, certainly.  The small timberland owner, restricted by size, doesn't have to produce revenue on an annual basis to justify his/her investment and therefor the rate of return has to be different.  Lump sums at irregular intervals.  But satisfaction always.  Just my opinion.  :

[Ron Wenrich]

The investment in the timberland increases in value to land values as well as timber appreciation.  Some places, that's a lot more than in others.  In my part of the country, its rare to see timberland sold with a timber inventory.  Realtors are only interested in one thing - commissions.  That's what one told me when I informed him he did his client a disservice since he sold the land for less than timber value. 

Returns depend on how intensely you do the management.  Most people do nothing, so the increase in their return is not as great as someone who takes the time to do thinnings and the like.  There are also non-timber products that can also be harvested.  I remember a guy from Oregon that was harvesting white truffles, and could get much more in truffle value than in timber value. 

If you do nothing and your return is $100, you have a high rate of return.  If you invest $100, then your return has to be higher than $200 to breakeven.  Sloth is always cheaper. It just means it takes longer to recoup the return. 

[SwampDonkey]

Yeah, if you go to a realtor looking for cruising work, you'll be starving.  ;D

But most of the cruising I've seen in sales, is just for the stumpage, not the land. There are quite few that I do recall for land sales, but that is instances that the land owner wanted the cruise, not a realtor.

[enigmaT120]

I had my place surveyed for truffles -- nope.  I have some chanterelles, but not enough to worry about selling.  I am interested in non-timber forest products, especially for after I retire. 

[terry f]

    If I was to do it again, I would do it with less emotion and more of a bean counter attitude. High grade and clear cut aren't in my vocabulary, and I'm not comparing the two, just not for me. The forty I have now will take more than my lifetime to get it where I would like to see it, but would love to have more ground to play with, just don't know how to justify it.

[SwampDonkey]

I'm mid 40's and my hardwood and spruce won't be mature until after I'm dead. But fir and aspen will be ready for a commercial thinning in another 20.  8)

[Tmac47]

But, my experience has been that landowners are only interested in selling timber, not growing timber.  As a base, they remain fragmented and they will continue to be marginal as a marketing force.

I think there are a few reasons for this.

For one, the industry itself is very fragmented and segregated.  Due to high competition and slim margins, people are VERY protective over their timber business.

There's also a lack of marketing know-how within the industry as a whole, even from the big guys, so landowners don't understand the value of the industry as a whole, especially foresters.  Therefore, when they look at their land, they think they're smart enough to do it themselves, because no one's telling them otherwise.

When it comes time to the sale, they follow the same line of thought.  "Why do I need the help of a forester, who's going to charge me to tell me what I already know?"  I don't think it's because they're stupid or mean spirited, I think the industry just does a poor job of marketing the value of foresters.

A couple of months ago, my dad got a call from a lady wanting to sale some timber.  It took him a couple of days, but he got some premium prices for her.  He called her back to tell her he got a her $58,000 for her acreage and she says, "Hey Mr. ___, turn out I didn't need your help after all.  I just sold it for $40,000."

When an industry is closed off, it's difficult to do business.  It's also hard for landowners to see timberland as an investment, because again the industry isn't marketing the idea to them.  It's even harder for them to see the value in professionals who can increase the value of that investment.

Imagine the stock market without a ticker.  How much harder would it be to do business if you didn't know the price of anything.  The timber industry is like that.

[mesquite buckeye]

You plant trees for your grandchildren. You cut your grandfather's trees. This is not a business for the impatient. ;D

[Tmac47]

You plant trees for your grandchildren. You cut your grandfather's trees. This is not a business for the impatient. ;D

Quality planted pine reaches harvest age at 28 years.  There's companies that sale CMP that grosses around $2k per acre at 28 years, with a nice thinning at 13 years.

I would say that your quote is sort of misleading.  If you're thinning, like you should be, at 13-15 years then it's totally reasonable to sale timber at least 4x if not more in a single lifetime.

If you're cutting your grandparents trees, you've either got bad advice or bad seedlings.

[Tmac47]

 

 

UGA CAPPS PROGRAM



 

MIKE KANE - UGA-PMRC



 



 

INTERNATIONAL FOREST COMPANY

[beenthere]

Tmac

If you're cutting your grandparents trees, you've either got bad advice or bad seedlings.

If'n we were all growing Loblolly pine in the south, then we wouldn't be cutting grandpa's trees either. ;)

[Tmac47]

Tmac
If'n we were all growing Loblolly pine in the south, the we wouldn't be cutting grandpa's trees either. ;)

True enough.  I was just responding the the "planting trees..." comment.

Old growth hardwood and natural regen pine is certainly slower growing.

Longleaf can see similar results to loblolly, so don't leave them out! ;)

[Ianab]

Radiata pine in NZ will produce top quality saw logs (with good management) on about a 23 year rotation, so you can plant for your retirement.

But if you want to grow Rimu or Kauri, plan on about 400 year rotation. Rimu will sell for about $8 a bd/ft rough sawn, but 90% of the local forestry is Pine. 8 % is Douglas Fir. 2% is "everything else"  The economics of the long term species just doesn't work.

So while you can grow pine etc in the right climate, many species need a much longer term approach, and a bit more forward planning than a crop like Corn....

Ian

[SwampDonkey]

Stand dynamics, silvics and timing is just as important as silviculture, like thinning. If I thinned spruce out like southern pine, I would have a bunch of cow shades with no market. No mill will touch'm.

Planted jack pine is about the most crooked and limby mess of trees you ever saw. Not planted tight enough. Natural dense stands of jack originating from fire is straight as gun barrels and self pruned well. It's not a long lived tree like white pine either. It can benefit from thinning, but beginning at pole stage, not sapling. Pruning is not economical as it's not a high value tree. I'm pruning fir, but for my needs, not someone else. I don't make work out of it and it's not for the economics but for the clear wood. I do it at times when there is no 'opportunity cost'. I will be the miller, hopefully. ;D

[terry f]

    Tmac, I don't doubt any of your numbers, and that rate of return would make timberland a top investment. But out here in the real world it would be tuff to get four harvests in a lifetime, and what mesquite buckeye said about grandpa rings true. Part of my land is a thin layer of dirt covering nothing but rock, other parts are rock covered by a thin layer of dirt. Some parts are good site that grows well, other parts might have a crooked 30 foot tall, 100 year old ponderosa pine just trying to make a living. Five months covered in snow, and three months with no rain, make tuff growing conditions. I would guess that in the south or farm belt, timber would have to compete with yearly crops and beat them, or they wouldn't be planted at all.

[Ron Wenrich]

One of the big problems with landowners is that they can't tell you the difference between a logger and a forester.  The logger comes in and tells them that you don't need a forester, we'll just do a diameter limit cut.  Or they do a selection cut.  The landowner feels he got a good deal, since they're leaving the small trees to grow. 

Try growing pine plantations in PA.  There is no market.  Thinning pine means you need to sell either for shavings or for pulpwood.  We have that market in the SE, but that still isn't enough to entice landowners to convert land over to pine.  The other market is for log cabin stock.  That market has pretty well dried up.  There are no stud mills in the state.  Wooly adelgid is taking care of the hemlock, weevil goes after white pine.  Without the markets, pine based forestry goes out the door.  Most plantations are on strip mines where they can get a quick forest cover. 

So, that leaves us with management based around several type species.  What you manage for is dependent on where you're located.  Cherry is prevalent in the tier counties, as that is prime cherry country and a well established market.  Oak markets are well established in most of the state, so that's what most guys manage for.  Tulip poplar is big in the southeast corner, but markets are cyclical.  You could also manage for maple, but few foresters do, because they have had oak drilled into their head, since that was the big market at the time.  We do very little planting in the state, and most forests come from natural regeneration.  Standard rotation for oak is about 75 years. 

Typical is to do a diameter limit cut, then come in 30-40 years later and do it again.  I saw a stat one time that said 50% of the timber in PA is sold this way.  The other option is to do selection cut, sometimes sold as uneven aged management.  That's where you simply take out the large diameter timber and a smattering of lower diameter wood so the aesthetics look good.  Then you come in every 20 years and do another one until there is nothing left but small trees.  Thinning in the small diameters doesn't happen.  Where is the need for a forester?  The consultant has become more of a marketing agent than a stand management agent.

I remember talking with a German forester on the net a good number of years ago.  He talked about the management of different strata of the forest.  They were allowing their beech and oak to grow to 36".  They made up the canopy.  Then they had the middle strata which consisted of wood that they coppiced for fuel wood.  The lower strata consisted of the lower understory, which would include regeneration. 

We don't do anything like that here.  We tend to look at it as a crop with the end game being to produce as much fiber in as short of time as possible.  We tend to disregard the other products the forest offers.  Many of them are hard to cash in on, as the timber is the low hanging fruit of the stand. 

[Tmac47]

We live in a day-and-age where people spend premium prices for food labeled "organic".  Why?  Because it feels good to do the right thing.  Why do they think it's the right thing?  Because they're being told it's the right thing.

When you get down to the science of it all, there's no difference in the nutritional content of regular fruits and vegetables vs organic, yet people still perceive organic as the superior product.

There would be no market for organic goods if no one was propagating that message, however, they are and they're pretty darn good at it.  So much so, that people are willing to spend more money, because of perceived value.  Like I said, there's no nutritional difference and in some double-blind taste tests I've seen, statistically people tend to prefer the taste non-organic foods.

So, what's the answer?  Well, firstly foresters need to simplify their message.  The industry is guilty of being accurate to the point of uselessness.  They suffer from the curse of knowledge and often give landowners too much information.  For example, if I'm describing an atom to someone unfamiliar with atoms, I'm going to use something they're familiar with, like the solar system.  "Electrons, rotate around the the nucleus of an atom, much like planets orbit the sun."  Is this an accurate description?  No!  But, it's one people can understand.

Landowners contact me, all the time, who simply want to be educated on the management process.  They don't want to be experts, but time-and-time again, I see people in the industry overloading landowners with so much information, they're even more clueless.  As someone who grew up around the industry, but only recently got "in" it, I ask a lot of questions to get a feel for what they want, connect them with a forester, and let the forester hand-hold the landowner through the process.

I'm using marketing techniques to create a market for foresters and timber companies where none has existed before.  I'm trying to bring the value perception to landowners, so that they'll actually manage timber the right way.  That includes management for more than just investment, but also for wildlife and aesthetics.

How am I doing that?  I use concrete images and simple messaging:


 

In the end, it's not really about markets.  It's about creating perception.

In the next decade we're going to see a huge shift in the ownership of land.  The people inheriting it have no idea what to do with the land and the only people spreading a message are generally the likes of the Dogwood Alliance, Sierra Club and other unfriendly organizations.

If the industry doesn't start spreading their own message now, traditional businesses will continue to suffer and mine will continue to grow.

[beenthere]

traditional businesses will continue to suffer and mine will continue to grow.

What is your business?

[Tmac47]

traditional businesses will continue to suffer and mine will continue to grow.

What is your business?

I have a website that connects foresters and landowners.  We've moved into two more states in the last month and are continuing to see a steady trend of growth.

We were featured in the latest issue of Forest Landowners Magazine.  I'm very thankful for the work they're doing over there!

[Raider Bill]

traditional businesses will continue to suffer and mine will continue to grow.

What is your business?

I have a website that connects foresters and landowners.  We've moved into two more states in the last month and are continuing to see a steady trend of growth.

We were featured in the latest issue of Forest Landowners Magazine.  I'm very thankful for the work they're doing over there!

Anyone in SE Tenn [Athens area]?

I'm going to start looking into a pre commercial thinning of my loblolly.

[Ron Wenrich]

I usually keep it pretty simple.  I just tell them you don't kill your best milkers.  They seem to understand that.  You don't need pictures. 

[Tmac47]

I usually keep it pretty simple.  I just tell them you don't kill your best milkers.  They seem to understand that.  You don't need pictures.

Sure, you don't need pictures  ;D

However, a lesson I learned from a great forester early on was that a picture speaks a thousand words.  I think I've heard that before somewhere...

When he gives his landowners reports, they generally consist of several pictures and barely enough writing to get a whole paragraph.  They eat it up!  It proves that he was actually out there and they don't have to use their imaginations, which have no grid for timber operations anyways, to understand the value he's giving them.

He manages for baseball players, football players and general wealth that folks down south would consider celebrities. So, in a way, his methods speak for themselves.

Again, it's all about creating perception and value.  Pictures always help:



 



 

[beenthere]

Tmac
I see your point, but what do the two pics you posted tell you?

The first tells me that the company selling that brand of paint is not being truthful, if trying to imply the paint can be put on in the rain. Maybe the pic isn't an ad for selling paint. ;)

The second is a bit of stretch to the truth, as we know the car isn't communicating to the pigeons.

And I may just be twisting the intent of the pics too.  Which raises a point about pics and how we look at them.

[Tmac47]

Tmac
I see your point, but what do the two pics you posted tell you?

The first tells me that the company selling that brand of paint is not being truthful, if trying to imply the paint can be put on in the rain. Maybe the pic isn't an ad for selling paint. ;)

The second is a bit of stretch to the truth, as we know the car isn't communicating to the pigeons.

And I may just be twisting the intent of the pics too.  Which raises a point about pics and how we look at them.

The ads are certainly not the poster-children of honesty, but I think you prove the point that no one's really dumb enough to try and paint in the rain or park under a powerline of pigeons.  However, they are still powerful images that communicate a message in seconds.

That's more my point.  Pictures can be powerful in communicating a message.

What message does the industry communicate?  Well, they don't really.  Think about other industries:

• Beef, it's what's for dinner.
• Cotton, the fabric of our lives.
• Milk, does a body good.

Because the industry is so polarized by competition and fragmented, the message is fragmented, landowners are alienated and the market shrinks.

[Ron Wenrich]

Wood is wonderful.  That was the industry line about 20-30 years ago.  Then came the sustainability issues and they got caught up in certification. 

The industry isn't really all that fragmented.  Its regionalized because of the diversity of the crop, and the different uses of each species.  There is good competition that keeps timber values up in most areas. 

The landowner base is fragmented, which leads to the problems of management.  In areas where government owns the acreage, management is generally pretty good, at least here in PA.  They have a wide diversity of products ranging from recreation to timber products.  Compatible products where landowners generally have single use. 

I got a postcard from a timber buyer yesterday.  They have a picture on the back showing a stand of timber.  They will come out and give a timber appraisal.  Not a whisper of forest management.  In my area, the larger mills have procurement foresters.  The only ones that do any active management is the one paper mill, and they've cut back.  The others cut sawtimber, so any management comes from "selective" harvests.  The one mill cuts all red oak over 14".  They do no inventories or write any management plans. 

The state does provide a list of practicing foresters.  We have no licensing, so the state list only provides those with BS degrees in forestry.  There are a lot of mills on that list.  The state used to do a lot with the private landowners, but has done away with it.  Seems like education is up to the individual landowner.  I haven't seen a Tree Farm sign in years. 

[terry f]

    Ron, are you saying the Germans are on to something with that management. I can see where a forester is more of a marketing consultant at the end game, finding better markets, but telling someone they need to hire someone at 10 or 12 dollars an hour to thin their trees, that will pay off 20 years from now, would be a tough sell. Like you say with the low hanging fruit, I would think most owners don't actively manage their woods, or think too much about them. Tmac, I was looking for that forest owners mag, but couldn't find it. I did come across a good site called forest landowners of California, has lots of cool tools, (my land plan) is one of them.

[Tmac47]

The industry isn't really all that fragmented.  Its regionalized because of the diversity of the crop, and the different uses of each species.  There is good competition that keeps timber values up in most areas.

I guess from a market standpoint, you're right, however I'd still make the argument that one of the biggest reasons there's no singular message in the industry is due to fragmentation.  Sure, the timber industry is unique in that everyone knows everybody else, but in my experience people rarely work together on educating landowners, marketing, or even sharing prices.  Three simple things that would have a huge impact on landowners.

The landowner base is fragmented, which leads to the problems of management.  In areas where government owns the acreage, management is generally pretty good, at least here in PA.  They have a wide diversity of products ranging from recreation to timber products.  Compatible products where landowners generally have single use.

I would say that landowner fragmentation is an effect of industry fragmentation.  There's a reason Landowners have difficulty understanding the value of management, don't trust timber companies, and have to pay around $300 to get timber prices from places like Timber-Mart South.

Each of these issues (and there are more), all help in creating a larger market that discourages landowners from doing anything.  The industry should be making it easy for landowners, yet every time I get a call from a landowner, even the ones that are actually doing stuff, by the time we get done talking it's clear that:

• They don't trust timber companies (foresters included)
• They don't have a management plan
• They have no idea what the timber cutting process looks like
• They've heard more horror stories than happy ones

Obviously, good things are happening in the industry, but the reality is that no one knows about it, because no one talks about it on a national level.  If anyone is talking about it, it's the Landowner Organizations, but let's be honest, only a fraction of landowners are part of organizations.  The vast majority have no clue that timber management is even a thing.

I got a postcard from a timber buyer yesterday.  They have a picture on the back showing a stand of timber.  They will come out and give a timber appraisal.  Not a whisper of forest management.  In my area, the larger mills have procurement foresters.  The only ones that do any active management is the one paper mill, and they've cut back.  The others cut sawtimber, so any management comes from "selective" harvests.  The one mill cuts all red oak over 14".  They do no inventories or write any management plans.

We always connect landowners with an independent forester and really try to get a feel for what the landowner wants.  Part of that process is just asking the right questions.  Once that happens, we can push the snowball down the hill.  Generally we get two situations, people either haven't done anything with their timber for 30-40 years and need to thin or they've got a LOT of young wood and need to pre-commercial thin.  The point is that most landowners just don't know and they don't trust anyone.

The state does provide a list of practicing foresters.  We have no licensing, so the state list only provides those with BS degrees in forestry.  There are a lot of mills on that list.  The state used to do a lot with the private landowners, but has done away with it.  Seems like education is up to the individual landowner.  I haven't seen a Tree Farm sign in years.

They do.  However, I've talked to the President of Alabama's Forest Landowner's Association and he says that landowner's are still in the position of cold-calling someone they don't know and feel like they can't trust, because it's just another list of names.

9 times out of 10, he said they end up calling him and he gives them a shorter list...and they're pretty much left in the same position, haha.

And you're also right that education is up to the landowner.  So, where do they go?

[Ron Wenrich]

We're pretty much on the same page.  Up here, Penn State has a price list of what stumpage is going for and what gate prices are.  They are region specific to the state.  They're pretty active even at the industrial level.  The stumpage report is free, but some of the workshops have a fee for materials.  I see a lot more on urban forestry than in years past.

Guys at the state tell me that landowners see the list and ask which ones they should pick.  The state boys can't do that or the consultants will hang them out to dry.  Chances are, they do nothing.  The only action you normally see is when gypsy moth start to munch on large areas. 

The government used to do a lot of landowner education.  Their most successful program was Smokey the Bear.  Now you can't have a controlled burn.  I don't think there is any industrial group that is interested in landowner education.  Most are self serving and have an eye to the certification mess.

When I was doing active consulting work, we would send out newsletters and hoped to get a response.  We were in the 0.1% range for responses.  People did keep them, but most of our work came from cold calls.  Even listed as a consulting forester in the phone book for 30 years have only netted a few calls.  I get more calls from my work on the Internet compared to any other system. 

Where do they go?  Increasingly, it is the internet.  We get quite a few landowners come through the doors.  They get free advice.  I don't know how many follow it or how much of an impact it has.  The amount of landowners to do this is minuscule. I think the best method is for landowner organizations, but I don't know who would organize them.  Maybe extension service.  Our local extension office has a forester on staff, but she's more in the urban and recreation side of things. 

[mesquite buckeye]

I guess I am one of those weird people who fall into the class of being both a landowner and educated about growing timber. Growing up from German heritage in NW Ohio, the German timber management ethic was not yet dead at that time. Most all the farms had 5-10 acres set aside in timber, which was used mostly on the farm for new buildings and other wood needs such as heat. Trees were used at the first sign of decline. Firewood was cut from the tops and low value materials. Good, straight trees were saved and let grow. This was enough to keep the forests in pretty good shape, generally.

My father eventually moved to central Missouri, which is blessed with lots and lots of hardwood timber. Unfortunately, most of the timber "management" there is high grading, which has gone on pretty much since settlement. Many tracts are filled with trees that colonized abandoned farmland since the 1960's, as small pieces of tillable land became uneconomic to farm, or just became too degraded by erosion to be worth farming.

There is a long standing distrust of loggers by landowners, who feel, whether justly or unjustly, that many of the loggers are thieves. Timber harvests are like the lottery, with landowners not knowing the value of their timber dealing with people who work timber for a living. Who do you think comes out best in such an arrangement?

Here is a personal example. My father needed money during the farm depression in the 1980's. He asked around with his friends who had been happy with a logger and so on. He contacted a man who made a lot of promises about how much veneer this and sawlog that was there, and they worked out a shares deal. Started out pretty good as the high value trees were being cut, but as it went on, lots of loads were going out the back gate, from which dad got nothing. Trees were dropped whichever way they leaned, with no regard for the future growth or what got smashed, like lots of pole walnut and cherry. All the best trees were gone, all the worst were left.

I bought the farm in 1991. It took 5 years just to clean up the tops and smashed trees, along with initiating pruning and thinning in the better parts of the woods. If we couldn't find a valuable tree, we would leave the straight low value tree instead of the crooked one. If we found a good, high value tree, we gave it room to grow and pruned it. We reduced the grapevines and poison ivy that were so big (up to 8"dbh grape and 4-6" dbh poison ivy) that 90 foot trees were overtopped. Some of the bigger individual vines covered more than an acre. Things slowly got better. It was amazing to see how fast the trees filled back in after we thinned, as well as how they started to get fat much faster than the ones we didn't touch.

Sorry to ramble on so, but there is a point to this. Probably 10 years ago, we needed to thin the areas we thinned originally again, and we were getting lots of 8-12" poles out of that, which we just squared up on the mill for timbers. One of the neighbors who was a farmer, college educated, asked how we were getting timbers out of those skinny logs. He said he could never do that with his trees, as they were too crooked.
He had the same trees we did, he just didn't do any selection or thinning. Ours were all straight because those were the ones we left when we thinned the doghair stands. Growing good timber is a choice and an effort. One landowner got educated that day. He later bought a sawmill, but I don't think he does any timber management to this day other than cutting down and milling a tree. I hope that in some small way, maybe some of the locals will  see the results of what we have done and we can have an effect on their actions taking care of their own land.

Here is what I see: Farmers are getting bigger and bigger. The emphasis is and always will be cropland and crop production. Even the prospect of management disappears with these people as they are so busy with the crop portion of their land. Timber is considered a place to hunt, waste land, and perhaps a place to get an occasional paycheck. Much of the rough land is being bid up as hunting and recreational land by people who do not make a living in agriculture (mostly townies, not meaning to be derogatory, but mostly people who don't know much about nature or growing plants). These people generally know even less about the forest than the farmers they bought it from. I ran into one of the new neighbors while we were out cutting grapevines. He asked what we were doing. I told him about cutting vines, selection, thinning, pruning and so on. He said he needed to do that on his land. I was out walking the property line later and found no trespassing signs nailed every 50 feet the length of the line, lots of them nailed to black walnut poles in the 8-12" range without a single branch to 30-40ft. One of them was on a walnut on my side of the line (Thanks neighbor) which I promptly removed and tossed back onto his side.

I think maybe the best hope is to get the smaller landowners with enough time to work on their woods and perhaps convince the new, urban woodland owners to take an interest in managing their trees. Some outreach from extension people might help. So far the history on this is not good. Conferences for managing trees for timber are typically poorly attended, while conferences for managing your land for deer are packed. The smarter of the big farmers will eventually realize on their own that a substantial part of their assets are not producing the income they could and will invest as is appropriate to generating a profit, whatever level of management that might be.

I think the best news out of all of this is that since management, at least in the hardwood forest, is unlikely to improve much in the near term, higher prices will result for high quality timber products produced from well managed forests, since less of them will be produced from degraded forests. ;D

I personally am saddened by the state of affairs, where immediate gain is the only motivation. The long term interests of all of us and of the nation are degraded when this potential to produce large quantities of high value timber is wasted, while the downstream industrial and consumer product jobs move overseas. :(

[beenthere]

And as I understand, and to put it simply, the Germans depleated their forests in WWI as well as WWII. They had to import all (or nearly all) their wood from WWII forward. They cultivated new forests like gardens, and because the importing pipeline was working well for their timber/wood needs, they protected their forests from much of their own needs.
Summary is that their forests were picture perfect and any "weeding" was used locally and the product brought good money.

[mesquite buckeye]

Maybe so. My family moved here in the 1880's. It was a different time.

[Tmac47]

I guess I am one of those weird people who fall into the class of being both a landowner and educated about growing timber.

Well, you are a member of a forestry forum, haha.  I would guess, anyone here would fall into that special minority  8)

[terry f]

    Mesquite, if your dad hadn't cut the trees, and you had bought the farm with them, plus 30 years more growth now, what would be your strategy. Would it be the germen way of using the new and leaving the old, select veneer cut, it seems the choices would be endless when you have a well managed trac to start with instead of rehabbing mistakes from past ownership. Your dad had to do what he had to do, and a lot of people might be in that boat now, but I'm sure he wasn't happy with the end result, especially loads going out the back gate. I'm sure a lot of foresters can drive through the countryside looking at different properties, and think, if that was mine, I'd do it this way.

[mesquite buckeye]

It would be a different world, for sure. My sister bought another piece of the old farm and has some timber that wasn't all cut last time because it was too small or hard to get to at the time. The land there is richer, the trees faster growing. I saw an oak that probably was 15-18" at that time now is a spectacular mid thirties now. Unfortunately, I could see a black streak from one of the old branch scars. Definitely wetwood at least, if not hollow. Trees like that that don't get cut become rotten snags. We get a lot of droughts, some of which weaken or kill trees, diseases that knock out patches of trees, insect attacks, especially following drought. I'm guessing that a lot of those big ones would have been harvested by now, as they would be pushing 30-40" by now and also could be defective.

The good thing about the woods being really messed up meant I wasn't so much locked into what was already there, allowing me to start pushing the stand the way I thought would be best. We have a LOT of outstanding stuff coming that is now from 6" to 20" dbh We are starting to cut the first trees that have matured out to the point of needing to be cut because their degrade is going faster than their growth. I'm thinking the really big veneer trees are only going to come off the best spots on the farm. Lots of really good trees will likely just be high quality sawlogs as they mature. It would have been nice to have some veneer trees coming off the farm, but it is looking like those will be cut by my nephew in another 30 years. If his son is interested, the CRP trees should be ready by the time he is 50 (he is 3). Not my grandson, but same timeframe. ;D

[Tmac47]

The government used to do a lot of landowner education.  Their most successful program was Smokey the Bear.  Now you can't have a controlled burn.  I don't think there is any industrial group that is interested in landowner education.  Most are self serving and have an eye to the certification mess.

Yeah, that's the fragmentation I've been referring to.  This attitude is having a detrimental effect on the industry and discourages landowner involvement more than anything, which in essence shrinks the market for management and even timber sales.

Smokey the Bear is a great example of what having a simple and concrete message can achieve.  The industry would be wise to revisit the drawing board and come up with a similar campaign that actually promotes management.  I mean, let's get real here, trees are the greenest and most organic form of energy you can get.  It's carbon neutral and cheap and the bio energy market will continue to grow, yet you've already got the environmental religious are already campaigning against it.

When I was doing active consulting work, we would send out newsletters and hoped to get a response.  We were in the 0.1% range for responses.  People did keep them, but most of our work came from cold calls.  Even listed as a consulting forester in the phone book for 30 years have only netted a few calls.  I get more calls from my work on the Internet compared to any other system.

Yeah, getting landowner feedback is a tricky business.  It has a lot to do with timing, messaging, and perceived value.  The perceived value part is a broader problem, because people have no grid for the benefits of management.  They'll listen to a financial adviser when it comes to their 401k, because financial houses spend millions of dollars creating a value perception, but when it comes to getting forestry advice there's already so much distrust.

Again, I'm speaking in broad terms.  I know foresters that have the trust of their clients and do amazing work, but that's only because they developed a relationship over a period of years.  This trust simply does not compute on a broader scale.  People tend to retell the horror stories and forget everything else. 

Where do they go?  Increasingly, it is the internet.  We get quite a few landowners come through the doors.  They get free advice.  I don't know how many follow it or how much of an impact it has.  The amount of landowners to do this is minuscule. I think the best method is for landowner organizations, but I don't know who would organize them.  Maybe extension service.  Our local extension office has a forester on staff, but she's more in the urban and recreation side of things.

Well, I think the problem, again is fragmentation and...how to say this without offending anyone...a lack of understanding in how to connect with people via the internet? Haha.

Six months ago I was on the ground with a landowner who said he spent 3 hours one day trying to find advice on what to do with his timber and my site was the only one he found that was, "Worth a *DanG".   He has 500 acres of timberland in South Georgia that he wanted to cut and reinvest in the market for a more liquid asset.  He also came from a family that cut timber and he kinda knew what was up.

So, why did he find information on my site and not state sites?  Well, understanding simple search-engine-optimization is one part of it and generating accessible content is another.  There are GIGABYTES of hidden information on a lot of these government and university sites in the form of PDF's and cryptic page descriptions.

There are actually Landowner Associations that generate great content as well, but it's inaccessible and you sure won't find it Google.  What I mean by inaccessible is that it's not searchable and the user-interface is terrible.  I think a big problem is simply web development and understanding how to create content that's easy to find, consume and share.

This could also just be a matter of the industry and people not understanding the internet.  Which, again, is why it would seem that I've stumbled upon a good niche.  More by accident than anything :D  We can thank the good Lord for that!

[Tmac47]

There is a long standing distrust of loggers by landowners, who feel, whether justly or unjustly, that many of the loggers are thieves. Timber harvests are like the lottery, with landowners not knowing the value of their timber dealing with people who work timber for a living. Who do you think comes out best in such an arrangement?

There's a term in business called the 20/80 rules.  Where 20% of your clients cause 80% of your headaches, 20% of your customers generate 80% of your revenues and so on.

In the timber industry I think the same rule applies.  20% of the industry are crooked and make the 80% that are great look bad.  Plus, most organizations do a terrible job of promoting their foresters, so no clear message ever reaches landowners and they're left to remember the horror stories and forget anything else.

I've talked to a baseball player who had 2,000 acres and contacted a logger to do a timber sale through.  In his own words, "I figured if someone's been cutting timber for 20 years, they should know what the hell they're doing."  It's just another example of someone not doing enough research and not having a real outlet to find reputable people.

We always tell people to use a forester and find out who they're representing.  If they're representing the seller, then they should recognize all the risks involved.  I like to tell people that foresters are real-estate agents for timber.  They tend to understand the importance of using a real-estate agent, probably because the Realtor organization spends millions of dollars in marketing...

Here is a personal example. My father needed money during the farm depression in the 1980's. He asked around with his friends who had been happy with a logger and so on. He contacted a man who made a lot of promises about how much veneer this and sawlog that was there, and they worked out a shares deal. Started out pretty good as the high value trees were being cut, but as it went on, lots of loads were going out the back gate, from which dad got nothing. Trees were dropped whichever way they leaned, with no regard for the future growth or what got smashed, like lots of pole walnut and cherry. All the best trees were gone, all the worst were left.

:(  I'm really sorry this happened to your family Mesquite.

He had the same trees we did, he just didn't do any selection or thinning. Ours were all straight because those were the ones we left when we thinned the doghair stands. Growing good timber is a choice and an effort. One landowner got educated that day.

<---- you can't post GIFS? :O

When I started my business, I assumed (wrongly), that my competition would be other timber companies.  Ha!  You want to know what my competition is?  Landowner ignorance.

We've talked to over 3,000 landowners in the past year and less than 10% of them are managing their property.  Sigh.  However, we're taking steps to educated them and using real life examples that they can relate to.  It's helping and we're slowly moving the snowball downhill.

Timber is considered a place to hunt, waste land, and perhaps a place to get an occasional paycheck. Much of the rough land is being bid up as hunting and recreational land by people who do not make a living in agriculture (mostly townies, not meaning to be derogatory, but mostly people who don't know much about nature or growing plants). These people generally know even less about the forest than the farmers they bought it from. I ran into one of the new neighbors while we were out cutting grapevines. He asked what we were doing. I told him about cutting vines, selection, thinning, pruning and so on. He said he needed to do that on his land. I was out walking the property line later and found no trespassing signs nailed every 50 feet the length of the line, lots of them nailed to black walnut poles in the 8-12" range without a single branch to 30-40ft. One of them was on a walnut on my side of the line (Thanks neighbor) which I promptly removed and tossed back onto his side.

I think maybe the best hope is to get the smaller landowners with enough time to work on their woods and perhaps convince the new, urban woodland owners to take an interest in managing their trees. Some outreach from extension people might help. So far the history on this is not good. Conferences for managing trees for timber are typically poorly attended, while conferences for managing your land for deer are packed. The smarter of the big farmers will eventually realize on their own that a substantial part of their assets are not producing the income they could and will invest as is appropriate to generating a profit, whatever level of management that might be.

I was talking to a forester out in MS today.  He said he recently talked to a landowner with 3,000 acres who contacted him and said, "I'm tired of not making any money on my timber.  It's costing me a fortune!"  He said he's amazed at how many people out there, with a ton of land, aren't making any money and don't know it's a simple as a little forestry advice.

A forester I worked for in high school manages 1500 acres and has it broken up into sections.  They cut timber and burn every year, somewhere on the property.  It's a slick operation and they've got very active wildlife.  Newly elected Senators and state officials visit their tree farm every year.

I think the best news out of all of this is that since management, at least in the hardwood forest, is unlikely to improve much in the near term, higher prices will result for high quality timber products produced from well managed forests, since less of them will be produced from degraded forests. ;D

I personally am saddened by the state of affairs, where immediate gain is the only motivation. The long term interests of all of us and of the nation are degraded when this potential to produce large quantities of high value timber is wasted, while the downstream industrial and consumer product jobs move overseas. :(

Yeah, it's crazy how landowners do nothing, then expect any sort of significant return.  However, I think if something can be done to create conversation around the value of management and the industry can produce a simple and clear message, things could change for the better.  However, turning the titanic around is no small feat. Grrr...

[mesquite buckeye]

If you read forestry literature from the 1950's, the story was the same. It is sad how little has changed for the better in 60 years. Still some of us keep trying. ;D

[SwampDonkey]

I've talked and written about much of the same things over the years. I've basically concluded from most people's attitudes that I'll look after my own ground and let everyone else worry about theirs. There has been enough educating of landowners about forest management in NB, that if you don't get it by now, then your sure not gonna after the last load of wood leaves the lot. ;) We've had woodlot owner organizations for 40 years and marketing boards, at least 35. Most silviculture on NB private woodlots wouldn't get done at all if there wasn't incentives or contractors to do it. It's not the concept, it's the labour and the time.

[jwilly3879]

What I have seen around this area is that prior to a large parcel being put up for sale the landowner gets a logger to come and cut anything they can get money for. What is left is usually a mess with nothing but low quality wood in the 12" range. This property sells and the new owner contacts a logger to see how much they can make on their newly acquired "forest.

Another thing that happens is that when a large parcel is to be subdivided the owner will cut it heavily and then subdivide, avoiding the restrictions that would be placed on the property by the Adirondack Park Agency and or the local Planning Boards.

There a very few parcels on land in my area that can be purchased with standing timber that is marketable in the near future, everyone takes as much as they can get and then sells. It is an unfortunate situation labeled by real estate agents as future timber value.

[thecfarm]

Just about the same here as far as logging and selling land. Cut it off and put the For sale signs up.

[Tmac47]

If there's an abundance of landowner education, yet landowners aren't getting the message, can you really say landowners are being educated?

Not to harp on my larger point, but the biggest problem I see is how states/organizations quantify educating landowners. They think throwing a book of information at landowners is education. It's not. It's useless information if you're not effecting behavior.

The industry is terrible, I repeat TERRIBLE at educating landowners. I'll simply refer to the experiences in this thread as proof, but I doubt anyone would disagree.

To make a point, let's look at the gun control debate. One of Eric Holders people recently made a statement that said, "We don't have to make guns illegal, we just have to make them uncool."

And there in lies why the "green movement" has so much force and why states and timber organizations consistently fail at changing the behavior of landowners.

They think all it takes is a book full of boring information that no one cares about. It doesn't work. They have to change the conversation and make timber management something worth caring about. They have to make it cool. I'm not talking about a stupid fad, but rather something landowners can put their hearts into.

People don't make decisions with their heads, they make them with their hearts.

[terry f]

    When you say the industry does a lousy job of educating landowners, who is the industry, and do they really want educated landowners. I'm at the age that if something doesn't interest me, I don't need to learn about it. I have a high interest in forestry related topics, and information's there if you want to look for it. Twenty or thirty years ago my eyes would glaze over on things I find interesting today. Forest management was cut the dead trees into fire wood, and don't touch the rest, apparently there's more to it than that.

[SwampDonkey]

The dollar my friend is the biggest attitude adjuster. When your talking about returns decades down the road, you get eyes glazing over. It's not just forestry, when you look at average household debt the attitude gets worst because they have spent someone else's money already. In my grandfather's time, you didn't spend money that you didn't own. It tells us people aren't saving much for later, it's all about now.

[jwilly3879]

There was a organization in this area, "Residents Committee to Protect the Adirondacks," mostly composed of large landowners, labeled by some as "Environmentalists," and by others as "Tree Huggers" that encouraged members to enroll in The Smartwood program, get forest management plans, get FSC Certification and put the land under conservation easements.

The group put on a number of seminars to educate the members about forest management. The organization has had quite a few Foresters that the members have used but with all the info the put out they never took the members to an active timber harvest to show them what it looked like during and after.

Several parcels were marked, put up for bid and some sold some did not. The loggers weren't interested in TSI work with small quantities of pulp wood and very few logs. The lots that were sold were usually overstocked with poor quality logs left over from previous high grading.

As a result some LO's were happy with the money and the work, some were disappointed with the money and down right appalled with the look of the forest post harvest. Again, it is a lack of education.

The overall success of the program was not good when the costs of maintaining certifications and taxes (operating expenses)
were compared to the short term returns from management. There are those that continue to manage for the future and that is the base our business is trying to work with.

[Ron Wenrich]

A lot of good points in this thread. 

Certification is only popular from a green consumer standpoint.  I know that there are some really good markets in the big city.  You get to the rural areas and nobody cares.  I never had anyone ask about certified lumber when I was sawmilling in PA.  Go to the Newark, NJ market and things change.  But, not on the low grade.  My biggest gripe about the certification process is they try to pull in timberland to certify.  PA is the largest landowner of certified wood at 2 million acres.  If you want to certify the product, certify the producers - foresters and loggers.  The rest falls into place easily, and there is little cost to the landowner.  Until the cost factor is realized in stumpage value, there will be little certification in the US.

SD brings up the point about labor and return.  I agree that many landowners understand the concept of management.  But, when you start talking about precommercial thinnings, its a tough sell.  I only ever did one of those thinnings, and that was back when the government would help finance it, and the landowner was enrolled in the Tree Farm system.  Others weren't interested if it involved them doing the work or having to pull money out of pocket. 

I think most forest management falls into this category.  How do you finance management work?  I never could convince realtors it was beneficial to get an inventory and appraisal for timbered property.  Too much risk, and they would also have to deduct it from their commissions.  New landowners already have a bunch of bills, so a timber inventory is out of their budget.

I always thought it would be beneficial for landowner organizations to be in the wood business.  They would own the foresters and some of the crews.  I would also subcontract some of the work, like logging.  They could even branch out to owning primary and secondary production.  Its done in Sweden.  Give an annual return on operations, in addition to stumpage at harvest.  Enrollment would be on the amount of acreage you have, and it would be directed by a board.  It would be a business plan that would need to be developed.  But, some market research would be needed before you could get it off the ground.  Once you have a sufficient acreage base and a decent management system, you can go after those secondary products, like hunting rights and the like. 

So, is it landowner education or landowner motivation that is the problem?  I'm thinking it may be the latter.

[terry f]

    Some are motivated by doing right by the land, and education will fall into place. Some are motivated by greed, which don't always do right by the land.

[mesquite buckeye]

May sound a little strange, but I have made a promise to the trees and all the little guys that live in and around them that I will watch over and protect them for as long as I am able.

That doesn't mean that I won't cut a tree or eat a deer or try to make some money to take care of my family at the same time. ;D

[terry f]

   Couldn't agree more.

[Tmac47]

When you say the industry does a lousy job of educating landowners, who is the industry, and do they really want educated landowners.

Everyone.  If landowners were educated on the benefits of simple management like thinning, that would be a start.  Only a small percentage of landowners actually do anything with their timberland.  I've talked to thousands of landowners in Georgia over the past year and a half and you'd be amazed at how many are doing nothing, don't want to do anything and see nothing but "woods" when it comes to their timberland.

Landowners that are educated are active.  Active land is healthy land.  Healthy land produces healthy timber and wildlife.

I'm at the age that if something doesn't interest me, I don't need to learn about it. I have a high interest in forestry related topics, and information's there if you want to look for it. Twenty or thirty years ago my eyes would glaze over on things I find interesting today. Forest management was cut the dead trees into fire wood, and don't touch the rest, apparently there's more to it than that.

I think people of all ages share your sentiments.  The trick is making it interesting.

I've mentioned plenty of times in this thread that the industry is great at providing "information".  However, information does nothing for anyone if it doesn't encourage action.

My dad goes into elementary schools in our county to talk to kids about timberland and wildlife.  Whenever he asks, "So, what happens when you cut down a tree?", the kids always answer in unison, "WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF OXYGEN!  AHHHHHHH!"  Haha.

The green movement has done a great job of educating.  It doesn't make any difference if it's right or wrong.  They're influencing culture and people are making decisions based on what they're being told.

What message is the timber industry sending?  What message are foresters sending?  They're not.

[SwampDonkey]

It tells me that your school teachers and public funded television are using government money to send that message. Even includes who knows how much the government pumps into some fellow chasing birds in the jungle and tigers in India. The landowners should be also entitled to that same money for incentives to do good forestry. If there is no reward, you'll not get much done.

[thecfarm]

There are so many people out there too that think cutting a tree is bad. I'm not talking about landowners,I'm talking about city people,the ones that live on a 500 square piece of land with 5 trees on it. I had to deal with a few of them at work.I was a bad person for cutting trees. I would invite them up here,but only one came. He had no idea about working in the woods. I showed him areas that I have just cut,one year,two year and 3 years one. He had a whole different when he left my place.
Where my Grandkids go to school,Hallowell,ME,they take the whole 6 grade class out to a logging operation for the day. I went once to help out with the kids. It was a very nice talk.
I admit I could do better with my trees. I try,but alot to keep up on.

[Tmac47]

It tells me that your school teachers and public funded television are using government money to send that message. Even includes who knows how much the government pumps into some fellow chasing birds in the jungle and tigers in India. The landowners should be also entitled to that same money for incentives to do good forestry. If there is no reward, you'll not get much done.

Not really.  Kid's aren't learning it in school.  They're learning it in magazines and on TV. If there are teachers sending that message on a large scale, it's in the University system.

The message is being propagated through the media and has been for the past 30 years.  The Ad Council even released an ad within the past 3 years that included a message about deforestation and featured footage from "rain forests" being logged.  The ad was about child labor being used in the production of blue jeans, so I'm not sure why they used the rain forest.  Probably shock-value.

Maybe most people in the industry simply don't access the same channels of information of the younger generation (I'm 28), but the environmentalists certainly do a good job sending a clear and concrete message.  "Cutting trees is bad."  They generally cite deforestation as a big danger too, which is funny, since the biggest cause of deforestation in America is urbanization and the environmentally religious tend to live in the city.  Ironic.

[Claybraker]

When you say the industry does a lousy job of educating landowners, who is the industry, and do they really want educated landowners.

Everyone.  If landowners were educated on the benefits of simple management like thinning, that would be a start.  Only a small percentage of landowners actually do anything with their timberland.  I've talked to thousands of landowners in Georgia over the past year and a half and you'd be amazed at how many are doing nothing, don't want to do anything and see nothing but "woods" when it comes to their timberland.

The best slogan I've seen concerning the benefits of management is "Doing nothing costs you money."

It's not much different from the countless number of folks I know that haven't saved squat for retirement until they hit their 50's. Then it's too late to accomplish much, unless they plan on working into their 80's.

[terry f]

    That's a good comparison Claybraker, thinning is like compounding, the earlier the better.

[Tmac47]

The best slogan I've seen concerning the benefits of management is "Doing nothing costs you money."

It's not much different from the countless number of folks I know that haven't saved squat for retirement until they hit their 50's. Then it's too late to accomplish much, unless they plan on working into their 80's.

That slogan paints an accurate picture for those that already have an understanding that there's money in trees and there's more money in trees when you manage them.  But, what about landowners that still don't understand their timberland is an investment?

I mentioned earlier that there's a "Curse of Knowledge" in the industry.  From foresters all the way up the ladder to c-level execs in the big companies like Plum Creek and Weyerhaeuser.  When the Curse of Knowledge exists, it's nearly impossible to relate with those without knowledge.

I'm not criticizing that slogan either, I think it's great.  However, I think it leaves behind those landowners that look at it and think, "I'm not spending any money, how is it costing me money?"  It almost acts as a reminder for landowners who already have an understanding that management is valuable, so when they read it they're thinking, "Oh yeah, I've got to remember to thin in 3 years," rather than uneducated landowners thinking, "Oh... I should probably look into this idea of timber management!  I'll do that now."

More needs to be done connecting with landowners who don't read forestry forums, aren't members of landowner organizations and have no idea that active management is necessary to a healthy and productive forest.  Which leads me to another big problem in the industry that I call, "incestuous marketing".  Which simply means that you never see timber ads outside of industry magazines, newsletters, etc.

This becomes a problem when you consider that all the money being spent to "market" is competing with a very small, overly educated, segment of landowners.  While, no money is being spent to market to the much larger segment of uneducated landowners.  This makes a lot of sense for seedling and timber companies who are competing for business within this market, but ends up hurting the industry when you consider the amount of landowners who aren't hearing any industry messaging.

[terry f]

    Claybraker's on to something comparing it to retirement. You see all the time where they show a chart where a 18 year old guy puts in $2000 a year from 18 to 30, and stops contributing, the next guy starts putting in at 30, adds the rest of his working life, and has less money than the 18 year old, I don't know why trees would be any different. Give your trees a one up early on with a little thinning, and it should pay dividends later in life, but that's a hard sell when you don't see immediate results, we are a impatient people. As far as magazines outside the industry, if you wrote a article in Outdoor Life about food plots to better your hunting, half the people would read it whether they had land or not. If you wrote a article about thinning, and what it would do for your forest, I would read it, but not too many others would.

[Tmac47]

Claybraker's on to something comparing it to retirement. You see all the time where they show a chart where a 18 year old guy puts in $2000 a year from 18 to 30, and stops contributing, the next guy starts putting in at 30, adds the rest of his working life, and has less money than the 18 year old, I don't know why trees would be any different. Give your trees a one up early on with a little thinning, and it should pay dividends later in life, but that's a hard sell when you don't see immediate results, we are a impatient people.

I'm under 30 and have a Roth IRA.  Why?  Well, because for whatever reason, I've been educated.  I didn't start looking into it just because, but because I was influenced.  How was I influenced?

• TV Commercials
• Radio Commercials
• Radio Shows - Clark Howard
• Internet Newspaper - Business
• Everywhere I don't remember

People don't act simply "because", they act because they are influenced.  I have a Roth IRA, because I've been influenced enough to act.  I've seen the light, so to speak and am planning for my retirement.

The timber industry should afford landowners the chance to "see the light" by advertising in places that landowners are.  Magazines like Garden & Gun, television networks like Discovery and Outdoor, radio markets like NPR and Talk Radio would be a few places to start.

You want to hit your relevant market, but you don't want to see the same type of incestuous marketing that's currently prevalent in the industry.  The same ears, hearing the same message, year after year.  Let's grow the market!

As far as magazines outside the industry, if you wrote a article in Outdoor Life about food plots to better your hunting, half the people would read it whether they had land or not. If you wrote a article about thinning, and what it would do for your forest, I would read it, but not too many others would.

I believe there are ways to make articles interesting.  For example, my editor is currently doing a story on Ryan Klesko, the former Atlanta Brave.  He's telling a story about Ryan that "inadvertently" includes the success he's seen off the baseball diamond managing timber.

You can get people to read articles about timber, by not making it all about timber.  Writing about timber is boring, let's be honest.  However, stories about people are not boring.  Finding the middle ground and using things like sports to introduce the topic of timber is a creative way to get over that hump.

It's called "brand association".  Red Bull does it all the time and they've made a fortune from it.

[SwampDonkey]

You've got your work cut out for ya.  Maybe you have a gift, time will tell. Better than doing nothing, that is for sure.

We have a bi-monthly magazine on forestry up here, but rarely see it on a news stand. I usually read it all the way through. Timber isn't boring, if it's your thing.  ;D When someone talks timber around these parts, one of the first questions is: 'what is the price lately?' or 'where are you cutting?' :D ;)

[Tmac47]

You've got your work cut out for ya.  Maybe you have a gift, time will tell. Better than doing nothing, that is for sure.

We have a bi-monthly magazine on forestry up here, but rarely see it on a news stand. I usually read it all the way through. Timber isn't boring, if it's your thing.  ;D When someone talks timber around these parts, one of the first questions is: 'what is the price lately?' or 'where are you cutting?' :D ;)

Eh.  I think it has more to do with the timber industry being an incredibly niche market with zero marketing penetration.  I'm not gifted, haha.  I simply see an amazing industry, full of amazing people, who's stories should be told and championed.

Timber isn't boring if you get people excited about it.  To get people excited about it, you've got to get them to understand why it's valuable.  To get them to understand why it's valuable, you've got to use something on their grid that they already find valuable.  That's marketing.

I think the biggest reason the industry doesn't do any marketing is because the folks in the industry don't like selling themselves.  They feel like it's "bull$%!^" or dishonest, when in reality marketing simply affords landowners the luxury of understanding why timber professionals are valuable.

The worse part however, is that when people actually decide to market, they do it in a way that makes them invisible.  Swampdonkey, the next time you read through that forestry magazine, take a look at the ads and tell me they don't all look the same!  :D

[SwampDonkey]

Hmmm diesel engines (Cummins), processors, outdoor furnaces, Aerial photography, kiln, firewood processors, chainsaws, Morbark flail debarker and chipper, trailors, logging winches, books on tree ID,  grapple attachments, mills buying wood, truck/trailer repair, directory of forestry Associations and groups, meeting announcements, portable sawmills.

All the toys and advice one would want. ;D

[Ianab]

Here in NZ the forestry scene appears to be very different.

A major thing is probably the cost of land. No one owns any large area of land (millions of $$) without considering how to make it pay. Trees are treated as just another crop. Longer to mature than corn or tomatoes, but growing them is still a business decision. About 99.8% of the industry is exotic planted trees, and maybe 0.2% is natural indigenous forest. So someone made a conscious business decision to plant those trees.

But this still leaves the smaller owners with a similar problem when it comes to harvesting and marketing.

This company has been set up to handle that issue.
http://www.foms.co.nz/

They handle all that messy stuff with loggers, trucks and mills. Because they have 10 or more separate harvests going on at any one time they can generate steady work for their contractors, and log supply to the various mills. They get best prices for logs because they can grade them on the landing and get them hauled to the best market for that particular log.  So no pulp grade logs end up at a mill that wants pruned veneer quality (and is willing to pay the premium) Logs from one harvest, and even one individual tree can end up at 3 or 4 different destinations. Selling to a single mill, they will get logs that they don't really want, and wont be willing to pay the full potential value for?

FOMS are not in "competition" with the loggers or mills. The logging crews get the jobs, the mills get the logs (at the grade and cost they are prepared to pay for) and the land owner gets paid. The land owners they are dealing with are farmers who may have planted unproductive areas of a farm out in trees, or investors that that bought smaller blocks of marginal farm land and had trees planted on it. Might be 5-500 acres of pine trees.

So a smaller harvest might just be a couple of guys with a skidder and excavator. This is at my old farm when the ex had one of the forest blocks harvested. Maybe a months work there?

Then on to the next job that FOMS has lined up for them.

You can see the logs being stacked according to grade, some going to local mills, some to export, some to pulp mills depending on distance and prices at the mill.

As for "how much is left"? Sharon's current property is much smaller, and has maybe a dozen trees.. BIG "old man" pines. Never been pruned, over mature, and becoming a hazard. I had them down as firewood, and din't want to touch the things. Did I mention they are HUGE and old?  :D  Anyway, she's taliking to Blair that logged the job above. "Yeah, we are getting $50 a ton for those old logs and they are being sold for heavy duty pallet wood. Shorter lengths needed, and stronger mature wood."

Each tree would be scaling out about 10 ton of wood.  Take out the harvesting and trucking, and there was still $3000 in it.

Now a properly managed and pruned log is more like $200+ a ton. Harvesting and trucking cost the same. So the return is MUCH better.

Ian

[Ron Wenrich]

They work similar to our consulting foresters.  Consultants mange sales.  But, does FOMS write management plans, conduct inventories, plant trees and do precommercial thinnings?  Consultants could do that, but the big bucks are in the harvest.  Same thinking goes with the landowners.  The big bucks are in the harvest.  There is no reason landowners couldn't organize like the FOMS organization and put those other aspects into play. 

Conservation easements were the hot topic a number of years ago.  The Nature Conservancy signed up lots of landowners for perpetuity.  When they sign someone up, it makes the local newspaper.  But, its a disjointed effort from landowner or industry aspect.  The land remains fragmented. 

The county has farms signed up very similar to this.  Basically, the county buys the development rights to the farm and the farm is allowed to continue as a farm.  The only problem is that you end up with little island farms that are hard operate as they get to be more expensive to run.  They are left further away from supplies and markets as metropolitan areas surround them.  But, the basic concept is there that could be applied to woodlands.  Woodlands provide green backdrops for communities.  Its often in their best interest to manage those green backdrops to maintain a quality of life or to enhance business, especially in touristy areas.

One problem that I see is that as more people get into an area, they start to impose cutting restrictions.  All you need is a couple of well funded people with good connections and good intentions to impose these restrictions.  In these ares, you need permits to take out trees.  All harvesting needs to have a management plan.  Unfortunately, they usually don't have staff qualified to read one, let alone to see whether one is factual.  These remind me of what Jim King was going through in Peru.  If you're interested, look up Jim's profile and follow some of what he had to go through to cut timber.  Jim has passed, but he had nothing good to say about WWF and their mission in the Amazon.

We used to have a pretty active forestry association at the state level.  I was on the Board of Directors back in the late '70s.  They bring together industry, landowners, academia, and government.  We had a good director back then, and he brought in a marketing plan that provided insurance at a good price to loggers.  The association got a commission.  We were flush with cash and could do quite a bit of outreach to landowners.  We also managed the Tree Farm program at the state level.  We had a bi-monthly magazine that went out to members.  Our annual meeting was a big blowout where everyone in attendance had a chance at a big prize.  The first year was a Chevy Blazer (back when gas was cheap). 

But, there was a lot of resistance from organizations like the SAF.  They didn't want to be associated with an "industry" group.  Eventually the thinking got to be that we were making too much money, and it threatened our non-profit status.  The plug was pulled, the director moved on to another organization, and today its a mere shell of what it could of been.  Looking at the current Board, it has come down to another industry lead organization with government nodding it's head.  Landowners are still in the back seat.  There no longer is a magazine, they have no media presence, and landowners have no idea this thing is even up and running.  Heck, I had to check. 

Maybe you need a blend of all these elements to come up with something that's marketable.  An organization like FOMS that is managed or directed by landowners, seed money from industry, tax breaks from government, and the marketing strategy of a non-profit.  Everyone benefits.

[Tmac47]

But, there was a lot of resistance from organizations like the SAF.  They didn't want to be associated with an "industry" group.  Eventually the thinking got to be that we were making too much money, and it threatened our non-profit status.  The plug was pulled, the director moved on to another organization, and today its a mere shell of what it could of been.  Looking at the current Board, it has come down to another industry lead organization with government nodding it's head.  Landowners are still in the back seat.  There no longer is a magazine, they have no media presence, and landowners have no idea this thing is even up and running.  Heck, I had to check. 

Maybe you need a blend of all these elements to come up with something that's marketable.  An organization like FOMS that is managed or directed by landowners, seed money from industry, tax breaks from government, and the marketing strategy of a non-profit.  Everyone benefits.

What was the SAF's beef with the organization?

I'll take a gander, based on a bit of experience, and say there was fear involved.  It's pretty wild to have personally experienced the type of resistance you're describing, from a minority of folks in the industry.  Mostly foresters ironically enough.  I'll talk to some folks and we're on the same page, we recognize the same issues in the industry and they're all for what I'm doing and want to be a part of it.

Then, I'll talk to others and they'll immediately get defensive and start breaking down my company and its goals.  I've learned that some people get it and some people don't and that's OK.  The ones that get defensive see me as a competitor rather than someone who could potentially bring them more business.  I think the thing they don't like is that I wouldn't just bring THEM more business.

There's fear in creating competition for timber and education for landowners, because some believe that it'll make it harder to do business.  However, my belief is that the more landowners that are educated on the benefits of timber management and know enough to feel comfortable pursuing it, the more growth you'll see in the industry.  Which, will benefit all sectors.

It's simply good business.  Businesses with an open hand are not only easier to do business with, they get more business.  Why?  Open hands build trust.  Have you ever had a mechanic that actually showed you the part he replaced, described the process of replacing it and told you why it needed to be replaced?  It's pretty awesome to experience and creates "fans" of that business.

The most destructive trend I tend to see is the fear surrounding anything that might threaten how someone's always done business.  It doesn't matter if it's a good idea or a more productive process.  Luckily, this isn't super pervasive and seems to be a reflection of the minority of people I've talked to.

[SwampDonkey]

Most folks up here cut wood or have had a harvest done. A woodlot that hasn't had harvesting in the last 25 years would be very rare. Foresters are rarely involved as consultants, most of them are loggers, I mean the ones not already working for industry and government . Yup, degree and all. That's not to say they aren't doing responsible work, but who's the judge? Mostly it's the landowners.

[Tmac47]

Most folks up here cut wood or have had a harvest done. A woodlot that hasn't had harvesting in the last 25 years would be very rare. Foresters are rarely involved as consultants, most of them are loggers, I mean the ones not already working for industry and government . Yup, degree and all. That's not to say they aren't doing responsible work, but who's the judge? Mostly it's the landowners.

What's the extent of government involvement and its effects on such a trend?  I'm specifically referring to the fact that it sounds like everyone manages.

[SwampDonkey]

Our woodlot organizations have been beating the drum for decades and this region has a mostly rural population with 30 % of the land base privately owned by small woodlots owners, 20 % industrial freehold (mills). A lot of the harvesting the last few decades is for inheritance taxes, and heirship where family want cash, not trees. And many many acres to pay farm bills and clear new farm fields. Very few farms haven't been cut off to pay bills. But folks on woodlots grew up cutting wood. We do not have urban sprawl like you see in the US. Sure some land gets absorbed, but that's peanuts. There's vast areas where there is no one, a house out by the road and 100+ acres of farm and woods behind. Dad farmed and had 850 acres as an example.

[Tmac47]

Our woodlot organizations have been beating the drum for decades

What does that mean exactly?

One could make the argument that Southeastern organizations have been "beating the drum" for ages, yet a very small percentage of landowners are managing their timber.

[SwampDonkey]

Where an individual does not rely on the woodlot for their annual income you get less management. What you get is a few folks with a passion for their woods to do the right thing and find out all they can about it. Very few will do much such as planting or thinning without an incentive. Some do it regardless of handouts because at some point they have the time and probably other income sources. A commercial mill is in it for the long haul, it is the source of their annual income, it becomes important to manage. That's just the way it is, it's not gonna change except the percentages of woodlot management may fluctuate up and down. There has been countless surveys with woodlot owners and why they own land.

[beenthere]

yet a very small percentage of landowners are managing their timber.

I suspect (strongly believe  ;D ) that the large percentage of landowners are "managing" their land just as they want, albeit not as the "professionals" want them to do it.
I know that doesn't fit well with the management as the forester sees it, or the ecologist, or the wildlife people. But it is their management plan I believe.
Whether education is possible to change it, don't know.
Seems when the norm don't do as we think they should, then we say it is because they don't know any better and/or they are not educated enough.

[SwampDonkey]

Pretty much my belief on it as well beenthere. I'll look after mine, everyone else look after theirs. As stated in a previous post.

Sometimes we are simply forced into a corner, like taxation on inheritance of the woodlot, or if I get old and have to go to the home the tax man seizes assets to pay your way, so the woodlot gets liquidated. That's life. Or if there is a $200,000 bill and my crop yield was down or price way down, the money has to come from someplace. Either savings, the woodlot, or other sources, most of the time the woodlot.

I've seen Federal Agricultural lands (experimental farms) that had woodlots, get liquidated, because of budget cuts.

[Ron Wenrich]

We were taught that doing nothing is a management alternative.  It might not net the most income or attract the most wildlife, but it is the easiest and cheapest method of management.  All others have to be judged with that as a baseline.  Fiber not the only product of the forest.

[mesquite buckeye]

I think that those of us that manage for the uncertain future by improving stand quality and mix are by nature optimists. We go ahead and build for the future and have hope that it will somehow be worth it. I think it is in the end. ;D

[Tmac47]

yet a very small percentage of landowners are managing their timber.

I suspect (strongly believe  ;D ) that the large percentage of landowners are "managing" their land just as they want, albeit not as the "professionals" want them to do it.

You'd think.

We've talked to over 3,000 landowners, who own 40+ acres, in the past year and last time I looked at the data, 14% were managing.  So, while I'd also like to believe the majority of people are managing their timber, in Georgia at least, they're not.