Sustainable Forestry Initiative

[Frickman]

Have any of you been involved with the Sustainable Forestry Initiative? I've been taking their classes here in PA since they started back in the '90s, and was wondering what kind of experiences you have had with SFI.

[Jeff]

I take care of thier michigan website. www.michiganforestry.com

[Ron Wenrich]

I think that SFI is good for loggers.  It has the capacity to make them do a more environmentally acceptable job.  

However, I wasn't impressed that they started to show loggers how to measure and buy timber without the benefit of any forest management knowledge.  I've seen logger managed stands and remain unimpressed.

SFI is the industry's answer to regulation.  The impact of SFI would be a lot less if the paper companies didn't require anyone delivering to their mills to have completed their courses.  

[Ed_K]

 I belong to the Mass Woodlands Coop, our lands will all be SFI certified soon. I am also taking the courses to become logged certified. The biggest problem is the cost of the courses. We also have service foresters managing the land so it will help the landowner's and me as a logger.

[Ron Scott]

I've been involved since SFI was initiated in Michigan a few years back. I represent the Michigan SAF on the State committee for SFI implementation.

Forest Certification appears to be getting more intense. Michigan's Governor has recently said that all of Michigan's State Forest system lands will be 3rd party certified under  two systems SFI and FSC (Forest Stewardship Council). The State Forester is "gearing up" for the big job ahead.

Concern is being shown when "major" wood users are saying that they will only buy "certified wood". If the State Forests aren't certified, they are saying they will puchase their wood elsewhere.

I recently attended a Forest Certification Symposium at Michigan Technological University and early tomorrow morning I go to Lansing to attend a workshop on the new certification being implemented by the Tree Farm system on July 1, 2004. :P

I don't agree with all the different certification requirements and systems, but that seems to be what the future holds. I guess the 3rd party auditors will have the best job; I should become one of them. Something younger foresters need to look at since I'm suppose to be "retired'.

I think that I was a Forester during the "best times'. ;D

[Texas Ranger]

Ron, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.  Good job for such as we, but low income early on.  Got a little better as a consultant.

[Ron Scott]

I agree on the "low pay".  :-[ I remember starting as a GS-5 Forester with the US Forest Service in 1961 @$4500.00/year. Also had a wife and one child to support.

[Frickman]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I have mixed feelings for SFI. Yes, I have learned alot that has helped me manage my timber harvests better. I have a problem though that it seems to be more of a PR thing than anything. A large local company sends it's forester and crews to all the meetings, but they conduct some of the worst harvests in our area. Their forester sells landowners on diameter limit cuts, and they don't have much regard for limiting erosion and sedimentation.

[Ron Scott]

It will probably get more serious when they can't sell their wood as the forest certification process gets more emphasis in your area. It seems to be moving that way here especially with the larger mills.

[SwampDonkey]

Private woodlot associations are looking at the Pan Canadian certification system, because of costs of certification.

We have one softwood mill whose biggest customer is Time/Warner and they (mill) buy 60 % of their wood from private woodlots. Time/Warner says that the mill has to get 80 % of its wood from certified sources. If woodlot owners don't come online, that means the mill will be getting another 40 % of ther wood supply from crown lands, which are all certified in the province.

Private woodlot associations have been talking about certification since 1994 and that's all its been really. Last fall one Marketing Board Association called on volunteer woodlot owners to be audited by the Pan Canadian certification. The mill I refered to above paid for the auditing. I  have not seen the results of that audit yet. They are looking to set a fee schedule for auditing through a group certification. Each of the volunteers have management plans on their woodlots which they have been following over the years. I know the lad at that marketing board who speer headed the trial audit.

cheers

[Ron Wenrich]

I have to agree with Frickman. One of the largest buyer of standing timber in the East has his SFI logo.  The foresters who are marking timber must mark 400 Mbf per month or they are fired.  Red oak is marked 14" and up.  I imagine a lot of the other species are as well.  Depends on market conditions.

I saw one job they did that looked OK, until you really looked at what was left.  A bunch of multi-stemmed low grade.  But, it looked nice.  Its still a forest, does that make it sustainable?  I always thought we should be growing quality, not just fiber.

The bigger companies will pretty much set their own agenda.  The guys that do the decent work are the small and medium sized operations.  They seem to care a little more.

As for sale of certified wood, I don't know of anyone who has ever had any inquiry for it.  Are there markets in Michigan?  How much uncertified wood is allowed in the mix and still maintain its certified status?  Who watches where the certified wood is piled and where the uncertified wood is piled?  My guess is that there is going to be a lot of uncertified wood get into the mix, if there is a market for it.

In my opinion, SFI should be certifying loggers.  Industry certification of woodlots will always be suspect.

[SwampDonkey]

I agree Ron W.

Timber marking based on diameter limit is just a high grade, exactly as you describe. When I mark timber I work with the average size and quality with a post-harvest basal area in mind. If the owner wants to high grade I'm wasting my time and his money. I know some of these management plans are being used for their volume figures and where its located and how to get it so it can be stripped. In my area most mills don't have timber markers, just folks that layout the perimeter of the cut block, roads and stream buffers. In decent hardwood there may be some timber marking by a handful of companies, but usually just the trails with a buncher pickin all the 'cherries' off crown lands. SFI is all about paper trails and nothing much else that I can see, it certainly hasn't made any earth shattering changes in forest management. It may have us thinking more about the right things though.

And woodlot certification will be suspect, if it isn't audited, I totally agree. But, a buyer can no more trust a mill than a private woodlot owner in that regard. I know alot of woodlot owners that don't trust the mills either, that's why there are Marketing Boards. ;) As far as the state of our woodlots all you have to do is stand in my yard and turn around in a 360 and have a hard look. Farm bills come before woods in my neighborhood.  Sure those clearcuts are all regenerating but mostly to short lived species, not quality spruce , sugar maple or yellow birch. Most well managed lots are folks that work them for a living or its not a primary source of income. If its part of the farm, its been whacked in most instances. I do know a few farmers here that have nice lots though, but they have not retired from farming yet. ;)

I'm thinning (PCT) a small site now that has some pretty poor fir and balm-of-gilead on it, so I'm leaving spruce and cedar as my main crop trees. I find the odd birch, but it doesn't want to stand, too shallow rooting. Cedar may be slow growing, but I'de rather have a quality cedar than crap fir.

cheers

[Ron Scott]

No I haven't seen any difference in the marketing of "certified" wood and "noncertified" wood yet except that I'm told that it is coming. Time/Warner has put a scare in wood suppliers. So will see what really happens now.

[SwampDonkey]

One of the bigest hangups for private producers is the fact that the mills are not offering any more $$ for certified wood. Certification may encourage price increases, but I'm afraid that the mills are liable to play hard nose and insist that private wood is certified or they will be using crown wood instead. This can only be counterveiled by government policy on wood supply. The Crown Lands and Forest Act stated that the primary source of wood supply was to be off private lands, but a change in government and Industry lobbying put an end to it in 1993. From then on we could see that small businesses were in trouble as government pumped forgiveable monies into mill upgrades and establishment. There isn't a mill or processing plant in NB that my tax dollars hasn't built. And the workers in those mills pay more tax than the corporations by far. That can be seen in the APEC report released this spring. Industries creative number crunching does not make equal comparisons using a single bench mark year. They bounce around from year to year to make the numbers fit their story. They also state that they have no intensions of promoting jobs, but to maintain the ones they already have. This is also counter to the Crown Lands and Forest Act that was to promote job creation. Big companies have all but replaced motor manual operations with highly mechanized forest operations on their forest limits. They can influence the financing of the small business operator and its a make or break situation.  And operators are continually being squeezed with less returns as operating costs continue to climb. When a piece of harvesting equipment is worth more than twice as much as the owner's house and land it sits on, its time to have a hard look at where we are headed.

[Ron Wenrich]

I don't really think that industry is going to dictate to the private landowners on certification.  Most privates don't trust the industry to begin with.  For them to go through any type of hoop just to sell their timber just won't fly.  

The last survey done in our state of forest landowners showed that timber production was not in the top 3 reasons for owning forest land.  So, putting more obstacles in their way will just turn them away from the marketplace.  

The privates can wait you out.  After you start cutting all those certified state, federal and crown lands, and people are in an uproar, where are you going to go?  A lot of industry land has gone up for auction and isn't as readily available.

Charmin has done that.  They went to Brazil and imported processed pulp and I think they have their own plantations.  That has shut down a couple of local chip operatioins, but hasn't had any type of impact on the local fiber scene.  Other sources have absorbed what Charmin was using.

To me, the current definition of sustainable forestry looks more like sustainable harvesting with particular interest shown in reforestation, skid trail retirement, and stream protection .  Reforestation in my area is all natural regeneration.  Eventually those trees will grow.

Private landowners only have occasional sales or harvesting.  Wouldn't it make more sense to certify foresters than certifying land?  A certified forester would know how to manage a stand in a sustainable manner.  That would include a preliminary cruise, a management plan, marking and harvest supervision.  A post harvest inventory might also be in order.  Use this to certify the product.  You could even add in that the logger has to be certified to make everything truly certified.

Make them reviewable by a third party.  A forester screws up and he loses his certification.

If certified product is needed, this would be the easiest and quickest way to get it to the market.  It is also cost effective for the landowner.  

[SwampDonkey]

Ron W:

What I meant above was that the source of supply will be certified sustainable and that forest practices are considered approapriate according to whom ever certifies it on Crown or Private. Didn't mean certifying the land base once with a blind eye to on-going practices on that land. In our situation, unless we have primary source of supply over crown wood, I'm afraid the private producer is either going to find another source of income or comply with industry. That may mean that some mills close to reduce harvest levels on Crown lands if private producers don't comply. Its definately a two edged sword.  Private landowners definately rely less and less on forestry, except those in farming and producing primary forest products as their sole business. Private owners and producers don't trust industry for sure, as I've said before, but there may be no alternative to sell their wood some time soon. I agree with certifying woods workers and foresters, whole-heartedly. In my province being an RPF or CFT needs to be more than 3 letters, there needs to be a peer review process in place as in BC. Without a valid disciplinary and review process it doesn't hold water, its just a club. It will mean the same for certified forestry works if the same process isn't followed through with, so one can eliminate the violators. The community college has a forest worker certification program in place, and industry is the driving force.

Some stats:

In our Board area most woodlot owners produce under 300 cord of wood per year with an average of 465 producers participating, out of 4600 owners, per year over the last 5 years. Keep in mind a producer is not neccessarily an owner of the land. There are about  15 % of producers selling over 300 cords/year, of those only 5% produce over 1000 cords/year. (100,000 cords annually produced at C-V Board). According to preliminary AAC calculations, completed by the university, we are harvesting below the capacity off private lands in our Board area. At one mill we were under delivered by over 6000 cords on our contract. At another mill we were 40 % reduction in deliveries. This was in part due to reduced harvest capacity, markets, wet fall weather and a mill strike.

How much harvesting is done sustainably will be determined by the auditors of these certification systems. But, one can see plainly that it is impossible to cover every site in an audit.   I agree certifying the land base doesn't prove much and is hard to audit unless you select an unbiased sample from the land base and then make random follow-up checks of some of those sample sites. Its all about paperwork, from what I've seen so far. As I said above I would embrace certification of forestry workers, and I agree its very cosy effective for private producers/owners. The Marketing Boards have been fumbling with the notion of certification for years and I don't think they know what they want even yet. They talked about certifying woods workers, but never volunteered to sponsor any. And most private producers would only scoff at the idea anyway. I could count on one hand the number of folks willing to get certified in my area if they had to pay the cost themselves.

Most all our lands could be natural regeneration also, but the public wants tree planting. And alot of the natural regeneration is short lived less valued species, typically pulped. On my woodlot it was mostly planted but not monoculture, but I would have prefered natural if I had owned it at the time. Actually, I have more natural present than planted. I remember being on a tour of crown land and most folks couldn't tell that this one site had been scarified and planted. I picked up on it right away after looking at the scarification and digging around the root color for vermiculite. :D The next site was a site scarified and planted following a wildfire. There were 100+  natural softwood to every planted tree on site.... devilish thick. But, the point is that it was so thick with naturals that were more advanced, why did they waste their money. Wasteful. Looked like too many people responsible for management, that don't take their sneakers off the dash board. ;)

Looks like we pretty much have the same thoughts on the subject overall. I think forestry has improved over the last decade. The 30 previous years were more chaotic from the beginning of mechanized harvesting.


cheers

[racer9]

Frickman, or Ron W.,
Did either of you attend the SFI`s Managing Logging Risk Symposium at State college last October?
If so, was it worth the time involved? I didn`t have a chance to attend.
Thanks, Rod

[Frickman]

racer9,
I didn't have time either. Think I might have been picking corn. I still attend enough classes to keep up my "certification" or whatever they call it, but I don't have much enthusiam for SFI.

Last January at the PA Farm Show I spoke with Ken Manno, the head honcho of SFI of PA. I told Ken that it is a good idea, and I've learned alot through SFI. However, I no longer tell landowners that I'm involved with SFI. I've found that landowners then expect me to do a better job than some of the other timber operators, which means many times taking fewer trees. That's OK, that's what I do. However, along with that they expect me to meet or beat the other guy's price. There's no way I can beat his price and only cut half the volume. Unless it will make or break the deal I never mention my involvement with SFI anymore.

[SwampDonkey]

Frickman:

That's the delemna we face: do a good job, but sacrifice price. If certification is going to work it has to be all or nothing, so some folks aren't disadvantaged while trying to make a living

cheers.

[BrandonTN]

In general, how much temptation does the average professional, SAF certified forester deal with in taking on jobs for more $ that won't be using sustainable forestry methods?

Don't private companies prefer to 'clear cut' huge chunks of land, than to work them sustainably?

I know there are federal tax programs for using forest management plans...how pure is the government's initiative to really care for sustainable forestry?  HOw effective are the government's efforts?

[SwampDonkey]

To answer the last question. They were very effective in getting management plans done, because they cost nearly nothing. But, very ineffective in having the majority of woodlot owners implement their plan. A lot were just simply used for their cruise info, stand typing and location. What is it, where is it, how much?

[BrandonTN]

Ah, SD...so it's the owners.

I'm so used to not wholly trusting the government, it's taking alot for me to wrap my brain around how the forestry department works in American government....I visted some state foresters in my town last week, and I was impressed favorably by their integrity, and plain love for what they do, it made me question my "don't trust the government" mentality.  They may all have been putting a show on for me, but if they were they were *DanG good actors.  It's like they were all on the same page....the forester i initially talked to on the phone was the first one I met in person...then he toured me around the facility, stopping by each forester's office...and asking them all the same question: "What's your favorite part of the job?" ....they all gave morally good, meaningful answers.  I was just suprised to find that in a government department.

[Ron Wenrich]

Several different things going on in the question that you asked.  You seem to confuse sustainability with clearcutting.  Clearcutting can be better than thinnings, it all depends on the application of the practices.

Most clearcutting will result in planting afterwards.  That would be sustainable, at least at the micro level.  My biggest complaint about plantation forestry is the lack of diversity and the monoculture that usually brings about.  Its real handy for management and economics until the bugs come into play.

Selective cutting where you remove species or size classes is really a form of clearcutting.  It lowers the amount of diversity in the stand.  You don't need to plant since you supposedly have a decent seed source.  That's not always the case.  These types of selective cuttings are more like mining timber than managing it.

Temptations come into play for those that aren't certified by SAF.  There are a lot of good foresters out there that aren't certified and there are some foresters that practice bad management that are certified. 

There are basically 3 types of employers of foresters in the US.  Consulting, corporate, and public foresters. 

Public foresters have the least amount of temptation.  Their pay is not dependent on the outcome of the timber sale or the management practices.   Most often, management practices are set at a higher level.

Corporate foresters work on either corporate or private lands.  Their pay may or may not be dependent on the outcome of the timber sale.  But, their job is dependent on bringing fiber to the mill at a good price.  The temptation is to please the corporate bottom line at the expense of the landowner.  The paper company in my area does much better management work than some other foresters on private lands.  They are looking more for the low grade pulpwood than for the sawlogs.

Consultants work primarily on private lands.  In most cases, their pay is directly related to the results of a timber sale.  The temptation results in marking timber for the outcome of the sale or the outcome of the management plan.  I have seen plenty of this type of work being done both ways.  Its called ethics.  So, temptation is basically a personal issue, not an employer issue.

Government programs are pretty much feel good measures.  It gives the politicians something to talk about, but not very much trickles down to the landowners.  Most landowners aren't even aware of what programs are offered.

[Ron Scott]

Sustainable Forestry Initiative Now Fully Independent

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) program has reported that it is now a fully independent certification program. This means that the SFI standard, as well as all other aspects of the program, will now be governed by the multistakeholder Board of Directors of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Inc.

According to the SFI, its Board members now represent nonprofit environmental groups, forest products companies, and other stakeholders from the broader forest community and will more adequately protect the economic, environmental, and social aspects of forests and communities within the SFI Program.

For more information, visit the SFI's new website.

[SwampDonkey]

I just recently bought about $400 worth of reference material from Amazon, including the "Forest Certification Handbook 2ed" It's been totally rewritten since the first edition. Just something I thought I wanted to have on hand to get up to speed on the certification schemes.

I'm also quite interested in this book, "Sampling Methods, Remote Sensing and GIS Multiresource Forest Inventory" I have some older reference material covering most of the subjects in the title but it's 15 years old now or 20.

"Fishes and Forestry" is another one of interest. When I was in BC, managing for fish was a lot bigger deal than it seems here in NB. We had people on staff that trapped fish, took numbers and measurements of the fish and classified creeks in and adjacent to our harvest blocks. About all they do here is use buffers, since all the creeks are known and mapped already. They even have software used to predict wetlands or poorly drained soils. It seems to be working pretty good from what they report. As a summer student I remember some creeks here got mucked up pretty bad on some cuts. You could hardly tell on a couple blocks I remember, that there was a brook, it was so rutted up. The only clue you had sometimes was a trapped brook trout splashing about in a pool of water created from the machine ruts.  : I've seen roadside berms dozed up making ponds, springs would fill them, then over flow into an adjacent brook. Couldn't believe my eyes, some of those trout would leave the brook and go up this new channel and end up in a new pond. Not much cover though, until alders grew around the pond. The herons had good pickings some places.  ;D I should have took photos of this stuff when it was happening, nobody would believe it.  : Brooks once glittered like gold in the sun (vermiculite/micas in the sand weathered from granite), now covered in sludge and muck. Trout as thick as sardines in little inlets where a spring fed a lake or dead water, they'd even take a bare hook. Natural shorelines of a lake covered in sand, others with shores of solid granite that looks like a road. The average Joe wouldn't see stuff because he drives by in a pickup and you have to walk about 200 meters or a lot further to find it.

I also ordered a revised version of "Harvesting Timber Crops (2006?)", it was originally published in '66 I think. Most of these references don't have reviews on Amazon. You often have to poke around the web a bit to find something written on them.

[palogger]

I have taken some of the classes and I agree that forest management isn't stressed enough.  The problem in my area is that most of the timber has been mismanaged for so many years.  However when you speak to a landowner about doing improvement cutting, some of them don't understand why I want to leave a 14" red oak and cut a double hickory or hemlock. Alot of people are just concerned about how much can I make not what am I leaving behind for future regeneration. 

[BrandonTN]

Who was the SFI under before it broke away and became independent?

[SwampDonkey]

The SFI program, developed in 1994, is a project of the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), an industry trade association.

http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Environment_and_Recycling/SFI/SFI.htm

[flatrock]

I am not a forester.  I do own forest land and I can tell you every sqaure mile around here has been cut by diameter limit multiple times.   And yes you can find multi-stemmed & crooked trees but there are plenty of nice straight trees also.   In my opinion loggers around here have no financial incentive to do  sustainable improvement type cuttings where the worst trees in every dbh class are cut unless it is done as part of a clearcut.  I think the majority of landowners want to leave a forest as good or better for their children.  At present the only types of cuts I have observed locally have been patch clearcutting on rotation and dia. limit cuts.  Diameter limit cuts are easy and I dont know if its based on science but the local custom is too cut high dia if you want to leave something for the grandkids and low dbh if you need as much money as possible.  Sometimes they have 2 dia. limits as part of the same harvest.  A low one for Hickory and a higher one for the oaks.
I am planning on doing something in the next 10 years when it will have been 30 years since the last 14" diameter limit cut on property I now own.  I would like to implement sustainable forest practices but as a private landowner with a small acreage (340 acres) I really dont know how feasable it will be.  Too confuse the issue further I have even found research suggesting diameter limit cuts in certain circumstances achieve the same goals as more sustainable type harvest practices.

[tonich]

As I’ve already mentioned, forestry is a very conservative science.
Thus, clear-cut system is one of the oldest and fully theoretically and practically proven. There is strong exactness for the size of cutting strips, consequence, cutting direction and mangling, hauling direction, methods of regenerations etc. And this is all examined, described and has been put into practice for many centuries.

Speaking of sustainable forestry, clear-cut silvicultural system doesn’t suit well. There are much better and newly developed systems which fully meet those requirements. The best one among them is the “Selective management”. This is probably the newest silvicultural system, occurred in Switzerland in the late of 19th century.

[Ron Wenrich]

Flatrock

I wouldn't consider 340 acres as acreage.  We have lots of woodlots under 10 acres and they are being worked.  Management may be a different story.

Your observations about diameter limit cutting is pretty accurate.  Industry pretty well lets the private landowners skate until its there is merchantable timber involved.  Then, they are the go to guys and seemingly know all there is to know about growing trees.

Diameter limit cutting is a good way to cut the best and leave the rest.  It takes your best performing trees and put them in the log yard.  It also limits genetics, since those better performing trees won't be reproducing.

The multiple stems that you are seeing is also due to a very hard cut.  To be fully productive, a stand should have a certain amount of acceptable growing stock per acre.  Foresters use basal area as a measurement.  That is the amount of square footage of tree volume at diameter at breast height.  To make it easy, foresters will use either a prism or an angle gauge to measure it.  I use an angle gauge with a factor of 10.  For every tree I count, there are 10 sq ft of per acre.  For most hardwoods, full stocking falls between 65 - 110.

When you are above that number, then your growth will start to slow.  Bole growth on hardwoods only comes about through crown expansion.  Above 110, and expansion isn't too good.  But, some of that stocking number is in suppressed trees.  Quite often the suppressed trees should be removed instead of being released. 

When you fall below 65, then your stand is understocked.  More sunlight falls on the forest floor and on the residual trees.  Underneath the trees bark are epicormic buds. These buds are stimulated by sunlight.  This is what is causing the multiple stems - too much sunlight.  You will also get branching on the remaining trees.   I'm sure you've seen forest trees that break out into sucker branches soon after a harvest.  Each one of those suckers are a defect in the lumber.  It takes about 20 years to heal them over.

If I was working on a 340 acre parcel, I would have it inventoried.  This should be done about every 10 years.  You will find that your parcel also has several different forests within it.  They should all be treated differently.  My advice is to get an inventory and management plan started now, and don't wait another 10 years.  There's probably some good management work that can be done now, and allow those keepers in the woods for several more years.

A well managed forest should be able to give a harvest every 10-15 years, not every other generation.   ;)

[flatrock]

Attached is one dia. limit study.  There are also just as many negative studies.  Many landowners cannot afford a inventory unless its part of marking/sale.  There has never been a harvest on our property since the 1940s without the input of a degreed registered forester ,including the 14" dbh dia. limit cut 20 years ago.  I realize silvicutural thinking/theory evolves and it makes pefect sense to me that sustainable selective type cuts are the way to go.  I just see problems managing & implementing it as a practical manner.  I think your going to have a hard time keeping some logging companies from cutting down a nice 15" tree in the thick of the back 40 marked or not.  Im in no hurry but right now Im leaning more toward large group selection cuts or  small patch clearcuts in areas selected by a forester and doing 1/3rd of the property on a periodic basis every 20 to 30 years.    It would seem to be easier to manage, produce the most sprouting, provide pockets of stimulative sunlight, & gradually shift the forest into different age classes.  However, Im giving myself a decade or so to mull it all out and intend to have both a state & private consulting forester walk the property and give me their opinions and will likkely follow their recommendations. 

[SwampDonkey]

Was just on a 20 acre parcel of forest in the middle of potato ground. It was 80 % beech and all diseased and a lot of rot and dead limbs. The rest was mainly pole sized sugar maple, white ash, yellow birch, balsam fir and butternut. The owner could sell to the farmer, and by the way it is for say, and clear for additional field or do a group selection to promote regen of other hardwood species besides beech. Beech will always be a component, or for longer than I will be alive. But, if you tried to do a selection and take all the junk, then you'd have a pretty sickly stand of wood left. A few less beech, but still a high component of it. I think the only reason it has stood this long is the price is too high. A mill doesn't want rotten wood and you can't pay a high stumpage price to just cut junk.

[Ron Wenrich]

Your study attachment didn't come up, but like you say, you can find studies to support either side of an issue. 

Nobody said that an inventory has to be conducted by a forester.  You can do it yourself, if you like.  Here's a tutorial we have on the subject: (look at the point sampling)  https://forestryforum.com/tips/tips.cgi?Forestry

There are all types of ways to manage a forest.  You can do group selection or you can do single tree selection.  It depends on what you want from your forest.  If you're sold on diameter limit as a management criteria, that will work too.  Diameter limits can work if you are using it in the context of shelterwood regeneration.  Quite often the inventory can give you a pretty good idea on which way to go. 

The hardest part of forest management is trying to decide what you want to grow.  We've had an oak mentality for a long time.  I was around before red oak was a desirable species.  Red oak has now lost its luster.  Maple was considered a weed species just 15 years ago, but is now worth much more than red oak.  Patch clearcut for maple?

Was managing for red oak a bad idea?  I don't know, but managing future forests for current markets always have pitfalls.

[Phorester]

A forest is a collection of plants.  Individual tress in a forest, and the whole forest itself, grows according to basic biological principles.

A diameter limit cut is not based on any biological principle whatsoever.  It's based only on the physical size of the trees.

The landowner controls what occurs in his forest.  It is the landowners choice to manage his forest based on biology or his pocketbook.  The forest suffers for the next owner and for society if management is based on how much money the current landowner can put in his pocket instead of biology.

A Forester working for the landowner can only do what the landowner allows the forester to do.  If the landowner says, I want a lot of money from a timber sale, the Forester is obligated to provide that for the landowner.  He has to satisfy his client.  Or he has the option of walking away.  Walking away is easy for us government service Foresters because we get paid no matter what we recommend to the landowner. But few Consulting foresters have that option because their income to feed their families and pay their mortgage doesn't come in by turning down a job.  Hopefully, a concensious consultant will try to work in as much good forestry as he can while making money for the landowner.

But the bottom line with cutting trees in a forest.... it can (and should) be done based on sound biological principles.  Diameter limit cuts do not accomplish that. 

Diameter limit cuts are a slow death for a forest.

[Ron Scott]

Ditto! to the above replies.

The premise that the "diameter you cut down to" is what determines good timber management is not good forestry. Diameter limit cutting is usually destructive, no matter what diameter is chosen. Why? Because it degrades the stand of timber. Stands cut in this manner require several decades to heal.

Tree diameter is only one indication of whether the tree should be harvested. Health, vigor, age, stand density and species are among the many factors needed for consideration. In most cases, the best quality trees should be retained. These are called "crop trees". The trees to be harvested include the trees declining in health and vigor, defective or diseased.

Diameter limit cutting, or simply " cutting the best and leaving the rest" is not sound forestry.

I do "turn down consulting jobs" when I consider that a potential client wants to practice "bad forestry". A professional consulting forester isn't needed in such cases and I won't put my name on it.

[Tillaway]

We have modified the traditional diameter limit cuts and do them regularly now.  Instead of the traditional cut all trees of whatever species over a certain size we flip it and say under a certain size.  We use the cruise data and the foresters observations to determine a residual basal area target.  Typically for our area all the trees are of the same age so usually the largest diameters are your dominates and co-doms.  The top diameter limit is selected by species from the cruise data to meet the residual goals.  We get a somewhat patchy thinning as a result but it easily falls with our management plan objectives.  Our goal is to leave a mosaic of stand structures throughout the forest.

I can understand the dislike for diameter limit cuts but there are other ways of using them to actually improve stand structure and vigor.  I think the key to implementing them is to be working in an even aged stand.  An uneven aged management regime would be nearly impossible to get the kind of results we do.

[tonich]

@ Tillaway:
Would you please tell us, what kind of stands you manage by diameter limit cuts – tree compositions, age rotations, management goals, maximum diameter etc.
As a noob here, I’m not familiar to this “diameter limit cuts”.   ;) ;D

[Ron Wenrich]

Diameter limit cutting is usually confined to taking all trees above a certain diameter.  Its pretty common in hardwood stands where there is little management done.  Its easy to administer and it takes all the good stuff out, leaving the rest.

In Tillaway's example, they are using it as a means of removing the worst and setting the diameter limit as the upper limit to cut, instead of a lower limit.  It should look more like a shelterwood cut. 

I've seen hardwood shelterwood cuts done like this.  But, works mainly in a one or two age class stand.

[Tillaway]

What Ron W said. We have basically 300,000+ acres of a single age class that is of poor vigor due to overstocking, poor seed, etc.  We have pretty much just one or two species in our stand composition.  The results can be patchy with thickets left in areas and small opening created in others.  Our goal is to get a stand with varied ages and mixed species, with several different layers in the canopy.  We are trying to introduce Older forest Structure into a relatively young even aged stands.

To really confuse things we also have been doing diameter limits with a thinning leaving say 140 BA.  The instructions for something like that is " cut all Doug fir below 17" and thin whats left to 140 BA."  I tell the fallers to cut all the Doug fir up to 17" and then keep cutting till you get a 7 count.  If you don't make the count because all the trees were all small then that's not a problem.  We want holes.  These type of cuts a really hard to administer, fortunately we have some really good fallers.