Woodlot Management Plans

[DanK]

What are some training opportunities I could watch for that would help me learn how to compile management plans such as improvement cutting, managing for wildlife or even overall woodlot health.

I'm a graduate forester and have spent my career, (now retired 8)) focusing on regulatory issues.  I want to see if this old dog can learn some new tricks and have some fun doing field work.

[Ron Scott]

The Society of American Foresters offers a number of training oppprtunities for foresters and has a recognized program to certify foresters.

Also contact your state coordinator (usually in your state's DNR) for the Forest Landowner Stewardship program in your state. They usually offer training sessions for foresters to become certified in writing Forest Landowner Stewardship Plans.

[DanK]

  Ron, Thanks!  That sounds like the group I was aware of in the past.  I've heard of that type of training and believe it is just what I'm looking for.

DanK

[Phorester]

In addition to what Ron said, also get in touch with your local Extension Agent and State Service Forester.  Here in Virginia we periodically offer forestry "short courses", forestry bus tours, etc. Usually sponsored by the Extension Service (they got the money), and foresters and wildlife biologists are the speakers (we got the time).  Maybe something similiar is offered in your State.

They are geared toward forest landowners, but are a good way to get first hand info on the forest types and management practices used in your area.  Basic info you will need to write effective management plans.  Might also meet potential customers at these.

[maple flats]

In NYS there are state foresters who will visit your site , listen to your goals, tour your land and write up a suggested stewardship plan. You then read it and see if it follows your goals, make necessary changes and send it back to be re-written and it cycles again. when completed you have a 10 year plan in hand and have learned a lot in the process. In NYS this is free to the landowner and the state forester is prohibited from accepting any money. This is the route I took. Another route is to hire a forester who may work on a flat fee, a % of harvest or some other basis. You would likely get a more complete plan this way. After going thru it once with your education you could continue it for many cycles and could most likely do it for hire to others.
Good luck, I found the entire process very informative and interesting.

[Phorester]

DANK, are you looking to write a forest management plan for yourself, or are you planning on going into business writing plans for other forest landowners for a fee?

[JoeZ]

In NYS there are state foresters who will visit your site , listen to your goals, tour your land and write up a suggested stewardship plan. You then read it and see if it follows your goals, make necessary changes and send it back to be re-written and it cycles again. when completed you have a 10 year plan in hand and have learned a lot in the process. In NYS this is free to the landowner and the state forester is prohibited from accepting any money. This is the route I took. Another route is to hire a forester who may work on a flat fee, a % of harvest or some other basis. You would likely get a more complete plan this way. After going thru it once with your education you could continue it for many cycles and could most likely do it for hire to others.
Good luck, I found the entire process very informative and interesting.

State service foresters aren't really "free"- they cost the taxpayers plenty. State people should refer landowners to consultants. In some states, like Massachusetts, the consultants no longer allow state guys to do such "free" work.

[Tom]

While it is becoming common practice for some States to prohibit State Foresters from doing work for landowners, it is, in my opinion, false economy and is driven by the large landowners who look upon small landowners as competition.

Consulting Foresters in the private sector are not interested in small landowners.  There isn't enough money there.  Land Prep companies aren't interested in small landowners, tree planting companies aren't interested and harvesting companies/loggers, aren't interested.  They don't see the money, relative to the work, as being worth the trouble. 

The States have filled that gap and helped to provide other services to all as a means of promoting Forestry and Forested lands.  Recently the States have buckled to the politics and the State Forestry Divisions  have backed down, leaving the larger landowners as the only customers and representatives.

State and Federal Forestry/agricultural incentives are necessary in the private arena for Forestry to remain a viable industry.

[JoeZ]

While it is becoming common practice for some States to prohibit State Foresters from doing work for landowners, it is, in my opinion, false economy and is driven by the large landowners who look upon small landowners as competition.

Consulting Foresters in the private sector are not interested in small landowners.  There isn't enough money there.  Land Prep companies aren't interested in small landowners, tree planting companies aren't interested and harvesting companies/loggers, aren't interested.  They don't see the money, relative to the work, as being worth the trouble. 

The States have filled that gap and helped to provide other services to all as a means of promoting Forestry and Forested lands.  Recently the States have buckled to the politics and the State Forestry Divisions  have backed down, leaving the larger landowners as the only customers and representatives.

State and Federal Forestry/agricultural incentives are necessary in the private arena for Forestry to remain a viable industry.

In some states, in particular, the northeast, there are consultants who work with small owners- by small owners, I mean down to 10 acres. These small owners can receive cost-shares from the states and feds to prepare Stewardship plans. We also charge to locate/mark bounds. It's true that with current low timber prices, we can't do much in the way of silviculture with small owners, but when prices are high- it's often possible. I suppose in states with huge timber companies and many large private ownerships, and where property values and taxes are low- there won't be as much opportunity for consultants to earn any profit from small owners- but with the high property values and taxes in the Northeast- there is such opportunities. Here, (in New England anyways) a forest owner can get a substantial property tax break by getting involved with a forestry program. So, here, we consultants don't want the state guys preparing plans and marking trees.

Joe

[Geoff Kegerreis]

I've had timber sales as small as 6 acres.  I'll work on any size property as long as economic value exists.  If it does not, it's not a feasible project and the gov't should not be supplying services to those landowners at the cost of non-landowning taxpayers.  That is an unjustifiable pubilc expense that continues to plague the U.S.  Talk about a false economy... 

Speaking of "woodlot management plans", I am currently in the process of drafting one.  This plan is state gov't mandated and within the same program, over the course of 13 years the plan requirements have changed DRASTICALLY.  The original plan for this property was 2 pages long + a hand drawn map with non-standard abbreviations on the different management units.  It was understandable to any forester, very simple and very to the point.

Unfortunately, it will not nearly satisfy the requirements of the "amendments" which were added last year.  Much of the extra information is unnecessary in my opinion.  It has changed the document from a "woodlot management plan" to something in between a multi-resource inventory and appraisal and a scientific publication.

I'll be very surprised if the new one I will finish writing will be less than 10 pages.  This is my first time writing this new form of the plan and I will end up losing money on it.  It seems fairly obvious that the added complexities are just a way for the gov't to justify other gov't positions and attempt to eliminate consultants from the business of authoring plans.  My basis for that comment is the fact that consultants are paid by their clients, while the gov't folks are paid by the state (tax dollars) funds coming from a multitude of sources.  If this trend continues, forestry will continue to become more and more communist and less capitalist in nature...further lowering the economic potential for this state and country.

[Rick Alger]

I've been reading that the trend for small woodlot management is moving away from  purely economic silviculture - at least in relatively affluent areas of New England. I talked with one forester who is specializing in "woodscapes." He is thinking of having me and my horses do a light harvest on a particular lot  so that he can  move in with his equipment to make trails, songbird openings, outlooks etc without wasting his time on the paltry revenue from the wood harvest.

I don't know how strong this trend is. We still have plenty of "real" woods around here, thank God, but it seems that the new wave of ownership may gradually change what  consulting foresters are asked to do for management plans.

[Tom]

I'll work on any size property as long as economic value exists.

A point taken from your perspective, not the landowners.  The Governments involvement has been in assisting small landowners to perpetuate the existance of privately owned woodlots and forests.  Your determination of economic value is based upon your involvement and gain. The goal, from the landowner's point of view is to maximize his efforts regardless of other's opinions as to his value to the "greater good" of a conglomerate industry.

Needless to say, I don't agree that a State Forester's work in the private arena is a plague on the U.S., nor is a false economy any more than kindergarten offered by public schools is a plague on University instructors wages.  A Forester worth his salt should be pleased to see Forests managed regardless of who does it.  It's the only way to promulgate future forests, one tree at a time.  The effort isn't to stick seedlings into the ground, but to educate the masses as to the need for their involvement. Government aid is well spent money to generate a community of fledgling landowners who have an interest in Forestry, growing trees and have taken the step to invest in land for that purpose.

It's the apparent "sophistication" of some Forester's views that turn off the general public when it comes to recruiting new blood for the industry.

Becoming Communists?  I should say not!  If it's doing anything, it's providing Foresters with the industry seed that will allow them to make a living without having to dig in their own pockets.

[beenthere]

Interesting perspectives. In WI, we have DNR forester help, and as well, they hand off tasks to the consulting foresters (even hire consulting foresters to make plans for landowners entering into the MFL (Managed Forest Law)).  Without the DNR Foresters, I think the landowners would just let their forests go, rather than pay up-front $$$ to have a plan written for them. So seems room for both.

I'd like to share an interesting paragraph in a recent WI DNR Newsletter (Forest Tax and Stewardship News) written under the title  "EAB: What You Can Do to Prepare Your Woodlot". 
"In addition to preventing spread, woodlot owners can take actions to reduce the damage EAB will do when it eventually arrives on their property. Don't wait for EAB to arrive; start work soon. If you can spread the changes to your woodlot over several thinnings, you will minimize the stress to your forest. You also don't want to be in the position of losing all your ash in a short time due to the borer, as such heavy losses could jeopardize MFL, and possibly Forest Crop Law  requirements! Here are some ideas to consider on your property; however, always remember to check with your local DNR forester first!
* Over the next few thinnings, reduce the ash component of your woodlot to the minimum required for your plan or 10%. Remove unhealthy trees first.
*Favor non-ash regeneration.
*In new plantings, limit ash to 10%  or if site conditions require the use of ash to capture the site from competing vegetation, plan on allowing other tree species to dominate the final woodlot. Ash may not survive to be a crop tree. "

I'm a bit concerned over the threat that I in some way need to decide which ash trees (largest probably small sawlog size and few in number) down to thousands of ash saplings on several acres of my woodlot.  Wondering if I wage war and destruction on the ash saplings (they grow like weeds), or remove the many ash in the 6-12" dbh range as the threat of them never reaching sawlog size is hovering over our heads. The EAB hasn't been found in WI yet : :
Woodlot and timber acreage in WI is now assessed high at $3k per acre (jumped 3x a few years ago statewide, I hear) and it is pushing many owners of forested acreage to seek the tax shelter of the MFL.
Any thoughts?

[upman]

Interesting perspectives. In WI, we have DNR forester help, and as well, they hand off tasks to the consulting foresters (even hire consulting foresters to make plans for landowners entering into the MFL (Managed Forest Law)).  Without the DNR Foresters, I think the landowners would just let their forests go, rather than pay up-front $$$ to have a plan written for them. So seems room for both.

i think your right.

my experience as a landowner. i bought my 80 acres a year ago. i had a conservation district forester come out to my property. we walked my property i asked questions learned a lot. he wasn't allowed to make management plans for land owners. i got a list of foresters that could write plans. a few unanswered phone calls and one forester to busy who told me if he didn't call me back in two weeks i should call him back. and that was where the ball was dropped. now a year later here i stand with no plan. my fault, not knowing anything about the industry. i didn't see what negatives there would be by not having a plan for trees. i wish he'd have help a little bit more with handing me off to a private forester.


as much as i liked the conservation forester coming out to my property.  i not so sure he was sent out to help me. i think he was there to gather information for use by state. <---didn't mean that to sound so tinfoil hatish.


Geoff -- saw your website while searching for  :P info. wish you lived closer.

[SwampDonkey]

The problem to with ash is it's a prolific seeder and the seedlings are very shade tolerant. My experience here is with white ash, although there is lots of black around to. The white ash around here has seed at pole stage and bigger and it doesn't take many ash per acre to end up with thousands of seedlings per acre.  In the spring time under aspen-fir-ash mixed stands the ground is green with new seedlings. ;)  ;D


Back to management plan: In my area the province subsidizes plans, but minimally. It's only $100 per property tax number. Now, how much of a plan will a landowner get for $100? Not much, I think you would agree. The marketing boards some time ago stepped up to the plate and helped landowners fund their plans. However some boards have stopped funding in recent years because it was demonstrated that the majority of those plans were used as wood harvesting contracts. They had a volume per stand, a map and how to get it described within. All it took was someone with a calculator to multiply the volume, by the acreage and by the $$price, all obtained by subsidy $$. It became a free cruise that cost the land owner nearly nothing to liquidate his woodlot. As soon as the subsidies were dropped for plans, that was the end of doing plans. Now the plans that are done are by the harvest crew to get access to timber, it's not a 3rd party doing the plan. The harvest crew boss is generally a technician or forester in those situations. Some do good work and are genuine and others are not. Most folks who are not foresters, just do a quick walk around the ground and write no plan. For them, it's going to be clearcut or high graded anyway. Nine out of 10 plans I've written have their woodlots liquidated or high graded by now. The high grading is a result of not using a 3rd party to supervise the harvesting, even when the owner is genuinely interested in doing the right thing. Most woodlots with plans I prepared, that are still standing and not high graded, are owned by absentee owners and the harvesting was supervised by marketing board staff.

[Corley5]

Contact your local Natural Resource Conservation Service.  They usually share an office with the Farm Service Agency.  There are federal dollars available for woodland management 8)

[Ron Wenrich]

I find it really interesting that consultants don't want the state involved as it is some sort of subsidy, yet, they are interested in cost share services that subsidize their services.  Maybe I just don't get it.

When I was more involved in landowner consulting, I really didn't have a problem with state foresters.  There were only so many to go around, and they did much better work than most consultants.  They were interested in managing the forest, not the outcome of a timber sale.  State foresters couldn't work on too many sales, since they also had landowners that needed to be visited. 

When the state got kicked off of the private lands, they handed out who they could contact.  Landowners wanted the state to make a reference to which one they should use, which they couldn't do.  Bottom line was that those folks normally did nothing.  We had one service forester who went back and contacted folks on how they made out, and a lot just didn't call anyone.  They didn't trust the private sector.

Woodlots become uneconomical for consultants when the timber sale won't be large enough.  It doesn't mean that its uneconomical for the landowners.  I've seen logging crews on areas that involved only a few trailerloads of logs.  Nice logs, low volume.  As long as the access is good, and there isn't too many houses, you can work on a rather small woodlot. 

There's been a lot of stuff about urban trees.  That seems to be where you go out and manage for the single tree, whether its along a street or in the back yard.  But, I have yet to see anything on suburban tree management.  That's where you have small acreages that can yield some good quality and can be relatively easy for the landowner to manage, since the task isn't as daunting as a 20 acre thinning.  Collectively, suburban forests cover a pretty large area.   

[Ron Scott]

A number of Conservation District Foresters here are now charging consulting fees for their services and for writing landowner stewardhip plans. Their fees are the same or higher than most private consultant fees. This has really upset most private consutants with the competion of taxpayer funding and then added fee for services charges.

The private consultants look at this as a public subsidized forestry consulting service now competing with the private sector.

[SwampDonkey]

The main difference I see in the cost share programs is the state forester still gets his salary whether his interactions are mostly visits and follow up interviews with landowners or actual revenue generating propositions. If your doing a management plan on some kind of cost share, it costs the state a wage, plus they are billing the owner for services. The private consultant has to get his wage from the charge out rate which he must match with the state employed forester. How is that fair? On the timber harvest side I see the marketing board, using subsidies from pooled wood levies, able to charge $3/cord for services. Meanwhile the private consultant needs $9-10 and maybe as much as $12 a cord, depending on what's involved. It's a good deal for the woodlot owner to take the $3 a cord arrangement, who wouldn't? In the mean time it makes the private consultant look like a money grubbing crook.

As far as pre-commercial thinning subsidies 95% of the ground is identified by the private consultants, who educate the landowner about the silviculture program. I bet 10% of the small woodlot owners in my area ever receive a newsletter about the silviculture program. I know for a fact that 250 mailings is about it and we have over 4000 woodlot owners in my two counties. We don't even get 200 members to the annual meetings in my marketing board area.

Just my fair shake. ;)

[Ron Wenrich]

I don't understand that line of thinking.  If the conservation district is charging for services, why would that upset consultants?  Afterall, they said it was unfair to have free services offered to landowners, now that the field has been leveled by fees, its still unfair???

It seems that the consultants think that the state service foresters should be turning business over to them.  I feel that's a subsidy to consultants.  Consultants need to do a better job of marketing their services and their skills.  That's not up to government.

If people chose to use government services for a fee over consultants at a lower fee, then someone has an image problem.

[JoeZ]

I don't understand that line of thinking.  If the conservation district is charging for services, why would that upset consultants?  Afterall, they said it was unfair to have free services offered to landowners, now that the field has been leveled by fees, its still unfair???

It seems that the consultants think that the state service foresters should be turning business over to them.  I feel that's a subsidy to consultants.  Consultants need to do a better job of marketing their services and their skills.  That's not up to government.

If people chose to use government services for a fee over consultants at a lower fee, then someone has an image problem.

If any sort of work can be done by the private sector, what business is it of gov. to be doing it? How would any other profession/trade like it if gov. people did THEIR WORK for a cutrate fee? If gov. foresters are charging owners ONLY $3/cord to prepare a cordwood sale, that's taking bread off the tables of some consultant  because no consultant could POSSIBLY do it for that price. It's time gov. got out of forestry, while the private sector foresters get licensed or registerd and THEY run the forestry world- it's THEIR profession.

JZ

[Ron Scott]

They are competing directly with private consultants who don't have their office space, insurances, vehicles. gas, equipment, computers, marking paint, etc. etc. paid for by the government.

The field is far from level when you don't have to cover the overhead and administrative costs to compete in the same business.

[Tom]

From a small landowner's  perspective, we don't care who we do business with as long as the person is providing a service.   Unfortunately private consultants don't have the time for most of the landowners because the woodlots are "too small".

Government Foresters get involved to perpetuate the use of open land for Forest, consultants don't get involved.  The Government Foresters are/were actually 'selling' the idea of forestry to anyone with an open ear and trying to get them started raising trees.   It wasn't to "make" money but to insure that forests weren't taken over by development.   I've not known many private consulting foresters because they don't market themselves.  When you do hear of one, it because he's complaining of the Government taking his jobs away from him.  Reality is that the Government went out and found the jobs, the Forester didn't.  Now, with private concerns beating up the Government and demanding that small landowner services be curtailed, the small landowners find that they have no one.  There isn't enough money for the consulting forester to be bothered.  There isn't enough  money for the land prep people to move equipment.  Small landowners are buying their own equipment and sharing it to get the job done.  It's not a coop, but it's danged close to it.

All I ever hear from the Private Forester Society is a bunch of belly aching.  Yes, there are a few who have an open ear.  We just lost the last one in our county a couple of years ago when God took him home. The rest of them are "somewhere" whooing the large landowners, a market in which the Government Foresters shouldn't be interested.

Everybody helps pay a Government servants salary and everybody should get some benefit.  The benefit to small landowners is evident, but the creation and salvation of woodlots is a benefit that is awarded everyone.   How many acres are tied up in small acreage forests?  The retention of that is the Government's plight.  

I have a job as a custom sawyer because the big mills won't let an individual on their property with two logs in the back of a pickup.  Yes, I've had some of the bigger mills complain about my charges but I'm the one with the business.  If they want it, they can get out there and fight for it the same as we do.  The bigger mills are no concern of mine.  They have already dug a big enough hole that they are leaving the small guys to us.  Because the folks come to us, we do special things for them.  We are a different society because of it and the big mills won't/can't compete.  So, what do they do?  They get involved in all kinds of polital shenanigans to make life difficult for us.  In effect, they are hurting the very customers they are trying to win.  The  truth is that they wouldn't service these guys if they won the business.

Is that what Consulting Foresters in the private sector think? Get rid of the competition whether it is what we want or not?   When is the last time I had a private consulting Forester knock on my door?  Never!

[SwampDonkey]

We can't get to everyone Tom ;D But the reality is you got to ask yourself how many doors do I have to knock on before I get paid. The state forester doesn't even have to leave the office and gets paid just the same. ;) I've never seen anyone but a logging contractor and the odd private consultant knocking on doors here. Most in government services in my province don't knock on doors unless called upon. Now that Forest Extension is gone, the only chance most have to see one of these guys is if he's the neighbor or at the annual Christmas tree, maple syrup, woodlot tour. ;)

[Tom]

I'm not impressed with the few that happen to fall into your grasps.  Our Government Foresters did knock on doors until the private sector stopped them.  That is why we have a lot of small pine plantations in this area of the country.  They won't be there long because developement is overtaking the land and there is no one to stand up for the small landowner but the landowner himself.  When developement money comes in, homesteads get sold and those who would raise trees for the love of the land, leave.

When a forester knocks on doors, it hasn't got anything to do whether he is private or government.  It has to do with how he perceives his role in life and the industry.  The biggest difference is that the government employee is given goals to reach, the private employee makes up his own.

You might also ask, how many doors does a vacuum cleaner salesman have to knock on to get paid. That doesn't give him call to have Sears and Roebuck shut down.