What do you think of this?

[Tillaway]

http://www.redding.com/top_stories/national/20020224topnat011.shtml

Any opinions?  I think it could bankrupt a few of the smaller groups.

[Jeff]

Giving the enviros the right to bid on timbersales to stop the management of a forest is the same as allowing them to spike the trees. This time they can do it with something more powerful then steel. Money.

[Tom]

I think the article indicates a lot of shallowness.  

When the timber industry bids on the wood from a piece of property, they are not bidding on the property. The trees are to be removed so a new crop can be started to provide trees for future generations.

If the trees are not to be removed then the bidding is for the land and that is not right.

They should not be bidding on the wood but on the wood and the lease of the land for the next rotation as well.  If they want to do that then I may see it as ok.  Otherwise they should butt out.

[Bud Man]

They would not be bidding on the land but the logging of the trees.  Lets place a value on the trees and hold these groups responsiple for this value and see just how much about they know about ownership and management . Place it in an area close to a urban setting and make an educational experience out of this farce.  Everytime a tree falls to the groung unharvested , lets charge them it's value in the form of a bill payable to the american people since they are the rightfull owners.   Let's let these groups put their money where their mouths and spikes are.  But hold them accountable for every aspest of the trees value !!!

[Ron Wenrich]

Every logging contract or bid I have seen says that you have certain amount of time to remove the timber that is being sold.  If it is not removed, the buyer loses his money and doesn't get the timber, unless there is a contract extention.

Otherwise, a logger could buy a patch of timber, and allow it to grow for a number of years and capture the extra growth for no cost other than market risk.

I don't think the enviromentalist groups have thought this out too well.  To preserve a patch of land, they will have to keep on making installment payments to the government.  Mills will catch on, and jack the price up.  It is a means of bankrupting the environmental groups.

[Jeff]

hmmm.

Then I approve!

[Tillaway]

I will give you an idea of stumpage prices for a green sale in the Northwest provided the USFS is allowed to offer one... stumpage prices from $200 per MBF to around $600 per MBF.  Some sales of very good timber and a competetive market can go as high as $850ish.  Some larger sales will have volumes around 50MMbf.  It will take some real deep pockets fork over this kind of cash to protect some trees for a few years.

Actor Woody Harrelson (sp.) (Cheers fame) did bid on and win a Redwood sale off the Jackson State Forest in Mendocino county California.  He did this to save the trees.  The state pulled the contract because he had no intention of harvesting.  This idea is not new.

[Bud Man]

Tillaway ===-I've done the rough math===The mentioned tract of land had 3.5 million board feet of lumber on it===If the USFS  assigned a value of $500/mbf  value (probably low) to the tract of land then the huggers would only have to come up with $1,750,000 or $6,363.63 per acre to protect each acre.  Now multiply $6,363.63 times 190 Million acres the USFS manages and for $1.2 TRILLION lets turn the services of the USFS over to the HUGGERS.=== Oh, might want to assign a projected growth factor into the equation, with several penalty clauses, and get the HUGGERS to  propose a way to provide for a few people that it might put out of work !!! ======== But first let's see if they got the $1.2 TRILLION !!!

[swampwhiteoak]

Like others have alluded to I think there needs to be somekind of statute of limitations on "saving" the trees.  Let their bids keep the timber unharvested for a normal rotation then rebid it.  Not that I'm for it, just that's the only way it would seem fair.

Unlike actually harvesting the timber which creates local jobs, this proposal does the opposite.  Could also result in forest health and fire hazard problems.  I would be in favor of restricting this to strictly commercial sale situations where there will be little environmental consequence of not logging.  This would also help bankrupt a few groups as this would be the high dollar situation.

Finally forces the enviros to put their money where their mouth is and I kinda like that.

On the other hand it opens a Pandora's Box.  Would the FS start putting out 3-4 times as many sales as usual just to ensure some got through?  Below cost timber sales haven't bothered me too much in the past because of the jobs and tax revenue created down the line.  If the FS is going to shift to below cost non-timber sales it seems like a exercise in futility and a waste of taxpayer money.    

[Bud Man]

Swamp==All my post on this thread have been somewhat in  jest but I think there is more here than meets the eye. == George W. is known to speak off the cuff, and in so doing put his boot in his mouth up to the lettering, but with Rev involved there's an angle and I'm not sure what it is. == I think most everybody has sold Bush off as being less astute than he really is, but you don't get a master's degree from Harvard business school without a good bit of smarts.  He's made the most of his legacy but I think he's Fox Smart and has learned from papa's term to be very cagey !!  ==  Maybe gonna beat up enviromentalist as fools to soften attack from them on his  Alaskan oil proposals.  Did you see those logging prices??  The huggers were high bid $8.25 /mbf ====.825 cents/bd.ft., seems incredibly low !!! == Anyway Bush has a full plate to say grace over right now and this issue is at best probably on back burner.  == Time will tell !!

[swampwhiteoak]

Bud,
Yeah I noticed that price was very low, but it was a salvage sale so that would be expected.

The more I think about this whole thing the more it makes my head spin.  

I haven't really formed an opinion on Bush with relation to federal lands yet.  Too soon to tell I think.  Plenty of smart people make stupid decisions and vice-versa.  

[Ron Wenrich]

Salvage operations are usually harder to log, and a lot of the good wood has been damaged.  Put a topper of low market prices for lumber and a poor chip market, and you can get those low prices.

But, price aside, what they are doing is setting a precedent.  If they are allowed to bid and retain a salvage operation, then they will bid on a better job.  Then, the FS will not be able to back out because they allowed it before.  The $30,000 now looks like a pretty good deal to set a legal precedent.  Cheaper than the courts.

If that is the road the FS wants to go down, fine.  But, does that then bleed over to state sales, or BLM or BIA or private sales?  Then we have the enviros dictating the management via their pocketbook.  Can be good fund raising fodder.  Look at the forests we have saved from the chainsaw.

[Bud Man]

Everything Bush has done since taking office has been to assure a second term, with the only exception being the retallatory actions of  9-11. === Even there he plucked Tom Ridge from Pa. to head homeland security,  where he lost in 2000.=====  Maybe this is a ruse to get people in the west  (Washington and Oregon) all excited about politic's and agitated enough to get off there butts and go  vote in 2004.  Maybe it's a way for the FS to create a pseudo bidder in the minds of loggers and the mills to alter their bidding routines?   Ah--It'll all come out in the wash !!

[Bruce]

It seems no one in the UFS is going to figure out how to save trees from fires.  Instead there only interested in top dollar regardless if timber is harvested.  Therefore, I hereby proclaim, the UFS are a bunch of failed thinkers.

When trees burn on forest service land whose loss is it?

Everyones.  Who pays for it?  Everyone.

Now then, if timber needs logged in order to thin a forest or eliminate disease and the UFS leases timber to the greenies whom fail to log the trees and then fire or disease destroys the trees before they could be utlized for the better good of society, then by george the greenies should pay the board feet value of the lost trees based on the market value of lumber, since they incured no expense with tree removal.

Who do the greenies pay?  You and me, the American people, the U. S. Treasury.

[Tillaway]

The $8.25 per thousand is probably a misquote.  The FS sells all their wood by the 100 cubic feet.  It is more like $8.25 per ccf.

Fire salvage sales from the FS tend to be too late to harvest as saw timber. Also the FS does have contract length limits. It is something like three years if my memory is correct.  They will give extensions but I doubt they would to enviro groups.

The job multiplier effect is lost if the enviros win the bids, but the countys get significant portion of these receipts in lue of property tax.  This money would be a much larger contribution to the community then the enviros currently make.

It will take a real aggresive bid to beat the mills in the NW.  I don't think that when the rank and file enviro contributer will continue the support this use of their money.  It sounds good on the outside but when they find out it only short term, they will lose support.

[Forester Frank]

Uh, Guys. You might want to go back and read the news article  again. The environmentalist group attempted the bid in 1995. They are not doing that now. What is happening now is that the Bush Administration - not just George Bush - proposed allowing this action.

Why not allow it? Really. Ron Weinrich and Tillaway have made the best points so far, that there are certain restrictions the bidders would be required to adhere to. Supply a bid bond, performance bond, and payment. All would be lost at the expiration date of the contract. The timber would still be there to cut/harvest when the sale is auctioned again. The tree grows for three more years. Is that such a big deal.

Let environmentalist groups spend their money that way if they want. May the highest bid win, and enforce the rules of the contract. All timber reverts back to the ownership of the USDA Forsest Service upon the expiration of the contract.

[swampwhiteoak]

Why not allow it?

Reason 1:  I own 500 acres of loblolly pine adjacent to Forest Service land (hypothetically).  Southern pine beetle is infesting the neighboring stand and working its way toward my trees.  The Forest Service decides it is a good idea to have a salvage sale to stop the bugs and get any remaining value out of the stand.  The Dogwood Alliance buys the timber and decides to sit on it.  I would be upset as my timber is now at risk.

Reason 2:  Our tax dollars pay someone to cruise this timber, do any wildlife and hydrology analysis, put it out to bid, ect.  Fine with me if we are going to support loggers, sawmills, and manufacturers.  Not ok with me if we are going to play some weird game with environmental groups that often use our tax dollars to tell the public why they should donate to their cause.  If that is the route the FS wants to go then just sell the land right now and let whomever wants to put up the cash can have it.

Enviros can't litigate a salvage sale as effectively.  Mark Rey is apparently trying to give them yet another way to be a pain in the, well you know.  

Not meaning to be argumentative, but you asked the question so that would be my reply.  I understand there could be advantages of this system and perhaps (hopefully) I am just being paranoid.  

[Ron Scott]

Any such areas restricted from resource management by an accepted high bid from an environmental group will become a public land nucleus area for more restricted management, ie roadless, old-growth, semi-primitive non motorized, special area management, wilderness or whatever.

Once they have a "foot-in-the- door" to an area for NO management I don't believe they will 'let it go" to any future timber management or timber harvest when the contract expires. They will pursue it by all measures available, contract extensions, appeals, court decisions, or legislative designations; wilderness a small "w" will become wilderness with a capital "W".

Something the timber industry needs to think about and not let it go by "lightly". They will be after the "best" timber producing areas.

[Forester Frank]

Sorry Swampwhite, I can only agree with your individual scenario that you portray. In that case your argument makes sense and we are in agreement. Except you are presenting a what if this happens argument. Your objection has to be broader than..."Well what if this happens". Right?

I can somewhat agree with you Ron, as most environmentalists I know get one thing on their mind and refuse to listen to reason.

I still see it this way, that if the timber is bid on and performance is not there, then the bidder loses all the investment and the timber reverts back to federal ownership.

 None of you guys have said anything about the possibility that the environmentalists may not win the bid - too low. Also think about this, can anyone really afford to tie up thousands of dollars in timber sales? Of course not.

Now I know that logic and common sense isn't always used by environmental groups, but I cannot believe anyone would invest their money this way.

I'll give you the last word.

[swampwhiteoak]

Frank,

I think I understand your opinion and you make some good points.

I'm trying to look at this as if I were in an Enviro group.  First off, any group probably wouldn't bid on a large expensive sale.  They can just string that one out in court forever like they do anyway.  The place they would put their money would be a cheap salvage sale.  So if it's not harvested there could potentially be forest health or fire hazard problems in adjacent stands.  After a year or two when the bond lets up, no one will want the timber anyway.

I think before a large policy change like this is inacted it is appropriate to ask "what if".  But like I said before I'm probably just being paranoid and I certainly have no monopoly on a the last word.

[Ron Scott]

This will be very interesting to watch if implemented, I wonder how long the USDA-Forest Service Timber Sale Contracts will be for such areas. I guess this will need to be addressed in the revised Forest Plans where the environmental groups are quite active.

It will be difficult to have management areas bounching back and forth from " no management" to "management" every 3-5 years under the normal contract periods. It may be necessary to go back to some of the 25 year contract periods of the past.

Just some things to think about.

[Forester Frank]

Well I am not for anyone bidding on timber when their known intention is to do nothing, but my earlier statements are meant for all of you to consider the environmentalist position. Does it have merit? One must ask these questions. It is good to discuss issues that affect us all and not all of us take the same view.

For instance, in Michigan, Senator McManus is sponsoring a bill to turn over the National Forest land in Michigan to the State Department of Natural Resources, as he feels the feds cannot manage it properly. An issue that could affect us all, wouldn't you all agree?

[Bruce]

There are those who will never be happy until they have total control over our natural resources.

Harvesting timber, clearing out underbrush, protecting watersheds, planting trees and eliminating disease when possible within Forest are worthwhile steps in the management of Forest.

There must be a balance.  We have seen fires summer after summer here in the west and this summer will bring new fires in our National Forest, State Forest and private Forest.

I don't see how eliminating timber harvest in areas that may need a little thinning because some group has the funds to bid higher then those whom must consider the cost of harvesting/planting trees.

[Ron Scott]

Getting the Sierra Club etc. into the timber bidding process should certainly raise the timber prices. I'm sure G-P will be willing to out bid them and pay more for that pulpwood.

The Sierra Club can muster the funds quickly to do as they
wish. I know they have "out-gunned" us Feds many times. I've been there some.

[Ron Wenrich]

Hmmm!  Higher prices would mean that the FS would end up showing a profit and would reduce the below cost sale price arguement.  Seems like that is one of their points against harvesting.

Sounds good.  Take their money and reduce their arguements.  What is the downside on this?

[Ron Scott]

A lose of public land acres treated by timber harvesting and a loss of non-priced public benefits associated with the timber management practice. When the timber prices increase, there will be no "below-cost" timber sale. The timber values will then exceed any harvest and road costs.

The Allegheny National Forest there in PA was not a below cost timber sales National Forest. It was the highest valued forest in the east with its black cherry, but now environmentalists still have its timber harvesting pretty well stopped.

When I worked there we sold many timber sales for over $1,000,000 on the stump.

[Forester Frank]

Who started this thread? It has turned out to be a good discussion item. Lots of good information being exchanged.

Wood cost is one item that our company puts under a microscope, so you are scaring me Ron, by saying that G-P will just buck up on stumpage prices. The bidding process should be reserved for those willing to manage the forest, not preserve it. I am just in favor of allowing everyone into the arena. Unfortunately, allowing all means allowing those that have intentions of doing nothing. After days of discussion and though my position is to keep them out of the process.

[Ron Wenrich]

The latest reports on the Allegheny NF show that timber sales have been reduced to 25% of what they used to be.  It also shows that federal appeals have dropped off to zero since 1997.  The Indiana bat appeals were dismissed, if I recall.

There is still 30 MMbf under contract for harvest.  (2000 statistics).

[Ron Scott]

The Allegheny National Forest use to be the "Busiest Little Forest" that I've ever been on with its hight quality black cherry management, oil & gas production, heavy recreation, both motorized and non-motorized, excellent hunting & fishing etc.

[Don P]

As an outsiders point of view,
Have they not purchased a rotation?
Is this a bad thing?
As good citizens are they not charged with maintaining their purchase...and if it's part of my stock, being liable for any losses or harm?

[L. Wakefield]

   OK, so that brings up a point. One of the old Biblical principles of agriculture was letting the fields lie fallow for (I think it was) 1 year in 7. Is there any analogous feature of benefit for forest or woodland management? (Granted that the rotation would be MUCH longer)- but eg the (tropical) rainforest is so slain by intensive harvesting that one could see a long fallow period being of benefit there- maybe every other cycle, whatever you defined as a cycle. Here in temperate/boreal regions, what?   :P  lw

[L. Wakefield]

   And- I digress on my digression- I feel a book-buying frenzy coming on here...one of my recent valuable trips to U Conn. I invested in some of the basic books on ag mgt- feeds and forages, livestock mgt etc. Could y'all suggest some good basic texts on forestry and woodland management?
 
   There is a 1963 text by Peter Farb called 'Face of North America' which has a section on forests- and I see in his credits in the beginning that he had also done a text simoply entitled 'Forests'. (I doubt it's in print.)

   That's really all I have in my personal library at the moment, but I could stand to invest a c-note or 2 in a few texts of lasting and practical value.    :P ( I am so glad you took the playboy bunny off the book emoticon- hate to give you the wrong idea about my wildlife studies here..)   lw

[Ron Scott]

Try,
Woodland Stewardship, A Practical Guide For Midwestern Landowners

By: Melvin J. Baughman, Alvin A. Alm,
A. Scott Reed, Thomas G. Eiber, and Charles R. Blinn

It is availablle from the Minnesota Extension Service, Distribution Center; University of Minnesota; 20 Coffey Hall; St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 ; telephone # (612) 625-8173
They are also on the internet.

If you are interested in Wildlife Management, a good book is:
Northwoods Wildlife; A Watcher;s Guide to Habitats

By:Janine M. Benyus

It is available form the Lake States Interpretive Association
and is published by; NorthWord Press, Inc. Box 1360; Minocqua, Wisconsin; call 1-800-336-5666

Also try Amazon .com

There are many such books, but these are a couple good ones for the layperson to start with.

[Tom]

Lw.

It's not the "Institutional" thing to do but I have learned great gobs by visiting our regional dept. of forestry office.  The Regional Forester and I have become friends over the years and I speak freely with him, the rangers and the Urban Forester.  Sometimes I just stop for a cup of coffee (not as often as I should) and visit for a half hour or hour with whomever will put up with me.  I have gotten tips on good books, seminars, local meetings and invitations to watch tree planting, herbaciding, harvesting and timber prep. on interesting pieces of land in the area. It is not only educational but provides an avenue to meet other timber growers.

[Bud Man]

Lw  -Search web sites for books published by:Chelsea Green Publishers  and also  Dover Publishing -- That should be interesting .  Also Textbook in Dendrology  By  Harlow and Harrah -- Published by McGraw-Hill  These publishers will have available text in subjects of interest and are moderately priced and range  from the novice to the technical limits you set.    Good Reading

[L. Wakefield]

   Excellent! It's a long-term goal, but why not? Thank you for the references!   :P :P  lw