Some Thoughts on Sustainable Forestry

[caryr]

I attended a seminar on sustainable forestry earlier this week and thought I would share a couple of things I found interesting.

The keynote speaker was talking about sustainability from a global perspective. One of his key points was that we are not doing a good job balancing the ecological preservation of the planet as a whole. There are many islands and tropical regions that have a large number of species, many endangered or threatened, that have no reserves while we have huge tracks in other countries set aside for a couple of species. These differences are also found within countries. The Spotted Owl (West) vs the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (South) is but one example of this disparity.

His talk was more to get people thinking about the problem vs proposing solutions, though one obvious solution for the intra country disparity is to use a REIT as the financial vehicle to acquire needed habitat and then trade it with the government for land in an area that has a disproportionate amount of habitat. The inter country disparity is a bit harder to solve.

The second item was from a panel session that had both SFI and FSC representatives. The basic statement was that they should stop the oneupmanship mentality they have been practicing and try to do something to bring the global average up. The perspective this was coming from was that they (SFI and FSC) are making the best better, but are not really helping to address the problems caused by inadequate timber practices in developing countries (illegal logging, over reliance on fuel wood, etc.). Helping to fix these problems would likely have a much larger impact on the global endangered species than their current focus.

I may be able to get the slides from the key note address if anyone is interested.

Cary

[Sprucegum]

Forhive my ignorance - what does REIT stand for and what does it do?

[crtreedude]

Boy, perhaps I should not say anything here - but that has never stopped me before.  :

I LIVE in the tropics. The issue isn't really illegal logging - it is food. Hard to eat bark folks. Yes, there are too many monocrop forest - but honestly, that doesn't really bother me - as long as other areas are protected that have biological diversity.

I have plantations - and I DON'T pay for FSC to tell me I am doing it right. We picked up roots, we moved here, we took our life savings and planted trees to help in reforestation - and FSC has the gall to say that they need to approve me?  >:( What little extra I have is not going to someone to say I am doing the right thing!

Also, Costa Rica has strict laws - perhaps much stricter than in the USA. For example, we have trees - valuable trees - that can not be cut - period. Heck, if they die and fall you still can't cut them. Jail time if you do. Is there anything in the USA or Canada like that?  I am not sure of the laws up there - but I sure know them here!

Yes, the tropics is very very important - but I am not sure FSC has the right to stick their face in it. Costa Rica is stricter than they are as far as I know. After all - FSC can't throw you in jail.

So far, my take on a lot of the sustainable forestry is a way for the same old practices to be dressed up for the public. One of my biggest issues with FSC is that I have driven by plantations that are certified by them - they are poisoning the streams with pesticides and fertilizer on a wide scale. They have planted in areas that are not suitable, and some of these plantations have been some of the biggest scams out there. I don't want to be associated with them.  It is bad enough that since I grow trees in Costa Rica at times people think it is a scam.  :(

The following is a good article about one of the plantations: http://www.treemail.nl/teakscan.dal/files/sting.htm The author is one of the experts in teak plantations down this way. Notice that Rainforest Alliance said they were just fine. Don't try to make their numbers on a plantation - pure fiction. They also planted on some of the worst soil in Costa Rica. (They have since gone belly up and reformed under a new name. )

This is my take on the whole thing - I have yet to receive a penny from any environmental organization - however, I have more than a few hard working people who have trusted me with money for their future to help grow trees. Often I believe that the only thing that some of these environmental groups do well is take peoples money. Too much talk, not enough action. I hope I am wrong.

Okay, off soapbox for a bit...

[wesdor]

I like the concept of Sustainable Forestry and would appreciate seeing the slides from the conference you attended.

However, getting a local forester to give much attention seems just about impossible (I know there have been major funding cuts in Illinois).  I hear what you are saying CRTreedude - about the organizations that should be doing the most are caught up in the politics of the movement.

http://www.timbergreenforestry.com/page103.html

Above is a site I ran into a while back.  I've never met the gentleman, but he seems to have some real world experience with organized sustainable forestry, and not much of it is very good.

I think this topic is vitally important and hope the discussion continues.

[caryr]

A REIT is a security that trades like a stock, but invests in property or mortgages. There are a number of REITs that already invest in forest property as their focus. The reason you would use a REIT for this type of activity is to raise the money needed to purchase the land initially.

CR,

Please don't misread what I typed. There was no implication that FSC or anyone else should be regulating things. The point was that there are other, probably more important, things for them to be considering than we only allow a five acre clear cut while the other guys allow twenty. I like you manage my property to my standard. If it happens to be congruent with a particular certification standard that's fine, but it is not why I do things the way I do.

I agree that food is a big problem and has been the primary cause of much deforestation, but what I find unique about the rain forest situation is the extremely high percentage of nutrients that are contained in the living matter. Remove all the living material and the ground becomes almost useless. I wonder how much better your forest will grow in a few generations once the ground has been recharged and do those other species that are suppressed in a mono crop contribute to/accelerate the soil rebuilding.

To me sustainable forestry is as much about the ecosystem the trees grow in as it is about the trees. Yes I still expect a reasonable ROI from my forest, but I'm willing to give up a little to make my little piece of the world a better place.

Also, It was my understanding that pesticides were prohibited by FSC and fertilization was either strongly discouraged or prohibited as well.

Take care,

Cary

[Jeff]

I am all for sustainable forestry but am somewhat disillusioned on how sometimes the term is used by industry as a badge of responsible business practices when sometimes in reality its nothing more then a badge without a body.

Case in point:

The mill where I worked sells pulpwood to several of the "big boys".  The big boys in the name of Sustainable Forestry INSIST that the loggers and contractors are certified under the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and stay certified through on going classes and continuing education every year. This all sounds good, but in reality the Almighty dollar still comes first before wise use.  When these companies pushing the SFI agendas fall short of raw materials to run their plants, their tune changes. A couple years ago our mill could hardly buy an aspen log. Why? Because most of the loggers around were under contract to the big boys. The big boys put the word out that EVERYTHING was to be brought to them by anyone that was logging on their stumpage, or had been fronted money to pay for the jobs they were on or they would lose their contracts. One of our usual suppliers was in some snow white stuff running around 16" DBH. No better saw logs can be had when you are talking aspen.  He HAD to send them to the OSB plant. No choice.

This of course drove up the price of logs beyond reason.  Wise use? Wise is based on profit.

[Riles]

The forest soils folks will tell you that you can't really "recharge" a tropical soil, except through fertilization. Tropical soils are poor because they're extremely weathered, the nutrients are long gone or in the vegetation. If you remove the biomass, you remove the nutrients. Now you CAN plant nitrogen fixing plants that will add nitrogen to the soil. Nitrogen is a nutrient, but in this case it won't be the limiting factor. Phosphorus and Potassium are going to hold back growth.

I guess if you're not allowed to add fertilizer to the soil, you could add organic matter to get the same effect. Can you imagine a shipload of slash shipped to the tropics to replace the nutrients lost by logging?

[crtreedude]

Caryr,

No offense taken - I guess it hits a sore point with me. What some of these certifications systems cause is a kind of blackmail.

I think education creates sustainable models. You will always have the rape and pillage crowd - but they won't do it on my lands. Pretty soon - they die out. We have sawmill after sawmill closing - why? Mainly because they survive on wood being cut from often areas that shouldn't be. As these areas dry up, so does the wood, and then the sawmills close.

I would be all for certification - if it wasn't so political. If someone were to say, fine, we agree you are doing a good thing - I would be for it, but if I have to toe the line and do it their way, instead of running my own experiments - well, that I don't agree with.

The purpose of the plantation needs to be taken into effect - not if you are doing what they agree with.

Case in point:

The government here will give no assistance in planting Mahogany. Now, I understand this because it is difficult to grow - there is a butterfly that will cause major problems. That is fine, I am growing it myself and having some success - and plan on having more in the future. Because it is nearly impossbile to grow  in plantations - the price just keeps going up and up. The lastest price is 1,500 dollars per cubic meter - and just not available. There was an article about a year ago that said smuggling mahogany is actually more profitable than cocaine.   

What I did do for certification was have a major ecological site I actually like because it tries to balance the issues come down and investigate us - and I paid for the trip.  I gave him total freedom to write whatever he wished about us.

If anyone wants to read it, here is the link. http://www.ecoworld.com/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=369

[crtreedude]

Just to correct a misunderstanding that is very common - not all tropical soils are poor. We have a 1/2 a meter of volcanic topsoil at one finca and 1 meter at the other.  Stick a stick into the ground - and it will grow. We have to prune our fence posts. 

The key is being near volcanoes. But not TOO near!  :

FDH has seen our plantation - you can ask what our growth is like.

But, overall - you are correct - most tropical soils are very poor.

[Riles]

I stand corrected. I was referring to Oxisols and overlooked Andisols. That said, Andisols are 1% of the world's ice free surface and are associated with cool climates (volcanic slopes), not something you normally thing of when you hear "tropics."

[caryr]

Jeff,

If transgressions like this are common I would have a talk with their certifier. If this was an abnormal situation. I can understand possible altering the rules a bit, but this should only be based on a plan with an extensive post review to ensure this didn't happen again in the future. It is unfortunate that all that good Aspen was turned into OSB, but that is what can happen in a free market economy. It's also a shame that old growth is still turned into structural lumber instead of something you can see and appreciate.

Riles,

I understand what you are saying. By recharge I meant the reestablishment of a normal nutrient cycle. Which does have some of the nutrients decomposing in/on the soil.


I see certification as an environmental audit. We are all familiar with companies having their books audited by an external entity. To me certification is basically the same thing. An external entity verifying you are doing the right thing.

Cary

[Texas Ranger]

REIT.  Real Estate Investment Trust.  A large percentage of old timber company land in south east Texas is being turned into (bought) by REIT's.

[crtreedude]

I think one of the problems is that much of this is "feel good" stuff. A law is passed, but they don't realize the reprocussions. For example:

Here, because of the need, a law was passed prohibiting cutting trees within 15 meters of a water source like a river or a stream if the land is flat, if it is steep - it is 50 meters. I agree with this as a method of protecting the water ways from siltration.

All fine and good, except the law was passed, without the funds to enforce, and people knew that (as in, what else is new...  : ), so, the people who didn't care started harvesting the trees around the rivers and streams as fast as they could before they started to enforce it!

So, the law which was to curb the activity - generated a lot more of it.

In my not so humble opinion, I agree - these certification programs are an audit - and you can see just about how much that matters when applied to a large client in the case of Enron and Arthur Anderson.

Beware - often certification programs are a way to squeeze out the small producers - who are often not the problem anyway. You see, the big boys can work around the rules or have people to fill out the paperwork - but not the startups.

wesdor, I have seen that website and I am on his mailing list - he definitely has opinions about certification!

Regarding recharging the soil - what is the rate in the North? Isn't like rebuilding 1" of topsoil per hundred years? It just takes longer for the erosion to occur because you have a lot more depth. By the way, we have a lot of leaf litter in the plantations - it just doesn't occur at one time of the year. It is like early fall, all the time. As the trees grow, there are always leafs falling. Teak leaves sound like sandpaper due to the high silicone content. It takes them a while to break down too. Also, a teak leaf often is 2 feet long and about 1 foot or more wide.

Many of the grasses and trees here are nitrogen fixing. I have read what you are saying before - but honestly, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me living here when I see people doing what is supposed to be impossible. For example, we don't even use fertilizer except when we first plant on our lands - if I want a shot of nitrogen (which we like to do) we just cut the grass and prune the fences. Since they are nitrogen fixing, by cutting back the vegetation, we get a big boost in growth. It is really amazing to see. We don't remove the grass - after all, it is producing fertilizer for us. If someone gets a piece of land, they can grow the native grass for a few years and it really will help - they do it all the time. Brazilian grass (which I gather is really from Africa) will go from cut to 6 feet tall in 3 months, produces a huge amount of organic matter - especially as roots. Let it grow for a few years, have cattle eat it producing the obvious by products and then kill it off - and you have significantly improve the ground, the roots will create channels for the water and oxygen from the dying roots.

We mow the grass at least 4 times a year - mowing a square kilometer of land is a job I can tell you!

Riles, my lands are not cool - it is tropics - you can come visit and I promise you that you will not need anthing besides t-shirts! Our plantations are about 82 to 85 degrees every day and we are at about 500 feet above sea level. What is forgotten in the tropics is that we are on the ring of fire - most of the land building in Costa Rica is based on volcanic action. Look at the map of Costa Rica sometime and you will see.

One thing you might not know is that the Mayans pretty much denuded their lands about 500 years ago - those areas are all forested now (and being cut down again) If the soil was destroyed, it sure came back fast!

I do think you might be right regarding the Amazon Basin since there are no volcanoes nearby. The tropics is as varied as the North. I was born in Missouri, the home of red clay and rock - but I grew up in a part of Western NY that had deep loam. It just depends where you are for the soils.  The insanity is to try to grow a tree like Teak in clay - it doesn't prosper. It will grow really nice corkscrews for you though, but a little too big for wine bottles...  : Of course, that doesn't stop people from offering to grow it for you in the Amazon basin as part of reforestation...  >:(

[Fla._Deadheader]

Only thing I can offer here is, when I was cruising the Internet, looking for markets for tropical lumber, 90% of all adds, either wanting to buy, or, wanting to sell, stated that the wood IS FSC (Forestry Stewardship Council) certified.

  I see it as an organization that has "Coined a phrase" of saying "we certify that the wood is NOT being removed from Tropical Rainforests. They cater to the "Tree Savers" that still want wood, but, NOT from damaging Rainforests ??  Can alyone say Tropical without thinking Rainforest ??

  Even Fred has a little Rainforest on the newer Finca, I believe ??

[crtreedude]

Actually, I have about 30% of a square kilometer of rainforest on the fincas that you can't get your grubby hands on.  ;D The reason - it is against the law. These are the protected areas.

And I need FSC - why? By the way, people are more impressed on our plans than us being certified. Also, a lot of the environmental groups consider it "Green Washing"

just my dos colones,

Fred

[MemphisLogger]

Some hopefully thought provoking insights from someone inside the environmental movement . . .

(But just a few cuz I gotta get back to sawin' a mess of Oak)  ;)

The basic statement was that they should stop the oneupmanship mentality they have been practicing and try to do something to bring the global average up. The perspective this was coming from was that they (SFI and FSC) are making the best better, but are not really helping to address the problems caused by inadequate timber practices in developing countries (illegal logging, over reliance on fuel wood, etc.). Helping to fix these problems would likely have a much larger impact on the global endangered species than their current focus.

Cary,

I like that you bring this out. Sadly, I see much of the "forest protection movement" (read treehuggers) spending far too much time beating down SFI in favor of FSC. It's a waste of time and energy that should be applied to actual solutions.

Personally I like FSC better because it was established by environmentalists, ecologists and sociologists. It's standards are based more on longterm ideals than immediate economics and provide clear goals in terms of ecological and socio-economic indicators. I feel confident that FSC will remain true to these ideals. SFI, on the otherhand, was industry born and as such favors criteria that are more focused on sustained yield of fiber. I fear that SFI will not hold up under economic/supply pressures as they develop--there, I wasted my time on that again  :

The REITs and TIMOs that are busily buying up timberland as industry sells off are, in my opinion, the most important target for FSC certification. Without commitments from these funds to practice sustainable forestry, we are likely to see them parcel-off the choice timberland for yuppie housing and, should the economy falter, liquidate growing stock for shorterm dividends. I felt much more comfortable in the days of industry owned timber as I knew they wouldn't want to cut themselves out of future supply.

So far, my take on a lot of the sustainable forestry is a way for the same old practices to be dressed up for the public. One of my biggest issues with FSC is that I have driven by plantations that are certified by them - they are poisoning the streams with pesticides and fertilizer on a wide scale. They have planted in areas that are not suitable, and some of these plantations have been some of the biggest scams out there. I don't want to be associated with them.  It is bad enough that since I grow trees in Costa Rica at times people think it is a scam.  

crtreedude,

I'm with you on the situation detailed in your links. I know many dozens of folks that own extremely well (plan) managed forestland that I believe ought to be automatically certified for a nominal fee. Toward that end FSC has moved to implement a cheaper, streamlined certification process for land already being managed under a FSC comliant plan. (see http://www.fscus.org/standards_criteria/family_forests_program.php  

Unfortunately, much of the initial groundwork for FSC was laid out by primarily environmental activists. Many incorrect assumptions/projections were made about market access benefits and or price premiums associated with certified products. Most environmentalists don't have the foggiest idea about how the market works let alone the projection of yields, grades, costs and potential losses.

Fortunately, greater understanding along these lines has and is emerging in FSC and they are not selling so many pies in the sky anymore.

On the domestic front, FSC advocates are realizing that FSC only works if primary and secondary processing capacity is in place to carry the certified forest product all the way to the marketplace where many consumers will pay a premium for the stamp of approval.

I'm currently party to a push to get FSC to ease up on the cost of certification to sawmillls, millworks and manufacturers. Heck, they wanted more than $2000 dollars to audit me for sustainability when ALL I handle is logs diverted from the landfill and salvaged timbers.  :-\

http://www.timbergreenforestry.com/page103.html
Above is a site I ran into a while back.  I've never met the gentleman, but he seems to have some real world experience with organized sustainable forestry, and not much of it is very good.

         

Wesdor,

It's my understanding that the case you cite above was a horrible calamity involving bad personal relationships within the coop, unrealistic plalns and goals as well as a good dose of outside non-profit interference. FSC itself was not, in my understanding, to blame for the failure of the coop.

At the same time, Jim rightly points out the prohibitively high cost of FSC certification as currently structured and alludes to the need for FSC to work more on developing local markets in the form of value-adding manufuacturing maintaining a certifiable chain of custody to the "global market" that FSC has been able to create.

Many of us treehuggers are pushing hard behind the scenes to fill in the blanks that currently exist in the certified chain of custody.

The market model I advocate works like this . . .

1) Non-profit enviros identify and recruit "good" foresters in their targeted area. By "good", I mean foresters that are currently managing multiple properties that prequalify under FSC criteria. The non-profit can then put its money where its mouth is and subsidize the cost of those "good" foresters getting an FSC certificate which they can then apply to any properties they manage which meet FSC criteria.

2) After securing enough FSC commitments within the area, the non-profit can then move on to recruit local primary processors and secondary manufacturers to provide a chain of custody market for the subsequently harvested certified timber. This proves to be the trickiest part as the additional costs/hassles of keeping certified products separate from non-certified ones is most often perceived as prohibitive in addition to the direct costs of the cahin of custody certification itself. This is another place where the non-profits could put there money where there mouth is. In West Virginia, the Conservation Fund is doing this thru their new Natural Capital Investment Fund. They're actually capitalizing private enterprises that support certified forestry. (see http://www.conservationfund.org/?article=2194&back=true We are working to see these opportunities grow in other states.

3) FSC and enviros are already doing a great job of leveraging market opportunities thru participation in the USGC LEED program and institutional, corporate and government purchasing agreements secured thru education or under threat of boycott. Now they need to do a better job of putting the suppliers together with the buyers. Heck, it does no good to get Home Depot to promise to sell FSC wood if the certified product isn't readily available.

Key to my model is that the market should bear the cost of certification, not the landowner, mills or factories that produce the product. Non-profits can and should assist with the necessary initial costs of certication until the market's promised price premiums catch up.

I am all for sustainable forestry but am somewhat disillusioned on how sometimes the term is used by industry as a badge of responsible business practices when sometimes in reality its nothing more then a badge without a body.

 

Jeff,

This is exactly why enviros are so adamantly opposed to SFI.

Beware - often certification programs are a way to squeeze out the small producers - who are often not the problem anyway. You see, the big boys can work around the rules or have people to fill out the paperwork - but not the startups.

crtreedude,

We are trying to fix this as it is a real problem.

Gotta get back to sawin',

Huggin' 'em when their standing, and again just before I slice 'em up,

Scott    

 

   

[crtreedude]

Nice comments UrbanLogger,

This issue is and will remain, the bread and butter of this programs are the large players - the small guys can't afford it. Growing trees is EXPENSIVE - and then someone wants more money before a single penny is realized? You have to pay forestry engineers, taxes, labor, certification programs,etc. - and then, after many, many years you hope to get a return.

How about this - if FSC (or whoever) wants to certify my place, come and do it for free? If they think it is important, they can pay for it. Then they can raise the money from others for it.

I don't need their approval - normally my issue is finding trees - not selling the lumber. I have yet to have a single person ask me if I am FSC certified - my standards are higher.

[crtreedude]

One other thing on FSC - I started research on Finca Leola about 4 years ago - and back then they were saying the same thing - they realized they were too complex for the small guys...

And I see from you comments - there is no change, still talking. I still see the certification programs are hostile to the small guys. Just so you realize, I was small, but I am rapidly becoming much larger. I could easily absorb 2,000 dollars for certification now - but the issue remains.

Not trying to be mean - just pointing out the issue. Certification is not a bad idea in theory, but in practice... I rather doubt it will work. 

For example, imagine if you had to certify yourself over and over on your sawmill that it was safe. It sure wouldn't leave much room for profit - or time to work.

just my dos colones

[MemphisLogger]

That's what we're getting at.

Most local scale enviros I know are much more aware of the economics and silvics of sustainability and probably share more in common with the Grange movement than the Enviro-Regulation movement.

We all have to buy in to sustainability and the cost of product certification must be borne by the demanding consumer, not the voluntarily restrained producer.  ;D

and we must remember that sustainability means keeping as much of the value-added as close to the stump as possible  ;)

LIVING WAGES FOR LOVING LOGGERS!

posted since I started typing . . .

Not trying to be mean - just pointing out the issue. Certification is not a bad idea in theory, but in practice... I rather doubt it will work.

I don't think you're being "mean". You're just being honest.

I agree one hundred percent that FSC must be made much easier for the small guys.

I also believe that third party certification will be successful in, if not essential to, the future of sustainable forestry in a worldwide marketplace. If we can't fix FSC, we may have to try a different approach but FSC is there already and I haven't givin' up on trying to redeem it yet.

I'm going to bite the bullet and pay my fee this year. Not because I need to to sell my product--my customers all realize the value of my products and services already--but because I WANT to further the market impact of current certificate holders by taking their product one step further down the certified chain of custody.

       

[crtreedude]

I definitely respect your point of view UrbanLogger and your honesty. I too hope that the certification programs will be come something that is worth their costs.

One idea might actually be to act like a broker for the wood - this way, you have a ready market for wood if you are certified - sort of like paying your dues to sell wood. This way, a person who took care of his property will be ensured of a good market and good price. That just might fly!

Fred

P.S. Not that I need it, but I know it is one of the big problems small guys have - how do I sell all these trees!

[SwampDonkey]

The industry here uses 'certification' as a scare tactic. They say if a certain percentage of wood being used isn't certified then they won't be purchasing it. They say nothing about giving me a higher return on my 'certified' wood or guaranteeing me market access. And most woodlot owners wouldn't even know what certification was if the marketing board didn't provide information and courses. There are still a majority of folks that have no idea what it's about. I see no air time on TV to even make people aware of it, I see nothing in the papers.

[Ron Scott]

Sustainability & Forest Certification:

Accreditation of British Columbia Forest Stewardship Council Standards

November 23 – The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) of Canada has announced the accreditation of the British Columbia (BC) forest management standards by FSC International for small operators and large industrial forests. According to a FSC news release, the standards demonstrate consensus between First Nations, environmentalists, forest communities, workers, and the BC forest industry.

Brent Rabik, chair of the FSC Canada Board of Directors and Strategic Projects Director for Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries, Inc. said that, "Bringing together such a diverse group of interests to collectively develop and agree upon the BC standards is a major achievement and all participants should be very proud of their accomplishment."

For more information, visit the FSC Canada website.

[crtreedude]

Here is something I see - in fact, a group just left who are wanting to buy a lot of wood - and I do mean a lot, like 20 containers a month. Great. Not the best wood either, they are willing to take the poorer quality stuff.

This could be great, but, there is a catch. They deal with the big boys who buy tons of stuff - but these companies are scared not to buy FSC wood because they could be picketed.

So, even though this could be a great thing for the small plantation owner here (say 5 to 10 acres), they are cut out, because there is no way for them to be FSC certified.

So, the farmers here in good faith grew trees according to Costa Rican law - which is stricter than FSC, but because of FSC's efforts, they are being starved out and cannot sell their wood to export - which would probably get them a better price. It would definitely give them a way to sell poorer quality trees.

Real story, real people, happened today.

[SwampDonkey]

Crtreedude, that's just exactly what I'm afraid of happening here. And the big companies can do it because they have free rein over crown wood at lower prices. They can cut the woodlot owner off entirely. It isn't right, but that tyrant, former premier Mckena, kicked the legs out from under woodlot owners in New Brunswick when he took away primary source of supply that was written into the Crown Lands and Forest Act. And these misfits we have in the provincial government now have promised to restore it, but have done nothing. I'm 'afeared' that if Nackawick thinks they can buy wood at $70/cord at a steady flow, they'll be in for a surprise over the next year.

[Gunny]

I'm going to wake up an old bear here and ask a simple question:  Just  whom is all this ruckus to satisfy?  My experiences (much of the last four decades) would suggest that all this energy being spent about SFI or FSC or Mr. BIG vs Mr. Small is but another smoke-screen which tends to keep folks occupied with something other than a resolution that works best for them.

I was fortunate enough to have had an article published by ISW a few years ago that had the working title "The Ten Tree Tally" which considered the actual NET income the private woodlot owner might realize through the value-added process (since I've been doing it myself for many, many years) should he close off his private woodlot to loggers, sawmills, foresters, etc. and produce end-products from the maximum resource utilization of just ten (over)mature trees each year.  You see, something tells me that the more we sweat for volume--always expected from us by those who will pay us a pittance to plunder our own resources-- the less we put into our own pockets.  Then, one day, we take a look at our once plush woodlots and realize that everything of value is gone, at least for the next 50 years.

What's wroing with thinking small?  I don't mind not having to shell out a couple hundred thousand bucks on equipment that is designed and designated solely for thousand-acre clearcuts when my one Husky, '48 Farmall "Super M" and ground-mounted bandsaw mill produced more income for me in a month than I might have gotten from some Timber Pirate who wanted to plunder my riches into oblivion. 

Must head to the snows.  And then to the kiln and workshop.  See you all later.  Happy Holidays.