FSC and SFI Certification systems.

[Frank_Pender]

Amen. Tom. 8) 8) 8) 8) ;)

[Cedar Eater]

Is Mead-Wesvaco's intensive forestry practice acceptable to y'all (I love the south)?

It's their land and assuming they didn't agree to anything that prevents their desired use at the time of purchase, I think it's their right to do it. There is the issue of environmentally sensitive land, but I doubt it applies where you're talking.

In the LP, they could buy open farmland for much cheaper than forestland and convert it to pine cropland without ruffling any feathers. Forestland for deer camps and other uses sells for twice the price. They would lose the income from the timber sale, but they wouldn't be accused of ruining the planet.

Regarding whether foresters should be certified, I can only tell you my assumptions as a non-forester. If somebody told me he was a forester, I would assume he had received a degree in forestry. Since forestry is a degreed profession like engineering or veterinary medicine or opthamologist then that should be a safe assumption. That's why I've asked about standards and self-policing in other threads.

The next step up from that is state certification and anybody who can endanger the trust of a society is a candidate for state certification (it makes you wonder why politicians don't need to prove that they understand how government is supposed to work). The society needs to be able to trust certain professions. The medical profession, the legal profession, educators, accountants, people who design bridges and tall buildings, and even realtors need to be licensed to conduct business with the public-at-large.

So lets use engineers as an example because foresters are in effect, engineering a successful forest (considering numerous variables and applying solutions). Degreed engineers who become employees don't need to be licensed Professional Engineers. The employer simply accepts their degree as proof of education. In most states though, freelance engineers who sell their expertise cannot represent themselves as engineers unless they get a PE license. So a forester who sells professional services to a landowner without first becoming a W2 employee should probably have to pass an exam and get a license while a forester who works for IP or Weyerhauser shouldn't have to.

[Tillaway]

License Foresters... Sounds good but here are some of the problems with it.  In California you have to be a Registered Professional Forester (RPF) to write timber harvest plans (THP), Nonindustrial Timber Management Plans (NTMP), apply for California Forest Improvement(CFIP) funds, write conversions (timber land to other uses), some emergency exemptions, and a RPF has to oversee all contracts and mangement activity on federal lands as well.

All the license really proves is that you can pass a test.  Some of the worst forest practices you will ever see on the West coast are done routinely here.  The licensing has increased accountability to the Forester, if the Forester is caught violating the Forest Practice Rules.  It has also lead to many frivolous law suites brought on by nieghbors (one of the guys I work with was sued because the logger busted a hydraulic hose and the nieghbor thought some fluid landed in the creek that ran through his property).

Also licensing creates another layer of bureacracy.  The California Licensed Foresters Association (CLFA) acts like a union and encourages rules that require their involvement.  This becomes very expensive for the land owner and has kept thousands of acres of small timber land parcels from being managed.  It is not uncommon for the Foresters bill for services to exceed the timber value.

The loggers have to be licensed here as well.  You have to attend a three day school to become a Licensed Timber Operator (LTO).  Ironically the loggers here are generally not anywhere near as good as their contemporaries to the North.

[Ron Scott]

There is a Certified Forester Thread in the General Forestry Section. There is a difference between, Registered, Certified, and Licensed Forester.

Licensing means that one "can not" practice forestry unless they are a licensed forester. This is much more restrictive than being Registered as a forester or Certified as a forester.

This means that only a "licensed" forester can practice forestry on all lands within the state requiring the license.

This has much more impact on private landowner rights.

As for Meads intensive forestry of land and species conversions. This is overly intensive forestry that doesn't represent sustainable ecosystem management, but it is their right to do so as the property owner until society "strongly" says differently.

This overly intensive practice would not be tolerated on  the public's National Forest system lands or most State Forest system lands. Thus the reason for so many appeals by environmentalists concerning National Forest system land management practices which are even ecosystem based.

[Ron Wenrich]

Forester Frank wrote:

"My earlier question about accepting the practice, was directed at the intensive forestry example. I wanted to know if you thought that Mead-Wesvaco's intensive forestry practice of converting poor quality hardwood species - beech, soft and hard maple, white and yellow birch into red pine plantations on their own company owned land?"

What Mead-Westvaco does on their own property is their own business, as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.  But, it isn't sustainable forestry.  The poor quality hardwoods probably came from years of high grading.  If it is hardwoods growing off site, then it should be converted to an indigenous species that is better suited.

What I get out of this certification problem is, everyone wants to decide what sustainable forestry means and who is going to define it.  Does anyone have a good definition?

[Cedar Eater]

I apologize for cavalierly using the "license" term. My poiint was only to distinguish between those foresters who are only accountable to their employer and those who have "clients".

Ultimately, I see personal property rights going completely down the tubes due to two fatal flaws in the US Constitution, but without delving any deeper into that, let's just say I would hope that foresters would seek to provide a benefit to society and not try to protect their income by forcing every felling to come under their perview.

[swampwhiteoak]

I have no first hand knowledge of MeadWestvaco operations in Michigan.  In Ohio, MeadWestvaco (formerly just Mead Paper) commonly plants monocultures of white pine on upland hardwood sites.  These sites were scarlet oak, chestnut oak, blackgum, ect. where a rotation age may be 80-120 years.  The white pine is managed on a 40 year rotation.  I have seen no information that tells me that it is unsustainable from solely a wood production standpoint and it makes sense for them to do that on their own land. (It irks me a little to see them promote it on private land but that's another thread altogether).  To their credit they also reforest old pastures on private land via free seedlings.

RonW. says

everyone wants to decide what sustainable forestry means

That's obviously the whole problem.  What are you trying to sustain? Wood production, wildlife, water quality, jobs?  And are you supposed to do all things on all lands or can you spread it out over a large landholding?  

To me SFI means very little.  Perhaps to the companies that undergo the certification it means a lot (Frank?).  I see FSC kinda like organic farming - it's nice for some to do that but if we all did that we'd be in trouble.  I also have a problem with the way FSC has been implemented and I don't think it has done too much for the companies that have invested a good deal of time and capital into it.  Clearly it doesn't get enviros off your back-if you have a few hours of free time do a yahoo search on Mendocino Redwood Company and see what I mean.

How would I define sustainable forestry?

Practices that preserve or enhance soil fertility and ensure a future timber supply.

Granted that sets the bar pretty low and you could add things related to wildlife habitat, structural diversity, promote native species, ect., but I don't think it's necessary to include that in a definition of sustainable forestry.  That's more ecosystem management territory.  Just my opinion and I'd like to hear everyone else's.

[Ron Scott]

According to the Society of American Foresters'  The Dictionary of Forestry

 Sustainable Forestry is an evolving concept with several definitions.

1. The practice of meeting the forest resource needs and values of the present without compromising the similar capability of future generations. It then goes on to a  lenghty definition of land stewardhip ethic, conservation of biological diversity, ecosystem management, etc.

[Ron Scott]

When I worked in West Virginia in the 1970's Westvco was the largest clearcutter in the east, on their own corporate lands, but right across the line on the Monongahela National Forest there was a court injunction against clearcutting on the  National Forest land, thus the Mononogahela Controversy.

Also strip mining was ok, but clearcutting wasn't. The coal miners wanted the public lands of their National Forest protected to provide for their hunting, fishing, camping, backcountry and wilderness areas.

[Forester Frank]

Well we are into another good discussion about forestry. It is too bad that more folks don't know about this site. It provides with a lot of insight.

I am okay with MEAD-Wesvaco's actions on their own land, as they are sustaining a resource for their own use. This practice is not done on all their lands, but on some. Mead also goes a long way to keep the public informed and provides a lot of educational opportunities for people in the communities that surround their mills and forestland.

I am not happy about certification because it was forced upon us. I felt as though we were already doing a good job in the forest, but I do not think that it has been a bad thing either. In fact a lot of  good has come out of it. Michigan's SFI program is very successful in the education of loggers (logger training). Loggers are much more aware of the environment they operate in, and they will often ask if they are being compliant with BMP's and other items.

Maybe the all the red tape is not good, but I'll take the good with the bad.

Thanks for all the input. I hope it continues.

[Jeff]

Well we are into another good discussion about forestry. It is too bad that more folks don't know about this site. It provides with a lot of insight.

Hey Frankie, yer in a pretty good position to tell some folks about whats going on here. What a great chance for you to use the button that appears at the top of EVERY thread. It looks like this:

You can now add a personal note to explain why you are sending the invite. How about sending some to a few of your industry collegues and cronies?

[Ron Wenrich]

Frank:

I remember seeing a piece where they went and put a picture up and asked which trees you would take out of the current stand to allow for future growth.  Most loggers and foresters took out the domiant sized trrees.  This allowed the release of the surpressed and co-dominant trees.  This was SFI loggers.

This is no more than hi-grading.  Looks like we got a long way to go!

[Bud Man]

From March 4 to Now March 9 there have been 30+ responses to a topic that started as a post concerning regulations and control through authority.  Who would set the bar to become the standard of authority in Forestry : Policy, Management, Usage, Harvesting, Recreation, etc ??   I submit that no one individual or agency, could or should , govern this country of such vast diversity and that individual states or posibly regions or maybe down to county's or communities must prevail !!    Too often we look to others to assign a course of direction and every time it leads to more Bureaucracy.  Debate is a good start to finding or getting to a point of resolve on any issue in Forestry (or otherwise), but every time we try to work in a chain of command from the top down with legislation or laws the results from such a search bring about limitations !!  My thought's are always work up the chain and not down and take people with you through education.   I'll quite rambling and refer to Gifford Picchot's Maxim's that he lived by, they worked well for him and I feel still have sound wisdom !!    http:pinchot.org/gt/gpmaxims.html   " Keep the debate alive  and get involved "

[Frank_Pender]

I spent 31/2 hours at our local Woodlot Association annual meeting this afternoon.  The issue was discussed by a gentleman from Hampton Enterprises (large timber owner and mill operator in Oregon and Washington.  The "big boys " have their certified system and the remainder of us need to find our locality of being.   The one group that kept seeming to appear was the National Tree Farm organization as a very vialble group to belong to, of which i already belong.  they are goning through a very intensive auditing process right now that would help determine that they are flexable enough to be accepted by all other groups being formed or are already formed and operating.  It seems to be the least restrictive tome at this time.  I have a management plan theyhave already accepted some 10 or 12 years ago at the time of our Tree Farm being accepted. One merely  needs to have a management plan and following that plan as well as to have regular re-evaluation every 5 years or so by a neutral third party forester. So, as I understand it, I would then be "certified". 8) 8) 8)

[Ron Wenrich]

Bud man:

Local control over woodlots is where it belongs.  The biggest problem is that the locals are pretty ignorant of anything to do with forestry.  I strongly support the local control, but they need a forester on board to give the necessary guidance.

We have something like 3000 local ordinances on forestry in our state.  That is due to a weak state system as far as forestry legislation goes.  Most of those involve cutting timber.  They don't want clearcuts, and that leads to a lot of high grading.  Take the best, leave the rest.  Most communities look at the forest as a landscape and not a resource.

Frank:

Most of the foresters in the tree farm system are not neutral parties. Consultants use them to get their foot in the door, as well as procurement foresters.  That's not to say the tree farm system isn't a good system.  At least, someone is visiting the site.  That certification works good for someone like you who does the cultural work and processes the wood.

The biggest problem is the chain of custody in the certification process.  A certain amount of non-certified wood is allowed into the mix.  Should that be allowed?

[Frank_Pender]

I think you have something there with your chain statment.   The links and how they are connected as well a managed with the controls mixed in becomes much of the rub for the whole of the issue.   :P

[Bud Man]

With the rotation of trees and man being so out of parity or level, as far as lifespan, the two will never compromise especially when you factor in $'s and greed. Education from bottom up is my thoughts. Ethical and Educated : Foresters, Woodlot Owners, Legislators,  and Loggers with more than $'s as their objective will hopefully offset the unscrupulous.   The 3000 laws aimed at the unscrupulous is really society's reaction to ignorance and greed. Total certification is what you'll get if  Attorneys, Pac's, and the rest become lazy and if education is left out.  "Education Is Like Forestry--Long Term And Never Ending Or Easy

[L. Wakefield]

snip

Most communities look at the forest as a landscape and not a resource.

snip

Hi Ron,

   This statement caught my eye, and seemed food for thought.

   I suspect how close this is to accurate depends much on the specific community and the distribution and perception of 'the forest'. In your statement, 'the forest' seems like a single homogeneous entity or spatial referent, kinda 'over there' and owned by 'someone else' in the eyes of the theoretical 'community'. One of the reasons this did catch my eye is that in my town, half of the physical space if not more is still trees- woodlots large and small, or woods surrounding recently sold houselots. I don't think in this specific locale that there is much perception of 'the forest' per se.

   I am certain this is way different in areas where 'the forest' is, say a National Forest and very clearly 'other' than privately owned land. I'm assuming you are speaking more from that perspective?   lw

[Ron Wenrich]

I have a book on the Eastern hardwood forest, which I loaned out and haven't gotten back.  It was written by a Maine forester and is an excellent read.  

It discusses where we have been, where we are at, and where we will probably be going.  It is important for other sections of the country, as they will follow in the eastern forests tracks - harvest and move on.

There are about 11 different views of the forest.  Birds eye view is what the forest looks like from overhead, while worms eye view is concerned about the soil and the activities that go on underneath the trees.  

Landscape or green backdrop for communities is an increasing concern.  It goes into zoning and a host of other things.  You get into the big NIMBY syndrome.  How much clearcutting do you think they would allow in Stowe, VT?  Tourism is as much a forest product as other products to the communities concerned.  

You also get into quality of life problems and status quo.  As the population expands into areas that were traditional farms and forests, the new community doesn't want it to change.  They want that green backdrop.

When I get the book back, I'll make sure to give you the title and author.  .

[Bud Man]

Were headed towards-- The Meek Versus The Mighty-- with everybody else in the middle looking for a set of directions, and the Attorneys laughing all the way to the bank.   The meek with their vote in a democracy, and the mighty with their money.  If you look at elections past you can see that 50% don't even vote anymore, their bored to sleep by the controlling media.   "The Middle Better Wake Up" :P  

[Ron Wenrich]

You want to get out the vote?  Either put up better candidates, or put in a "none of the above" category.  I'd pull that one more often than the party yes-men they keep putting on my ballots.

[Bud Man]

I don't live in Minnehaha and I don't know the future plus or minus outcome but we allready got a wrassler for a Govenor that saw the gap( middle elected him). I gotta believe the rest of us in the middle see the opportunity to make a diference !!

[L. Wakefield]

snip

Tourism is as much a forest product as other products to the communities concerned.  

snip

   It is indeed, and as much a source of income as traditional harvesting of wood and non timber forestry products. However, it should not be the ONLY forest product. There is room for the 'working forest', and the working forest managers- just as people hunger for 'working' farms, they need to understand that a forest is NOT a static backdrop, but a dynamic life-form with humans as part of the ecosystem. Somehow people don't have a problem with aboriginal tribes in the rainforest. What if we all went out with, like, our wooden spoons and other primitive implements? Put our peas and grits into politically correct carry sacs that say 'Hunger Mountain Co-op' or like that? Sent messages on birch bark? Would that make it all better?   :D :D :D   lw

[Ron Wenrich]

LW

That's what the multiple use concept is all about.  You can have more than one product from the forest.  But, depending on the product, some forest practices may be limited.

The other problem is that you get into community concepts and individual concepts.  If they clash, then you have a problem.

Bud Man

We almost did it in the presidential election with Perot.  But, the 2 party system has made a sham out of independents and anyone else.  They exclude them from debates and most of the process.  Media doesn't help.  Perot's handling of the 3rd party was a disaster, as well.

[Bud Man]

Ron thats why from the bottom up is so important. I don't mean zero I mean at the level where one's skills and experiences can contribute valuable imput.  It's really important to participate. The populace has been numbed by the media and most feel their effort and vote doesn't count--WELL IT DOES. And we need to consider more than our own back yard and one or two pet peeves.