Family Forests: Call Them as They Are...

[Jeff]

Family Forests:  
Call Them as They Are, Not as We See Them

Laurence Wiseman
President
American Forest Foundation

If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.
If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.
Confucius (551-479 BC)

Too bad Confucius wasn't a forester.  If he were, no doubt we wouldn't be in the bind we are today.  We'd have a much better way of describing the land that makes up most of our timberland, and half of all the forests in the US.  And maybe we'd be closer to a public climate in which these forests can be sustained.

Everybody knows whose forests these are.  But the names we use to describe family-owned forests are as diverse as the perspectives from which we observe, understand and think about them.  

Some call them NIPFS, or "non-industrial private forests."  The owners are called NIPFS too, often just by sounding out the acronym – like saying nymphs without the "m" and a semi-silent "pf" sound.  Even after twenty-plus years, I still can't help but think of an insect swarm when I hear it.

Another common term for these millions of tracts is "non-Federal forests."  No doubt family owners take considerable comfort from this term because few put becoming "more Federal" high on their list of life goals.  A more recent entrant to the nomenclature sweepstakes is "non-controlled lands," a term used in certification circles to distinguish wood from fee-owned lands from all others.  

All these terms are precise and accurate as far as they go.  But each one defines family forests by what they aren't – not by what they are.  And therein lies a problem.

Names do matter.  We tailor our solutions to problems we understand, and we articulate that understanding in the names we assign to our "problems."  We use names to communicate what we know, and the goals we seek.  The right nomenclature can help mobilize stakeholders; the wrong name can confound or confuse them or leave them out of the solution altogether.

Great shifts in our public climate are often marked by changes in nomenclature.  For decades, people who were blind or deaf or confined to a wheel-chair were lumped in a great mass – "the handicapped."  It was understood they just couldn't do what other people could.  In the '70s, that perception began to change.  Instead of focusing solely on the disability ["the blind," "the deaf"], people saw the person instead.  And, in thinking about people with disabilities rather than the disability itself, we came to understand they could do pretty much what anybody else could do – with accommodation.  The results of this simple shift in perception are all around us.

That's why I say we in forestry should toss out the old names and call family-owned forests just what they are – family-owned forests.   And we should do it now.

The climate for sustaining forests is changing, and increasingly, family-owned forests are moving to center stage.  The new Farm Bill offers a broad new platform for outreach, education, technical assistance and conservation incentives for "non-industrial private forest owners."  Foundations are pondering huge grants to environmental groups to educate "non-industrial private forest owners" about biodiversity.  Certification systems are wrestling with the problem of how to recognize sustainable forestry on "non-controlled lands."  
Right now, not one of these challenges are framed properly.  

The defining characteristic of these forests isn't that they're "not" Federal, or "not" industrial or that they're somehow "not controlled."  Their most profound and singular characteristic is that they're owned by families and individuals –  near 5 million of them with 10 acres or more.  [Of course, the old nomenclature lumps together tribal lands, trust lands, as well as state and county lands.  They need to be identified separately too because, in the public arena, one size almost never fits all.]

Taking the simple step of calling family-owned forests by their proper name, will change the tone and tenor of the debate about sustaining their future.  It will humanize it, put a face to it.  Instead of "fixing" impersonal, structural  problems, we can listen, learn from and work with the people whose decisions will truly determine what ultimately happens in the woods.  

Just as important, it will reassure the public that the majority owners of America's timberland – families – share the same fundamental values they do.  And in the long run, it will prove that keeping a forest in family hands, is keeping it in good hands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Laurence Wiseman is president of the American Forest Foundation, which administers the American Tree Farm System.  In the 1970s, he was a senior staff member of the American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities.  There he was surprised to learn that 2,500 years earlier Confucius actually did say "the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names."

[Tom]

So much truth in this.

"Controllers" don't want to humanize because it then makes it "Dictatoral Politics".  As long as the words Federal, Government, Industrial, "Big" and terms like that are used then it sounds like either the Industry is patroling its self or that  Government is being curtailed.

He's right about "Family Owned Forests".  I hate it when I'm catagorized by a term because I don't belong anywhere else.  Mr. Wiseman's view of this country may initiate the acknowledgement of the term Citizen again.  Have you noticed that documents and articles talk about the Private Sector as if it were a small, insignificant portion of the country?

I don't know if as much good will come of it as he hopes, look at the term "personal property".  The tax people have even turned that into something that makes it sound like it belongs to "The Government". At least it is a start and I feel comfortable with the logic.

[Gordon]

Amen to that ! That is exactly what I own a "FAMILY FOREST' . Nothing fancy, but it's mine.

Gordon

[Corley5]

Yup, it's my family's forest and no one is going to tell me how it's going to be managed.  I'm always open to suggestions and interested in different management practices but in the end we the family make the final decision.

[Tyler17232ax]

So much truth in this.

"Controllers" don't want to humanize because it then makes it "Dictatoral Politics".  As long as the words Federal, Government, Industrial, "Big" and terms like that are used then it sounds like either the Industry is patroling its self or that  Government is being curtailed.

He's right about "Family Owned Forests".  I hate it when I'm catagorized by a term because I don't belong anywhere else.  Mr. Wiseman's view of this country may initiate the acknowledgement of the term Citizen again.  Have you noticed that documents and articles talk about the Private Sector as if it were a small, insignificant portion of the country?

I don't know if as much good will come of it as he hopes, look at the term "personal property".  The tax people have even turned that into something that makes it sound like it belongs to "The Government". At least it is a start and I feel comfortable with the logic.

Erazmus is great accomodation. 

[Jeff]

Up to no good. BYE BYE.

[mike_belben]

At least the troll bumped a good article.  Wow.. 20 year old thread.  Thats somethin.

[Corley5]

Wow...  20 years   Time flies.  My opinion hasn't changed  ;D 8)

[longtime lurker]

Wow...  20 years  Time flies.  My opinion hasn't changed  ;D 8)

Not much else has either, sadly. The original article is as valid - if not more so - today as the day it was written. The minefield grows increasingly more complex as the high volume purchasers seek to reassure their customers that the material purchased is ethical and sustainable to meet societal mores. The certification process has grown more and more complex as the certifying bodies seek to profit (and all business needs to profit don't get me wrong there but why is this process so expensive?) from it.

It would seem to me that the joint losers here are the sustainably managed privately owned forests and the consumers that the process is designed to woo. People want to know that their wood is ethical and I get it. But how to prove its ethical in a world of mega corporations clear felling rainforest for plantation development is the issue.

Somehow or another a system needs to develop for a fill in the blanks international certification process backed by a boots on the ground inspection process by the certifying body... because some people will lie on the paperwork and one bad apple will surely ruin the brand. That's still going to cost some, but it could be kept reasonable and one thing I do know is that most people now will pay more to know the product ticks those boxes. Last time I looked PEFC certification was going to cost me about $110k... and thats okay spread over 200,000 acres or 200 MMBF of production a year. But what the small part of the industry needs worldwide is a process that's like $500+ the cost of a visit by a certifying forester every year or two years depending on volumes.

Usual story, aint nobody keen enough to realise that there's a gazillion small acreages worldwide could be milked for a couple hundred bucks each a year to make it happen.

[stavebuyer]

Thing is the powers that be would prefer no competition from small landowners or loggers. They benefit from the feel-good certification and eliminate competition while creating a few do-nothing degree-only regulator positions. Triple win for elite.

[sealark37]

Up to half of the people in this country believe that the forests belong to the government.  All these linguistic contortions are aimed to make it so.  Private property in the woods is the target for extinction.

[SwampDonkey]

I would make a distinction, it's not that private property is being lost to government. It's being bought by mills, one parcel at a time, into a class of it's own called industrial freehold. Once it's goes to a mill, you can forget about making it a family woodlot. People erroneously call industrial freehold, public land. Some people even treat it like that, until the mills begin gating their roads. You can't gate public land in these parts. Part of that gating, especially near settlements, is to keep people from turning the land into their personal garbage dumps. Come with me, I'll show you trash on every open road industrial freehold parcel near habitation. And we have curb side pickup here, people doing this want it gone today, not sitting in their drive way for a week. That's the only reason I can think of unless there are a lot of retards. Maybe to. :D Maybe they just hate large landowners, yet they use their land freely. : I hate seeing land assimilated by the borg. It's a sign of no interests in forest land ownership and/or income disparity from low returns on primary forest products and/or low wages and affordability. Take a for instance, father dies, has three sons. Land is in heirship. None of the sons will have money in their hands unless wood is cut and/or land is sold and divided. That is a very common outcome. Maybe one son isn't interested in money, just land, 2 others need money, hard times. Land gets levelled to pay off two brothers, the one son keeps the land, but has a clear cut. No income the rest of his life unless it's sold off. Remember, he never got any money yet. Hard decisions my friends. ;)

[longtime lurker]

One of the things happening here is green groups buying up freehold tracts then getting them encumbered with conservation covenants that means they cannot be logged or developed in perpetuity. Then they resell them and move on to the next one.

Long term it's going to become a problem.

[HemlockKing]

Come with me, I'll show you a garbage dump right on my land. I know all about it, remember my first profile picture of that old truck? part of the dump. People that do that are low, anywhere they can squeeze their truck in into some kind of grown in back road they will do it to dump trash, it's almost like it's a fun challenge for them to find the tightest little crook or cranny to jam all their trash in. For this, I have very low tolerance for people littering. My grandfather had to put boulders in the road into my land a couple years before he passed, because it was becoming a community dump, and it's one of the most beautiful parcels around here...

[SwampDonkey]

Only time I see an encumbrance is if land is put into conservation and stays there and follows what ever constitution the group has. If it is sold, than there can't be any encumbrance against it unless the buyer places one on it. Most all I have seen in those are unworkable land, deep gullies or river riperian edges. If the land is sold off to an individual they have no obligation. And the seller pays any tax due, not the buyer. So if it comes out of some sort of tax diversion, the seller pays up.

[mike_belben]

i sure do hate people disgracing gods wonderful green earth with their rubbish.  its pretty sorry when i consider how many triaxle loads of garbage my burn barrel has reduced to one lump of ash and a bucket of metal over 5 years.   
 

as america runs out of land for the population, subdivision is the natural thing to occur and its hard to blame anyone for doing it to pay their bills.  the need to continually make more future dollars than past dollars is a consequence of printing money. it ruins everything. 

 i dont like govt land grabs but i also dont want to live in a sprawling suburbia ever again so if it takes some easements to maintain pockets of deep forest i am content to accept the balance.  i wish i could go fix thousands of acres of highgrades so they return to productivity and have less subdivision pressure but i cant so the best i can do is preach other forest owners to take care of them, and to everyone, not to live beyond your means, incurring debt.  debt is a lot of why land is divied up.  its not always greed.  debt and the fear and anxiety that comes with it.  often debt for things we really didnt need anyways. i have a lot more sympathy for new kidney debt than new bassboat debt. 

i dont particularly love seeing teengreen making a fortune getting thousands of free acres every year by branding a holier than thou image.. but in a hundred years those will probably be the only landscapes youll want to gaze upon.  cognitive dissonance.  i love and hate it at the same time. oh well.  i cant change it. 

[HemlockKing]

I dont get it, if you dont wanna put it out to the dump(which is 5 mins away) then burn it... instead they waste 20$ gas going way out to the boonies to dump trash off on beautiful land... well nobody said people who litter are smart 

[John Mc]

One of the things happening here is green groups buying up freehold tracts then getting them encumbered with conservation covenants that means they cannot be logged or developed in perpetuity. Then they resell them and move on to the next one.

Long term it's going to become a problem.

It doesn't have to be that way. I'm part owner of a conserved, working forest. The conservation easement assures that it will remain a working forest in perpetuity. There are 16 co-owners, almost all live nearby or within a 20-30 minute drive. It can't be subdivided or developed (though we could put up a sugarhouse if we ever got in to surgaring in a bigger way. In recent years, taps were rented to a neighbor who happens to also be a co-owner. He ran tubing to his own sugar house.) It must be logged sustainably - basically we can't harvest in an amount and frequency that the forest can not support over the long term.
We have a timber harvest going on as I write this. A sawmill about 7 or 8 miles down the rod was the winning bidder on a lump sum sale. We are familiar with the logger they are using, and he is doing a great job.