How Much Left

[Ron Wenrich]

They work similar to our consulting foresters.  Consultants mange sales.  But, does FOMS write management plans, conduct inventories, plant trees and do precommercial thinnings?  Consultants could do that, but the big bucks are in the harvest.  Same thinking goes with the landowners.  The big bucks are in the harvest.  There is no reason landowners couldn't organize like the FOMS organization and put those other aspects into play. 

Conservation easements were the hot topic a number of years ago.  The Nature Conservancy signed up lots of landowners for perpetuity.  When they sign someone up, it makes the local newspaper.  But, its a disjointed effort from landowner or industry aspect.  The land remains fragmented. 

The county has farms signed up very similar to this.  Basically, the county buys the development rights to the farm and the farm is allowed to continue as a farm.  The only problem is that you end up with little island farms that are hard operate as they get to be more expensive to run.  They are left further away from supplies and markets as metropolitan areas surround them.  But, the basic concept is there that could be applied to woodlands.  Woodlands provide green backdrops for communities.  Its often in their best interest to manage those green backdrops to maintain a quality of life or to enhance business, especially in touristy areas.

One problem that I see is that as more people get into an area, they start to impose cutting restrictions.  All you need is a couple of well funded people with good connections and good intentions to impose these restrictions.  In these ares, you need permits to take out trees.  All harvesting needs to have a management plan.  Unfortunately, they usually don't have staff qualified to read one, let alone to see whether one is factual.  These remind me of what Jim King was going through in Peru.  If you're interested, look up Jim's profile and follow some of what he had to go through to cut timber.  Jim has passed, but he had nothing good to say about WWF and their mission in the Amazon.

We used to have a pretty active forestry association at the state level.  I was on the Board of Directors back in the late '70s.  They bring together industry, landowners, academia, and government.  We had a good director back then, and he brought in a marketing plan that provided insurance at a good price to loggers.  The association got a commission.  We were flush with cash and could do quite a bit of outreach to landowners.  We also managed the Tree Farm program at the state level.  We had a bi-monthly magazine that went out to members.  Our annual meeting was a big blowout where everyone in attendance had a chance at a big prize.  The first year was a Chevy Blazer (back when gas was cheap). 

But, there was a lot of resistance from organizations like the SAF.  They didn't want to be associated with an "industry" group.  Eventually the thinking got to be that we were making too much money, and it threatened our non-profit status.  The plug was pulled, the director moved on to another organization, and today its a mere shell of what it could of been.  Looking at the current Board, it has come down to another industry lead organization with government nodding it's head.  Landowners are still in the back seat.  There no longer is a magazine, they have no media presence, and landowners have no idea this thing is even up and running.  Heck, I had to check. 

Maybe you need a blend of all these elements to come up with something that's marketable.  An organization like FOMS that is managed or directed by landowners, seed money from industry, tax breaks from government, and the marketing strategy of a non-profit.  Everyone benefits.

[Tmac47]

But, there was a lot of resistance from organizations like the SAF.  They didn't want to be associated with an "industry" group.  Eventually the thinking got to be that we were making too much money, and it threatened our non-profit status.  The plug was pulled, the director moved on to another organization, and today its a mere shell of what it could of been.  Looking at the current Board, it has come down to another industry lead organization with government nodding it's head.  Landowners are still in the back seat.  There no longer is a magazine, they have no media presence, and landowners have no idea this thing is even up and running.  Heck, I had to check. 

Maybe you need a blend of all these elements to come up with something that's marketable.  An organization like FOMS that is managed or directed by landowners, seed money from industry, tax breaks from government, and the marketing strategy of a non-profit.  Everyone benefits.

What was the SAF's beef with the organization?

I'll take a gander, based on a bit of experience, and say there was fear involved.  It's pretty wild to have personally experienced the type of resistance you're describing, from a minority of folks in the industry.  Mostly foresters ironically enough.  I'll talk to some folks and we're on the same page, we recognize the same issues in the industry and they're all for what I'm doing and want to be a part of it.

Then, I'll talk to others and they'll immediately get defensive and start breaking down my company and its goals.  I've learned that some people get it and some people don't and that's OK.  The ones that get defensive see me as a competitor rather than someone who could potentially bring them more business.  I think the thing they don't like is that I wouldn't just bring THEM more business.

There's fear in creating competition for timber and education for landowners, because some believe that it'll make it harder to do business.  However, my belief is that the more landowners that are educated on the benefits of timber management and know enough to feel comfortable pursuing it, the more growth you'll see in the industry.  Which, will benefit all sectors.

It's simply good business.  Businesses with an open hand are not only easier to do business with, they get more business.  Why?  Open hands build trust.  Have you ever had a mechanic that actually showed you the part he replaced, described the process of replacing it and told you why it needed to be replaced?  It's pretty awesome to experience and creates "fans" of that business.

The most destructive trend I tend to see is the fear surrounding anything that might threaten how someone's always done business.  It doesn't matter if it's a good idea or a more productive process.  Luckily, this isn't super pervasive and seems to be a reflection of the minority of people I've talked to.

[SwampDonkey]

Most folks up here cut wood or have had a harvest done. A woodlot that hasn't had harvesting in the last 25 years would be very rare. Foresters are rarely involved as consultants, most of them are loggers, I mean the ones not already working for industry and government . Yup, degree and all. That's not to say they aren't doing responsible work, but who's the judge? Mostly it's the landowners.

[Tmac47]

Most folks up here cut wood or have had a harvest done. A woodlot that hasn't had harvesting in the last 25 years would be very rare. Foresters are rarely involved as consultants, most of them are loggers, I mean the ones not already working for industry and government . Yup, degree and all. That's not to say they aren't doing responsible work, but who's the judge? Mostly it's the landowners.

What's the extent of government involvement and its effects on such a trend?  I'm specifically referring to the fact that it sounds like everyone manages.

[SwampDonkey]

Our woodlot organizations have been beating the drum for decades and this region has a mostly rural population with 30 % of the land base privately owned by small woodlots owners, 20 % industrial freehold (mills). A lot of the harvesting the last few decades is for inheritance taxes, and heirship where family want cash, not trees. And many many acres to pay farm bills and clear new farm fields. Very few farms haven't been cut off to pay bills. But folks on woodlots grew up cutting wood. We do not have urban sprawl like you see in the US. Sure some land gets absorbed, but that's peanuts. There's vast areas where there is no one, a house out by the road and 100+ acres of farm and woods behind. Dad farmed and had 850 acres as an example.

[Tmac47]

Our woodlot organizations have been beating the drum for decades

What does that mean exactly?

One could make the argument that Southeastern organizations have been "beating the drum" for ages, yet a very small percentage of landowners are managing their timber.

[SwampDonkey]

Where an individual does not rely on the woodlot for their annual income you get less management. What you get is a few folks with a passion for their woods to do the right thing and find out all they can about it. Very few will do much such as planting or thinning without an incentive. Some do it regardless of handouts because at some point they have the time and probably other income sources. A commercial mill is in it for the long haul, it is the source of their annual income, it becomes important to manage. That's just the way it is, it's not gonna change except the percentages of woodlot management may fluctuate up and down. There has been countless surveys with woodlot owners and why they own land.

[beenthere]

yet a very small percentage of landowners are managing their timber.

I suspect (strongly believe  ;D ) that the large percentage of landowners are "managing" their land just as they want, albeit not as the "professionals" want them to do it.
I know that doesn't fit well with the management as the forester sees it, or the ecologist, or the wildlife people. But it is their management plan I believe.
Whether education is possible to change it, don't know.
Seems when the norm don't do as we think they should, then we say it is because they don't know any better and/or they are not educated enough.

[SwampDonkey]

Pretty much my belief on it as well beenthere. I'll look after mine, everyone else look after theirs. As stated in a previous post.

Sometimes we are simply forced into a corner, like taxation on inheritance of the woodlot, or if I get old and have to go to the home the tax man seizes assets to pay your way, so the woodlot gets liquidated. That's life. Or if there is a $200,000 bill and my crop yield was down or price way down, the money has to come from someplace. Either savings, the woodlot, or other sources, most of the time the woodlot.

I've seen Federal Agricultural lands (experimental farms) that had woodlots, get liquidated, because of budget cuts.

[Ron Wenrich]

We were taught that doing nothing is a management alternative.  It might not net the most income or attract the most wildlife, but it is the easiest and cheapest method of management.  All others have to be judged with that as a baseline.  Fiber not the only product of the forest.

[mesquite buckeye]

I think that those of us that manage for the uncertain future by improving stand quality and mix are by nature optimists. We go ahead and build for the future and have hope that it will somehow be worth it. I think it is in the end. ;D

[Tmac47]

yet a very small percentage of landowners are managing their timber.

I suspect (strongly believe  ;D ) that the large percentage of landowners are "managing" their land just as they want, albeit not as the "professionals" want them to do it.

You'd think.

We've talked to over 3,000 landowners, who own 40+ acres, in the past year and last time I looked at the data, 14% were managing.  So, while I'd also like to believe the majority of people are managing their timber, in Georgia at least, they're not.