What makes a Forester A Forester?

[Texas Ranger]

And just for fun since this is my 1000 post, I would offer to come on over and do ya a plan, but think Florida may have me shut out because of registration.

[Tom]

How 'bout that, Tex.   You've become a 4 digit zero!     1000
That's quite a few posts when it's commonly known that Texans are notorious for short conversations.  Most I've heard sounded like this.  

"yep".

Well, that's the way it is in the movies anyway.  Gary Cooper hardly ever said anything.  

I think our problem is a lack of Foresters.  With the demise of the paper mills and divestiture of the corporate owned forests, the only jobs available for a fledgling forester are getting to be in the Government sector.  It doesn't help that Foresters seem to be fairly inactive when it comes to marketing themselves to the public.

Perhaps the public sector hasn't enough money or isn't willing to pay enough to interest a Forester.  That would make a new graduate run the other way.  Perhaps the public isn't aware of the value of a Forester.  They get junk mail from the department stores every day about sales and  merchandise, almost to the point of harrasment.  I don't know of a single ad I've ever seen of a Forester looking for a client.

Perhaps Florida is just destined to become the Disney of the USA.  The wall to wall apartments and parking lots.  The corporate community.

Heck, we even import California oranges now. :-/

[SwampDonkey]

Tom,

Quite a number of us are glad to work on 15 acre lots, with preference  to 50 acres plus. But, if I were to give a landowner a hand on what to harvest from his 15 acre stand by tree marking and trail marking that's a full day's work and likely half the next by the time you have everything discussed with the owner. Most of my rates are based on production plus forseen expenses factored in.

I'm also pretty sure alot of foresters on here have advertised and continue to do so. I send more or less randomly selected mailings to landowners every 2 to 3 months. I advertise in a well known forestry magazine that alot of landowners subscribe to. Plus I attend woodlot owner meetings in the spring.

We are kind of in the same circumstance here with marketing boards that compete with services as well, sometimes below cost. But not really, in reality it's cost sharing among the membership. For instance on all wood sold and marketed off private land there is a 2.2 % levy that pays wages, less a 0.5 % portion going into forest management. You might never cut a stick of wood, but if you want to plant trees on an old feild you get the same subsidy as the guy that cuts 500 cords of wood per year. Also, you get free courses that others have contributed to by marketing their wood. On the same token there are the cut and leave types that clearcut land and sell it and the new owner wishes to have the regrowth thinned in 10 years. Do we deny these folks the opertunity because they want to improve his new woodlot, where someone else scalped it?

I agree with Jr on the fact that the owner is the boss, why would you want to work against the grain and shoot yourself in the foot?

Are our marketing boards competition? I don't feel the marketing board really competes with me because they will actually give me work, more work actually than they take away. My rates are very competitive and sensible. When I worked for the marketing board there was alot of running all over and not much revenue from that running, so that levy is needed in order to run the outfit and maintain vehicles. It has recently restructured itself to offer its services on a cost recovery basis with room for a small profit. Keep in  mind it's a not profit organization. It has to submit a marketing and management plan annually to a commission (forest products commission) that are a watch dog of the organization made up of private, industry and government members.

cheers

[Ron Scott]

The Association of Consulting Foresters of America, Inc. Directory lists 14 foresters for Florida. I'm sure that there are many more who aren't members.

A forester should be willing to provide advice or assistance to any landowner that calls them. I've looked at many a small woodlots. Many times a small woodlot job has lead to a much larger job. One never knows how much forestland a landowner has when they call for assistance on what might be a small parcel.

Small parcels are often in the "publics view" and are a good place to demonstrate yourself as a "forester" with good forestry practices.

   

[jrdwyer]

Buzz,

It really takes creative accounting to add up the total cost of state government services (employee salaries, benefits, office space, trucks, bureaucracy, etc) and come to the conclusion that such forestry services are "free." What you are getting is subsidized service courtesy of all the other taxpayers who most likely have never heard of forestry, let alone ever use this service. If the state government actually had to charge their real cost of the service to the landowner, then I would have no competition whatsoever.

As an example, the State of Kentucky charges landowners $4 per thousand board feet marked for its timber marking service. Consultants generally charge 8-10% commisson on a timber sale. So using a conservative average stumpage price of $250/MBF, consultants charge around $25/MBF marked versus $4 for the state. Obviously, this is a subsidized service.  I have lost a number of really nice quality timber sales because of this.

Using your logic, it would seem reasonable for the State of IL to employ its own logging operators for private timber harvesting in order to guarantee to every citizen  that logging is done to the highest standards. Shall we set the skidding and hauling fee at $4/MBF?

Given the huge state and federal budget deficits currently in place, eliminating subsidized government services should be a priority for all citizens of this country.

And in case you were not aware of it, many state forestry budgets get 20%-50% of their revenue from the US Forest Service through State and Private Forestry. So in other words, all taxpayers in the US may well be subsidizing your local state forester.

Hopefully, the conservative administration, through lobbying efforts by consulting foresters, will use the threat of witholding this funding to stop subsidized forestry services at the state level. Their are plenty of other educational or extension opportunities for state foresters to work on that do not directly compete with consulting foresters.

[rebocardo]

JeffB (USA)
"There have been times over the years, that selling our high quality
veneer to the canadian market kept us from possibly closing up"

swampydonkey (Canada)
"And the situation in New Brunswick is that we wouldn't have the volume of veneer to even keep a veneer mill running"

Proof positive that paying jobs at a veener plant were exported to another country by shipping logs out of the country. Maybe it would have been easier to stay in business had the veener business stayed in the U.S.

To me a professional Forester does what is good for the forest and his country and making money comes in second.  It should be a passion, not a buck.

Someone that pretty much rapes or clear cuts the land of an unsuspecting land owner to send the logs overseas for his company/boss without generating jobs in his community is not a forester in my opinion. But, a money grubbing criminal.

Not only do I dislike it happening in the USA, I positively hate it happening in developing nations where local villages are starving to death and people do not even have firewood for cooking. While the guys doing all the dangerous work, including dealing with spiked trees, do not even make $5 a day sometimes, and can not even cloth their children.

imo, It is simply wrong.

[Buzz-sawyer]

Buzz,

It really takes creative accounting to add up the total cost of state government services (employee salaries, benefits, office space, trucks, bureaucracy, etc) and come to the conclusion that such forestry services are "free."

Free is relative term used in relation to charges made by Commercial foresters vs. state foresters.
In Illinois trees are considered crops and under that , are regulated as corn and beans


What you are getting is subsidized service courtesy of all the other taxpayers who most likely have never heard of forestry, let alone ever use this service. If the state government actually had to charge their real cost of the service to the landowner, then I would have no competition whatsoever.

My state charges NOTHING...There is no fee to residents...regarding the REAL cost of the services...they are paid Directly through  tax payed by timber sales


. Obviously, this is a subsidized service.  I have lost a number of really nice quality timber sales because of this.As I stated earlier,

I understand you feel the state is your direct competition...so all of your comments Are viewed in this light

Using your logic, it would seem reasonable for the State of IL to employ its own logging operators for private timber harvesting in order to guarantee to every citizen  that logging is done to the highest standards. Shall we set the skidding and hauling fee at $4/MBF?

I believe in supply and demand, My loggic states that the state of Illinois provides many agricultural services, and that the people requested them or enable them to do so. And that your argument that the state has no right to provide thwe services it does, is weak in that the state is in existence to Govern and regulate and serve the residents, therefore providing FREE timber services is no different thaan the soil management expert, or the crop analyst offering advice, it only serves to produce a stronger state.

Given the huge state and federal budget deficits currently in place, eliminating subsidized government services should be a priority for all citizens of this country.

Our state forestry program is self sufficient your argument is not relevant to it.

And in case you were not aware of it, many state forestry budgets get 20%-50% of their revenue from the US Forest Service

So? I have read the statutes that our logging laws are based on and to the best of my knowledge we recieve NO federal foestry money and are self sufficient

[Jeff]

Buzz, if your state forestry is paid for through taxes, it is certainly not "self sufficient"

[Buzz-sawyer]

Meaning within the context of the state Government,
I was replying to the assumption we recieved 20-50% of our funding from the federal government.
And the comment that forest management was being payed by people that dont know what forestry is.....Rather, it is definetly being payed for within the realm of people who are selling thier timber and managed in large part by loggers..
Self sufficient on state level , and payed out forestry/agricultural tax revenue Not by general fund.
Not self sufficent in regard to self propigation...ALL government is parasidic.



to put it plainly MANY people would be without ANY resource were it not for the helpful and decent folks like my district forester.....They guide the willing in the right direction , particularly the small timber lot owner....I

[Jeff]

I agree with jrdwyer on his explanation of "free". I have the opportunity to sit on a board of an organization that lets me have a peek at many of the costs of things having to do with public forestry outreach programs. I have also sat on commitees with a national reach as in the "Tree of Hope" project, the U.S. Capital tree project of a few years ago. (easy to find more about with a forum search)  The public got to do a lot of "Free" things involved with thiat program. As just an old mill hand, I was dumbfounded and confounded on the amount of moeny it takes to provide something to the public that is "Free"

[Phorester]

Remember that taxpayers in a particular State pay Federal taxes, too.  So if their State gets Federal money for whatever purpose, those citizens are getting back some of the money they paid in to their Federal taxes.

[Ron Wenrich]

When I started out, the state had service foresters that went out and worked with landowners.  They really didn't take that much business away from the consultants, since they didn't put private timber out on bids.

But, that changed when the consultants started to complain about state foresters supposedly taking away work.  The state stopped providing service.  

But, that wasn't good enough.  The consultants wanted the state to give their names out to the landowners.  In essence, the state became a work finder for the consultants.  Seems like that is a type of subsidy.

Then the procurement foresters wanted to be put on the list.  Consultants complained for fear of eliminating the middle man.  In the end, anyone who had a BS in forestry could get their name on the list.  It was a very long list, and very confusing.  It still seems like an industry subsidy.

In the process, the landowner has been forgotten.  Landowners became confused with the list and ended up doing nothing.  Consultants and procurement foresters didn't really get all that much business.  Service foresters were phased out.

The nice thing about service foresters is that they had no economic interest in the outcome of any timber sales or recommended work.  I've seen a lot of work done by business that is no more than high grade operations.  Business economics supercede forest management.  No one reviews the forester's work or recommendations.  Is the landowner better served?  

Our society keeps on breaking down to where we are scared that the guy across the street is going to get more then we get.  We've become a bunch of individuals living in the same place, and community no longer exists.

[jrdwyer]

There has, and will always be, the need for state foresters to educate landowners, or school children, or citizens about their forest resource and the best ways to manage it. Educational services have always been part of the public domain. No argument there.

Historically, there has been a shortage of consulting foresters available to assist the private landowner. But times change. Today, in most states, there are an ample number of private consultants to assist landowners from 10 acres to 10,000 acres. Thus, the need for state foresters to provide all and every service to a forest landowner is outdated.

So what we are talking about is the scope of public forestry versus private forestry.  In the arena of assisting landowners with timber sales (marking, measuring, appraising, soliciting bids, helping to write contracts, enforcing contracts, etc.) the private independent consulting forester provides a superior service to the public forester.

As an example, I recently helped a landowner in KY who used the states' subsidized forestry marking service and did everything they said and got 0 bids on the marked timber. So in the end he called me and I found a buyer and helped him write a good contract and he got paid and was very happy. Unfortunately, the state of KY wasted a lot of time, money, and effort for nothing.

In Indiana, the DNR provides both a consulting forester list to landowners and a directory of professional loggers. So the landowner can choose whoever they want.

Finally, I have assisted landowners with timber sales in IL who were shocked that the state imposed a 4% timber sale tax.  In the end it just reduces their stumpage prices by 4%. So not every landowner in IL agrees with that tax.

[Buzz-sawyer]

I dont like the tax....and especially dont like explaining it to land owners, and particularly dont enjoy being forced to administer it and do the paper work.