Author Topic: Reports From The States (Read 86225 times)

Ron Scott · « **on:** December 18, 2001, 05:24:06 PM »

California

The Board of Forestry now requires the landowners to obtain, and pay for, state permission to cut down old-growth trees. An environmental review must be conducted by a registered professional forester before harvest of trees that existed before 1800 and are at least 4' in diameter. For redwoods the diameter is 5'.

Frank_Pender · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2001, 05:59:53 AM »

That same sort of "crap" was tried here in Oregon a couple of years ago with a signature pattition called "Measure 64". It would have not allowed me to harvest any tree on my place that was over 24"dbh. That would have included 80% of the growing fiber I have. That included: Douglas Fir, Grand Fir, Gary Oak, and Western Big Leaf Maple. As far AS I am concerned that is a taking of personal property, but the "Tree Huggers" felt great about it. The measure was defeated 2 to 1. I was sure happy about that, because I did not want them to have to bring a lunch to try and stop me from harvesting any of "my" timber. They probably would have left wrappers as the trees would have been falling in their direction.

Tom · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2001, 06:45:06 AM »

It amazes me that legislatures can't see the other end of the stick.

When conservationist start stirring the political waters here about the prohibition of cutting trees, trees begin to fall everywhere.

It's a "cause and effect" that ends up with trees on the ground that wouldn't have been put there if everything had been left to the owner of the tree.

Cause: Road work on one side of town. "We're going to stop this cutting of the trees in the right-of-way"
Effect: All the trees in the Right-of-way on the other side of town, where no road work is being done yet, fall.

Cause: To conserve a woodpecker. "We're going to stop the cutting of all Old Long Leaf and the harvesting of trees within 500 feet of it."
Effect: All the concerned Tree Farmers search out the Long Leaf and immediately cut all of what were their prize trees.

Cause: Save Wetlands by the association of wetlands trees.. "We're going to disallow the use of property that has wetland trees to protect the planet but still be able to get the taxes for the ground." "It'll be great"
Effect: The farmers and developers immediately cut down all the cypress, gums, bays or any other plant that may hint of wetlands so they will not be put out of business. Trees that they had left standing for esthetic purposes or for shade for cows.

The elderly mother of one of my customers in a neighboring community is in court because she had a diseased Live Oak that was leaning over her house cut down. Her fine is in excess of $1000 and she has been mandated to plant a tree for every inch of circumference of the old tree, or some rule like that. She has lived in this house forever and there is a good possibility that she planted the tree when she was a young girl. Because she hasn't the room on her lot to hold all these "new" trees the city may let her plant them along the streets for decoration, if they meet city specifications.

Where's the logic? It escapes me.

swampwhiteoak · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2001, 07:16:59 AM »

I agree, Tom. It's amazing how people are unable to grasp basic logic. If any "old-growth" is prohibited from logging, the state has created a situation where it is unwise for a landholder to have a long rotation age for fear of being branding as having old-growth trees.

If society (the government) decides that these trees should be left standing, then it should be up to that party to pay the landholder market value for the resource as well as the expectation value for future harvests. Without doing that, it is equal to applying emminent domain without compensation.

Ron Wenrich · « **Reply #4 on:** December 19, 2001, 02:24:17 PM »

You've brought up a bunch of issues. And it all revolves around how governments currently try to work.

On wetlands, the Feds have an unfunded mandate. Although the premiss is worthwhile from a societal and even an environmental standpoint, the burden falls on the landowner.

The second point is trying to govern all situations from one central area. Central governments are inefficient. They cannot not manage on a local level. That should be left up to the local governments.

Then you have the problem that the locals are ignorant. I've seen a ton of tree cutting ordinances that are totally worthless and usually counterproductive.. No clearcutting will result in highgrading. They would benefit greatly by putting a consulting forester on their payroll to write and oversee local harvesting practices and make sure they are in line with local sentiment.

You can manage for old growth. But, maybe that is best left on government properties. Some areas in Canada use a 400 year rotation cycle. We've reduced ours to less than 75 years in the North and much less in the South.

Ron Scott · « **Reply #5 on:** January 24, 2002, 05:58:27 PM »

Michigan's Upper Peninsula

Mead Works With The Nature Conservancy

The Mead Corporation Foundation, together with its subsidiary the Escanaba Paper Company, will help to fund a forest ecologist for the Nature Conservancy. According to a formal agreement signed by leaders of all three organizations, the ecologist will "assist in protection and management of forestry resources on Conservancy property in the Upper Peninsula and assist in sustainable forestry strategies for other U.P. landowners."

Ron Scott · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2002, 05:11:46 PM »

Ohio

Ohio Extension Hires More Staff To Serve Woodland Owners

Ohio State University has hired several new Extension personnel in the past year to work with existing OSU Extension program staff and the Ohio Division of Forestry to increase the educational assistance available to the over 330,000 private non-industrial woodland owners in Ohio.

swampwhiteoak · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2002, 07:59:35 PM »

OSU hires a few extension foresters, ODNR loses around 20 field foresters.

The two aren't really connected, but still not a good trade

craigc90 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 31, 2002, 09:33:55 PM »

swampwhiteoak I was reading a post and your profile fits The state forester that did my first American tree farm inspection. Were you preveously the Jefferson county Forester.

swampwhiteoak · « **Reply #9 on:** February 01, 2002, 11:43:28 AM »

Nope, I work in NW Ohio. Would it have been Jeremy?

craigc90 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 01, 2002, 03:25:54 PM »

Jeremy is my Forester now. The preveous Forester was Scott
Costello he took a different county in Southeren Ohio. I think he said he was from Kentucky.

swampwhiteoak · « **Reply #11 on:** February 01, 2002, 03:48:41 PM »

Yeah, they moved Scott over to the SW corner. We're two of the few KY educated foresters working in Ohio. We have to keep the Ohio State boys in check

L. Wakefield · « **Reply #12 on:** February 02, 2002, 03:56:03 PM »

Quote

It amazes me that legislatures can't see the other end of the stick.

When conservationist start stirring the political waters here about the prohibition of cutting trees, trees begin to fall everywhere.

It's a "cause and effect" that ends up with trees on the ground that wouldn't have been put there if everything had been left to the owner of the tree.

Tom, most of the examples that you give of the landowner's reaction imply that they are driven only by profit or defiance- that they are unwilling to continue with what had formerly been an ethical, well-thought out plan incorporating prized or aesthetically pleasing trees. Do you mean that once they see confining legislation coming they can no longer think that way? I would hope that someone, somewhere, has more sense than to be driven like that.

example- I have a plan in place with certain trees here that I like. I fear a tale that the government will soon be telling me I can't cut those trees. So I immediately go cut them? Uh- not if I wasn't planning to...lw

Tom · « **Reply #13 on:** February 02, 2002, 06:35:27 PM »

The reason the trees get cut, LW, is not because someone said they couldn't be cut but because the legislation says that the ground they stand on can't be used because the trees are protected.

The scenario would fit your situation more appropriately if you were confronted with a mandate that disallowed you to enter or disturb the area where you had your trees planted. You could look at them from the road if you liked but the only thing you could do with the property would be to pay taxes on it.

Say you had a forest that you had manicured for years as a retirement income and were told that an inspector was to be in your county to look for Joblewackey birds that lived in certain trees such as you had in your plantation. If they found Joblewackey birds then you were not allowed to disturb any trees or understory or enter within a quarter mile of the area containing the Joblewackey. You knew that you might have Joblwackeys and since your property was less than a quarter mile square, might lose access to your property. Wouldn't you try to save your retirement ASAP before someone told you that you were no longer allowed to harvest your land?

You had a Southern Yellow Pine growing next to your garden of tomatoes and corn. SYP doesn't grow in Maine. You had planted it and nursed it to maturity. Word has come that an inspector is looking for SYP in Maine because it once grew there 3 million years ago. If they happened to find a stand of SYP they were going to disallow the use of the land, possibly confiscating it, for a distance of 100 feet around the stand. Do you think you might harvest your treasure and find a sawmill or would you give up your garden, go home and look at the pictures of tomatoes you grew.. You could always show your album to your kids and tell them that once you were a truck farmer.

I know that we don't always do what seems to be logical to someone else but each persons priorities are different and most folks still believe that their land is theirs.

Ron Scott · « **Reply #14 on:** February 17, 2002, 08:13:18 AM »

Oregon

Oregon to Examine Clearcutting

The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) introduced draft regulations last month that it will use to restrict and manage timber harvesting on private lands. The rules allow ODF to enact Senate Bill 12, which was passed to address concerns that clearcutting can cause landslides and smaller debris flows. The agency will accept public comments on the draft regulations until March 31.

Ron Scott · « **Reply #15 on:** February 18, 2002, 06:48:22 AM »

Minnesota

Ecoterroists Burn University of Minnesota Lab

The Earth Liberation Front (EFF), an envirronmental group with a history of ecoterrorism, has claimed responsobility for a fire that damaged a University of Minnesota lab research facility.

The ELF sent an e-mail message to the university saying its members set the blaze that destroyed a trailer and heavy equipment on the construction site of a new microbial and plant genomics research building. The arson also heavily damaged faculty and student research and a soil-testing laboratory in an adjacent crops research building.

The fire is the group's latest action in its six-year campaign of vandalism against those it says are threatening the environment. It is the ELF's second arson at the university's St. Paul campus. Two years ago, the ELF took credit for a fire that destroyed a greenhouse at the school.

Tom · « **Reply #16 on:** February 18, 2002, 07:03:08 AM »

ELF nothing but a bunch of Vandals. Environmentalist? No, I can't see them as that. A group that destroys educational material that teaches about the environment has their goals all wrong.

When individuals or groups destroy the home, livelihood or life of others, I call it terrorism. Perhaps the Feds should look into this activity under the same auspices that they look at Al Queda. Those that survive could be tried in a court of law.

Bud Man · « **Reply #17 on:** February 18, 2002, 08:26:08 AM »

Tom Ridge is on their trail !!

Gordon · « **Reply #18 on:** February 18, 2002, 12:04:28 PM »

Tom I'm in total agreement on this with you. It's one thing to have a strong feeling for a certain cause. It's the U.S.A. and everyone is entitled to their own opinion be it right or wrong in others eyes.

But to cause harm or damage to others property is DEAD WRONG. Just goes to show they are a bunch of punks. After all actions speak louder than words. Guess that is what they are trying to convey.

How do they actually think they are getting their point across? I have no respect for actions like that and I for one hope they end up where they really belong and thats in PRISON!

It's sad that people don't channel there energy to good use instead of tearing up others hard work and sweat. The sooner they realize that the better. But they are the type that can't stand in open, they have to hit and run. Then hide behind the scenes. They may talk the talk but they darn sure can't walk the walk.

Sorry but stuff like that really runs me hot
Gordon

Ron Scott · « **Reply #19 on:** February 26, 2002, 01:19:50 PM »

Michigan

The Sierra Club has moved its Midwest regional office to Traverse City, Michigan, under new Regional Director Alison Horton.

The nine-state Midwest regional operation has a staff of 22, with two at the Traverse City office.

There is also a new local Chapter in Traverse City.

The Traverse City Regional Headquarters is located at:

229 Lake Avenue, Suite 4,
Traverse City, Mi 49684
(231) 922-2201

Forestry ForumSponsored by:

Author Topic: Reports From The States (Read 86225 times)

Forestry Forum
Sponsored by: