Implementing forestry cost-share practices

[chain]

We had received a brochure from local Soil & Water conservation district outlining several forestry cost-share practices. One of those, practices, the C100 "Timber Harvest Plan", simply described as "Land where a landowner is planning to conduct a timber sale, paynent up to $20.00 per acre."

Calling the office and asking to whom I should speak with about the C-100, I was directed to a MDC forester who advised the program would not be available to me unless I had an updated Forest Stewardship Management Plan and that I would have to seek a private or consulting forester to develop the plan at a cost-share also.

Question is, is this the S.O.P. in your areas of the U.S.?

[beenthere]

It is all interwoven into a carefully integrated plan to control the private timber landowners, either by design or by accident.
For many years, Gov't control and manipulation of private ownership has been a frustration to the "planners".

Then comes aid from the Gov't to help with the property taxes. Followed by a requirement to have a forest management plan in effect. Pretty much do what you wanted with the forest, but pay some taxes on the money rec'd from timber sales.
Followed closely by more and more Gov't restrictions and "must do's" in the written management plans, and then along comes the need to hire forestry consultants to write these plans that require more money out of pocket.
Meanwhile, the sustained yield and enviro concerns get interwoven into the Gov't control that includes wetlands, wildlife, endangered species, disease control, bug control, invasive species control... all nicely dictated through the forestry initiatives that pay the timber owner to manage his timber crop.

In the end, the Gov't has managed to have huge departments and agencies with many people hired to control and manipulate your every move. There is getting to be very little wiggle room to do anything on your own, and plenty of "carrots" hung out by the Gov't to get you to conform to their way.

[chain]

I'm thinking along the same lines as you are ,'beenthere'.  I was told also that before I could qualify for 'carbon credits', would also have to update my plan. CCs really don't turn me on anyway.

[beenthere]

These agency employee's seem to look for the easy way to apply their programs and spend the many bucks that they have at their disposal to pass out. It's a no-brainer when lining up the carbon credits to use the forest management programs. The very few bucks out of the totals that trickle down to the timber grower, or tree planter is very small.

The more bucks they pass out, the more salary increases they get and the more "successful" the agency.

[zopi]

Bleh...own yer timber, buy a sawmill...log it, cut it, sell it, keep going....stoopid gubmint.
No one from the government is ever here to help...unless it is to help themselves to your cash and resources...

This reminds me of the ps20 fiasco...and the southern pine inspection mafia.@#$%ing the little guy for decades...

Sorry...a little grouchy today.

[SUNYESF]

I would assume that the forest management plan requirement is a way for the the SWCD and federal/state government to make sure that you have a valid, sustainable plan before handing out money. It's one method, and possibly not the best, but the benefits of a management plan are pretty obvious.

Out of curiosity, do you guys have management plans? While a Forest Stewardship Plan is a slightly higher caliber than a regular plan, they all serve the same purpose; get the landowner to come up with goals/objectives and decide how to achieve them. In my region, state grants pay for FSP's for landowner that would otherwise not be able to afford a plan (aka, the small guy with 25 acres).

[chain]

Yes, we have had a management plan for the past fifteen years. The last five years have slowed considerably in forest projects, particularly thinning saw-timber as most our hardwood & pine markets have bottomed. I continue to do TSI work and other special projects such as stream-crossing improvements, trails, and rocky-glade restoration.

[woodtroll]

As a state gov-ment employee I need to wade in a little. ( at least to my knees).
Beenthere is correct for the most part. Cost share and some times taxes benefits are used to get forestry work done.

Having a Plan is always the first step, whether a forest owner is in programs or not it gives good direction.
So it is a logical first step to giving out money, and subsidizing forest management. When the market is in the tank how does the average non passionate forest owner implement a TSI or thinning. Out here how do you pay for treatments against the pine beetle.

The state I left use's property taxes as the big incentive, do what we say or you get out of the program and property taxes will sky rocket. Literately $10,000's annual for some property. It comes down to forcing (incentive)a landowner to do forest management instead of being a good forest teacher and sales man and selling forestry. It is a lazy way of getting work done.

The Libertarian side of me thinks that landowners should be responsible and take care of their land (I would just manage state trust land), but the pragmatist realizes some times there just is not the money. 

Here we do not want to force landowners to do anything. We want to provide the info and the ability to implement good forestry. But what do you do when your neighbor's management decisions affect your property and timber investment?
We spend a significant part of our time trying to get landowners to work on problems that will not stay on there land.
Mainly Pine Beetles.

So I take offense at zopi's statement. We are here to help (my office)  I do not need your money, or resources, my job is to insure the resources I was hired to manage, stay healthy and are worth as much as possible. For that to happen I need private land to stay healthy and valuable.

What I do need is more money for private land owners to treat their forest.
Please send checks to...

[Phorester]

I'm a professional forester who chose to work for a state government agency.  Hired by them out of school, chose to stay because of the support I get in the form of vehicle and equipment repair & replacement;  Insect and Disease "department" (one guy) who I can send samples to, or call, for I & D problems that I can't identify myself; extra help from neighboring county co-workers for tree marking, prescribed burn projects, forest fires, etc.  Since my salary is paid no matter what I recommend a landowner to do, I can be completely objective and unbiased giving professional advice to meet landowner goals.  I get paid the same whether I recommend a selective harvest, to clearcut and start over, or to let it grow for another 20 years before cutting  any trees.

I Have to agree with BEENTHERE and WOODTROLL for the most part.  Forest management plans are a basic need for a forest landowner.  Everybody knows that trees live for a hundred years or more, that a forest landholding is a long term committment. But the average forest landowner really doesn't know what that means and how he should work with that.  Unless the landowner is also a forester, the knowledge to develop a management plan taking into account soils, tree species, growth rates, climate, past management history, plant succession, ecology, stream management, wildlife management, insect and disease management, forest fire protection issues, etc., all encompassing decades or a hundred years into the future - this knowledge is not there. To tell the truth, about all of my plans include recommendations to repair past miss-management of their forestland by past landowners who also didn't have the knowledge to manage it properly. Are you going to be a landowner who a future landowner in 20, 40, 50 years, complains about? You also want a forester who is working for you to provide you management advice, not somebody who has a vested interest in buying your trees.

Also, a forest management plan gives accountibility to the government costshare programs, to provide government money where it's needed and to see that it is used for the purpose it's given, not just given willy-nilly to anybody with no control over what's done with it.  How many of us complain about that?  Tax breaks - Do you want a landowner to get a tax break without having to do something in return for it? With forestry program money, a management plan prepared by a professional forester is how all that is addressed.

Big departments?  My agency had about 480 employees state-wide  in the mid-80s.  Now down to about 250.  In the late 70s, my own office had 3 full time employees, one part time secretary (2 half-days a week) to cover 2 counties.  35 years later we're at 2 full time employees, no secretary. Had 6 mechanics in our state HQ shop, now 2. Had 2 foresters in our research dept., now 1. Had 2 in our I & D department, now 1. Had 4 people in our Information and Education Dept. to develop displays, brochures, etc., , now don't have that dept at all.; Had 9 administrative regions each with a mechanic, now 3 regions with only 2 mechanics. My message on my answering machine - "It may be several days before we can return your phone call".  People get mad at that. Takes weeks for me to get a written management plan to a landowner where it used to take a few days, because I'm doing something for several other landowners at the same time, because the number of landowners we work with has increased over the decades as land is divided into smaller parcels with each successive landowner turnover.

It's not perfect, we all make mistakes just as the next person does, the bureaucratic process built into these programs is mostly overkill and inefficient. There's probably some empire building going on with developing these programs, some power grabs. Seems that a politician wants to be known for "his" program being put into place, so a lot of them almost duplicate each other, and each comes with it's own bureaucratic process. But what the government provides forest landowners is what private industries and private foresters cannot provide. Each entity fills a niche that the others either cannot or will not fill.

I often get the question from a landowner; "so, what cost share programs can I apply for on my property?"  My response; "That's putting the cart before the horse. Find out what you need to do on your property, then see if there is a cost share program for it." Some landowners then look at me like I'm crazy.  They say; "But I'm entitled to that money.  I want to know what I can get".  I say; "Not automatically, and you first need to know what is actually needed on your property"  They then say "What?"  So I explain how it should work.  Then they either get up and leave, or start the process for ensuring good forest and wildlife management on their property to benefit themselves, the next few landowners, and society. Management plans, costshare program rules, are there to see that it's done the way it should be done.  

It's also voluntary - if you don't want to get back any of your taxes you have paid over the years,  to implement management practices on your own property, if you don't like working with a government agency; it's your land, your money out of your own pocket to pay for what's needed to be done on your property, your choice. I'll still work with landowners who want no part of government costshare money.  I don't care, as long as a landowner does the necessary. Some do - but, sorry - most don't unless there is cost share money to help.  We then use management plans, program rules, to see that that money is used properly........

[SwampDonkey]

Works a little different here other then criteria are set up to follow to assess the job as far as the silviculture. The plans were mostly subsidized here, but nothing binding as far as following it. You could take it and use the cruise to sell to the next logger that comes bye. If you sell timber here you pay taxes, it's called income tax. If you own a silviculture business your expense of this business writes down the taxes on income as with any business. Not a sole will be bye to see that your following a plan unless you apply for a subsidy on a treatment prescribed. If it doesn't follow the plan, you still get your wood sale money and no one has any power over you or your land unless your destroying a wetland or something. You still pay almost nothing in timber land taxes no matter what. My land taxes her eon 70 acres is less than $30 bucks. Wouldn't matter if it was solid spruce and maple standing tall and straight like gun barrels or a swamp of cattails. ;)