The Forestry Forum

  I have just completed reading an artical in The Daily Journal of Commerce this morning.  The artical is in the Feb 25, 02 issue concerning a study done by Catherine Mater, who is vice president of Corvallis, Oregon based Mater Engineering.  She is the "first ever to compare the two prominent forestry certication systems through actual on-the-ground application."   She looked at 30 U>S> Indian reservations across America with timber operations.  they inclused the states of Maine, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Oregon.  '"The report identifiies to critical qustions.  Who ranked higher? And, regardless of who rangked higher, how does each system perform?" Mater explained.'   She also said there there was a "significant difference between the two systems, FSC and SFI.  If you are interested you can access copies of here presentation highlights at the Pinchot Institute Web site at http://www.pinchot.org.   The artical goes on to say that the full report will be available on the web site by May of this year. ::) :P :P :P

Yes, all these Forest Certifications are getting confusing and these are only two of them. Another cost to harvesting timber by requiring 3rd party auditors.

Hopefully the Tree Farm Program will be retained as "good forestry".

Yes, you are correct in that, ron.  I too, belong to the Tree Farm Program.  I was certified some 8 or 10 years ago, now.  8) I hope that we can all come to an agreement that one wieghs just as much as the other for "certification".  :) If one outweighs another for some reason or another, I am afraid that to much economics we be the bottom line factor. :-[

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever had a call for certified wood?  I haven't found any lumber buyers that are remotely interested in certified lumber.  

Hey RonW and RonS and FrankP,  What's all this certification talk.  You mean the mills aren't supposed to buy trees unless its been fed the proper nutrients or hasn't been cared for by illegal aliens, or worked with tractors, or come from a clear cut?  I have a Tree Farm Sign hanging on my barn too but for the life of me I've never known what it benefitted me. The program was sold to me as providing my Lobbyists. I would think that the only certification a mill should be worried about would be that the trees were not stolen.

Every time we human beings organize ourselves we lose options.  The more we organize the fewer are those envolved.  Eventually all we will have is the equivelant of Union members and there will be no more individual entrepreneurs. It concerns me that everyone is so anxious to become a "sheep", led by a "goat" to slaughter.

Tom,
Basically all wood products need to come from timber sales meeting Best Management Practices for sustainable forestry and their ecosystems. Forest land management and harvesting practices have to meet certain standards for "certified wood".

Mills are not suppose to purchase logs or pulpwood unless they come from a "certified" timber sale harvested by certified loggers. Home Depot and Lowes advertise certified lumber, but I haven't seen any stamped as such here yet. I'm sure you will pay more for "certified wood".

The Weyerhauser Mill  here in Grayling has us consultants and their producers sign a certification form that my timber sales which they purchase wood from and the logging practices of the producer meet certification standards. 3rd Party Auditors can then check them out as such.

There are several certification standards, SFI, ISO, FSC, GREEN TAG, TREE FARM, etc. which make this quite confusing. The 3rd part auditors do get paid well however from Price Waterman.

Tom, it sounds like it hasn't caught up with you yet there in Florida. You just need to establish a chain of evidence from the woods to your mill to insure that all your logs come from certified timber harvests. Sounds like fun hey.

Check out some of the Forum Links under Forestry and Certification.

Sounds like a lot of pollticians trying to justify their existance. I smell taxing authorities and Ode De IRS Parfume

  You ask, "Have any of us had a call for certified wood?".   yep, I have sawn some for a customer in Montana that is using the Western Big Leaf Maple as building blocks for little children.  "What does that big word mean on the package, Mommy?" asks Tommy, who is just runing 5 years old.  "It means, Tommy, that there are no bad chemicals used on the forest where the trees grew, that made your building blocks."  said Tommy's mommy.  "That is great, Mommy!  'Cause I don't like all those bad things.  How do you say that big word, Mommy?"    "Like this, Tommy:  CER  TA FI ED. "

Ron Scott said:

Mills are not suppose to purchase logs or pulpwood unless they come from a "certified" timber sale harvested by certified loggers.

This is something I've suspected. Theoretically this prevents stolen logs from getting milled which therefore theoretically protects the tree farmer, but in effect this injects middlemen between the tree farmer and the mill. I'm not sure which is worse.

A cattle farmer can take his beef to an auction or a slaughterhouse. A corn farmer can take his corn to a grainery or a feedlot. A tree farmer's market can apparently only occur at the base of a living tree on the farmer's land unless he becomes a certified logger. It reminds me of Massachusetts where you theoretically have to be a licensed contractor to fix a leaky faucett.

We're letting fear of crime (timber tresspass) limit our markets and exclude competition. I don't know that there's an easy answer, but it seems like assuming that all logs must be harvested by commercial loggers is folly.

I don't know about other areas, but it hasn't caught on in PA.  We have the largest FSC certified forest in the world - 2 million acres.  But, no one is beating a path to their trees.

I am very suspect of SFI certification.  Industry policing industry does not work real well.  

Personally, I see certification as a marketing move for business.  It is a way of holding off the environmental dogs, for a time.  There are too many loopholes and not enough incentive to follow the hoops.  

The few pulp mills in our area have required loggers to be SFI certified.  That is OK, but those that aren't, just don't mess with pulpwood.  That leaves more low grade in the woods for the next generation.  Actually, it can act counter to what is trying to be accomplished.

Below this topic is Ron Scotts"Report from the States" where, on 12/19 I made a similar comment, Ron.  It was to the effect of "It amazes me that legislatures can't see the other end of the stick".

I don't know what the answer is but it doesn't seem to lie in Legislation, Certification or Prohibition.  It seems to me that there are more detrimental effects on forests caused directly and indirectly by Taxing Authorities than on loggers and landowners.  The emphasis is on Urban development (sprawl), higher tax revenues from "developed" land and the demise of the small land owner.  

A small woodlot owner can sell or develop his his land into single family housing and have the taxing authority on his side or he can manage it for lumber, pulp and firewood and have to fight city hall, the sierra club and various other organizations that try to control his life.


That is why many farmers are selling the family farm - One fight, lots of money and leave town.

Tom, I find myself in the same forest as you.  There is the very strong fact that, at the end of the next legislative session in Oregon, the Small Woodlot Owners (4,999 acres or less) will be taxed differently than the "BIG BOYS".  What do you want to bet that the "little guys" will be taxed at a higher rate than the "BIG BOYS"?  We are all growing the same type of product for the same sorts of reason, yet treated differently.  What, then, becomes the justification for such action if it is to occure.  I feel it boils down to, who has done the best job in the "lobby room" with the sales pitch. I had better get off, the soap-box is getting slippery.   :D ;) :'(

You hit it right, the hidden culprit affecting many private non industrial forest landowners is  the "tax system".

Yes, the SFI certification is industry initiated; a reason it is not accepted by the National Forest system.  

I heard a while back that Tree Farm and SFI were working towards a mutual recognition system.  Anybody heard if this is still moving forward?

My personnal take on this is one of skepticism.  If you are SFI certified I don't believe that will count if you are selling to a market that wants FSC wood.  My understanding (limited at best) is that FSC is "greener" (sponsored by enviro groups) than SFI (industry).  I do know that the FSC certification is done by a bunch of independent contractors.  One of the first, largest, and from what I have heard; is a bit flakey.  Just getting them to show up is a bit tough.

Most any mill / timber land owner can be SFI certified.  We have one around here that is, that operates no different than the ones that are not.  We also have one (Roseburg Forest Products) that has it's California lands FSC certified.  RFP manages their lands far better than anyone else in this area.

I think the only reason to certify is if the market you are trying to reach requires it.  

I think the only reason to certify is if the market you are trying to reach requires it.  

Which gets to the problem about certification.  It isn't market driven, it's political.

The way I understand the original concept of certification was a way to help protect the rainforests.  Tropcial wood was certified so some markets could feel better about using them.  These markets were primarily in Europe.

Someone on this side of the pond decided it would be a good idea to do that here.  They set up guidelines and certified some timberland.  Industry didn't want to get left behind or have someone else tie their hands on how to utilize private lands.  Tree Farm system also put in their 2 cents.

But, the average consumer has shown little interest in certified wood.  If they try to charge more for it, then interest will get to be even less.  In the end, the market will decide if certification is worthwhile.  I don't see it having much economic merit.  The added expense will cause it to fall into disfavor.

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is partly represented by the Sierra Club, and if that is what you mean by being "Greener" than I would agree.

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) is industry driven - yes, but when you compare the objectives of each I find that I am much more in favor of SFI than FSC.

First of all FSC did not start in the USA (GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD), but in S. America where indigenous people were being displaced by big bad forest product companies that were slashing and burning the Brazillian rain forest down. So don't displace indigenous people (I believe Jeff is indigenous to Harrison). Anyway another thing that goes against the FSC standard is using herbicides - for site prep, eliminating weed species, or whatever. You also cannot plant monocultures (pine plantations). See what I am getting at here.

Now SFI accepts all those practices, except I am not aware of anyone displacing indigenous people - it could happen though. Look at Big Foot!  ;)

Seriously, intensive forestry is a bad thing with FSC. Example in Michigan's Upper Peninsula: Mead-Wesvaco aggressively removes poor quality hardwoods, herbicides treats the cut over area, and then plants red pine. The red pine is growing like crazy on these nice hardwood soils that have been enriched by falling leaves over the last 100 years. Intensive forestry? Yes. Accepted by FSC? No. Accepted practice by SFI? Yes.

What say you foresters, loggers, landowners, and alike? Is this an accepted forestry practice? I'll check back later for replies. Just reply with a short yes or no and brief explanation. We can haggle about it latter once the verdict is in.

Ron Weinrich, I believe this could be your next pole. What forest certification program is the best for forestry and the community of planet Earth?

Yes, in sme circles it is accepted.  Do I agree with the practice?   No, not on my property or do I suggest it for others land necessarily.  I like replaceing the removed trees with the same as was removed or indigenous to the land.   ;)

Forester Frank,

That is exactly what I mean by being "greener".

I am not really on board with the whole issue of certification.  

I do agree with Ron that the average consumer will not pay more for certified wood products.  I think it is a nitch market not unlike organic farm products.

Yes, I would say that I would accept this kind practice, if it is the goal of the land owner to maximize income. I guess it basically comes down to your management objectives.

QuoteIs this an accepted practice?

I accept that it is necessary to a certain extent but I would like to think it won't happen to all areas.  I can certainly understand where a forest industry company is coming from.

Forester Frank asked:
Is this an accepted practice?
 
For farmland to forestland, pine plantations make sense, but as a landowner who can't find a market for pine, I say leave the pine plantations to the big boys. I'm planting red and white pines and spruces for windbreak trees, but I'd rather own mixed woods than monocultures.

I see several problems with forest industry certification.  The forest industry is basically interested in short term timber management.

Every report I've seen on private landowners shows that timber production is not a primary or even secondary concern.  They may reject any attempt to certify by industry.  Especially when there is no economic incentive.

Site conversion?  What guarantee do you have that the markets will be there when the stand is mature?

Think about a forest that is using a 75 year rotation cycle.  That would mean that forests that are ending that cycle would have been started before the depression.  Dominant specie use was quartersawn white oak for mission furniture.  A lot of wood went into car production.  Most forest products companies of that era are long gone.

All those markets have fallen away.  50 years ago knotty pine was a hit.  Not now.  Maple was a weed tree just 15 years ago.  You can't predict markets when you are starting or continuing a forest.  

25 years ago there was talk of planting hybrid poplar for energy - firewood and fuel chips.  What would have happened to those plantations?  What has happened to the Southern chip market?  Its getting killed by competition from South America.  Even Proctor & Gamble has stopped buying domestic pulp.

Grow the trees that are best suited for the site, not today's market.  Develop the markets around the resource, not the other way around.  Monocultures are just an open invitation to insects and disease.

Instead of trying to certify land, wouldn't it just make more sense to certify foresters?  Timber harvested within the guidelines would fall into the certified category.  A forester that screws up would end up losing certification.  

Why bother certifying anything?  Why not let the people who are buying do their own certification.  If I have trees to sell and the mill doesn't want them, then they don't have to buy them.

If the Mega Store wants wood that was grown with diapers wrapped around the stump then  they need to grow their own wood or take my word for mine or go somewhere else.  

The assumption is that landowners who grow trees for profit are abusing the environment and not paying attention to BMP's.  That is a bunch of bull.   If anybody cares about the land it is the guys who own it.  I don't need some apartment dwelling, three-piece-suit professional student with a degree in art and psychology telling me not to destroy the stream that runs across my property or that my trees aren't growing fast enough ot that I can't harvest them because they are over-mature.

I believe in BMP's.  It used to be that we obeyed them because we believed in them.  Now they have been made Law.  Not because they weren't being adhered to but because of "over controlling" legislative radicals who are trying to justify their jobs.  As a society, we are losing the ability to be individuals, think for ourselves, create a market, fill a niche, sell what we can and buy what we want because "somebody" wants to control us and make us do "their" bidding.

I believe in education, foresters, loggers and landowners and their ability to create a beautiful and lucrative invironment.  Arguments of over harvested forests in the past don't hold water when they are used to put a thumb on wood producers and harvesters of today.  That is what education is all about.  We live and learn.  

I have a blue car for sale.  You don't want a blue car? Go somewhere where there is a color  of your choice, don't make me paint mine just so you can buy it.

All good comments. I would like to here more, so keep them coming.

My earlier question about accepting the practice, was directed at the intensive forestry example. I wanted to know if you thought that Mead-Wesvaco's intensive forestry practice of converting poor quality hardwood species - beech, soft and hard maple, white and yellow birch into red pine plantations on their own company owned land?

Are we talking about landowner rights here?

 I am told that the company's plan is to be self-reliant on its' own timber resources in case the feds, state, or private lands cannot sustain thier timber needs to make paper products, so species related markets are probably not relavent as they are with grade logs.

As far a certifying foresters Ron, I am all for it. I am a professional forester, but I find many other timber buyers that are not and try to pass themselves off as foresters. I also know some timber buyers that will tell you right off the bat that they do not claim to be a forester, so both types are out there. Teachers are state certified, accountants are certified, surveyors must be certified, then why not foresters? I am not convinced that only foresters, certified, registered, or otherwise, should be the only ones that can put up timber. Many landowners are well educated enough to handle a timber sale on their own. Those that need help can turn to the professional forester. We can get into that subject next if someone wants to start a new post.

Small editing for paragraph 2 above.

Is Mead-Wesvaco's intensive forestry practice acceptable to y'all (I love the south)?

Amen. Tom. 8) 8) 8) 8) ;)

Is Mead-Wesvaco's intensive forestry practice acceptable to y'all (I love the south)?

It's their land and assuming they didn't agree to anything that prevents their desired use at the time of purchase, I think it's their right to do it. There is the issue of environmentally sensitive land, but I doubt it applies where you're talking.

In the LP, they could buy open farmland for much cheaper than forestland and convert it to pine cropland without ruffling any feathers. Forestland for deer camps and other uses sells for twice the price. They would lose the income from the timber sale, but they wouldn't be accused of ruining the planet.

Regarding whether foresters should be certified, I can only tell you my assumptions as a non-forester. If somebody told me he was a forester, I would assume he had received a degree in forestry. Since forestry is a degreed profession like engineering or veterinary medicine or opthamologist then that should be a safe assumption. That's why I've asked about standards and self-policing in other threads.

The next step up from that is state certification and anybody who can endanger the trust of a society is a candidate for state certification (it makes you wonder why politicians don't need to prove that they understand how government is supposed to work). The society needs to be able to trust certain professions. The medical profession, the legal profession, educators, accountants, people who design bridges and tall buildings, and even realtors need to be licensed to conduct business with the public-at-large.

So lets use engineers as an example because foresters are in effect, engineering a successful forest (considering numerous variables and applying solutions). Degreed engineers who become employees don't need to be licensed Professional Engineers. The employer simply accepts their degree as proof of education. In most states though, freelance engineers who sell their expertise cannot represent themselves as engineers unless they get a PE license. So a forester who sells professional services to a landowner without first becoming a W2 employee should probably have to pass an exam and get a license while a forester who works for IP or Weyerhauser shouldn't have to.

License Foresters... Sounds good but here are some of the problems with it.  In California you have to be a Registered Professional Forester (RPF) to write timber harvest plans (THP), Nonindustrial Timber Management Plans (NTMP), apply for California Forest Improvement(CFIP) funds, write conversions (timber land to other uses), some emergency exemptions, and a RPF has to oversee all contracts and mangement activity on federal lands as well.

All the license really proves is that you can pass a test.  Some of the worst forest practices you will ever see on the West coast are done routinely here.  The licensing has increased accountability to the Forester, if the Forester is caught violating the Forest Practice Rules.  It has also lead to many frivolous law suites brought on by nieghbors (one of the guys I work with was sued because the logger busted a hydraulic hose and the nieghbor thought some fluid landed in the creek that ran through his property).

Also licensing creates another layer of bureacracy.  The California Licensed Foresters Association (CLFA) acts like a union and encourages rules that require their involvement.  This becomes very expensive for the land owner and has kept thousands of acres of small timber land parcels from being managed.  It is not uncommon for the Foresters bill for services to exceed the timber value.

The loggers have to be licensed here as well.  You have to attend a three day school to become a Licensed Timber Operator (LTO).  Ironically the loggers here are generally not anywhere near as good as their contemporaries to the North.

There is a Certified Forester Thread in the General Forestry Section. There is a difference between, Registered, Certified, and Licensed Forester.

Licensing means that one "can not" practice forestry unless they are a licensed forester. This is much more restrictive than being Registered as a forester or Certified as a forester.

This means that only a "licensed" forester can practice forestry on all lands within the state requiring the license.

This has much more impact on private landowner rights.

As for Meads intensive forestry of land and species conversions. This is overly intensive forestry that doesn't represent sustainable ecosystem management, but it is their right to do so as the property owner until society "strongly" says differently.

This overly intensive practice would not be tolerated on  the public's National Forest system lands or most State Forest system lands. Thus the reason for so many appeals by environmentalists concerning National Forest system land management practices which are even ecosystem based.

Forester Frank wrote:

"My earlier question about accepting the practice, was directed at the intensive forestry example. I wanted to know if you thought that Mead-Wesvaco's intensive forestry practice of converting poor quality hardwood species - beech, soft and hard maple, white and yellow birch into red pine plantations on their own company owned land?"

What Mead-Westvaco does on their own property is their own business, as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.  But, it isn't sustainable forestry.  The poor quality hardwoods probably came from years of high grading.  If it is hardwoods growing off site, then it should be converted to an indigenous species that is better suited.

What I get out of this certification problem is, everyone wants to decide what sustainable forestry means and who is going to define it.  Does anyone have a good definition?

I apologize for cavalierly using the "license" term. My poiint was only to distinguish between those foresters who are only accountable to their employer and those who have "clients".

Ultimately, I see personal property rights going completely down the tubes due to two fatal flaws in the US Constitution, but without delving any deeper into that, let's just say I would hope that foresters would seek to provide a benefit to society and not try to protect their income by forcing every felling to come under their perview.

I have no first hand knowledge of MeadWestvaco operations in Michigan.  In Ohio, MeadWestvaco (formerly just Mead Paper) commonly plants monocultures of white pine on upland hardwood sites.  These sites were scarlet oak, chestnut oak, blackgum, ect. where a rotation age may be 80-120 years.  The white pine is managed on a 40 year rotation.  I have seen no information that tells me that it is unsustainable from solely a wood production standpoint and it makes sense for them to do that on their own land. (It irks me a little to see them promote it on private land but that's another thread altogether).  To their credit they also reforest old pastures on private land via free seedlings.

RonW. says

Quoteeveryone wants to decide what sustainable forestry means

That's obviously the whole problem.  What are you trying to sustain? Wood production, wildlife, water quality, jobs?  And are you supposed to do all things on all lands or can you spread it out over a large landholding?  

To me SFI means very little.  Perhaps to the companies that undergo the certification it means a lot (Frank?).  I see FSC kinda like organic farming - it's nice for some to do that but if we all did that we'd be in trouble.  I also have a problem with the way FSC has been implemented and I don't think it has done too much for the companies that have invested a good deal of time and capital into it.  Clearly it doesn't get enviros off your back-if you have a few hours of free time do a yahoo search on Mendocino Redwood Company and see what I mean.

QuoteHow would I define sustainable forestry?

Practices that preserve or enhance soil fertility and ensure a future timber supply.

Granted that sets the bar pretty low and you could add things related to wildlife habitat, structural diversity, promote native species, ect., but I don't think it's necessary to include that in a definition of sustainable forestry.  That's more ecosystem management territory.  Just my opinion and I'd like to hear everyone else's.

According to the Society of American Foresters'  The Dictionary of Forestry

 Sustainable Forestry is an evolving concept with several definitions.

1. The practice of meeting the forest resource needs and values of the present without compromising the similar capability of future generations. It then goes on to a  lenghty definition of land stewardhip ethic, conservation of biological diversity, ecosystem management, etc.

When I worked in West Virginia in the 1970's Westvco was the largest clearcutter in the east, on their own corporate lands, but right across the line on the Monongahela National Forest there was a court injunction against clearcutting on the  National Forest land, thus the Mononogahela Controversy.

Also strip mining was ok, but clearcutting wasn't. The coal miners wanted the public lands of their National Forest protected to provide for their hunting, fishing, camping, backcountry and wilderness areas.

Well we are into another good discussion about forestry. It is too bad that more folks don't know about this site. It provides with a lot of insight. :o

I am okay with MEAD-Wesvaco's actions on their own land, as they are sustaining a resource for their own use. This practice is not done on all their lands, but on some. Mead also goes a long way to keep the public informed and provides a lot of educational opportunities for people in the communities that surround their mills and forestland.

I am not happy about certification because it was forced upon us. I felt as though we were already doing a good job in the forest, but I do not think that it has been a bad thing either. In fact a lot of  good has come out of it. Michigan's SFI program is very successful in the education of loggers (logger training). Loggers are much more aware of the environment they operate in, and they will often ask if they are being compliant with BMP's and other items.

Maybe the all the red tape is not good, but I'll take the good with the bad.

Thanks for all the input. I hope it continues. :)

QuoteWell we are into another good discussion about forestry. It is too bad that more folks don't know about this site. It provides with a lot of insight. :o

Hey Frankie, yer in a pretty good position to tell some folks about whats going on here. What a great chance for you to use the button that appears at the top of EVERY thread. It looks like this: (https://forestryforum.com/YaBBImages/sendtopic.gif)

You can now add a personal note to explain why you are sending the invite. How about sending some to a few of your industry collegues and cronies?

Frank:

I remember seeing a piece where they went and put a picture up and asked which trees you would take out of the current stand to allow for future growth.  Most loggers and foresters took out the domiant sized trrees.  This allowed the release of the surpressed and co-dominant trees.  This was SFI loggers.

This is no more than hi-grading.  Looks like we got a long way to go!

From March 4 to Now March 9 there have been 30+ responses to a topic that started as a post concerning regulations and control through authority.  Who would set the bar to become the standard of authority in Forestry : Policy, Management, Usage, Harvesting, Recreation, etc ??   I submit that no one individual or agency, could or should , govern this country of such vast diversity and that individual states or posibly regions or maybe down to county's or communities must prevail !!    Too often we look to others to assign a course of direction and every time it leads to more Bureaucracy.  Debate is a good start to finding or getting to a point of resolve on any issue in Forestry (or otherwise), but every time we try to work in a chain of command from the top down with legislation or laws the results from such a search bring about limitations !!  My thought's are always work up the chain and not down and take people with you through education.   I'll quite rambling and refer to Gifford Picchot's Maxim's that he lived by, they worked well for him and I feel still have sound wisdom !!    http:pinchot.org/gt/gpmaxims.html   " Keep the debate alive  and get involved "

I spent 31/2 hours at our local Woodlot Association annual meeting this afternoon.  The issue was discussed by a gentleman from Hampton Enterprises (large timber owner and mill operator in Oregon and Washington.  The "big boys " have their certified system and the remainder of us need to find our locality of being.   The one group that kept seeming to appear was the National Tree Farm organization as a very vialble group to belong to, of which i already belong.  they are goning through a very intensive auditing process right now that would help determine that they are flexable enough to be accepted by all other groups being formed or are already formed and operating.  It seems to be the least restrictive tome at this time.  I have a management plan theyhave already accepted some 10 or 12 years ago at the time of our Tree Farm being accepted. One merely  needs to have a management plan and following that plan as well as to have regular re-evaluation every 5 years or so by a neutral third party forester. So, as I understand it, I would then be "certified". 8) 8) 8)

Bud man:

Local control over woodlots is where it belongs.  The biggest problem is that the locals are pretty ignorant of anything to do with forestry.  I strongly support the local control, but they need a forester on board to give the necessary guidance.

We have something like 3000 local ordinances on forestry in our state.  That is due to a weak state system as far as forestry legislation goes.  Most of those involve cutting timber.  They don't want clearcuts, and that leads to a lot of high grading.  Take the best, leave the rest.  Most communities look at the forest as a landscape and not a resource.

Frank:

Most of the foresters in the tree farm system are not neutral parties. Consultants use them to get their foot in the door, as well as procurement foresters.  That's not to say the tree farm system isn't a good system.  At least, someone is visiting the site.  That certification works good for someone like you who does the cultural work and processes the wood.

The biggest problem is the chain of custody in the certification process.  A certain amount of non-certified wood is allowed into the mix.  Should that be allowed?

I think you have something there with your chain statment.   The links and how they are connected as well a managed with the controls mixed in becomes much of the rub for the whole of the issue.   :P

With the rotation of trees and man being so out of parity or level, as far as lifespan, the two will never compromise especially when you factor in $'s and greed. Education from bottom up is my thoughts. Ethical and Educated : Foresters, Woodlot Owners, Legislators,  and Loggers with more than $'s as their objective will hopefully offset the unscrupulous.   The 3000 laws aimed at the unscrupulous is really society's reaction to ignorance and greed. Total certification is what you'll get if  Attorneys, Pac's, and the rest become lazy and if education is left out.  "Education Is Like Forestry--Long Term And Never Ending Or Easy

Quotesnip

Most communities look at the forest as a landscape and not a resource.

snip

Hi Ron,

   This statement caught my eye, and seemed food for thought.

   I suspect how close this is to accurate depends much on the specific community and the distribution and perception of 'the forest'. In your statement, 'the forest' seems like a single homogeneous entity or spatial referent, kinda 'over there' and owned by 'someone else' in the eyes of the theoretical 'community'. One of the reasons this did catch my eye is that in my town, half of the physical space if not more is still trees- woodlots large and small, or woods surrounding recently sold houselots. I don't think in this specific locale that there is much perception of 'the forest' per se.

   I am certain this is way different in areas where 'the forest' is, say a National Forest and very clearly 'other' than privately owned land. I'm assuming you are speaking more from that perspective?   lw

I have a book on the Eastern hardwood forest, which I loaned out and haven't gotten back.  It was written by a Maine forester and is an excellent read.  

It discusses where we have been, where we are at, and where we will probably be going.  It is important for other sections of the country, as they will follow in the eastern forests tracks - harvest and move on.

There are about 11 different views of the forest.  Birds eye view is what the forest looks like from overhead, while worms eye view is concerned about the soil and the activities that go on underneath the trees.  

Landscape or green backdrop for communities is an increasing concern.  It goes into zoning and a host of other things.  You get into the big NIMBY syndrome.  How much clearcutting do you think they would allow in Stowe, VT?  Tourism is as much a forest product as other products to the communities concerned.  

You also get into quality of life problems and status quo.  As the population expands into areas that were traditional farms and forests, the new community doesn't want it to change.  They want that green backdrop.

When I get the book back, I'll make sure to give you the title and author.  .

Were headed towards-- The Meek Versus The Mighty-- with everybody else in the middle looking for a set of directions, and the Attorneys laughing all the way to the bank.   The meek with their vote in a democracy, and the mighty with their money.  If you look at elections past you can see that 50% don't even vote anymore, their bored to sleep by the controlling media.   "The Middle Better Wake Up" :P  

You want to get out the vote?  Either put up better candidates, or put in a "none of the above" category.  I'd pull that one more often than the party yes-men they keep putting on my ballots.

I don't live in Minnehaha and I don't know the future plus or minus outcome but we allready got a wrassler for a Govenor that saw the gap( middle elected him). I gotta believe the rest of us in the middle see the opportunity to make a diference !!

Quotesnip

Tourism is as much a forest product as other products to the communities concerned.  

snip

   It is indeed, and as much a source of income as traditional harvesting of wood and non timber forestry products. However, it should not be the ONLY forest product. There is room for the 'working forest', and the working forest managers- just as people hunger for 'working' farms, they need to understand that a forest is NOT a static backdrop, but a dynamic life-form with humans as part of the ecosystem. Somehow people don't have a problem with aboriginal tribes in the rainforest. What if we all went out with, like, our wooden spoons and other primitive implements? Put our peas and grits into politically correct carry sacs that say 'Hunger Mountain Co-op' or like that? Sent messages on birch bark? Would that make it all better?   :D :D :D   lw

LW

That's what the multiple use concept is all about.  You can have more than one product from the forest.  But, depending on the product, some forest practices may be limited.

The other problem is that you get into community concepts and individual concepts.  If they clash, then you have a problem.

Bud Man

We almost did it in the presidential election with Perot.  But, the 2 party system has made a sham out of independents and anyone else.  They exclude them from debates and most of the process.  Media doesn't help.  Perot's handling of the 3rd party was a disaster, as well.

Ron thats why from the bottom up is so important. I don't mean zero I mean at the level where one's skills and experiences can contribute valuable imput.  It's really important to participate. The populace has been numbed by the media and most feel their effort and vote doesn't count--WELL IT DOES. And we need to consider more than our own back yard and one or two pet peeves.