Is the U.S. Forest Service greedy or reckless?

[DanG]

I hope you soon find the time to read it, Brandon, and also to further explore the Forum.  There is a wealth of knowledge displayed here, not only of Forestry, but of the wood industry in general, as well as some pretty DanG good lessons on life itself.

You are right on target in your pursuit of the "big picture."  Without an understanding of the overall concept, you are basically unarmed when confronting challenges in any of the specific areas.

My knowledge of the workings of the USFS is limited, but I would think there would be a huge variance in policies, depending on location.  The Best Management Practices used in the Apalachicola NF, for instance, would be considered horrific in some other forests.  By the same token, some of the practices that are necessary where Tillaway works would be sinfully wasteful in a place like the Apalach.  The ANF is totally flat, and all of the soil is very sandy and porous, so the 13" rain that devastated Tillamook would have hardly been noticed here.  Everybody would have said, "DanG, that was a hard rain!" and gone back to work the next day.  Also, by the nature of its land, ANF is pretty much a pine monoculture, with small pockets of cypress and juniper, and almost no marketable hardwood.  Its "big picture" purpose is the same as all the other National Forests, in that it is to preserve a large tract of land to be managed as a forest forever.  The details of its management is quite different, though.  Another factor that makes it different may be the demographics of the area, too.  This area doesn't seem to have been discovered by the enviro-idiots, yet.  I have never heard of any tree-huggers or demonstrators making their presence felt there.  A well managed clearcut in a pine forest is not a particularly ugly thing to look at, at least not for long.  Slash is usually piled and burned to cut down on the beetle population, and due to our climate, the tract appears as a beautiful green meadow in just a few weeks.  Next thing you know, the tops of the new little trees that have been quietly planted start to appear, and the process has begun anew, all with very little fanfare.

Personally, I think the USFS and the Florida Division of Forestry have done a good job of educating the public.  Prescribed burning has been a primary tool around these parts for many years, at least all of my adult life.  Even though the public is generally aware of it, they continue to get on the local TV channels and in the newspapers to explain what they are doing, and why.  Complaints from the public are relatively few, and I credit the public Foresters for this.

I'd like to see some comments from other areas about how your forests differ from others, and how those differences are being managed. ;D

[jrdwyer]

Indiana is a great example of the difference between the the Forest Service and state management of forestland.

Up until the late 1980's, the Forest Service accomplished most of their timber harvesting objectives in Indiana using clearcutting. The idea being to regenerate oak/hickory forests. The enviromental lobby in Indiana was very vocal and has stopped almost all timber harvesting on the Hoosier National Forest to this day.

The State of Indiana has relied on selection and group selection harvesting on state forestland to accomplish their timber harvesting goals. There has been very little backlash against this and timber harvesting on state forestland contines to this day. In fact, our current governer (who I very much dislike for other reasons) has increased timber harvesting 100% on state forestlands in the last year. He as also proposed some small clearcuts. Unfortunatly, this is resulting in more hardwood timber on the local market and this has hurt private landowners I represent with certain timber sales due to oversupply in a somewhat depressed oak market. Sate timber sales tend to have higher total volumes and larger areas. This makes them more desirable than smaller private sales with less total volume sold.

As a side note, do foresters at the National Forest Level ever do 100% mark and measure timber sales like use consultants? All I ever see on timber listing web sites for Forest Service timber sales are boundaries marked and timber cruise estimates in cubic feet. This is even the case for timber sales in the eastern hardwood forest types where board foot is the commonly accepted measure. I guess the Forest Service wants everything done one way.

[Ron Scott]

Yes they do 100% tree measurement and sample tree measurement sales, but they sell in cubic measurement (cunits). I agree that it is confusing when most of us are more familiar with board foot measurement use.

[DanG]

I guess the Forest Service wants everything done one way.

That's just what I was wondering about, JR.  From where I sit, way outside of the loop, it appears that they just bid it out by the ton and take what it brings at the mill.  Now that's a really efficient and reasonable way to do things in an even-aged pine plantation, but it would be total folly in a Northern hardwood forest.  Do you think they would have just taken the easiest model, the Apalachicola, and done all of them that way?  I would hope not, but it is a bureaucracy, ya know. :  I hope some other Foresters with experience in USFS will weigh in here, too.

I see that Ron Scott has checked in while I was typing.  Ron, do you think they should, and do, take the same pains to measure these plantation pines as they do the hardwood forests?  They can actually schedule these cuts years in advance.  They know exactly how many trees there are, from the planting records, and how big they are from a simple observation.  They know that they need to be thinned in 10-15 years for pulp wood, then again for chip'n'saw in another 10, then left to grow for sawlogs for another 20.  The question is, are they flexible enough within their bureaucracy to differenciate between the needs of the Northern or Western forest, and the Southeastern pine forest?  My gut tells me they are, but I don't really know. ???

[Minnesota_boy]

Yes they do 100% tree measurement and sample tree measurement sales, but they sell in cubic measurement (cunits). I agree that it is confusing when most of us are more familiar with board foot measurement use.

I spoke with my uncle who was working in a national forest at the time the forest service changed to using cunits from the previously used cord measurement.  It had confused the loggers who were accustomed to buying by the cord and they didn't know just what to bid on a sale that was sold by the cunit.  As he explained it, a cunit is one hundred cubic feet(if I'm wrong, please correct me).  I asked him how that differed from a cord that measured 128 cubic feet and why there was a change needed. 

[SwampDonkey]

A cunit is solid wood, where a cord is not. It takes roughly 150 ft³ of stacked 4 ft wood to make a cunit, or 100 ft³ of solid wood.

We have one mill locally that still buys by cunits.

[Ron Scott]

Dang,

Yes, The USFS cruises timber volumes with required accuracies based on the specific cruise design depending upon species, volumes, size, density, diversity and size of stand, etc. etc.

Less effort and sampling needs to go into uniform pine stand measurements as you stated. Excessive measurements of more sample trees than indicated by the cruise design would be added expense and overkill in most cases.

Most USFS timber sales are also "check cruised" for accuracy; the checkers check the checkers. ;)

A standard cord may contain 60 to 100 solid cubic feet of wood depending on the size of the pieces and compactness of the stacks.

The cubic foot is a unit of "true volume" that measures 1x1x1ft. of  a volume of raw wood that is equivalent to a 12 inch cube. A cunit is 100 cubic feet of "solid" wood (not including bark or air volume). Thus the USFS is selling "solid" wood only, not bark or air volume. That would cost the logger extra. ;)

Multiply the number of cubic feet by 6.0 to convert to board feet of sawn material.

[SwampDonkey]

Also, keep in mind each province, state or region has it's (their) own standards of conversions. I think we have seen this in different discussions on the forum. I know the conversions I used are those used my marketing boards and the Maritime College of Forest Technicians. Too many standards.  :D :D :D :D Some conversion like cunits to bf would be the same for all, unless their is some funky math I'm not aware of. But converting something that is variable like stacked wood with air spaces and bark into something representing a solid block of wood is where you get umteen different answers. ;D

[Rocky_Ranger]

I've finally taken the time to read through this thread and as usual there are multiple discussions going on – all good.  It started on roads, then went to clearcutting, then on to cubic ft / bd ft comparisons........

Being a USFS Ranger/Line Officer having worked in four Regions of the country doesn't mean I will know any more than anyone who has already posted.  It does, however, mean I have a pretty good perspective on the topics so generated.  I liken the comparisons of someone really knowing what they are talking about to marriage; I've only been married 28 years and still have no real clue what it's all about...........

Roads.  Where has somebody got that the roads are paid for by the taxpayers?  Roads are paid for by the timber companies who have bought the timber in the first place (there are exceptions – especially Alaska, and I'm not talking about that.  I'm also talking modern era as in the last 20 years).  When a sale is sold by the USFS the road can be built by the Purchaser or it can be opted back to the USFS for contracting by another party.  If it is opted back, then the Purchaser is billed on every Ccf (more on this too) he removes, and prior to removal.  <We don't trust anybody when it comes to money>  So if the Purchaser bids $80.00/Ccf and the road costs $25.00/Ccf to construct then the Purchaser pays $105.00/Ccf until the road is paid for, then his payments are reduced back to $80.00.  If the Purchaser builds the road he will get credited the $25.00/Ccf until the road is paid for (so he will pay only $55.00/Ccf) then after it is paid for he will pay the $80.00 bid rate.

Ccf.  Who can explain a board foot?  I know the technical definition but the board foot of old is not the board foot nowadays. A 2X4 is not a 2X4 but we get charged for a 2X4.  What is a 2X4 now? 1 & 5/8 X 3 & ½? A Ccf or (cunit) is 100 cubic foot of solid wood.  Look at the major scales (Scribner, International, Doyle) even they can't agree given the diameter and length.  Cubes are just that – elegant measurements.

Clearcutting – God I love it, but only where it will work and for ecological reasons.  All foresters are grilled on the sciences of silviculture, silvics, and regional silviculture.  Our new (old) buzzword is ecosystem management – read "silviculture".  Ain't nothing more than looking at a stand of trees for multiple reasons to cut (or not) a certain way.  I don't want any folks to go off on old growth, West Coast forests and Cascadia crapola, Ecosystem management in the context I'm using is for managing a stand in the 21st century – with all the hassles and glories that go along with it.  You don't have to be a forester to know more about the land than all the textbooks combined, just look at it, love it, and treat it right.  As the old saying goes we are managing it for our grandchildren.....

The topic of this thread is greedy or reckless ... and of course the answer is yes.  The USFS is governed by the Laws and policies generated by the people of this country through their elected representatives.  Gifford Pinchot had a little old book of about 60 pages on how to manage the forest.  We now have hundreds of thousands of pages of direction, policy, laws, & court rulings to help (?) guide us.  If folks want to cast stones, they'd better not live in a glass house......

[jrdwyer]

I think cubic measurements are better than board foot rules, but the hardwood sawmills to whom I sell standing timber buy timber and/or logs using board foot measurements. For me to list cubic measurements for hardwood sawtimber or veneer on my timber sales would be silly. I use tons for pulpwood as weight scales are commonly used for pulpwood.

The conversion efficiency is all figured into the price per board foot. The mills know how much overrun they will have for a given type of timber and a given average tree size. They also know how each consulting forester measures trees and thus know how close these measurements will be to actual log scale. So although log rules may seem like an outdated or inaccurate system, they do function perfectly well in today's marketplace.

This may come as a surprise to some western US foresters used to scaling bureaus, but there are some area sawmills to whom I sell standing timber that do not bother to measure the cut logs. Full payment is made to the landowner prior to any trees being cut on the basis of my 100% mark and measure sale. The mill just keeps track of the number of truck loads for a rough estimate and then tallies the lumber cut for their customers. It is a very efficient system not having to measure all those logs. I suppose a good weight to board foot conversion could also be used, but so far no one in my area is doing this for hardwood sawtimber or veneer.

[SwampDonkey]

I use cunits, cords, m³ etc for sawlogs and pulp and bf for saw logs as well. Some mills here pay for logs by the ton, tonne, bf, cunit, cords. Most loggers want cord figures so when the volumes and stuff are listed in tabular form they can see what each number represents by referencing it to cords. They also pay their cutting crews by the cords. We have been using 2 cords per thousand as a figure, but I truely believe it's closer to 2.2 cords per thousand based on some mill scales I've seen. All mills that buy saw logs and veneer here scale the logs or go by weight (logs). Mills don't buy hardwood logs and veneer on the stump here, if they ain't cut and laid out for inspection the buyers don't even open the pickup door. Too much defect to chance it.

[Rocky_Ranger]

I grew up on bard foot scales - Scribner to be exact, but times have changed.  I don't remember anyone asking us our opinion on going to Ccf, it just happened.  As for payments by companies for hardwood, to me it depends on what folks are comfortable with.  We had an (internal) knock down, drag out argument the other day because we still interchange Ccf and Bd ft (using .58 Mbf/Ccf) and that's after twenty years of trying to convert to Ccf.  We don't scale logs, we meet marking criteria for statistical standards based on logs or pulpwood prior to sale.  10% for pulp, can't remember here but was 5% some time ago for logs.  Haven't been here but three months.  I personally like weight scale for pine species.

Also need to change my profile, have moved to west central Arkansas as district ranger on the Mena/Oden now (Ouachita NF).  We are selling about (here we go again...) 23 MMbf this year and prepped another 15 MMbf.  I ain't sure about conversions but my target is 54,000 Ccf sell and 36,000 Ccf prepped.

[Ron Scott]

Quite a change from Leadville, Colorado.;)

[Rocky_Ranger]

Definitely a change from Leadville.  This place reminds me of the Pacific Northwest in the early 80's before the "owl" parables.  We are cutting lots of timber and it's growing faster than we are cutting, doing lots of ecosystem management and in some T & E species habitat (red cockaded woodpecker), and ramping up our burning past 23,000 acres this year.  I've come into a place with some challenges though; they haven't had a ranger in almost a year, they had a death of an Archaeologist on the job back in early summer, and we said good-by to three folks on the district (two were staff) who retired last night that had a total of 100 years experience between the three.  Still have six vacancies not including those three but change will be good (always an optimist).

Looking at your web page you have an outstanding list of credentials and accomplishments, so I feel a little humbled by some of my simplified responses to how the Forest Service does business.  Definitely a good Agency and one I have chosen to come back into and spend the rest of my career in............

[extrapolate85]

If you are interested in getting some insight into converting cubic to BF and how cubic stacks up against BF in terms of measuring potential recovery and value, go to the following link: http://www.roundwood-measure.com/case_for_cubic.pdf

[MDP]

This is a good thread. Is the Forest Service greedy or reckless?
Living here in the Northwest I would say hardly either, I would wish the Forest Service would in fact be more greedy and a little reckless.
Here where I live I see VAST chunks of land unmanaged, unkept,basicly left for dead. Which is probably it's fate anyway.
It just frustrates me to no end to see an endless resource just sit there and either rot, burn,or get devoured by the bugs. This, in my opinion, is nothing short of criminal, a forest properly managed will always have trees growing, lots of trees and wildlife will flourish. I am a logger and I get to witness first hand the advantages of forests properly managed and I'm proud to be a part of that process I am able to look back at jobs that I have been a part of and even been responsible for actually choosing the trees to leave and there spacing, imagine that someone with just a high school diploma able to that, how can it be? Most of the jobs I work on are privately owned timberlands though, you have to have a college degree in order to know which trees to leave on Forest Service land it seems.
I'll stop the sarcasm now. The FS it seems is between a rock and a hard place, the enviromental crowd has strong armed there way into the FS's business through what they say is good science, and good lawyers, they are well funded and use the courts to tie up timber sales for years.The FShas so many rules and regulations there should be no possible way that any timber sale should even be considered for a lawsuit let alone be tied up for years in the courts.
Our forests, and I emphasize OUR, are in what I would consider dire conditions, they're rampant with bugs and disease, they are so overgrown and ripe for catastrophic fires it's scarey, every year around here we get to see the big mushroom clouds rising above the latest monster fire and believe me they are litterally monsters.
This condition probably won't change for the better it's just going to get worse, millions of acres will be burned every year, more firefighters will die and more enviro lawyers will get rich taking the FS to court, and they'll blame thier latest scapegoat "global warming" for everything that is wrong in the forest.
Our forests should be declared disaster areas, emergency steps should be taken, our forests should be managed and managed aggresively which means logging and logging hard! And if it was done like it was 30 to 40 years ago the FS would make money, lots of money, enough money so that we wouldn't have to pay to park at our trailheads, we wouldn't have to pay to camp at FS campgrounds the campgrounds would be kept immaculate like they used to be, roads would be in better shape, small  rural communities would flourish, schools would be well funded, and finally our forests would be in a healthy state.
This may sound extreme to some but if the eviro's can be extreme so can I.


MDP

[SwampDonkey]

You guys talk of lawyers taking the forest service to courts. I haven't heard anyone but natives and wood thieves going to court with DNR here. Close to 95 % of our forest in New Brunswick is Provincial land (45 %), private woodlots (38 %) and industrial freehold (12 %). What  is federal land is Camp Gagetown where they bomb and burn the forest, Fundy National Park and Kouchibouquac National Park which is a marsh dune. There really has never been any significant environmental movement, just a watch dog group with a handful of folks called the Conservation Council. There are no foresters on the council, some are retired university professors, social workers, retired mill employees, woodlot owners, doctors, retired nurse, columnists and some touchy-feally types (whatever a Coordinator, Development and Peace is ). I would say almost all their funding comes from government sources, tax donations and membership. I deduce that from reading some info on their site, so it's more than a guess. ;) The only stumbling blocks here for the most part are markets and prices.

[blueduck]

With apologies forst to leadville_ranger i state for the public the difference between the Bopyscouts and the Forest Service...... The Boy Scouts have adult supervison.

The passage of the 1976 Forest Lands Mangament Policy Act pertaining to oads stated simply that ALL RS2477 roads were to be left open and only those actually constructed after 1976 were to be able to be blockaded, so in the infinant wisdom of some desk jockey it seems they cut a corner her or there and now since the road was constructed after 1976 they could block it off..... come to the mid 1990's and the FS decides they have to many roads to maintain so they decontruct the roads particularly if those roads have not had any use.... erfo the gated roads and the RS2477 Rights of way..... we have had several thousand miles of roads in Central Idaho destoyed or set to be destroyed by the USFS over the next few years, mostly political, all becuase some people dont thik anyone should use the forests at all.  The dead wood is stacking up and central idaho is a tinderbox waiting for the right lightning strike to set it all off..... well at least those roads could have been used to access fires, but no, that would be to simple a reason to leave well enough alone, quite a few of those old roads accessed mines that have not been mined in years, others once led to old homesteads absorbed by the circus [i meant forset service] and very few people care about the disapperance of roads.... or the gates on the roads cause then they can use the roads for their 4 wheelers and not worry about meeting a bigger rig..... until the circus puts up restrictions against 4 wheelers behind the gate which is becoming more common.

As far as clear cutting goes, the circus still does it, and gets away with it because they leave "islands" of 3-4 acres on 160 patches, and in some places clearcutting is warranted, particularly where it is steep ground and highleads are utilized.... my dad-in-law was line machine timber feller before getting  rolled over by a 4 foot log n 2 feet of snow [buggered uphis knee] you cant just put a line machine in a patch of a few trees for selctive cutting, first it dont let the trees go down, and second the lines need room to move in a v shaped pattern as it takes nearly a day to set up the line in the bottom of the canyon if they are reaching down 1500 to 2000 feet, although most machines around here are still only reaching about 800-1200 feet.  To me it looks silly to leave a patch of trees that are over ripe, and have other clear cut patches within 100-500 between, but then again no one really asked me.... cause the public comment is usually 2-5 years before an area goes up for sale, so the mental evironists can file their lawsuits and stop the sales......

The other problem i have with the Circus is the way they included certain areas in the :wilderness" by "cherry steming" a road into it..... there are  more wilderness acres in Idaho County Idaho than are total acres in a couple of eastern states, one wilderness area alone is bigger than the norhern most county in idaho state, no tax base for it, no profit sharing from it, it just sits there with the richest gold strike in the world in one mountain waiting for the future generations to come to its senses and open it up for some congress critter to get rich doing so.....

Blueduck is one of the last free radicals
21 years operating a mobile dimension 127

William
Central Idaho republic

[SwampDonkey]

Last week I heard our minister of Natural resources state that the forest companies are well below their AAC for crown land harvesting. The reason is of course, markets and pricing. Then later on in another breath he said as soon as markets pick up we will be harvesting the surplus from previous years. I don't know about you, but i think that is going to drive prices down because of an over supply of timber on the market. So if that is what is planned, expect prices for timber that are barely profitable to fall even further and cause even more folks to look for another career. Private wood producers aren't going to stand a chance to make a living off their timber unless they have a viable/reliable market share. We just can't compete with crown wood.

[Cedarman]

SD, just think if you had hundreds of enviros filing lawsuits blocking most of the logging on crown land how it would affect prices.  Lower supply, prices go up.  Or the mills would just import more wood.  Too many trees or too many loggers, wood prices stay low.

[thecfarm]

Hey there blueduck,welcome to the forum.Good imput for one of your first post.

[Cedarman]

blueduck, I'll second cfarm.

When the gov changes the rules, those that know when the rules are changing make the big bucks. Think back to when they let you start to own gold and when they let  gold seek its own price level.  Gov changed the rules and look what happened.

[Rocky_Ranger]

I don't know where to start, but boy don't ya just love being able to discuss such matters?  I'm delighted I'm able to interact with folks from across the country and even the world at times, talking about the very stuff that keeps beans on the table or at the very least happiness for whatever we do.....

First, I like the analogy Blue Duck gave of the Forest Service and Boy Scouts, truth be told though the Forest Service does have supervision – it's called Congress......... (?).

RS 2477 – what a nightmare, if you look on the Web at various places it's about even as far as those in favor of RS 2477 and those against it.  Maybe that's good, I don't know.  But, RS 2477 is not a cure all.  It's rooted deep in the 1866 Mining Laws and was actually repealed by the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976.  The crux is it grandfathered in a bunch of the old roads but didn't do a very good job of doing it cleanly.  Roads after FLPMA had a moratorium on them for being accepted through Policy Decisions of various Department of Interior heads.  The latest form of interpretation was taken in early 2006 and was called the "Disclaimer Rule".  Under it, the old version of RS 2477 sort of reared its head but with changes; roads no longer had the 12 year statue of limitations and there were no appeal rights with the Department.  Meaning any disagreement could only be handled by the Courts.  Oh by the way, Congress has ruled the Disclaimer Rule illegal – but who is watching.......One thing folks need to watch is whatever form this thing takes will affect private land rights too.  I'm very acquainted with some of the Colorado Law and recent Court decision basically taking away a landowners right to gate his road because the County asserted "Prescriptive Rights".  The road was a dead ender and had not had maintenance for years.  The guy blocked it to keep folks from pilfering his ranch – he lost, County tore down the gate and opened the road up to public use.

Cherry stems – the Forest Service can not proclaim Wilderness.  It can only be enacted by Congress.  The Forest Service had some major planning back in the 1970's and early 80's called RARE (one & two) Roadless Area Review and Evaluation.  It was an inventory of roadless or areas meeting roadless character.  Lot's of Wilderness has come from these studies but only after proponents got a Congressional ear and moved forward to get it into Law.  Cherry stems – if not for those you'd be walking a lot further to get into your favorite chunk of heaven.  Cherry stems aren't good for anything but are a key to everything.  They are what the debates come about for moving boundaries or even if the proposal has a chance of passing.  I see them as just something we'll always have around and will have to deal with them...

My post is already too long so I'm gonna wait on clearcutting and public comment 'till later.......

[Gary_C]

There are many very excellent posts on this subject. I have always had a lot of respect for the US Forest Service. However I cannot say much good about their supposed adult supervision, the US Congress. Rocky Ranger has that exactly right.

I have looked into buying USFS timber sales in the Chequamegon National Forest. I used to be on their mailing lists until I stopped requesting any listings. I never saw any bargans on the sale prices and the financial requirements are pretty stiff. You have to tie up your money up front and that is risky with all the lawyers circling the USFS.

Most people do not realize that those roads that are now used for recreation were built by loggers. On the MN State job that I am now finishing I built the access road at my expense and the state will then put it to good use after I am done.

Two weeks ago, I was driving south out of Duluth on Hwy 23 and I just happened to see a sign in front of the headquarters of the Chippewa National Forest. I was shocked by the size of that building set back on the west side of that road. I guess they need a lot of people to fight all those lawyers?

[MDP]

Good point Gary on the roads and recreation. Where would the yuppie enviro lawyers be without there cell phones. A lot of cell towers around here are way up at the very end of logging roads, you don't hear them complaining about those ugly cell towers planted right on top of there precious mountains. If those roads weren't there they wouldn't be able to call the office on there cell phone from there big log house that is carved into a once wooded hillside, that's deep in the forest that should never be logged, unless it's for themselves.


Mark