Re: Umm...what y'all think of THIS?

[MemphisLogger]

Thanks for the info on Charmin, Ron--I won't be gettin' personal with that brand anymore  >:(

Seriously though, we only 100% recycled in our house--I can't bring myself to use virgin fiber for such an ignoble purpose.  :(

Dang, I think you're right on about virtual spaces like the FF. It used to be that folks would only hear one side of the debate--industry at industry gatherings and environmentalists at enviro-gatherings. Chili ain't very good if stewed in it's own juices alone--gotta throw in some spice to get it right.

You're also right on about the greed. Unfortunately, our society has lost most of the self-regulating mechanisms to deal with it.

Used to be that if someone in the community was gettin' greedy and wreckin' things for other folks, they and their kin would have to face up to it at the County Fair or local congregation. They'd have to run the gauntlet of shame in the eyes of their neighbors.

Nowadays, neighboring landowners might not even be members of your community at all and subject to no kind of self-regulating shame. Heck, they might not even be people at all but legal fictitions with no soul to shame. It's hard to tar and feather a corporation.

      

[Buzz-sawyer]

Woah, hold it right there!
I DRAW the line .I will not use recycled toilet paper....thats just gross :D

[MemphisLogger]

Buzz,

In order of environmental-correctness it goes:

Reduce-Reuse-Recycle

Please note that I skipped the first first 2 in choosing my butt-wipe  ;D  

[Phorester]

Urbanlogger, for the sake of others who may not know how a logging operation takes place; in any logging project, the landowner also has to share a large portion of the blame or praise, since nothing happens on his land without his permission.  He has to sell his timber to a logger before the logger cuts it.  No logger holds a gun to the landowner's head and demands "sell me your timber or else".  The landowner may not go about it in a prudent business manner, but it still is his decision to sell or not sell, and his choice as to what price he accepts. An exception, of course, is where timber is stolen, where it is cut unbeknown to the landowner, which is not what we are discussing here.  Loggers can't be blamed for a bad logging job without also blaming the landowner. Again, nothing happens on a tract of land without the consent of the landowner.

How about posting some of the pictures you have of logging done right?

[VA-Sawyer]

This has been a good thread for me.  I can say from personal experience flying over parts of VA, WV,KY,TN and OH that there are a number of large areas of land that look scarred. Some of it is bad logging, some of it looks more like strip mining. Either way, in 25 years it will look a lot better if given the chance. I've also seen large scars around urban areas. Twenty years later they are even worse. They went from clearcut land to being housing areas, schools, shopping centers etc. Lots of roofs and asphalt. Twenty years from now they won't be better. Phorester said that we are losing 65,000 acres a year just here in Virginia. That is 100 square miles, if my math is correct. That is a 10 mile by 10 mile square that used to be forest and won't be such again for the forseeable future !  
Isabell took down thousands of trees in the area. Our county government paid money to have logs either burned or ground into chips. The chips were then disposed of in a non-revenue manner.  They didn't want to hear about trying to use the logs in a more productive way. The real irony is that they also spent a lot of money buying lumber to repair parks, boat ramps, outdoor building, etc. Does PT lumber outlast White Oak lumber by all that much ?
As for holding the land owners responsible.... both sides have a point here. If the landowner wants to have it all clearcut, then the owner is part of the problem. On the other hand, there are cases where the land owner was expecting one thing and the logger butchered the job.  It is all a big mess, but sooner of later someone will have to start cleaning it up.
VA-Sawyer

[Ron Wenrich]

I get pretty tired of hearing the "landowner's responsible" excuse for bad forestry.  Doesn't the industry have any ethical responsiblity for good management?  

What would you think of a doctor who would treat you for a disease just because you wanted him to?  Would that be ethical or professional?  I think not.  

If we are trying to raise the standards of the industry, then we have to take some responsibility for the mess that has been left in many areas.  As loggers, foresters or any other professional working on the land, we are invited guests.  I wouldn't want a guest in my house to drag mud across my carpet, bust my furniture, and leave a mess and have the excuse of "Well, you invited me in".

Somewhere in the economics, the ethics seem to slip away.  As the competition gets stronger, the sense of getting it before the other guy does seems to prevail.  Then there is the need to supply larger mills with a larger amount of raw material.  You can get into cut-and-run economics rather quickly when the ethics are removed.

[MemphisLogger]

Phorester,

If you'll go back over my posts, you'll note that I've been emphatic about actual people generally being good stewards of their land. Where large scale bad management occurs seems to be where absentee and or corporate interests own either land or timber rights. These "owners" don't seem to have any stake in the longterm health of the land as they are looking at it (or the timber) as an asset or commodity to be cashed-in whenever it suits them irregardless of the impact of its removal on the land itself.

The exception here is the resident landowner who unwittingly signs a contract selling all "merchantable" timber not realizing that with chip mills in the area, this means everything 6" and up. I ahve witnessed this scenario on far too many occasions. Again, hiring a consulting forester is key here.

VA-Sawyer,

I feel ya on the waste after disasters. We had a huge storm run through here in the summer of '03 that knocked down a huge amount of our mature Red Oaks. Around here, that means 90-100 year old 36"+ diameter. It so happens that at the time Red Oak was fetching good prices in the region due to wet bottoms.

Since the City/County was yarding the logs and other debris at a central location while waiting for the EPA to issue emergency burn permits, I proposed to the County Works Administrator that he allow me to direct the yard in sorting the logs for a brokers fee. He said it would be too complicated and "knew there was no market".  

Low and behold, out of town loggers and haulers showed up a week later lookin for logs but by that time,m the burn was on and the piles too haphazard for identification and sorting.  :

I estimate that at least 100,000 bdft of Oak alone (in 10' 36" dia logs) was burned. Not to mention at least as much Sweetgum and alot of Pecan and White Oak.  :'(

These were not, by any means, all "yard trees". Much of it came from blow down along new development edges.

And the County was complaining about cleanup costs  >:(  


Ron,

You are right on here, and that's why environmentalists originally went after industry and loggers for regulation and licensing. Unfortunately, industry has so much clout in gov'n't that it was successful in shifting legislative direction towards private property restrictions--something that they knew that environmentalists couldn't win.

I truly wish that the industry could be self-regulating but with greedy shareholders and bad actors abounding, that seems dubious at best.  


    

[VA-Sawyer]

UrbanLogger,
I think that the word 'absentee' may be a critical element of the problem.  People seem to take better care of property they spend much time walking on.  Ever notice how a company that might sell off timber 50 miles away for clearcut, will have nice landscaping at the company headquaters ?
VA-Sawyer

[Phorester]

Urbanlogger, got those pictures yet?  

Ron, your points are well taken, and I agree that loggers are part of the problem.  But I guess  I'm getting pretty tired of always hearing that the logger is to blame. As a State Service forester, landowners will come to me complaining about what they perceive as a "bad" logging operation, or complaining that they didn't get paid enough, or complaining that the logger is taking more trees than he bought, etc.

He was satisfied when he made the deal, sought no advice before he made the deal, then after the logger starts (or when he's already done) thinks he's getting screwed and wants to State to fix it.  In practically every case it was the landowner's fault for not handling his timber sale in a businesslike manner, or just the necessary messy look of an average logging job.

I've had consulting foresters complain that a landowner will screw up a sale when he and the logger get together after cutting has started and practically re-negotiate the sale behind the forester's back. .  Changing the perimeter of a clearcut, allowing the logger to take different trees than the consultant marked, etc.

And, absentee or resident......, still a landowner and unfortunately part of the problem.

A successful timber sale,and subsequent good logging job, is a triangle. The 3 sides of this triangle are a professional forester working for the landowner, the landowner, and the logger.  Any one side working without the knowledge and support of the other 2 sides causes the triangle to collapse,  and this results in a bad timber sale, bad logging, or bad forestry.

[Ron Wenrich]

I know that you have commented on the fact of landwner complaints after a sale.  Just how many of those do you get?  I've never encountered that problem, but you work in a different capacity and are get more of the flak.

I question the "necessary messy look" of a timber sale.  Most of the ones I've been involved in don't look messy.  Slash is cut down, there are no ruts in the skid roads, stocking is at a fully stocked level, grass is seeded and in general, looks pretty good.  I've had people not even notice that any trees were harvested.  Aesthetics can be a good selling point and can work well with a managed forest.  Maybe some industry efforts should be put forth if it is a big issue.

My thinking of landowners wanting a logger to cut some unmarked timber is that the logger has been talking to the landowner behind the forester's back.  Very rarely does a landowner have much contact with a logger on a managed sale.

Landowners do have some responsiblity, but they need not be the weakest link.  

[Phorester]

Yep, everybody comes to the government whenever they have a problem. I get probably 2-3 complaints a year from landowners about logging jobs on their properties, so I'm sure there are others too.  And I cover only 2 counties in one State.


Even with a job finished out like you describe, still landowners will complain.  Usually it is right after the job is finished before the grass has had a chance to get established or nature has had a chance to soften the disturbance in the woods with new vegetation. Sometimes it's after a violent thunderstorm has dumped several inches of rain, and everything is washed out. Instead of talking to the logger themselves, they want me to intervene. Sometimes it's years later, after a skid trail has been washing out for a long time.  Or the landowner never maintained the water bars or culverts the logger installed, and years later, of course, he has a mess on his hands. He blames the logger, not himself.  

I think logging jobs don't look messy to you and me since this is part of our job and we are used to it. I use the phrase 'necessary messiness' as a way of explaining to landowners that tree tops and limbs  will be left laying around, fresh skid trails & landings will be present, and these are distrubances that were not there before the logging. I really think that some landowners expect that their marked trees will simply dissappear, with no equipment tracks, no other brush or trees disturbed, no sign that anybody had been in their woods.   One landowner complained to me about all the stumps the logger left.  She wanted me to get him to come back and grind them all down.  Some people expect a logging job to be a landscaping job.

Buying unmarked trees on a sale usually does start with the logger contacting the landowner. In one instance the landowner said the logger wanted to trade trees - unmarked ones for marked ones, as if each were equal in health, quality, and value. I tell the landowners they should have talked to their consulting forester first, that he had a reason for marking/not marking particular trees or putting the perimeter of the sale area where he did, but it seems that most landowners do not. They simply work out a revised deal with the logger or timber buyer. The consultant finds out later. This situation, I feel, is a fault of both the logger and landowner, but I just feel it is more the landowner's fault since he makes the decision to work out the new deal.
 
Amen to your last statement.