Forestry Policies

Erika,

Great questions to pose to this forum. I suspect some of the responses we propose may not be expected, but you have asked.

Timber theft is an issue that should be better understood by the public and in particular the private forest landowner’s everywhere.

There seems to be at least two contributing factors. First economic hardship in rural areas that puts pressure on a traditional old industry of logging as the front door of the forest products industry. The value of the products harvested and sold into the commodity defined industry is declining for a variety of reasons, maybe greater than this particular discussion can digest. But the point is that people that have traditionally made their living logging are having a harder time accessing timber and what timber they do get is worth less on the open market. Neither factor excuses stealing, and theft is theft. Having been a forester that has testified on timber theft issues in court I am very aware of the policy in place in Virginia to deal with this issue.

So despite the difficulty of prosecuting a timber thief, there are laws in place and a procedure in place to address it now. The idea of a conservative group that on one hand will promote less government and in reality create more “laws” seems obvious again. I don’t support any approach that creates more “laws”. The problem may be addressed through other cultural approaches and vigorous use of the laws and accounting information that already exist. Every sawmill keeps records of what it buys, what they pay for it and from whom.
All you have to do is threaten to get the law involved and they will give you any information they have.

The second factor that enables timber thief is absentee ownership of forestland. So much of the land in rural areas is owned by people that aren’t in touch with their land or their neighbors or any practitioners of “good forestry”. So they are sitting ducks, the equivalent of a roadside stand selling vegetables where the stand is out of sight from the home. People are not always honest and will steal the vegetables and display that the honor system only works with and for those that have honor…. There is an issue of people owning land and not being connected with that land other than an occasional visit. They also may not be connected to the people that already actually live in that community who would be the best protectors of the assets that all the natural resources have for the entire community. Generally speaking the folks that just outright steal timber are not members in good standing with the community at large. So having a connection with other community members is a good way to prevent or share the vested interest we all have in the forested assets of our communities.

Generally speaking most of the timber theft in our area is a matter of errors in the understanding of the boundary lines that are not clearly marked and since the rate of harvesting is so rapid it doesn’t take but a small amount of time before lots of trees are taken that don’t belong to the person that is selling timber to the loggers in the woods. A professional forester could play an important role in this situation. And as a matter of public education, people should know that about 78% of all timber harvesting in Va. is a matter of a logger and a landowner shaking hands and the work starts, often without a pre-harvest plan, a walking/marking of the boundary lines with the landowner or an agent and not oversight other that what is provided by state laws such as logger notification, as in Va. Again this is a matter of the landowner’s not
taking real responsibility for the management of their land. Of course there are outright deliberate thief of timber in a planned calculated way. The people that steal just valuable trees for the shear money value. Those people should be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law, including treble value for the stumpage, which is estimated to the value at total maturity in the top markets, plus any legal cost for investigating and bringing the thieves to accountability.

This is a complex issue. I think much of the community based forestry that we and others on this forum promote have naturally occurring benefits that include the reduced likelihood of timber thief.

On the issue of licensed logger’s I would submit that this began in California and other western states years ago. Unfortunately the real reason governments get into more laws like this is revenue collection. In Ca. it doesn’t cost anything to get a logging permit, but at the end of the year your landowner will get a letter wanting to know how much “money” they got for cutting their timber or you will be required to report their income. So that is an aspect of licenses – revenue collection, hidden under the mask of promoting better forestry, protection of the common resources of water quality and other issues of public concern. So don’t think that license laws are all of what they appear on the surface.

It would be good that private interests promote truly sustainable forestry or at least address the definition of these practices. It would be good if these interest groups look into to “green certification” programs and promoted that
strategy as a way to protect and preserve the forested assets of all rural communities.

A missing ingredient in all this concern is an awareness of the value of the ecological services a healthy forest provides for the public good. Ecological services such as water purification, shade creation and the resulting cooling,
wind blocking in the winter to save heating cost and many more previously
un-quantified values of the ecological condition of intact forests.

The reason organic folks roll their eyes over any mention of the Farm B. is
their record of being basically a mouthpiece for government control of everything related to agriculture, while being supportive of right wing politics in general. Meanwhile if you are a small farmer that uses the company for your farm insurance or auto insurance you will experience that they will cancel your policy at the drop of a hat.

It is funny how conservative groups are not about conservation at all. The language and use of words seems to be designed to be confusing. It is like the “wise use” movement which in reality was a use it all up as quick as you can bunch. Like conservatives saying “drill now” like using the last oil we have as fast as possible is a solution to the energy needs of the modern world.

It is good that open minded people are involved with FB, but don’t expect them to help organic farmers or small farmers or small sustainable forestry practitioners, unless they can see it as a profitable move for their company.

There is much more to these issues than this post can address but we will continue the thread if there is interest. Thanks for posting it. There is other
reading available on these issues and we can share them as time goes on.

In VT the penalty for timber trespass is treble stumpage, based on an estimate of relative saw log value at current regional stumpage prices paid, that’s it. All other fees are paid out of that settlement. There are very few cases these days, with lawyers fees what they are, that can justify the expense. Carl

I definitely think that penalties need to be stiffer, because there are so many values that are damaged by timber theft beyond the dollar value as timber, such as what Jason refers to. Also the costs of estimating volume and value, investigation, and legal fees can really add up, and they need to be put on the perpetrator.

On a social note, I am always amazed that these guys actually think that they can cut the trees and pull them down to the road, and that no one will find them. Go figure.

I have investigated several of these over the years, and the accidental line crossers are almost always willing to pay damages. Unfortunately honest people can’t afford 3x stumpage either, especially if the line is poorly marked. One such situation the logger offered to pay 2x without going to court, but the LO said no, but the legal fees drowned her. I suggested shooting high (as my estimate was backed up by his records) and go for 2x, but she said I wasn’t her legal adviser, and she wanted to teach the guy a lesson. It was tragic, as it had been a beautiful stand of large white pine that her dead husband (a horse logger) had managed for years, and in her eighties it was just too overwhelming for her to grasp the details.

Volunteering to align with a group is a good idea, to some extent, but like all certification programs it ends up creating costs external to the purpose, ie. supplying superior forestry services.

I really feel that the grouping has to include landowners, foresters, sawmillers, as well as loggers that commit to standards of excellence so that the forest products can be sold at the premium they deserve. Otherwise, again as Jason point out, there is no financial incentive to exceed the norm that the market supports.

At 08 NEAPFD we will have a roundtable discussion exploring this issue on a regional basis. How do we in the NE do what HHFF/draftwood has been doing, to present what we do in the light it deserves, and as a group, get paid for it.

Carl

Bret,

Please don’t feel insulted, I never used the word evil, those quote marks are not quoting me as I recall.

As a public person, it wouldn’t seem wise of me to judge someone by calling them evil.

Rush is probably already perpetually nervous from all the pills he’s popped over the years. I’m not nervous, I enjoy the exchange.

Conservation is not preservation. Conservatives, generally are not about conserving. There are exceptions of course.

Preservation as the environmental folks promote or advocate for probably isn’t actually even preservation. It is just keeping humans out of the direct contact with the natural world for a while. But that is impossible as we know from all the influences we have had before, plus most of the wilderness set aside is low quality sites from a forestry perspective so it may not be the best forest we could have naturally anyway.

I would submit that having a control where we do nothing is the most important and appropriate classroom to learn from nature. All experiments need a control to compare the results of other treatments. Wilderness or preservation of land type efforts could be that.

Hey man, I’m not looking down my nose at anyone, maybe beyond my nose and willing to share that for what it is worth.

Everyone is free to think what they want about it. Since the opinion is free, it may be worth what it cost…

Maybe you will watch the RFD-TV deal and give us your critique of that media. All opinions appreciated and respected.

Tell us about your animal powered story.

Bret,

What is your draft animal power story?