There's a story that goes something like this:
A guy owns a thriving piece of forestland and it's his pride and joy. It's part personal satisfaction, part personal investment, part personal legacy. His forest is ample and stocked with high-quality trees- valuable, beautiful, the whole works- problem is, the owner has decided that he's OK with some level of harvesting on his land, but he's not really sure which trees should stay or go.
He's had lump-sum cash offers from local loggers and timber buyers that sparkle with dollar signs; he's fielded other offers that seem lucrative but a little less clear about how much they'll pay him for his timber. The landowner's intuition tells him that maybe the lump-sum offer is on the low side and he'd have a better opportunity to track his trees and mill receipts if he opts to sign with the gentleman who offered him the mill-tally sale. Money aside for a moment, each offer the landowner considers seems to be based upon a technique called 'select cut' or 'ten inches and up' or some other reference to cutting all trees of a certain diameter or larger. Well, the landowner feels this language sounds reasonable. Doesn't logic say that the largest volume of wood available to go to the mill should result from the harvest of the largest trees? Indeed it does.
Moreover the operator has represented himself as a professional and appears to have a plan to take down the stems quickly, in accordance with the required or recommended standards to protect water quality. Things look great!
The landowner decides to work with the guy who recommended 'ten inches and up' and payment as a percentage of mill receipts. Contract signed. Logs at the landing. Wood trucked to the mill. A sense of pride for having supported the local forest products business. A lot of people in the area work there. And to boot- checks from the logger start to roll in. All is well.
But let's pause for a moment and ask a necessary question- what has the landowner actually done to his woodland? Is it better off? Or worse? Science suggests that if he owns non-plantation forest and uses diameter-limit cutting, like choosing only trees of a certain size or larger to cut, that he may be degrading the value of his woodland over time.
Another analogy to describe this sort of land-management decision: Imagine a table covered in quarters, dimes, nickels and pennies. They represent good-quality large, medium, and small trees, respectively, within a property. Diameter-limit cutting is like taking all of the quarters and some of the dimes during the first harvest, leaving only some dimes, nickels and pennies to grow. A number of rejected stems are left behind because they have defects that mills won't pay much for, if anything at all. The best stems are taken. The worst-quality and smaller trees stay put and are reliable indicators of the probable quality of the future forest. If a second diameter-limit harvest occurs on the property, imagine that the remaining dimes and most of the nickels (on our hypothetical table) are removed- leaving the landowner with only pennies.
Landowners can avoid the pitfalls of vague, overly simplistic, or unscientific harvesting techniques by asking questions of their agent, operator, or offeror. Why have you picked this method of harvest? What methods are you using to select trees? What will comprise my future forest? It is useful to ask questions before any sale because it can take generations for forest restoration to blunt the effects of high-grading.
There are many different scientific methods available to landowners interested in managing their lands for occasional or sustained wood production. A professional forester can help woodland owners find the best paths forward which avoid long-term losses in forest value and productivity.
Scientists within and affiliated with the US Forest Service, the largest forest research agency in the world, have conducted multiple studies examining how diameter-limit cutting and other versions of 'high-grading' degrade forests. They've put some of their findings in a brief publication directed at woodland owners; it's recommended reading for anyone who already has or is considering harvesting timber on private land.
Click here to read 'Diameter-Limit Cutting and Silviculture in Northeastern Forests: A Primer for Landowners, Practitioners, and Policymakers'
A guy owns a thriving piece of forestland and it's his pride and joy. It's part personal satisfaction, part personal investment, part personal legacy. His forest is ample and stocked with high-quality trees- valuable, beautiful, the whole works- problem is, the owner has decided that he's OK with some level of harvesting on his land, but he's not really sure which trees should stay or go.
He's had lump-sum cash offers from local loggers and timber buyers that sparkle with dollar signs; he's fielded other offers that seem lucrative but a little less clear about how much they'll pay him for his timber. The landowner's intuition tells him that maybe the lump-sum offer is on the low side and he'd have a better opportunity to track his trees and mill receipts if he opts to sign with the gentleman who offered him the mill-tally sale. Money aside for a moment, each offer the landowner considers seems to be based upon a technique called 'select cut' or 'ten inches and up' or some other reference to cutting all trees of a certain diameter or larger. Well, the landowner feels this language sounds reasonable. Doesn't logic say that the largest volume of wood available to go to the mill should result from the harvest of the largest trees? Indeed it does.
Moreover the operator has represented himself as a professional and appears to have a plan to take down the stems quickly, in accordance with the required or recommended standards to protect water quality. Things look great!
The landowner decides to work with the guy who recommended 'ten inches and up' and payment as a percentage of mill receipts. Contract signed. Logs at the landing. Wood trucked to the mill. A sense of pride for having supported the local forest products business. A lot of people in the area work there. And to boot- checks from the logger start to roll in. All is well.
But let's pause for a moment and ask a necessary question- what has the landowner actually done to his woodland? Is it better off? Or worse? Science suggests that if he owns non-plantation forest and uses diameter-limit cutting, like choosing only trees of a certain size or larger to cut, that he may be degrading the value of his woodland over time.
Another analogy to describe this sort of land-management decision: Imagine a table covered in quarters, dimes, nickels and pennies. They represent good-quality large, medium, and small trees, respectively, within a property. Diameter-limit cutting is like taking all of the quarters and some of the dimes during the first harvest, leaving only some dimes, nickels and pennies to grow. A number of rejected stems are left behind because they have defects that mills won't pay much for, if anything at all. The best stems are taken. The worst-quality and smaller trees stay put and are reliable indicators of the probable quality of the future forest. If a second diameter-limit harvest occurs on the property, imagine that the remaining dimes and most of the nickels (on our hypothetical table) are removed- leaving the landowner with only pennies.
Landowners can avoid the pitfalls of vague, overly simplistic, or unscientific harvesting techniques by asking questions of their agent, operator, or offeror. Why have you picked this method of harvest? What methods are you using to select trees? What will comprise my future forest? It is useful to ask questions before any sale because it can take generations for forest restoration to blunt the effects of high-grading.
There are many different scientific methods available to landowners interested in managing their lands for occasional or sustained wood production. A professional forester can help woodland owners find the best paths forward which avoid long-term losses in forest value and productivity.
Scientists within and affiliated with the US Forest Service, the largest forest research agency in the world, have conducted multiple studies examining how diameter-limit cutting and other versions of 'high-grading' degrade forests. They've put some of their findings in a brief publication directed at woodland owners; it's recommended reading for anyone who already has or is considering harvesting timber on private land.
Click here to read 'Diameter-Limit Cutting and Silviculture in Northeastern Forests: A Primer for Landowners, Practitioners, and Policymakers'
1 comment:
It seems the adverse effects of high-grading and diameter-limit harvesting are not well understood by many forest owners. This is especially true in hardwoods. Many believe "selective" cutting is the best way to harvest timber, but it can be the worst. Future productivity all depends on what is cut and what is left behind. And after a woodlot has been degraded by the selective removal of the most valuable trees & species, it is unlikely to receive any future management because there are few trees of any commercial value.
Post a Comment