assessment of sustainability of our forests

Southern Forest Resource Assessment

 Below is the original wording of one of the preliminary questions and public suggestions or concerns submitted about it--for details see our Public Input or Methods pages
 
 

"What motivates private forest landowners to manage their forest land and how are their management objectives formed?"
  1. I own land for a wide variety of reasons that includes both recreation and investment.
  2. A small farm owner who makes a major investment which will not bear fruit for many years needs all the help he can get to perpetuate a tree farm.
  3. How would different levels of forest-management regulation affect the rights and obligations of property owners?
  4. What federal or state programs cause increased loss of native forests (e.g. cost sharing for replanting pines)? What federal or state programs encourage native forest protection?
  5. If restrictions are placed on management or harvesting of lands, would landowners that had held lands be more likely to sell, further fragmenting the forest? If tax implications could be included in these thoughts, this would also be good. Further, if restrictions were placed, at what point would this cause additional harvesting in other areas of the globe where there are little regulations on harvesting?
  6. It would be beneficial for the study to document the various states' programs, both federal and state-funded, that assist private landowners and groups with forest management and wildlife habitat improvement, and to evaluate the success of these programs in achieving their objectives. It would also be helpful to know the different sources of funding that the states have for any cost-sharing programs included in this assistance.
  7. Unfortunately most are ignorant of the importance of their forest. They are scared by loggers into cutting their woods because they are told that if they do not SPB's will kill the trees. Timber prices have been so high that people only think about a one time return on their land and not long-term protection. There is very little stewardship. Timber companies drive the entire resource degrading process. Many people see their land as a commodity and not as a living thing that we must treat with respect and kindness if we are to survive.
  8. We must give tax-breaks to landowners who shelter endangered ecosystems (like wet savannas) or listed species (like indigo snakes).
  9. I am opposed to allowing any group or third party granting themselves authority over the use and rule of my land. The invested landowner will always be the best stewards of the land.
  10. How Would Different Levels of Logging Affect the Rights and Obligations of Property Owners?
  11. The agencies assessing forest resources in the 13 southern states should not pretend they can overlook issues associated with the rights and obligations of landowners. These issues are unavoidable, and failing to address them explicitly means they are dealt with through hidden assumptions. If the agencies talk only about the costs that would accrue to landowners from constraints on logging, for example, they implicitly would be assuming that the landowners have rights to harm the environment and impose costs on others. This is not to say that the agencies should attempt to resolve issues associated with the rights and responsibilities of landowners. Resolution lies far outside the scope of this assessment. Instead, the agencies should acknowledge these issues and facilitate the public's understanding of them.
  12. Assessment should document the record of accomplishment of the various private and public sector efforts to improve reforestation and increase timber supplies that have resulted in positive reforestation and forest growth trends.
  13. Another important area to address is the effect of various public subsidies on forest management activities and practices. First, it will be necessary to identify the full range of public funds or other fiscal incentives available to forest land owners, i.e., stewardship funds and tax credits. Then, the study should assess how these subsidies are affecting the behavior of land owners, chip mills, or whomever. Examples of questions to be answered are to what extent any of these public subsidies are conditioned on the practice of sustainable forestry practices, or on the other hand, to what extent they are used to continue subsidizing environmentally unsound practices like ditching and draining or conversion of bottomland hardwoods to pine?
  14. Federal cost sharing opportunities have diminished. There are 148,000 forest landowners in Louisiana.
  15. The financial incentive for land-use changes also should be assessed for lands reforested as wildlife habitat under Federal programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and Environmental Quality Incentives Program, especially in regard to future program enrollment and renewal of short-term contracts. Financial chip-mill incentives also could reduce the availability of private lands for compensatory mitigation of unavoidable wetland losses.
  16. Examine the extent to which private industrial forest owners are implementing ecosystem management approaches. In particular, promoting intensive high-yield timber production in certain forests should be evaluated as a means of facilitation forest preservation (e.g. old growth) in others.
  17. What motivates private forest landowners to manage their forest land, and how are their management objectives formed, and how might they be motivated to manage for ecological sustainability?
  18. The Assessment should address how substantial private investments in reforestation and plantation establishment and the accelerated growth and productivity of these forests, have contributed to the availability of commercial fiber as well as conservation of other resource values.
  19. Forests will need to be actively managed to generate income so landowners will not be pressured to convert to a higher economic use that is less protective of water quality and habitats.
  20. Forestlands must continue to return income to their owners and provide an economic incentive for keeping those lands intact in forestry.
  21. The Assessment should highlight the successes of Tree Farm System. Major forest products companies have developed forest management assistance programs for private landowner. The Assessment should look at these programs and report their objectives and accomplishments. The forest products industry has developed the sustainable Forestry Initiative to illustrate the industry's commitment to manage and harvest forests in a sustainable manner. The results of SFI, including the achievements related to the initiative's goals and performance criteria, should be highlighted in the Assessment's final report.
  22. Many state conservation agencies have developed incentive and cost share programs to promote responsible stewardship of non-industrial private forestland. The Assessment should document the contribution these programs have made to the productivity and health of southern NIPF.
  23. Private, corporate and public landowners have a variety of reasons for owning property. The goals and objectives of landowners lead to a myriad of habitats and forest types. The Assessment should report on how the diverse ownership of southern forests has contributed to a variety of landscapes and increased plant and animal diversity.
  24. From 1952 till 1992, the forests in the Southeastern United States volume of timber increased by 60%. These results did not happen by accident or because of regulations being placed on our forests. The increase in both volume and amount of forest happed because those of us who own the land and have a vested interest in it are some of the best stewards of the forest in the world. We are the ones who are making sure 2.5 billion tree seedlings a year get planted to make sure our forests will always be here for our enjoyment as well as for our use.
  25. Since we are dealing with a resource(s) that is mostly private in terms of acres owned, it's entirely realistic to do an assessment based on the understanding that "natural" forests will continue to be diminished in favor of forests managed for the "commodities" in demand, whether that be fiber, recreation or other outputs, and that the extent of forests will decrease as they are converted to other land uses. To the extent we can predict such trends with an assessment, we can predict the impact on forest resources and values such as lumber, pulp, wildlife, water, recreation, etc. and plan for the future under those circumstances. However, that is not our vision. Our vision is based on the idea that there are no more surplus forests; that forests should be sustained, and even, strategically restored; that because of their tremendous contributions to the public values of air and water quality, wildlife habitat, aesthetics, temperature mitigation, etc., they are properly regarded within a "no net loss" paradigm. Goals should be achieved through incentives and recognition.
  26. We do believe that applying a well thought out strategy of landowner incentives, education and recognition to achieve no net loss of forest values in the South will prove to be a more successful approach to sustaining and restoring our southern forests.
  27. You should document the record of accomplishment of various private and public sector efforts to improve reforestation and increase timber supplies that have resulted in positive reforestation and forest growth trends especially the efforts of the various state forestry agencies and state forestry associations.
  28. I own timberland. I manage this land to maximize the return it might return to my family and me. I have observed that most landowners feel the same way and replant immediately any lands that they have cut. I now see that clear cutting of forestland may be one of the best management tools available, especially if the existing stand is of poor quality. Please come to my area of the world to conduct some of your study.
  29. 18 years ago when my father began planting the pastures and fields in pinetrees. Now the land is almost completely forested except for interspersed openings which we maintain for the wildlife. We have a large deer population and a moderate, and growing, number of wild turkeys. In recent years I have planted overcup oaks, sawtooth oaks, autumn olive, native pecan and other species specifically to improve wildlife habitat on the property. We encourage biodiversity by leaving some areas containing hardwood species uncut, and planting mast-producing hardwoods in some of the remaining field areas.
  30. What educational efforts are being undertaken (extent, resources), among agencies, and by agencies to the public and industry users, concerning forests' vital ecological services?
  31. Determine types of information made available to landowners by forestry departments or others. Determine owners' knowledge of community economic benefit under different (industrial/local) forestry options.
  32. I would like to see some form of government initiatives for private owners to restrict their harvest, and I would like for the real value of forests (to the ecosystem) to be used in cost/benefit calculations.
  33. What incentives exist or could be created to encourage private landowners to restore species to suitable habitats?
  34. Additional data on forest management practices and motivations of non-industrial private landowners in each state is especially needed.
  35. What economic incentives are offered to timber harvesters, plantations, and wood using industries and what incentives are offered for the development of tourism and recreation? What is the relative return on these incentive payments?
  36. I would also be curious about what landowners see as major disincentives to managing their lands, i.e., what do landowners see as barriers which keeps them from managing their lands?
  37. For the most part, profit appears to be the motivation. Forest health must be made profitable, perhaps through government grant programs aimed at improvements.
  38. What incentives exist or could be created to encourage private landowners to restore species to suitable habitats?
  39. We need new laws that take into account importance of unfragmented forest that different wildlife species need.
  40. I am a landowner of 66 wooded acres in Tennessee. In 1995 a tornado blew thru my farm, leveling approx. 15 acres. After meeting with our state forester I decided to have the downed trees logged. Even under a 'salvage' situation considerable damage is done to the remaining woods. Please considerable a ban or at least a grand reduction in the acreage that is presently logged in our national forests.
  41. Biologically destructive market forces like chi mills and associated industries actually encourage native forest land clearing similar to other third world markets. These new markets actually act as incentives to clear land for pine crops or pasturelands. Where it once cost money to clear forestlands, these new markets like chip mills will pay enough to pay the cost of clearing, exacerbating the loss of native forest cover. Please address the implications of these forest removal incentive markets.
  42. I would also be curious about what landowners see as major disincentives to managing their lands, i.e., what do landowners see as barriers which keeps them from managing their lands?
  43. For the most part, profit appears to be the motivation. Forest health must be made profitable, perhaps through government grant programs aimed at improvements
  44. What incentives exist for landowners to maintain biodiversity on their land?
  45. What incentives exist or could be created to encourage private landowners to restore species to suitable habitats?
  46. What incentives can be used to encourage private landowners to practice good stewardship on their forest lands?
  47. How can landowner incentives be encouraged for enhanced hunting opportunities?
  48. Tennessee and other Southern States need zoning or land use regulations.
  49. What is (or should be) the role of forest management relative to the ongoing county-wide planning recently mandated by the Tennessee Legislature to be done jointly by city/county governments?
  50. The government needs to provide incentives for private landowners to work with the government in protecting and managing natural resources.
  51. Impacts of public land in reducing in lieu taxes for counties.
  52. How will the loss/continuation of cost share and other incentives affect sustainability?
  53. What about disincentives? Tree ordinances or other harvest restrictions?
  54. The federal government needs mechanisms to allow landowners with endangered species on their property to manage their lands how they see fit.
  55. What are the acres by ownership class?
  56. What are the objectives of NIPFLOs?
  57. Economic incentives for landowners to protect the resource.
  58. Incentives to encourage farmers to plant fallow fields.
  59. Document voluntary efforts by Private landowners in managing conservation areas.
  60. Incentives are needed to convert ag lands to forest instead of subdivisions, etc.
  61. Look at economic incentives for private landowners to manage property to create “intact forest”.
  62. Impacts of public lands not meeting supply/demand on private land resources.
  63. How do ownership patterns (e.g., large vs. small tract size) affect forest management and, thus, wildlife populations?
  64. Management of state lands (i.e. 16th sections in MS).
  65. Landowners need technical assistance to covert land back to native forest types.
  66. Impacts of permanent land change resulting from urban sprawl.
  67. There needs to be a study of correlation between private landowner’s willingness to spend money on wildlife management and the ability to derive from timber protection.
  68. What are the numbers of NIPFLOs, their objectives? NIPFLOs that have different objectives also responsible for fragmentation?
  69. The assessment team needs to assess the differing objectives and motives of landowners.
  70. What are the causes of loss and gain in forestland?
  71. What types of outreach programs are needed to deliver the stewardship message to landowners?
  72. How many acres are in natural areas, wilderness areas, TNC properties that are set aside for sensitive plants and animals?
  73. The timber industry needs to look into setting aside lands and incorporating larger buffer 10 What economic incentives are there to keep land and timber from being cut (protects land) or managed versus non-managed?
  74. Can federally owned land offset harvests on private lands relative to their effects on wildlife? What would be the limitations to such an approach?
  75. We need to hold large private companies to the same environmental standards of small landowners.
  76. What conditions will be needed to restore and sustain species to their rightful and suitable habitats on public and private land.
  77. Evaluate forest age classes by ownership and owner distribution.
  78. Holding timber companies and private landowners accountable on helping to preserve/improve North Carolina wildlife.
  79. Be careful of baseline studies used in looking at motivations. [They] also need to be analyzed historically as well as present, e.g., studies, consistency in quality and care to set them in historical context.
  80. Change [motivates] to “motivates or discourages.”
  81. Address differences of management objectives of absentee vs. local landowners.
  82. Examination of methods to sustain forests through changes in incentives. ID amount of forest needed to sustain lifestyle and incentives needed.
  83. Want to see how different forests change ownership. How does that affect sustainability?
  84. Segregate public from private property.
  85. “Land ownership patterns” and tract sizes are also change from rural to urban; which will continue to diverge. Ownership of land is becoming less and less of a desired achievement.
  86. Address effects and open and well-publicized markets (e.g., recreation/hunt – leasing).
  87. Consider effects of access to information on various management options. Who provides/funds the information delivery?
  88. Examining various programs at increasing forest inventory, e.g., Soil Bank, CRP - which have been successful and which failed.
  89. State and federal programs (e.g. Conservation Reserve, Soil Bank) on forest inventory successes and failures.
  90. Motivation of forest owner to allow some and not other recreational activities on their land.
  91. The future of wildlife habitats likely depends on political actions in the future; public education will be very important. What is being done to educate the public on ecological values of the forest(s) - who, where, and with what resources?
  92. How can public lands/land managers be made to understand the importance of these lands to rare species management?
  93. What kind of information about options do NIP owners receive in addition to clearcutting?
  94. How have consulting foresters aided landowners (including registered foresters)?
  95. How do landowners get their information?
  96. Examine public knowledge of forest dynamics. (What is the source of the knowledge?)
  97. There’s not enough public awareness of forest management. Measure citizens’ understanding for forest management.
  98. The public needs to be educated about good land use practices that will benefit species.
  99. Pull land use planning schools into understanding what forestry is as far as land planning.
  100. Educate private landowners to promote diversity in forest stands. Try to promote timber harvesting of tracts over a longer period of time (select cutting) as opposed to clearcutting over a period of days.
  101. Education is key - the timber industry is moving towards sustainable forestry while private landowners are not; need to encourage private landowners, through education, to implement good land us practices.
  102. Many landowners value wildlife. Little information is available to them. If they had more information, they might make better decisions.
  103. Look at role of consultants in management decisions. (All other technical assistance too.)
  104. What kind of information about options does NIPF get besides the obvious – clearcutting, e.g., selective cutting, conservation easements, rotational cutting? And what kind of information is available?
  105. How have consulting foresters aided private landowners? Also look at registered foresters.
  106. Look at quantity of information reaching public based on facts rather than emotions.
  107. Where do people get forestry information-- media, printed, etc?
  108. When you do a demographic profile – where are people getting forestry information from?

red oak leaf as separator

Question as revised in response to these comments

Previous Question | Next Question

Public Input Home | Methods | Assessment Home

 
  modified: 1-MAR-2000
  webmaster: John M. Pye