How much to make it worth logging

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

JUDGE1162

ArboristSite Operative
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
299
Reaction score
14
Location
Catskills, NY
OK, I bought forty acres in the Catskills, I am looking to have it logged but only want to do a selective cut, I had a forestry plan done last year (NYCDEP grant), I have been told that a portion (1/3) of the property was logged about 5 to 7 years ago and that any trees of real value were removed from this area. But on the back portion of the property there are some valuable trees (Cherry, Maple and Oak) with 30"+ DBH. The forestry plan estimated over $15K worth of cherry alone. I called a couple logging companies and they said they are not interested in a selective cut, they want to cut every hardwood tree (the property is 90% hardwood if not more) over 20" DBH. (That is a selective cut for them)

I am I missing something here? How much wood does a logger need to remove to make it worth it for them? We had agreed to a 50/50 split of the sale of the trees (for the cherry alone that should be $7,500 a piece) and I keep the tops for firewood.

The only limits I had was nothing within 200 feet of the house and only trees of real value (Oaks, Cherry, Maple, etc.) I have a lot of poplar and birch some elm which I would like to keep. The property is 800 feet wide by 2500 feet long; I think a 200 X 200 no cut area is fair, I already checked no Cherry in the 200 X 200 and much of that 200 X 200 area this is the area that was logged 5 to 7 years ago.

Let me know if I am being unreasonable
 
not unreasonable at all

its your property, don't let anyone tell you what they will cut, we mark every tree to be cut on our property, 50 acres, 300 maple trees and the logger was more concerned where the twenty cherry trees were. they only cut what was marked, paid on time and left the bush in decent shape when finished.we left many trees in the 20" range as crop trees for the future, mark the trees with paint also at ground level so you can make sure only trees marked were cut, good luck.
 
Don't let them do a diameter limit cut. Its a euphamism for high grading. It will leave nothing for the future. Contact some independent foresters who could recommend some loggers that practice proper silvilculture techniques. It's your land, only you can make sure it protected the way you want. Hiring your own forester could bring you a better return when they put it out for competitive bid.
 
Clearcutting is a proper silviculture method, its been done for many years, millions of acres have been logged and logged and logged again. Saved trees get thrashed, the ground is compacted, new trees have to compete for light, etc. Saw it all down, ribbon off the area you want untouched. Make sure you get paid for every log trucked away, use some of that money to replant trees you like. Loggers are out to make money, selective is a p.i.t.a. for them, and it ain't thier land, it grows back, always does.
 
clearance said:
Clearcutting is a proper silviculture method, its been done for many years, millions of acres have been logged and logged and logged again. Saved trees get thrashed, the ground is compacted, new trees have to compete for light, etc. Saw it all down, ribbon off the area you want untouched. Make sure you get paid for every log trucked away, use some of that money to replant trees you like. Loggers are out to make money, selective is a p.i.t.a. for them, and it ain't thier land, it grows back, always does.
not in your lifetime buddy
 
woodfarmer said:
not in your lifetime buddy
Actually here in B.C. men have logged and then thier kids have logged it again, many times. I have climbed second growth that is over 100', not even 70 years old. Out in Ontario you guys have some nice little hardwoods, they look nice in the fall. Here we have big trees, anyways, what I said is true, treehugging freaks may not agree, but its true.
 
Short answer-find a different logger.

Longer answer - It's your timber and you can sell it any way you see fit. You might not get the biggest paycheck by putting limits on the sale but you can control what is sold and how it is handled and in the end that will be worth more than getting the maximum bang for your buck. You also have the right to demand (in writing) that the logger use "best management practices" when dealing with your property. You can have a "slash and burn" job done or you can have a responsible logger cut your woods and end up with the same paycheck. Ask for references and check them out. Visit a woods or two that your logger has cut recently and talk to the landowners. In Ohio you can hire a consulting forester and they will mark the trees YOU want to sell and help you manage the sale and they are worth the small investment. If the property was solely an investment and you didn't have to live there then I'd say sell to the highest bidder and move on but you live there and you know how you want your woods to look when the sale is done. A bad job will irritate you every time you look at it and peace of mind is hard to put a price on.

P.S. - That 50/50 split is a good way to get screwed. You have to trust the logger to produce ALL the mill receipts for your trees that he hauls in. He could pay the mill to give him false receipts. It happens ALL the time. Here in OH any reputable logger will completely pay for your timber before he ever fires up a saw. My FIL and Uncles both had small woodlots (under 15 acres) logged in the last 5 years and both sales were in the $20,000-$30,000 range and every penny was paid up front and both logging crews did nice jobs. There are many not-so-reputable loggers who pull all sorts of tricks to get your timber for a lot less than it is worth or just plain steal it from you and the burden is on you to keep them honest. If you get hosed on a timber deal it is your fault and you will have a very hard time getting justice. Selling timber is a "Seller Beware" business. I have a childhood friend whose parents recently sold 40 acres of timber on some vacant land they'd owned for many, many years. The logger called them one evening and said that he was cutting the property next to them and he'd like to buy their timber. My friend's father asked what it was worth and the logger said he'd give them a good price for it since he was already in the neighborhood and offered $6000. My friend's father immediately bit on the price because he'd only paid $110/acre for it many, many years before. I've camped and hunted on that piece of land a few times and I know the timber was probably worth closer to $60,000 than the $6,000 he got out of it. I walked the property one Saturday and looked at the stumps and you can't imagine how many semi-truckloads of wood got hauled out of there. My friend's dad got hosed and didn't know it and was even happy about it. :cry:
Finnbear
 
clearance said:
Actually here in B.C. men have logged and then thier kids have logged it again, many times. I have climbed second growth that is over 100', not even 70 years old. Out in Ontario you guys have some nice little hardwoods, they look nice in the fall. Here we have big trees, anyways, what I said is true, treehugging freaks may not agree, but its true.

All true, on good moist conifer sites...but in the eastern US, mixed hardwoods are best selective cut. Hardwood trees take 50-70 years to make good multi-log trees; therefore, you want to leave the smaller trees of good form, so that you can log a couple times in your lifetime.
 
Avoid select cutting!

From my experience I would never do a select cut. From my education in forestry classes, my experience living in a high density commercial forest and logging area, and my experience being a woodland manager of 105 acres of trees that were select cut 20 years ago (what we 'high grading' here), I would not do a select cut or high grade, ever. Unless you prescribe the cut for thinning and cutting the smaller and weaker trees that would be natually be thinned out by the larger trees. You will also tend to damage the roots and bark of the leave trees during select cutting, and you will tend to compact the soil during the harvesting process.

Basically what happens with select cutting is you take the best trees off the property. That leaves the weaker trees to grow that would naturally be thinned out... to live longer. Not only are the weaker trees less marketable over time, they usually will not grow as large as the better trees that are removed, and (bad bad bad) they will be the trees left to reproduce. That leads to a weaker stand overall, and you will just get lower and lower quality lumber, trees and wood over time.

One reason that clearcutting is favorable is that you can cut all the wood, good, so-so and junk, market it, clear the land, sub-soil and replant superior quality stock, mix species in a ratio that you want, and you will get more premium and better marketable lumber off your land over time. You will also pay a lot less to have it cut, becasue it is far more expensive to do select cutting. Selecting off the lesser quality stuff is usually not profitable, and thinning usually costs money to the owner or is break-even at best. After our having to deal with what we have here, 80 acres or so that was high graded, all we have now is unmarketable timber. We have weaker spindly trees with bad crowns or canopy, diseased trees, wolf trees, split trees, poor lumber species trees, and trees with various faults that could have been removed in a clear cut.

Best practice here is to clear-cut leaving select trees for wildlife (leave trees), sub-soil the ground, plant high quality mixed species well suited to the site ASAP, release those trees the first and following year by spraying or weeding, feed those trees any limited nutrients, and thin them when they get too crowded. I would clear cut 10 acres here per year for 8 years... if it were my land. My S.O. owns it so I cannot make the Rx for cutting, though I may get 6 acres cut becasue thinning is too expensive and we do not have the resources to do it ourselves. We have a forest plan that was required becasue when the S.O. bought this property, the previous owners did not pay the 6% tax on the trees that they cut... she could sue in a big legal battle and get nothing from the sellers (they are now broke), or she could go with a forest plan Rx and replant the area in 3 years time. She chose the later. She planted 2000 trees 2 years ago. We planted 2000 trees here last winter. 3000 more to go this winter. We had a forest planer up to walk the property this spring. He is pretty cool and is allowing us to have open areas and he is allowing for cutting out doug firs and saving a large grow of old growth black oaks.

If you want money from your stand, you are not apt to get money for keeping a better stand for the future. They will always want the best stock today, and leave you holding the bag. You can try to cut any deal you can. Get bids from several places. Call a professional logger/broker that manages cutting and selling logs to mills. You can sell your trees as a stand, or as logs. Personally, I would sell my trees as a stand and let the buyer deal with selecting, cutting, trucking, mill sale, piling up and burning or chipping and distributing slash, pay the taxes (6% off the top), grade, rock or restore the roads, get permits, etc. etc. People tend to think that they can make a fortune off cutting, and then they get screwed. They get a sawyer that cuts the logs the wrong length. They get buried in the permit process. They sell to a mill that does not pay the best price. They overpay for trucking to a mill that is farther away. They get the wrong type of equipment in there and bang things up. I have friends that turned $400k stands here into $200k in return after trying to manage the process themselves. One friend had his logs cut too long, and the mill knocked off money becasue they had to cut them to the length that hey can deal with them. He lost money on the lost length as well, becasue he hired an inadequate sawyer. There are just so many details in the whole process.

So again, do not select cut. Sell the trees as a stand if you can, and let someone else deal with all the details and issues, and pay the taxes. If you don't sell the stand and want to sell logs, if you do not have experience, hire a professional manager to deal with the mills, sawyers, trucking, permits, sale, cleanup and all the paperwork. The devil is in the details, and no matter how small, the whole process can be really complicated and there are many ways to lose you arse in the whole mess. And if you want to manage the process yourself, get a good sawyer, get bids from several mills, make sure your logs are the RIGHT LENGTH, and well, good luck dealing with it all. :bowdown:

My take on this subject... ;)
 
if you need better advice than what you've received so far, get in touch with gypo, i've seen the work he does and after a year you would hardly even know any trees had been cut in these woodlots. you can't compare east coast vs west coast, every single aspect is different, it would take 60-80 years for hardwood trees to regenertate, we can log all winter when the ground is frozen in two feet of snow to minimize damage.
 
Did you read the fine print on the grant you took from the state? You may have limited your options. I would think whoever did your forestry plan should have given you some advise on what to do, and who to have do it. For a little more clink, he may handle the whole thing for you.
 
windthrown,
I understand where you are coming from in your advice but it is a west-coast perspective and applies to a different type of forest than we have back east. Best thing for this landowner is to mark the trees he wants cut-preferrably with the help of a consulting forester and then put those trees up for bid. He owns the land and is free to sell exactly what he wants to sell with the understanding that his limitations on the sale may affect the price bid. Select-cuts are very applicable to our small woodlots and are one of many management tools used on our mostly privately owned small woodlots. You should note that the author of this thread stated that this woodlot was where he lived and I'm sure he wants a nice woods to look at after he sells some timber. A clearcut is not at all desirable for someone's "backyard" unless they plan on clearing out the stumps and planting grass afterward and that is clearly not the stated goal here. Clearcuts are fairly ugly for quite a few years and not what you'd want to look at out your living room window. They do create some great deer and grouse hunting for quite a few years after the cut but JUDGE1162 didn't mention that as one of his objectives. He would probably be most happy with a well-done select cut by a logger using low-impact forestry methods. After the sale/cut, the landowner should implement an active management plan that is tailored to his goals for his woodlot and work at it for the forseeable future. This will produce the most satisfaction for him in the long run.
Finnbear
 
I don't think you're being unreasonable at all. If I bought a house on 40 acres of woods I wouldn't want to end up with 39 acres of nasty looking clear cut.

I cleared about 3/4 of an acre that my friend owns to put in a deer plot back in 2000. After I felled the trees (90% cherry and averaged about 15" DBH) someone said I should sell them to a saw mill or a logging company. I called two loggers and they both said they would give me $1000 for the logs. One of them wanted me to cut them up and get them to the landing. The other said he would remove them and I wouldn't have to do anything else. Guess which one I went with! I wasn't trying to make money so I was happy with the $1000. And I got five years worth of firewood from the tops!

You have 40 acres not 400 or 4,000. Keep it as nice as you can. And remember it's your property do it your way!
 
Clear cutting

I do not advocate clear cutting the entire property or turning it into moonscape... even here with 105 acres here I would only cut 10% at a time. It is just that clear cutting can be beneficial if you have select cut a stand to a degraded quality that is not worth maintaining any more, for whatever reason; weak trees, poor canopy, disease, stagnant stand, unwanted species. It is also more economical to clear-cut, east or west. Also taking the best trees every time you cut will degrade your stand, wherever you are and whatever you are growing. Granted, the main reason that they clear cut commercial timber here is becasue Doug fir seedlings need sun exposure to grow. However, on property like this one with a very good selection of mixed species, select cutting and high grading has left a severely degraded stand that would recover its commercial and natural viability much faster if it was systematically clear-cut and replanted. Clear-cutting ~can~ be a part of best practice forest planning. Unfortunately it has a bad reputation from commercial moon-scaping of large tracts.

Another aspect is that there is the edge effect that is created by clear-cutting. The American Indians burned here every fall to create an edge effect between open areas and forest for better hunting. We have ancient oaks here that are only here becasue they burned the fields here for several hundred years. The burning allowed the oaks to grow and kept the Doug firs from taking over (they were burned off long before they grew high enough to cover the canopy of the oaks). We are removing firs here to restore the ancient oak canopy in places. We are also thinning. Our Rx forest planner has recommended clear-cutting about 30 acres that is a mix of stagnant stand and poor trees that would have been naturally killed off by the dominant trees around them that were harvested. Sadly the old growth Doug firs were select cut here; there are still stumps 8 ft across and some 20 ft logs 7 ft in diameter that are now giant termite condominiums.

To each his or her own... I offer an opinion that is seemingly unpopular and somewhat counter-intuitive, but after managaing a large stand here that was select cut it is blatantly obvious to me that there are far better ways to harvest timber than select cutting and/or high-grading. If you constantly remove the dominant trees, you are going against nature and you will not have as good a stand, be it for lumber, habitat or asthetics. :biggrinbounce2:
 
Boy did this thread get some people fired up

I have a little forestry background, so I know that a selective or high value cut tends to be the best way to long hardwood forest in the east. Second I live on the land and I enjoy my forest and wildlife so clear cutting is out anyway.

On the selective cuts only help the weaker species that would be killed of due to the older/bigger trees, that is not really true in hardwood mixed forest, I have a lot of younger/smaller oak, maple and cherry that would grow faster and striaghter if were not shaded out by the larger trees.

I did check my grant they only thing I can do is clear cut and build a wal-mart, as long as the land is not developed in the next 10 years my grant is good.

I did have a forestry consult out and he made the plan which called for a selective cut and he did mark which trees and gave me a list of "good loggers" in the area the 50/50 splits was from a hardwood saw mills, the logger is not associated with the sawmill and the sawmill is cutting the check to me and I pay the logger "maybe that is the issue" they think I am going to screw them.

I'll let you know what happens but it does seem like what I am aking is not unreasonable

Thanks for the replies
 
I had a forestry plan done last year (NYCDEP grant), I have been told that a portion (1/3) of the property was logged about 5 to 7 years ago and that any trees of real value were removed from this area.

If the NYC DEP wrote the plan I would refer back to it as they may have some say in how the property is managed IF you or the previous owner sold off some environmental easements.

The NYC DEP have been buying those easments like mad for the purpose of preserving the watershed.

http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dep/home.html
 
Yeah I know about those, it is not an easement it a grant to do a forest management plan it is through Watershed Agricultural Council (funded by the NYSDEP) since my land is in watershed area they offer this program to any land owner with more than 15 acres to make sure you don't clear cut your land and when you do log your land that the right erosion controls are used and to let landowners know about that is avalible to them and so questionable loggers don't screw them and clear cut the land.

The only limits is the land must stay a forest for 10 years (real limits I can not develope the land or use it as a farm field, I can log including clearcutting(if I replant))

There is another program that I am applying to for a tax credit which does limit the amount and type of logging I can do which is why I want to log it before I enter the program.
 
windthrown said:
I do not advocate clear cutting the entire property or turning it into moonscape... even here with 105 acres here I would only cut 10% at a time. It is just that clear cutting can be beneficial if you have select cut a stand to a degraded quality that is not worth maintaining any more, for whatever reason; weak trees, poor canopy, disease, stagnant



snip

I understand your concerns about high-grading, but that was not what I was advocating. I had said: "...you want to leave the smaller trees of good form, so that you can log a couple times in your lifetime". This is just part of a prescription. In the Northeastern US, this would be part of "group selection", a method in which mature trees in a patch, from a quarter acre to an acre, are removed. This leaves enough room for regeneration of desired species from seed or stump sprouts; undesirable species would be culled, but smaller trees of good form of the desired species could be left. Care in logging can minimize damage to trees and soil. Different story with white pine or spruce; these are best regenerated with small clearcuts or or seed tree cuts in which a few dominant trees are left per acre. In the latter case, these trees are the least likely to blow over. The landowner has the option of keeping them for a multi-aged stand or cutting them after young trees are established.

I agree with others here that each site is best given a unique prescription that meets the owners' objectives. In fact, I have seen high-grading, and it may meet the owner's ill-informed objectives: he may not care about future income or maximizing forest potential, just the most money now--his choice.

BTW, How is it you are talking about old-growth Douglas-fir in West Africa?!
High-grading in tropical forest is rampant, whether there or in SE Asia or SA, it's true. In a lot of cases, the owner's (if they ARE "owners") don't know or care about how to re-grow the large, valuable species of tropical hardwoods, and they just abandon the cut-over land to settlers and ranchers when they are done. Not too different from how many US forests were "managed" early on.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top