Georgia is only just now talking about a triple-stumpage penalty for timber theft? Does anybody know of any other states that don't follow this convention? I could do the research myself, but it would take much longer than I have attention span for.
If I'm reading this right...
- Thread starter madhatte
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
http://www.forestry.umn.edu/prod/gr...restry/documents/asset/cfans_asset_370985.pdf page 14
Thought that double and tripe value was universal. Looks like some may not have 2x or 3x stumpage penalty.
The rub on trespass loss penalties based on cut stumpage or cruise tallies is neglecting grade. Stuff that comes to mind are clear, selB grade red oak maple and some birch. In peak markets big $$ there. But, trying to value bbucked log grade after they've been hauled or sawn is pretty near impossible.
As for HVW, pfffft the numbers are off the charts
Thought that double and tripe value was universal. Looks like some may not have 2x or 3x stumpage penalty.
The rub on trespass loss penalties based on cut stumpage or cruise tallies is neglecting grade. Stuff that comes to mind are clear, selB grade red oak maple and some birch. In peak markets big $$ there. But, trying to value bbucked log grade after they've been hauled or sawn is pretty near impossible.
As for HVW, pfffft the numbers are off the charts
windthrown
361 Junkie
In Oregon it is 3x damages for timber theft or harvesting trees across property lines (intentionally or not).
Oh, you wanna know what states do not follow that... I dunno.
Oh, you wanna know what states do not follow that... I dunno.
OlympicYJ
ArboristSite Guru
Th
The log doesn't have to exist after its been cut off the stump. You look at the surrounding trees of similar size and get your volume and grade from them. The trip stumpage makes up for the guestimation.
http://www.forestry.umn.edu/prod/gr...restry/documents/asset/cfans_asset_370985.pdf page 14
Thought that double and tripe value was universal. Looks like some may not have 2x or 3x stumpage penalty.
The rub on trespass loss penalties based on cut stumpage or cruise tallies is neglecting grade. Stuff that comes to mind are clear, selB grade red oak maple and some birch. In peak markets big $$ there. But, trying to value bbucked log grade after they've been hauled or sawn is pretty near impossible.
As for HVW, pfffft the numbers are off the charts
The log doesn't have to exist after its been cut off the stump. You look at the surrounding trees of similar size and get your volume and grade from them. The trip stumpage makes up for the guestimation.
The preferred Forest Service term is Liquidated Damages, which is used for negligently cut or damaged trees.
I agree with what you're saying as it applies to a normal timber stand without any exceptional members by specie, size or grade. So the loss value could be reasonably estimated based on similar remaining timber.
What I was trying to point out was the current 2-3x timber theft penalities don't account for very well is outright hgh grade theft. In this case, determining loss value by extrapolation based on the remaining standing timber (of lesser grade) under estimates the loss. So, over the past 50 years there have been regional cycles of peak values by species by grade. Often the differences between the average (FAS) grade and the high grades are substantial - way beyond the 2x or 3x (laws). So, unless the LO had written records of scaled inventory by species/by grade, the damage award would likely be based on a lower (average) grade. In any case the burden of proof of the real loss lies with the LO and the things the LO did to prevent the loss.
There might be other examples of timber theft that fall within the definition but outside the normal "scaled loss". For example where the outright timber theft of Doug Fir, which at the same time contained mature seed producing members that represented substantial value in disease resistance - perhaps more than the actual scale loss.
Another one might be a stand theft of mature black walnut whose sustained value was in nut production and at the same time timber value from a stand replenishment plan.
Maybe some other variations to MBF theft to consider, imo.
This is a pretty good tool for estimating volume lost through theft. It uses several data points: stump diameter, diameter at stump height of nearby standing timber, DBH of nearby standing timber, height of standing timber, and -- most importantly -- regional growth models for the species in question to regress missing volume based on site index of nearby standing timber. This is the tool I used for a volume estimate of a theft I was called into court on as an expert witness. It's not as good as an actual cruise, but it's the best tool I know of if all you have is a bunch of stumps.
OlympicYJ
ArboristSite Guru
If you had one exceptional tree that was more valuable than the 3X then yes you would be right. And that can happen but it would be impossible without the tree in question falling in a cruise plot right next to a boundary to know for sure. However you generally do not have outliers (single exceptional trees) like that that aren't represented throughout a cruise. So lets say that you had one exceptional tree per acre at the end of your cruise. The area trespassed adds up to an acre. You could then make the case that one of those poached trees was an exceptionally valuable one. You would then have a basis for establishing value. Is it possible for you're scenario to happen, yes, but more than likely not.
lmbrman
stumped
In some instances it is now 4X value in WI. Just had that pointed out to me from another post, local guy sent me the updated WI statutes.
