STATE OF THE STATE FORESTS
by Bill Botti

The previous issue of Michigan Forests contained letters to the editor in support of hiring a consulting forester to assist with timber management. When I was employed by the Department of Natural Resources I occasionally heard stories of people's unfortunate experiences with timber buyers when handling transactions with- out assistance. I still hear those stories now that I'm working as a consultant.

A familiar scenario goes something like this: "The buyer was a really nice fellow - down to earth and friendly. He said he'd been in the business a long time and 'you know you couldn't stay in business if you weren't completely honest'. He said he had marked a certain number of trees and offered me a price for those trees. I accepted his offer and signed his contract; now I see he has marked a lot more trees and I notice that the contract doesn't include a number of trees at all."

By the time it gets to this stage, there usually isn't a lot we can do, but here's a story with a little different twist that you might enjoy.

The landowner called me and outlined a situation much like that above. She had talked with the buyer for about an hour and was impressed with his knowledge of how people are often duped by timber buyers. He had assured her that tree diameter would be measured at the standard 41/z feet and not at the stump. He wouldn't return with his paint can and mark more trees. Other buyers operate like that, but he wouldn't dream of it. So she signed the contract.

Later, upon actually reading the timber cutting agreement she had signed, the landowner was shocked to see that she had sold all trees 18" and larger at the "point of cut"! No mention was made about a number of trees to be taken or that it would be limited to those marked with paint, no matter how many there were.

But what really angered her was the final statement in the contract which said that all verbal agreements were canceled and superseded by this contract. In other words, he had just spent an hour lying to her. Now, in the buyer's defense, an attorney has told me that such language is often used in a contract to clear up any confusion about what is covered. "We have talked about a lot of things, and this is the one we've agreed upon." This statement seemed to go beyond that point of clarification. But here lies the twist on this story.

The landowner could not provide good access to the timber across her own property. There is a good hundred yards of soft, low ground between the county road and the timber. So the buyer had made a verbal agreement with a neighbor for access and had written into the contract a provision that access would be across the neighbor's land. When that neighbor heard what was actually written in the contract, he changed his mind about allowing access. After all, it was only a "verbal agreement" and those were all canceled by the written contract!

So now the landowner faces a tense two years - the specified length of the contract - while the buyer attempts to find a way to get in to get the timber. This all could have been avoided if she had known she could call a forester.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION
By Bill Cook MSU Extension Service Forester

MANAGEMENT IS A SOLUTION

In these days of growing environmental awareness, forest management and the use of wood should be re-visited by many. In terms of securing a plentiful future for our children and grandchildren, forest management is more of a necessity than it is an option. Neither is it something we need to "put up with" to maintain our accustomed lifestyles. Rather, forestry is a viable and exciting solution to many of our environmental challenges.

Frequently, I hear the question about why forest management is necessary. After a bit of clarifying, the focus usually comes down to timber harvesting. And then, most commonly clearcutting. And for many folks, the whole forestry thing is the same as forest removal for land development.

First, land development is not forestry. At best, these "terminal harvests" are sold for wood products, rather than burned or taken to a landfill. However, that is not forestry. That's land development.

More accurately, harvest practices within the context of good forest management do at least two of the three following things. One, harvest generates wood products, which we all use in significant and increasing quantity. Two, harvest helps regenerate the forest, which is the main idea behind clearcutting certain forest types. Three, harvest leaves behind a better quality forest than what was there before the cutting.

On average every day, each person in the United States now uses about 4.5 pounds of wood. That's roughly 675,000 tons of wood per day as our country reaches the 300 million person mark. Without management of this renewable and environmentally sound raw material, forests are at increased risk of degradation. Most people nod their heads in agreement when they see the connection between use and management.

Keep in mind that of all our raw materials, wood is by far the most environmentally friendly. This is especially true when measured against energy use, long-term sustainability, and impacts on natural systems. Metals, concrete, oil, and plastics don't come close to wood. So, it makes far more sense, from the "green" point of view, to use paper cups rather than plastic. The same holds true as the young guy at the grocery store packs your groceries.

Harvesting encourages forest regeneration, especially when using science-based and properly applied forest management. Forests have a wide variety of habitat requirements, as do individual trees species. These ecosystems are filled with variety and can be rather complex. Nevertheless, decades of research, application, and experience have provided keen insight into the workings of forest ecology. Forest management uses that body of knowledge, and a variety of techniques, to create optimum environmental conditions that favor forest regeneration.

Most harvesting goes unnoticed, because the majority of harvest involves partial cutting in forest types where this makes the most sense. These forest types are most common in our landscape and are becoming increasingly more common as time passes. Most harvest objections are about clearcutting, most probably for the visual impact and erroneous associations attached to habitat degradation. When done within the context of forest management, clearcutting provides the habitat conditions needed to reproduce certain forest types, such as aspen, paper birch, and jack pine.

Clearcutting may, indeed, be ecologically sound, but all the science in the world can fail to overcome social objections. Unfortunately, visual quality is a particularly poor measure of ecological health and habitat quality. Yet, it is the measure too often forced upon public forest management agencies and adopted by a great number of private forest owners.

Lastly, harvesting should enhance the quality and health of a forest. In forests where partial cutting is more appropriate, the remaining stand should have an improved balance of age classes and overall tree health. When thinning stands where the age is uniform, the remaining trees should have adequate light for the next decade and be among the genetically best. The corrupt practice of "harvesting the best and leaving the rest" is called high-grading and has little application in good forestry. It is also sometimes called "select cutting" under the guise of making it sound like good forestry.

Even clearcutting leaves the next stand in better condition, which might sound odd to many folks. The removal of the parent stand does not spell doom for the forest, although this is an easy conclusion from a purely visual frame of reference. In fact, the sunny and dry conditions promote regeneration of the same sort of forest. That young forest will be more vigorous and holds a promise for the future that would otherwise be compromised by benign neglect.

Forestry involves an in-depth understanding of forest ecology and the wide variety of forest conditions that exist in the landscape. Professional foresters have the ability to work with forests and forest owners to meet an equally wide range of interests and demands. It's a whole lot more than just cutting down trees.

Bill Cook Forester & Biologist
MSU Extension, Upper Peninsula 6005 J Road
Escanaba, MI 49829
906-786-1575, voice •
906-786-9370, fax
Email: cookwi@msu.edu

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION
By Bill Cook MSU Extension Service Forester

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR MIXED HARDWOOD TYPES

Forest management practices vary considerably across forest types, site conditions, market availability, and many other factors. There simply is not any single way or best way to manage all forests, or even a particular kind of forest. While nature is a dynamic system that defies simple categorization, there remains a body of knowledge and experience that can be very effectively applied.

The "mixed" hardwood type is a particularly hard one to manage because it can include such a wide variety of species and conditions. However, we can exclude some common forest types. Northern hardwoods are stands dominated by sugar maple. Oak- hickory types are dominated by oaks and hickories, of course. "Mixed" hardwoods also don't include stands dominated by aspen or paper birch.

To take a stab at defining "mixed" hardwoods; they are probably upland sites dominated by red maple, with lots of other possible species in the stand. For the most part, these are stands that have been beat-up pretty badly in the past.

Deciding what to do will depend a lot upon two things; 1) the soil-site conditions and 2) current species composition. On nutrient-rich and well-drained sites, there will be more choices. Potentials tail-off as site quality declines. As for composition, without spending a lot of money, we're pretty much stuck with what's there, al- though options exist to "push" forest succession in one way or another. Try to extract the best quality out of whatever exists.

Family forest owners with an interest in twiddling around in the forest have the ability to do more than what might be accomplished on most corporate or public forests. For family forests, time spent in the woods represents more recreation than billable hours. With about 300,000 owners in Michigan, each with some kids and/or friends, we can reach a work force of a million people in short order. This is an incredible resource. The first step in managing these "mixed" forest types is to settle on a vision for the future. Change will take time. Record this vision in a management plan. Account for practical considerations such as biological potential, work availability, cost-share programs, and wood product markets. You'll likely find other considerations along the way, too. This is where working with a professional forester can come in really handy.

Mixed hardwoods with elements of sugar maple, red oak, black cherry, white pine, hemlock, and other species valuable for either timber or wildlife can be favored. Mini-management areas can be developed to expand these desirable elements. Often that means removing less desirable trees and shrubs, scuffing up the ground to expose bare soil. and then letting nature take its course. However, if deer densities exceed something like 20-25 per square mile on your forest, then all bets are off, unless you can afford a lot of expensive fences.

With woodlands in especially bad shape but growing on decent sites, consider a series of clearcuts or sheIterwood cuts. Starting over might be a whole lot faster and better than trying to mini-manage and nudge your way to an objective. Sometimes, underplanting certain species is a good idea. Of course, sun-loving tree species are not an option.

Time will be needed. Helping heal abused woodlands requires an investment of patience and persistence. But, the rewards will come. As you closely work with your forest, you will see small changes in positive directions. This will feel very satisfying. Eventually, there may be enough volume and/or value to interest a commercial timber sale. The revenue will feel good to your pocketbook, but the giant step forward in forest improvement will feel even better. Good forest management always looks to the future of the forest and better quality. Sometimes, these "mixed" hardwood forests have more fun built into them than the eye first sees. Raising good kids and successfully sending them off into the world takes many years of loving care. The next best thing, perhaps, is applying the same idea to a woodland.

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR DIFFICULT SPECIES

Forest management practices vary considerably across forest types, site conditions, market availability, and many other factors. There simply is not any single. way or best way to manage all forests, or even a particular kind of forest. While nature is a dynamic system that defies simple categorization, there remains a body of knowledge and experience that can be very effectively applied.

In many cases, some tree species are difficult to regenerate. Nature has a lot of variables to consider. When you mate that with the number of human variables, there is little wonder that a "one size fits all" prescription is a very rare thing in forest management In some cases and in some places, forest regeneration cannot be achieved.

Certain trees immediately come to mind; white cedar paper birch, white pine, eastern hemlock oaks. basswood, hickories, butter nut, and others. There are two broad categories of reasons why trees sometimes don't regenerate well. First, environmental reasons and. second, human reluctance to implement proven forest management techniques. Of course. the reasons are often inter-related.

Environmental reasons range widely. White-tailed deer may preferentially feed on some seedlings. If browse pressure is too high. many years may pass before regeneration can grow past the height of a deer. Competition with understory plants may preclude the success of certain species of trees. Site and soil conditions may have changed. preventing regeneration. The introduction of insects and diseases can all but eliminate some tree species. These effects typically don't occur everywhere. The effects might ebb and flow over time. In other cases, impacts are wide- spread and long term.

Examples? Well, deer browsing can easily preclude the regeneration of cedar, white pine. hemlock, and other species. Pennsylvania sedge can inhibit regeneration of not only most trees, but also many understory plants. Historic fires and changes in water tables due to road construction can alter site conditions that prevent regeneration of some tree species. Most everyone will remember the devastating effects of Dutch elm disease and chestnut blight. The emerald ash borer currently threatens similar loss in our ash resource.

The many environmental challenges to tree regeneration represent one more good reason to actively manage forests. Nature will not necessarily produce what we want or need. Nature is not always best. Nature has also been forever altered by human history.

Despite some of these environmental factors, the human element is more important.

What are some of the human variables? Perhaps, the main challenge is the wide- spread benign neglect many forest owners implement on their forest lands. Doing "nothing" has consequences in forest composition and ecology, sometimes negative consequences. Species such as aspen, paper birch, cherry, and balsam fir disappear.

Certain insect and disease cycles can accelerate, diversity may be lost, tree stress increases, and forest vigor declines. These outcomes come as a surprise to many. Many tree species require bare mineral soil and lots of sunlight in order to reproduce. In nature, these conditions occur after wildfires, severe windstorms, and widespread mortality from an insect or disease. In forest management, harvest techniques mimic these natural events, but are often considered "bad" because of their visual impacts.

As more people build more homes in the forest, a whole host of problems increase, particularly the introduction of exotic pests. Broken canopies result in the more or less permanent reduction in late successional plants and animals. A well-planned timber harvest has temporary environmental impacts and resembles natural occurrences. Forests never recover from home construction and urban splatter.

Human perceptions, values, and desires often trump science and research. This is particularly true in forestry. As a result, that lakeshore cabin surrounded by paper birch becomes a sea of broken trees and thick shrubbery because the owner chose not to open the canopy and disturb the forest floor for the paper birch seeds. White pine is underplanted at considerable cost, in less than optimum conditions, because revenue- generating methods are somehow perceived as harmful. Yellow birch is subjected to "plan B" site quality because thick mats of forest litter cover the soil.

If someone were to stick their neck out and try to suggest a single forest management technique that would resolve most of these regeneration challenges. it would probably be a combination of timber harvesting (more light) and soil surface disturbance (good seedbeds for many species). The science is there in most cases. Of course, such suggestions fly in the face of certain visual quality perceptions. However, this wouldn't be the first case where the realities of nature and human attitudes don't match' And, it won't likely be the last. As always, work with a professional forester to help you make the best decisions possible.

As an MSU Extension forester. l provide educational programming for the entire Upper Peninsula. My office is located at the MSU Upper Peninsula Tree Improvement Center near Escanaba. The Center is the headquarters for three MSU Forestry properties in the U.P. with a combined area of about 4.000 acres. A collection of these newspaper articles, back to July 1997, can be viewed on the following website: www.michigansaf.org under the "Forest Info r" button.

GOVERNOR SIGNS FORESTRY BILL TO MODERNIZE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR STATE'S FORESTLANDS

LANSING - Governor Jennifer M. Granholm has signed legislation that will continue the state's efforts to modernize management policies for the state's forestland, help create jobs in the timber industry, and protect and keep access available to the state's natural resources enjoyed by hunters, fishermen, and outdoor enthusiasts. The six-bill package will encourage additional timber harvest through financial incentives to private landowners.

"Michigan is blessed with an abundance of natural resources that we must sustain and protect," said Granholm. "This legislative package will ensure that Michigan's timber industry will grow, thrive, and create jobs while ensuring that we use our resources wisely for the benefit of future generations."

Michigan has more than 19 million acres of forestland. Despite this abundance, less timber is harvested in Michigan than other Midwestern states that have fewer acres of forest. As a result, wood costs in Michigan are high, putting forestry jobs and the manufacturing jobs our forests support at risk. The six-bill package signed by the governor addresses this problem by:

• providing property tax relief to private landowners who harvest their land for timber according to long-term, sustainable management plans;
• changing the way commercial forest- land is taxed, giving private owners a clearer, more predictable tax structure;
• requiring that commercial forest land be accessible to hunters and fishermen in exchange for the reduced tax status:
• encouraging development of management plans for private forestland to ensure its sustainability.

Senate Bills 912-914 and 917 were sponsored by Senators Gerald Van Woerkom (R- Norton Shores), Tony Stamas (R-Midland), Jason Allen (R-Traverse City), and Shirley Johnson (R-Troy), respectively. House Bill 5454 was sponsored by Representative Kevin Elsenheimer (R-Bellaire), and House Bill 5455 was sponsored by Representative Bill Huizenga (R-Zeeland).