HOW CRITTERS SURVIVE THE COLDEST TIMES
By Don Ingle

How cold was it? A question asked often recently as the thermometer readings lunged into the minus numbers. Some answers were that it was so cold it wouldn't be wise to be (a) a well-digger, or (b) a witch, or (c) a brass monkey. You fill in the details.

But nature has ways of helping critters get through the coldest times of the winter as diverse as the species themselves. Some winter-active mammals, and birds such as chickadees, undergo nightly torpor by dropping their body temperatures a few degrees to reduce heat loss. Black Bears, which accumulate fat in autumn, are deep sleepers because their temperatures remain nearly normal although respiration and heart rates decrease sharply. They may lose up to 40% of their pre-dormancy weight over winter.

Hibernations, during which metabolism may be only 1-5% of normal, is marked by body temperatures 20° C or more below normal (hypothermia). Respiration and heart rates drop to low levels and become irregular.

Groundhogs, for example, may breath only 10 times per hour, their heart rate slow to 4-5 beats per minute, and internal temperatures drop to a few degrees above freezing.

Hibernators such as non-migratory bats and ground squirrels accumulate enough body fat for insulation and energy to survive long dormant periods. Many mammals rely on heavy, efficient insulating coats and thick fat deposits to meet the stresses of winter. They respond to cold by fluffing out fur to capture air between the outer coat surface and the skin.

Birds fluff out feathers to reduce heat loss; some, including goldfinches and redpolls, have more feathers in winter. Other birds conserve heat at night by roosting together or alone in tree cavities, under conifer boughs or eaves and ledges of buildings. Body reactions to chilling include: changes in metabolic processes: muscle tremors (shivering); and reducing blood flow to the skin.

Some animals use snow as both a travel surface and an insulating blanket. Thickly feathered feet of ptarmigan and wide, densely furred feet of snowshoe hare, LYNX and caribou are adaptations for moving over the snow. Grouse, ptarmigan and some small birds burrow into snow - for a few hours up to 2-3 days - where they may reduce heat losses by up to 45%.

In deep snow, deer and moose gather in yarding areas of softwood shelter and hardwood browse, trampling down snow to form a maze of trails between feeding and resting sites in the protective yard cover. Winter activity for shrews and small rodents, including breeding, occurs under the snow; it offers a stable, windless microclimate with less extreme temperatures than those above. Runways and tunnels, trampled through ground litter and granular snow, connect food caches with nests of dead grasses where animals curl up, alone or together, to conserve heat.

Behavioral and complex biochemical responses to deepening cold and other environmental factors allow cold-blooded animals to survive winter in the northern temperate zone. Most become dormant but others remain active and a few combine both strategies.

Aquatic species wintering over as adults may move to terrestrial sites or migrate from shallow ponds to larger streams and deep pools. Moths, butterflies and other insects spend winter in special cocoons or hibernacula which may resist ice. Species in vegetation enter microsites protected by plant material and snow while insects active above the snow such as snow fleas, moths and scorpion flies, raise body temperatures by basking in the sun. Most winter-active terrestrial insects live at the soil surface below the snow together with spiders, mites and ticks.

Freshwater fish, either semidormant (eels) or active through an elevated metabolism, are protected under the ice by their body fluids, which freeze at a lower temperature than fresh water.

Amphibians and reptiles survive winter lying dormant under decaying logs, in rock crevices, caves or burrows of other animals. Many amphibians shelter in stream banks or near springs, or burrow in mud of swamps, ponds and lake bottoms where turtles and salamander also spend winter. Wood frogs and spring peepers convert liver glycogen to glucose, which acts as an antifreeze to prevent cells from freezing but allows extra cellular ice. With an ice content of 60-65%, the heart stops, breathing ceases and the frog survives through anaerobic metabolism. (If temperatures drop below -7° C, the frog will die; thus an insulating later of snow cover is important for its survival.

Perhaps the best survivor of all is the Lady Beetle. When winter arrives in these parts, it often moves somewhere inside your house and lets you pay the heating bills. Now THAT'S a survivor!

MFA REPORT
by McClain "Mac" Smith, Jr.
Executive Director

Education and Tax Equity are two of the most important topics MFA and its members have to deal with. In the past year or so we have made a good start in improving our education efforts with the Wanigan, our education trailer. We are still learning how to use it and have received several suggestions for displays, which we plan to implement before spring. Any other suggestions from our members would be welcome.

We have attempted to get equitable taxation for privately owned forest land during most of the existence of MFA. Taxation is a complicated subject. It affects many segments of the economy other than those being taxed. For example, the townships have long been concerned that tax provisions do not deprive them of operating funds, including those necessary for schools. Because of the complications in tax procedures and the fact that they are not well understood by many landowners, we invited MFA member Harold Anderson to enlighten us with the following article. Harold is a former Consulting Forester from the UP and now works in Lansing for the Assessment and Certification Division of the Department of Treasury. We are very grateful that Harold was willing to take the time to enlighten us. If you have questions after reading the article, we suggest you direct them to the MFA office. We will contact Harold and print the answers in Michigan Forests or Leaves for the benefit of all our readers.

MICHIGAN PROPERTY TAX AND CERTIFIED TREE FARMS
by Harold E. Anderson, Registered Forester formerly employed by DNR
and now working for the Dept. of Treasury, Assessment & Certification Div.

How are forestlands taxed in Michigan? Article IX, Section 3 of the Constitution of Michigan provides for the assessment of real property at a uniform level not to exceed 50%. The statute (MCL 211.27a)(1) sets the level of assessment at 50%.

Sec.27a (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, property shall be assessed at 50% of its true cash value under section 3 of article IX of the state constitution of 1963.

The 1963 Michigan Constitution and the General Property Tax Act (MCL 211) both refer to the Assessment of a parcel of land dictating that the assessor uniformly assess the land at 50% of its True Cash Value. True Cash Value (TCV) is defined in the General Property Tax Act as:

Sec. 27. (1) As used in this act, "true cash value" means the usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied is at the time of assessment, being the price that could be obtained for the property at private sale, and not at auction sale except as otherwise provided in this section, or at forced sale. ...

The term "Market Value" has been determined by several Courts in Michigan to be synonymous with TCV and is used interchangeably in the General Property Tax Act. Thus, the assessor is required by statute and by the Michigan Constitution to assess all property subject to taxation at 50% of the market value of that property. The facts of the property (ownership, condition, and location) are all set as of December 31 of the year prior to the assessment. The market value (TCV) is generally determined by examining the sales of similar types of properties during a 24-month period ending March 31 of the year prior to assessment. For a 2005 assessment, the assessor would use sales from April l , 2002 through March 31, 2004 to determine the value per acre and would value the property as it existed on December 31, 2004.

The mechanics of the assessment means that the assessment is generally set at a value the property could have received if exposed to the market about July 1 two years prior - that being the midpoint of the 24-month sales data period. December 31 is an important date. Suppose fully stocked timberlands are selling for $1,500 per acre and clear-cut lands sell for $1,000 per acre. If the land were fully stocked on December 31, the assessor would use the $1,500 per acre as the basis of the assessment. If a clear-cut harvest was conducted the following January, the assessor would still use the higher value when the assessment is set in March. On the other hand, if the harvest were conducted in November or December, the assessor would use the lower value because that would represent the condition of the land on December 31.

Proposal A (1994) changed the method of property taxation in Michigan. Beginning in 1995, property taxes no longer were based on the assessed value (or state equalized value - SEV) but on Taxable Value (TV). Taxable value is defined as the lesser of the Capped Value (CV) and the SEV. Capped value is a straight formula the assessor is required to use but has little control over. In its basic form it is: last year's TV minus the TV of any losses, that result is multiplied by the lesser of the consumer price level or 1.05, and finally the TV of any additions or new acquisitions are added. This is true each year except for the year following a transfer of ownership when the TV is equal to the SEV.

The wise forestland owner will always check his/her assessment and taxable value prior to the close of the March Board of Review. Errors do happen and by checking early one has the opportunity to request the Board of Review to make the necessary corrections to the assessor's work. It also preserves one's right to further appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal.

Michigan has a three-tiered system of equalization of assessments. The first tier is that of the local assessor. The assessor is charged with uniformly assessing each property at 50% of its TCV.

The second tier involves the County Board of Commissioners through its county equalization department. That department conducts annual studies to determine the level of assessment in each township and city within the county. That study is done for each of the six classifications of real property and for the personal property. If the equalization department determines that a class of property in one township is being assessed at a level other than 50% (49-50%) it determines an equalization factor to be applied to every property in that classification in that local unit of government. The equalization factor will cause the average level of assessment to be raised or lowered to 50% of TCV as required by statute.

The third tier involves the State of Michigan through the State Tax Commission. Its duty is to review the equalization studies made by the county equalization department. If the STC has reason to adjust the results of the equalization study, it will apply a factor to the entire class in the county to raise or lower the average level of assessment to the 50% of TCV level.

Note that the assessor must choose one of six classes of real property for each description. In addition, both the county and the state study and equalize on a classification basis, not on a parcel by parcel basis. The classification choices are Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Developmental, and Timber-Cut Over. Each classification is defined in the General Property Tax Act (MCL 211.34c). The Act also indicates that if more than one of the definitions fit a property, the definition that contains the most value for the parcel is the classification the assessor will use.

A common misconception regarding the assessor's classification is confusing zoning with property tax classification. These are two different systems and although they may use the same terminology, they have different definitions and are used by different statutes or Acts. Many forestland owners will notice that they are classified as Residential rather than as Timber-Cut Over as one might expect. Part of the definition of the Residential Classification under the General Property Tax Act is lands that are used for or probably will be used for recreational purposes. Reviews of similar properties often point to the fact that recreational uses are the motivating factor when it comes to market pressures for timberland.

Another set of terminology occurs in the definition of the Agricultural Classification. Tree farming is included in that definition. The generally accepted definitions of tree farming in the Agricultural Classification limits it to 1) fruit and nut orchards, 2) Christmas tree plantations, and 3) nursery stock. The Attorney General, in opinion 5702 (May 6, 1980), has indicated woodlot management is not included in the definition of tree farm in the Agricultural Classification.

So what classification would a Certified Tree Farm be? That is a difficult question to answer. First lets try to get a little background on why property tax classifications exist. At one time, all real property was studied as a whole in the equalization process. In some areas the assessor gave preferential treatment to residential and agricultural properties and assessed them at lower levels while assessing the commercial and industrial properties at a higher level. When the county and state conducted the equalization study, the average came close to the required 50% market level. To halt this discriminatory practice, the legislature instituted the classification system and mandated equalization by class.

Where does that put the Certified Tree Farm? A lot depends on the local market area and on the rest of the property containing the tree farm. In areas of commercial timber production, usually Northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula, the proper class might be Timber - Cut Over. A landowner can increase his chance of obtaining that classification if proper records are kept and shared with the assessor. These records would consist of an active management plan that is being followed, a business journal with records of expenses, receipts, timber additions and removals, IRS Form T, and/or a determination of Cost Basis for timber depletion treatments.

The tree farm may be classified in the Agricultural Classification if it is part of a farm operation and the predominant value of the parcel is in agricultural use.

Alternatively, the tree farm may be classified in the Residential Classification if it is in an area where typical lands are generally selling for hunting or other recreational purposes. It may also be properly classified Residential if the owner (or a renter) lives on the property.

There are tax benefits if the property is classified Agricultural. There are tax benefits if the property is classified Residential and is part of or adjacent to the owner's homestead. In the first instance, Agricultural Classification entitles the property to an 18-mill exemption from the local school operating taxes. In the second instance, a principal residence exemption qualifies all adjacent vacant ownership classified as Residential or Agricultural to the same 18 mill exemption.

Two additional programs possibly can be used to reduce the property tax bite. They both have pros and cons.

The Private Forest Reserve Act (1917 PA 86, Sect. l , MCLA 324.2150) permits up to 25% of a tract to be exempt from taxation (over and above $1 per acre). This act stipulates that the tract can not exceed 160 acres and that at least one half of the tract must be devoted to agricultural purposes. This act therefore limits the exemption to 40 acres maximum. There is a 5% stumpage tax on any timber removed except for personal use. One may apply for this program through the County Treasurer and expect the assessor to annually determine that you are managing the woodlot. When the land is removed from the Act, a 5% stumpage tax is due.

The Commercial Forest Reserve Act (1925 PA 94,1994 PA451 as amended MCLA 324.51101). This act is quite exacting requiring application fees, forest management plans, an annual payment of $1.10 per acre, withdrawal fees and back tax payments for removal from the program, as well as the requirement to allow non-motorized hunting and fishing to the general public. The land must be vacant - no buildings except for those used in the harvesting of timber and used for commercial timber harvesting. This act is administered by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Additional information regarding the Private Forest Reserve and the Commercial Forest Reserve Acts can be obtained by contacting the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. A limited amount of information is also included on the DNR web page at www.michigan.gov/dnr. Check under Forests, Land, and Water then Forest Management.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION
By Bill Cook MSU Extension Service Forester
SEASON OF HARVEST

A timber harvest is commonly a once in a lifetime experience for many forest owners. Getting the job done right has long been a hand-wringing concern. While there are many variable factors to consider, the best season to harvest may be one of the most important.

On one hand, winter seems the obvious choice. The frozen ground reduces the chance for soil damage and allows access to areas too wet during the summer. Snow might lessen the disturbance of anything on the surface. Without the leaves, trees can be more easily identified, paint marks better seen, and skidding lanes more clearly determined. Tree trunks have less moisture and are less susceptible to wounding. Wounds that do occur are less vulnerable to diseases floating around.

On the other hand, when regeneration is an issue, summer might actually be the better season. Disturbance is frequently a key element in forest regeneration. Many of our tree seeds require exposed mineral soil for effective germination and survival. Few of our tree species have seeds that can penetrate a thick layer of leaves and coarse organic debris. Exposing mineral soil is called scarification. This process opens the window for increasing species diversity within a stand of trees.

Winter harvest and properly done thinning in northern hardwood stands favor sugar maple. Decades of single-tree selection and natural succession has helped sugar maple dominate many of our forests. Sugar maple has long been Michigan's most common tree. It's also one of our most monetarily valuable trees.

However, expansive areas dominated by a single species leaves the forest vulnerable in a couple of important ways. First, a downturn or change in the market could financially impact timber owners. Of course, high quality logs have always maintained reasonable or good dollar value. A stable forest industry is also essential to sustainable forest management. Second and more importantly, an exotic insect or disease that attacks maples could wreak havoc on our economy and lifestyle. And there are, indeed, a couple scary characters lurking out there.

Tree diversity does need to be maximized in every stand, but diversity across the landscape is an essential component of forest health. When an epidemic breaks out, native or exotic, the impacts are reduced by breaks in forest composition and structure. Some forest types naturally trend towards low tree species diversity, such as jack pine, tamarack, and spruce-fir. Others, such as northern hardwoods, aspen, and swamp hardwoods, tend to be more diverse. This diversity, at both the stand level and landscape level, can be managed for increased forest health and human benefit. While the season of harvest is but one factor in establishing a timber sale, the cumulative effects over time and place can be quite important. Forest management often addresses these secondary considerations that are not immediately evident to most people. That's one reason why the services of a professional forester are always recommended. Not only does a timber sale represent a potentially large sum of money, it also represents an entire complex of ecological, economic, and social impacts. The best way to get the job done right is to hire a professional.

STATE OF THE STATE FORESTS
by Bill Botti

Who needs sustainability? A local newspaper columnist recently wrote a column debunking the idea of sustainable development, citing the changes that have taken place over the last century. "We don't know what resources people will need even 20 years from now-leave alone a century or two from now," he said. "Imagine someone in 1850 planning sustainable development for the future. He would likely have been greatly concerned about such things as whale oil, hay for horses, and wood to fuel steam engines."

The writer went on to say, "Hydrocarbons still rule the world of energy. Already they can hear the footsteps behind them. Long before anyone pumps the last barrel of oil from the Earth, petroleum energy will be no more important than whale oil is today." I hope he's right.

Maybe we do worry too much about sustainable development of our resources, but, if we do, we have justification as it relates to our forests. Well over a century ago Dr. William J. Beal, of Michigan State College (now MSU), warned that the then current rate of forest harvest was not sustainable. Through his efforts and those of other interested people, a Michigan Forestry Commission was formed to investigate the matter.

A forestry convention was held in Grand Rapids in 1888 to herald the new Forestry Commission. State representative Norman A. Beecher, of Genessee County, gave the keynote address. Rep. Beecher cited 1,000 sawmills and 35,000 jobs as evidence of the importance of the forest resource. He predicted the resource would last only 15 more years if the wasteful practices continued. Okay, maybe it was 25 years before the pine gave out. The point was well made. Michigan was becoming a wasteland. Most of the northern two-thirds of the state had burned at least once. Thousands of people had died in forest fires, particularly those of 1871 and 1881. Taxation policies provided no encouragement for landowners to invest in reforestation.

The gloomy predictions largely came true, although there was never a time when there were no trees at all. It takes a certain critical mass of a resource to support an industry and Michigan no longer had it. The mills closed and the people moved on.

But we never outgrew our need for wood. The state that had led the nation in lumber production became an importer while our own lands stood idle. To help correct the situation the state established a system of state forests in 1903 and opened a forest nursery at the same time. Reforestation began and fire protection became more effective, giving rise to a long uphill battle to restore our forests to productivity. The greatest reforestation force was Mother Nature herself, aided by humans' fire protection efforts.

Gradually the forest recovered- guided in many cases by the professional forestry philosophy of "sustained yield". This philosophy attempts to balance harvest with growth rates. In addition, it calls for working to maintain high quality timber. About half our forests are currently managed by agencies and owners who subscribe to the idea of sustainability. State and national forests account for 30% of the state's forests; forest industries and other corporations represent another 20%. Private individuals own around 45% of Michigan's forests and it is estimated that only around 10% of those are managing their forests.

Today we are producing half of the volume of timber we are using. This includes wood in all forms - lumber, composition boards, paper, furniture, packaging and the myriad products made from wood chemicals. Employment in the forest products industry is in the magnitude of 150,000; the industry adds some $9 billion to the state's economy. We have come back a long way, but we could do much more.

Statewide, we are harvesting only about half our annual growth. Part of the reason for this is our lack of markets in southern Michigan for poor-quality hardwoods. These poor-quality trees are holding back the growth of more valuable trees that could make a significant contribution to the economy in the future. Another part of the reason is a general lack of interest in timber harvest on the part of many landowners.

There is a common practice among private landowners to sell timber to buyers who make house calls offering what seems like a lot of money to "select cut" their woods. Sometimes they do offer a fair price; sometimes they don't, but they usually seek to cut only the best quality trees. This amounts to mining the good quality trees; it leaves behind a kind of a "counterfeit" forest. It looks good as you pass by at 55 mph, but if you were to stop and look at the individual trees, you'd see they are mostly poor quality - good only for crates or pallets or firewood. I have worked as a consulting forester in several woodlots here in southern Michigan from which the high quality red oak had been removed years ago, leaving mostly the lesser-valued black oak and soft maple. Restoring these stands to high -quality is a long-term project - trying to encourage red oak and other high-value species.

In contrast, I have worked in some woodlots that have been harvested under sustainable forest practices. These forests also have some poor trees, but there are lots of good ones in addition. Harvests are done every 10 or 15 years and first remove those trees not expected to last another ten years. Additional trees are removed to make growing space for the best producers.

The difference in value is striking. The woods can be adding volume worth 75 cents to a dollar per board foot, or, in the case of the "counterfeit" forests, as little as 15 to 20 cents per board foot. Unfortunately, our tax policies still don't encourage landowners to manage their woods. Some landowners manage sustainably anyway, maintaining high values in their forest bank accounts and lending support to the forest products industry and the Michigan economy.

In the case of the state forests, which were mostly acquired by the state through tax reversion, lands not worth the taxes due a hundred years ago are now paying their way after a century of management. In 1917 state forester Marcus Schaaf predicted it would take 60 years for the tree planting investments to pay off. He was very close. In 1966 state forest timber revenue first reached $1 million. This year it's expected to be $30 million. Timber volumes and values continue to climb.

My local columnist concluded his essay saying, "The one thing we can count on is that any scheme of sustainable development dreamed up today will look as silly and laughable a century from now as such a plan based on nineteenth century wisdom would look today." Not so with regard to our forests.

Want 2 easy ways to approximate tree heights? Click here.