Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Knowledge of Forest Certification Program needed

B

bat man

Guest
If you have knowledge, links, contacts in regards to some sort of forest certification program that states are trying to stay certified for to get top dollar for lumber, please post them here or contact Brooks Johnson at basecampbrooks@gmail.com.

Our MN DNR has just begun to speak of the need to keep our forests in this program, and my thoughts our it is heavily involved with the motivation to lower our herd.

I need to know more about it.
 
bat man said:
If you have knowledge, links, contacts in regards to some sort of forest certification program that states are trying to stay certified for to get top dollar for lumber, please post them here or contact Brooks Johnson at basecampbrooks@gmail.com.

Our MN DNR has just begun to speak of the need to keep our forests in this program, and my thoughts our it is heavily involved with the motivation to lower our herd.

I need to know more about it.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely a factor, it is taking place in WI as well. I will see if I can dig something up later today, I have seen it mentioned frequently and have read more about it recently as well.
 
It could well shake down that the SFIA and other programs hunters are using to abate taxes are enrolling lands in programs that require the state to kill deer to be certified. Wouldn't that be a slap.
 
I spent just a couple minutes digging around on those two certification sites. I bet if a person digs long enough, you'll uncover some requirements to manage "landscape depredation" or some other blurring reference to "kill all your deer."
 
Thats crazy talk. Kill all the deer for $1.2 million? Than won't fly.
 
Interesting^^^ Looks like if the states want to make the Forest Certification worth what hunting is worth, they better start cutting the timber supply to drive the prices up considerably, or they will continue to lose money. I know that won't work, but how else could you work it from a timber value perspective? Each tree cut off state land would have to increase 400 times in value to make up for lost hunter revenue.
 
It appears to me, that it actually cost them 416.2 million in 2011 alone. Now that's nuts!!!
 
Is/Was MN ever involved in a similar forest-certification program? Maybe all the forestry speculation at the meeting yesterday wasn't really speculation. Interesting stuff. I think an audit is gaining traction with every passing day.
 
sticknstring said:
Is/Was MN ever involved in a similar forest-certification program? Maybe all the forestry speculation at the meeting yesterday wasn't really speculation. Interesting stuff. I think an audit is gaining traction with every passing day.
Click to expand...

MN signed on in 2005 for forest certification. Same year the DNR led new stakeholder process with an agenda to lower the herd. Every 5 years we have to renew, and the dpsm goals get smaller if you want to be certified.

Forest Certification will likely be exposed as the boogeyman for deer losses nationwide, and this group will be the one that exposes it.

The emperor is losing more of his clothing.
 
So what is the benefit of being certified? More federal money?
 
Print shops that use paper have a gain, and I do not know how deep it runs. The paper above says the state of PA sold the herd down for $1 million a year and lost over 100,000 hunters because of it.

If we can get the paper the DNR signed that shows dpsm goals promised in 2005 and it does not match what they reported to the public it should get ugly in St Paul.
 
I have read both Certified Forest Audits for 2014 for the state of WI owned properties and I saw no mention of deer populations or overbrowsing issues in either one. All that really confirms for me is that the low deer population talk from guys who hunt up where those audit visits took place is right on the money. The herd in Wisconsin's Northwoods has been taken down to the point that the Forest Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative don't even mention it once in there audit reports.
 
In regards to WI.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/TimberSales/dnrLands.html

Numerous mentions of deer over browse

specifically

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/TimberSales/documents/FSC_WIDNRReportFinal.pdf

pg 33. DNR is unwilling or unable to reduce deer population densities to levels that are acceptable See OBS 2008.4

pg 44. Observation 2008.4: The State of Wisconsin has made significant efforts to monitor the deer population in the state, set population goals, and manage deer in a manner that supports multiple land management objectives. The WDNR has tried a variety of hunting season structures and regulations in an effort to bring deer populations closer to desired levels. Deer levels vary throughout Wisconsin; in general populations are somewhat above target but generally not significantly so. Negative impacts to desirable advanced regeneration from deer browse were observed in many forests, particularly in east-central Wisconsin. Ongoing efforts to set and achieve deer population targets at which forest components and diversity can be sustained should be encouraged. Continuing attention is warranted​
 
Good catch EOB, I didn't see these reports. I was looking strictly at the current year audit reports from the 2 accrediting agencies from 2014. The info you posted is from 2008, it makes sense that they would have brought it up then, but given the excessive antlerless tags issued and the ensuing kill in the Northwoods from 2008 until 2014, it is no wonder they no longer have to mention it in their current yearly recertification audits. It appears they got exactly what they were after in the WI Northwoods, and now the wolves will make it a long road to travel to get back to where it was in 2008, again exactly what the Foresters want. I don't think they even mention it in the E/C areas like Shawano or Waupaca now, because they know it is a futile effort in those areas to get most guys to shoot does.
 
Read corrective action 4


It seems after reading through an audit that there should be a report produced from the "SWAT" team. This may be nothing but it's the most I could find within the audits for certification.
 
I have a feeling these regeneration SWAT teams with our wildlife managers are largely influencing goals throughout northern MN. There's only one priority a swat team would have and that's to take out the problem standing in their way.
 
Last edited:
That doesnt explain the issues in non-timber harvest zones.... Ottertail county is not a timber harvest hot spot.... However our deer harvest has plummeted.

Why?
 
At the Regional MDHA meeting in Brainerd, a retired area manager said that Great Lakes states wildlife people met a few (???) years ago and decided as a group to reduce deer numbers. I suspect the time was 5-10 years ago, but I don't think the speaker was real specific. He also said the reason for cuts in deer numbers was not CWD, but did not say the reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top