Knowledge of Forest Certification Program needed

[Riggsgwp->]

I've read through several of the older audits like the 2006 one and there was very limited verbage on reducing deer populations. I followed up and found a swat report from 2007 and there was a statement that said deep populations should be kept at a level to insure pine regeneration. No mention of dpsm goals that would insure that though.

 

[bat man]

Steve Merchant himself said last week in the hearing that the population had to come down to keep the certifications.

In 1.5 years I have heard the term 'certified forest' twice. Leslie on Tuesday and Merchant on Wednesday. Guy in the audience said folks from DNR were visibly distraut when I gave my forestry connection speech on Thursday.

 

[SD51555]

Would it be too simple to ask Steve Merchant for help on this? I'm not sure where he's at on the helpfulness front of the whole thing. He referenced the need to reduce the herd for forest certification. I wonder if he wouldn't help point us in the right direction.

 

[wiscwhip]

Its my understanding there are rebates to business that use 'green wood'
Construction, printers - anybody that uses wood.

I think some investigation into where these certification groups get their money is warranted. It really seems this whole thing is very sketchy. They pay states a few million bucks to certify their acreages and then more money gets doled out when products from those forests get used? Correct me if that is incorrect.:confused: Someone is paying money on top of money just to get a sticker put on a ream of paper or stack of plywood.o_O It just doesn't add up.

 

[chickenlittle]

I am sure the forest owners are paying to be audited.

 

[chickenlittle]

Its my understanding there are rebates to business that use 'green wood'
Construction, printers - anybody that uses wood.

Rebates? I am sure they pay a premium for certified products and pass that along to their customer. There may be some projects where green certified products are encouraged or required, perhaps for LEED certification of a building or something like that.

 

[wiscwhip]

SFI is apparently financed by the timber and paper industries and is under some scrutiny for lax regulation. Imagine that, getting paid by the guys you are supposed to be regulating and then getting investigated for the way you regulate the resource they are exploiting. I knew their was some sketchy $h!t going on here, the whole thing reeks of corruption at the expense of the whitetail deer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/science/earth/12timber.html?_r=0

This one is even better...from the report below...
"But SFI is funded virtually exclusively by the timber and paper companies it certifies and its board of directors, governance, and standards-setting process is heavily weighted in favor of industrial interests."

http://wflc.org/cases/credibleforestcert/SFIcomplaints

 

[wiscwhip]

Here is a comparison of the audits of the 2 primary players in the game...

http://www.forestethics.org//sites/...onjouUCFW8Xm34URKzs9GZxlx7Zb7np04caArA88P8HAQ

 

[wiscwhip]

I like this one...weasel words...I will be using that one in the future.

"SFI maintains environmental “standards” that are deceptively vague, ambiguous, and riddled with qualifiers and weasel words. We believe these “standards” allow SFI forest managers to conduct environmentally-harmful forestry while claiming their forestry practices are “sustainable” and environmentally protective."

 

[wiscwhip]

Bad thing about the whole situation is that the 2 main players are a lose-lose for whitetail deer and deer hunting. SFI is corrupt and the FSC is hard nosed when it comes to writing non-conformance's for things like over-browsing of the understory.

 

[wiscwhip]

That audit of the 2 groups is eye opening to say the least.

 

[chickenlittle]

One thing to understand with these certifications is that they take on a life of their own in the marketplace. If you are a big paper or wood products manufacturer, you want to be sure all customers will buy your products. If a few important customers decide their preference is FSC certified, the manufacturer will start buying FSC certified wood and convert their product line over. They have no incentive to maintain both an FSC and non-FSC product line. They just treat the FSC premium like one more cost of doing business. That puts pressure on the large timber producers. Let's say PA DCNR went first and some large private log producers got certified. Other major players are looking at that and deciding what it means to them. Is it worth the cost of getting certified? What if I don't get certified? It is one thing to do a cost/benefit of certification cost vs less money per log. It is another to start worrying that timber sales will fail at auction because there market for non-certified logs is too small. Once these things get put into place, it is almost impossible to dismantle.

In some ways, it is like watching college football conferences re-align for TV money. No one wants to be left on the outside looking in.

 

[wiscwhip]

If you are a big paper or wood products manufacturer, you want to be sure all customers will buy your products.
In some ways, it is like watching college football conferences re-align for TV money. No one wants to be left on the outside looking in.

I see where you are coming from and I love the analogy to college football. The thing is, your first statement above would lead to the conclusion that all forest producers would desire or even need to be certified by both organizations, WI State Lands are. To ensure ALL customers have a product to buy from you, you must cover all spending levels. Maybe a customer wants a "certified" product, but doesn't want to pay the uber-premium for FSC Certified timber, that is where the more lax regulation of SFI certified products would maybe have their niche? Can those SFI "certified" products be had for less than FSC certified products? I bid numerous LEED projects every month and sourcing metal for them can be a PIA sometimes, I can imagine wood based projects are no different.

 

[bat man]

. Once these things get put into place, it is almost impossible to dismantle.

.

Thats my fear. PA harvests never really bounced back and they sniffed this out years ago.

But Kip said not to worry so we can all go to bed now. Someone should tell Kip there are 5.5 million acres certified in MN, and since we don't manage site specific entire zones are affected.

Kip Adams
9:17 PM (53 minutes ago)

to me

NDA hasn't done any digging but I don't think certification and herd decline are directly related. Most state wildlife agencies own very little land and thus have little that could be certified.

Kip Adams
QDMA

Sent from my iPad

 

[wiscwhip]

Kip has now "certified" himself as nothing but an uninformed puppet. Puppets are made of wood, I wonder if Kip is SFI or FCS certified, or both?:rolleyes:

 

[chickenlittle]

The wood products industry knows the difference between FSC and SFI. The biggest players might be in both programs. Some might want the prestige of FSC and only join that. Some might want to greenwash a little and only do SFI. Smaller players that are more local or regional can opt out but it depends on their customer base.

It also depends on your sources too. You can't sell certified product unless you are guaranteed a steady supply of certified logs.

I doubt sourcing FSC products would be a challenge for LEED or other green building certifications. For LEED, I think you can even choose non-certified products if they are locally produced so there is some flexibility.

 

[wiscwhip]

I suppose you are correct cl, I am sure that it is much easier to source wood products for LEED Certified projects than it is to source metals for them. Some of the odd sized beams, tubes, and channels are hard to source for non-LEED projects and require a 1 to 2 month lead time to get them thru a mill rolling. It would also be much easier to source "locally produced" wood products, not so much with steel, well maybe for the PA guys, lol.

 

[bat man]

No such uncertainty exists regarding the negative impacts of high deer populations on eastern forests; the body of evidence is unequivocal. In this article, we present only a small fraction of the literature on deer impacts. Reducing the impact of deer herbivory is currently a key forest restoration strategy (White 2012, Nuttle et al. 2013) and likely will become more important in order to help maintain resilient, functioning forests in a warming climate (Galatowitsch et al.2009).

Like almost all conservation problems, deer management is a societal issue. If the deer population is to be reduced, it must be reduced slowly. Rules that lower the population drastically will almost certainly spur a backlash from hunters who can appeal to their respective legislatures to overturn regulations they regard as harsh. In an effort to lower the population of deer in Wisconsin the DNR liberalized hunting dramatically.

The result was a hunter revolt. Gov. Scott Walker campaigned on a pledge to fix deer management. Once elected, he made good on that promise by appointing a deer trustee to evaluate his state’s DNR. The trustee’s final report noted that by failing to adequately communicate with hunters and involve them in determining solutions the DNR had lost credibility (Kroll 2012). A similar push back may be occurring in Pennsylvania.

“… it’s hard to think of a more insidious threat to forests, farms and wildlife, not to mention human health and safety, than deer.”

looks as if my team will be getting a look at some data as one of the authors of this paper I grabbed pieces from is on the panel

 

[sandbur]

In 1.5 years I have heard the term 'certified forest' twice. Leslie on Tuesday and Merchant on Wednesday. Guy in the audience said folks from DNR were visibly distraut when I gave my forestry connection speech on Thursday.

Was that at the Cambridge, Mn. meeting for Block 4?

 

[wiscwhip]

It appears in many of the things I have read on this up to this point, that the general consensus by the forestry community is that the 20 DPSM point is the threshold for noticeable browse issues. Given that fact, no DNR should then be opposed to having a DPSM goal of 18 in a Forest zone. Ag zones could likely even be a bit higher. I'm sure some guys in MN would be absolutely ecstatic to have a density that high. Do not let them tell you that 18 is too high for the ag guys either, we have many areas in WI that have twice that amount and we pay out a very minimal amount of ag damage claims even in those areas. As far as the insurance lobby goes, they can get bent, MY insurance rates are based on the fact that some uber-rich @hole thinks he needs to be driving around in a half million dollar RV and there is an off chance that I might hit him and cause damage to his precious toy, screw that! No DNR or forestry group should fight 18 DPSM as long as they have some accurate metrics to gauge fluctuations in the population to keep it from going too high or too low. Counts drop to 16 DPSM for more than 2 years would warrant minimal to no doe harvest until the density hits 18 again. Same the other way, count hits 20+ for 2 years running and everyone gets 1 extra antlerless tag, not 3, not 5! ONE extra tag, period, until the population is back down to 18! If the population doesn't come down to the accepted level of 18 after 2 years, then you force the doe harvests in trouble zones with rules like EAB, for 1 year at a time, not 3+ years running like the WI DNR did. Other than the fact that it is somewhat hard to accurately count deer in the wild, I think these guys are really making it harder than it needs to be. Just my .02