2
New York Forest Owner
Vol. 22, No.5 THE NEW YORK FOREST OWNERS ASSOCIATION Editor
Evelyn Stock 5756lke Dixon Rd. Camillus, NY 13031
.n This Issue P.2
P. ,3
P. 4-5
P. 6
P. 7
P. 8
New Members; Committees President's Calendar
Welcome Our New Members
Standing
Message; On the
Management Methods by Ralph Nyland; Sam Bonasa Umbellas, a grouse story NYFOA Financial Statement; liability Insurance Coverage: Do We Need More? by Stuart McCarty
Dr. A.R. Garza-Vale 920 Deerfield Rd. Elmira, NY 14905 Arthur Hacker RD 3, P.O. Box 41 Moravia, NY 13118 Philip Hintz P.O. Box 57 East Berlin, CT 06023 Rick Marsi Binghamton Press Co., Inc. P.O. Box 1270 Binghamton, NY 13902
Temporary Committees; American Tree Farm System
George H. Martin 4658 Clover St. Honeoye Falls, NY 14472
Forest Bookshelf; Equipment Show at the Arnot Forest
Shawn & Samantha Pitre 87 South Portland Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11217 Andrew Roden
P. 9
Urban Forestry; The New Scourge of Elms
P. 10-11 Trees: Comment Venture
P. 11
P. 12
Nominations Monteith
on Joint
Open; Doug
Big Trees by Al Roberts
FRONT COVER A roadside scene in the Adirondacks. By Evelyn Stock
RR#l Diamond Point, NY 12824 Robert F. Schumann 27 Stratford Pl. Binghamton, NY 13905 Dr. & Mrs. Frederick Seitz 500 East 63rd St., 24-J New York, NY 10021 Arthur Soons Lower Road Orchard Hill Farm New Hampton, NY 10958 President Ross Whaley SUNY Syracuse College ES & Forestry Syracuse, NY 13210
NYFOA Committee Assignments
1984 STANDING
COMMITIEES
Executive: (Officers) McCarty, M. Monteith Roberts Lynch Thorington McCarty, S. Membership; Publicity: Hamel (chairman) Eberley Garrett Kelley Knight Finegan (vice-chairman) Mitchell (ex-officio] Lynch Strombeck Pfarner Thorington Auditing: to be appointed Program: Monteith (chairman) Finegan Petrie Proskine Strombeck Budget: Ward (chairman) Richards McCarty, S. Nominating: (and awards) Edmonds (chairman) Pfarner Roberts Steinfeld TPMB: Strombeck Hanaburgh Hamel Lecours Steinfeld
(chairman)
September-October
I
3
1984
ON THE CALENDAR
September 14-15 Fall Meeting at the Sagamore at Raquette Lake.
Lodge
September 20-22 Forestry Equipment Exhibition and Demonstration at Cornell University Arnot Forest in Ithaca.
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
October 6 #3. Woods walk: The owner is Edwin H. Atwood located at Springwater, south of Rochester.
FALL MEETING The New York Forest Owners Association will meet September 14-15 at the Sagamore Lodge on Raquette Lake for the annual Fall Meeting. Anyone who still needs details may obtain them from Doug Monteith, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY 13210.
October 6 Woods Walk Forest owner member Edwin H. Atwood, Jr., of 4035 East Ave., Rochester, N.Y. 14618 will host a woods walk at his property near Springwater, about 35 miles South of Rochester. Mr. Atwood owns 350 acres and it is poor, side hill land. It was mostly cleared for farming in the mid 1800s, and abandoned about 1920. There is a pond, several nature trails and a native mountain brook trout stream. Part of the land has naturally seeded to native hardwoods, and there are pine and larch plantations 25 to 40 years old. Bring a picnic lunch and meet at 10:00 a.m. in the village of Springwater at the junction of N. Y. Routes 15 and 15A where Mr. Atwood will lead the woods walkers to his property.
October 20th, Woods Walk No. 4 by Bob Sand and Doug Monteith. Meet at 10:00 a.m. in the park across from Sherwood Inn, Skaneateles. We will be visiting three wood lots. One super forest at Sennett. Second forest near Carpenters Brook. Third is Northeast of the Saunders gravel pit. RESERVATIONS REQUIRED. Bring your lunch. Details will be mailed in a letter to follow.
Remembrances Mary McCarty under her Ginko tree.
Since [ can remember, trees have been a part of my life. [n a suburban community in New Jersey in the 1930's my earliest recollections include a three stemmed oak very close to our house, a mountain ash that was messy with its berries falling on the driveway. [ remember the Lombardy poplars that died their predictable early deaths and my brother Bill, chopping one down. Also [ remember the ginko and the beautiful yellow fan-like leaves in the Fall, the sassafras and the left and right mittens of the leaves and the smell of the roots, the black cherry that was too close to the clothes yard that wreaked havoc with the laundry via the birds - all these things are remembered. Then, marriage, a home in another community that also was within commuting distance of New York City - THE CITY. Stuart and [bought an old farm house in the lovely town of Glen Rock, New Jersey, and it was blessed with a mature Norway spruce in the front yard. Other delights were mature sugar maples, hemlock, catalpa, pear, cherry, apple, peach, European linden, and more locust than anyone needed! It was a haven and heaven! What a great place to raise a family, which we did. The very first year, 1948, we ordered sixty three-year seedlings from Western Maine Forest Nursery - planted the six different species in rows in our vegetable garden next to the asparagus and behind the currants and rhubarb. That first venture was fine, but when [ kept ordering, every other year, Stuart did begin to question my judgment and sanity! But, eternally optimistic, we planted and nurtured and gave away trees to friends as housegifts or to anyone who "needed a tree." Then on to a new location ... in Binghamton. We bought a NEW HOUSE, the only thing in its favor was a stately white oak, probably a hundred years old - not another tree worth mentioning! [ "smiled a lot" and bought trees. We ended up with a mini arboretum with Frazer fir, red pine, Austrian pine, Gleditsia locust inermis, and hemlock by the dozens. Seven years ago we moved to Pittsford, New York, to a "middle aged house." We have an acre here on a busy street. The realtor was told we wanted an "adequate" house with mature trees. It was love at first sight! We really did "luck out." There are twenty-three species of thirty-five year old trees here. The roof doesn't leak and the furnace is okay, and we have these wonderful trees! A list of them was given to us so we have the benefit of the farsighted previous owner plus the specific identification of these varied trees in our suburban setting. So, there is joy and success in the "between" environment that is ours. Urban forestry is a "new" thing, relatively, and our woodlots have been managed for years and years, but the opportunity to have a "mini" arboretum within seven miles of the center of Rochester is an exciting thing. My hope is that the trees will continue to flourish and that by their presence we can inspire others to emulate our treasure. - Mary Soons McCarty
4
New York Forest Owner
Management Methods By Ralph Nyland "Silviculture" - when you harvest timber you are involved in silviculture. The practice of silviculture involves establishing forest stands, tending them, and regenerating them. Natural regeneration, tree planting, thinning, and regeneration harvests are some of the silvicultural practices. Professor of Silviculture, Ralph D. Nyland, Ph.D., of the School of Forestry at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, New York provided valuable assistance in the preparation of the following silvicultural information which is a concise and clear introduction to lengthy and complicated forest management concepts. "Reproduction Methods" - Five general reproduction methods which are recognized in silviculture follows: 1. Clearcutting method - removal of all trees in one cutting to form a new stand where all trees have the same age (even-aged) . 2. Seed-tree method - removal of all trees in one cutting, except for a small number of seed trees that are reserved for a few years as a seed source to establish a new even-aged stand. 3. Shelterwood method - removal of all trees in two or three cuttings, leavingsome trees for a few years to act as a seed source and a protective shelter for the even-aged stand which develops. 4. Coppice method-removal of an entire mature stand in one cutting to regenerate an even-aged stand. 5. Selection method - removal of mature trees every 10-15 years, either singularly or in small groups, to establish a new age class in the uneven-aged stand. "Selection Method Silviculture" Uneven-aged silvicultural practices are characterized by always having tall trees present in a stand and by having the regenerating, tending, and harvesting of a forest crop occurring Simultaneously during the periodic timber harvests. "Clearcutting and Even-aged Silviculture" -Even-aged silvicultural practices never have all three major components (regenerating, tending and harvesting a forest crop) of silviculture performed simultaneously. Instead, the tending is only done between harvests;
and once during each rotation a new forest stand is established by harvesting the mature trees to regenerate a new even-aged stand. "Regeneration Sources" - In both even-aged and uneven-aged forest management, regeneration may come from three sources: seeds, sprouts from stumps, and sprouts from established root systems. Tree seeds which generate when conditions are right may have been stored for a year or more on the forest floor. Sprouts developing from root systems of American beech, black locust, and aspens (poppies) are common after the overstory in a stand is out. Most hardwoods form sprouts on stumps of small diameters, but red maple trees and oaks are commonly reproduced by stump sprouts, even when the stumps are of large sawtimber size. "Not Scientific Silviculture" - Although silviculture may be considered an art based on science, there are two common timber harvesting practices which are not included in the five silvicultural reproduction methods previously mentioned. Diameter limit cutting and high-grading are not reproduction methods of silviculture; but they are commonly used by landowners and loggers to select trees for harvesting. "Diameter Limit Cutting" - This is simply a convenient method for selecting trees to be cut. And it usually means cutting only big trees without consideration for regeneration and tending a woodland. Regeneration in the forest stand may become established by chance when a diameter limit cutting is used to select merchantable trees. "High-grading" - This is a method of determining trees to be cut based on high market value. But it is not part of a silvicultural system to regulate the growth and development of a forest stand. Regeneration and tending are ignored during high-grading, though new trees may become established in the openings created when high value timber is removed. Unfortunately, low value and cull trees are often left in the overstory, occupying space which could be used by better growing stock. Improved forest productivity can occur if a woodland owner uses silvicultural reproduction methods as a basis for timber harvesting. But with the use of diameter limit cutting and high-grading, there is a likelihood that the sustained yield of a forest stand will be less than what it would be if silvicultural reproduction methods were used.
Sam Bonasa Umbellas By R.M. Beal
In my fifty or so years of infrequent acquaintanceship with partridge or ruffed grouse, I have considered them a wary bird that has survived because they avoided man and all other predators as a first rule of conduct. This opinion was changed in the Spring of 1983 when a ruffed grouse started his mating ritual on a large pine stump shielded by a stand of second growth saplings about fifty feet from our kitchen window. He drummed, he strutted, and he drummed again - but he never found a mate. His constant activity was not answered by any of his kind. He had reached marriageable age at a very low point in his species life cycle in northern New York. My wife and I felt sad but thought he would leave to search in other areas for a bride because, obviously, our neighborhood was barren of his clan. Sam, as we now called him, had no intention of roaming the world looking for a female. They would come to him or to hell with it. Daily he drummed and daily he became more frustrated, and as his frustration grew, his shyness dissipated. He left the protective cover of the woods for longer and longer periods and retreated from the open yard more slowly when humans appeared. Finally, he decided we had encroached on his territory too often and too long. He formally announced this one day while I was cutting the lawn with a power mower. Sam left the cover of the woods and charged across the intervening twenty feet of grass, his neck extended and his bill pointed fixedly at the mower. When I realized he intended to hit the machine, I shut it off so that the blade would not decapitate him if his attack centered on the grass spout. As he closed on the machine, he flew up a foot or so and struck the mower with the leading edge of his left wing. Then he returned to the ground to circle and make a pass at my ankles. For a while he revolved around me, closing occasionally to peck harmlessly at my work shoes. I could scarcely feel the impact of his beak on the leather. After several minutes of this unusual happening, I told Sam I had a lawn to finish and he returned to the woods after a few
September-October 1984
Sam and friend.
more half-hearted challenges which were equally divided between my shoes and the mower. Following this initial confrontation, Sam's incursions progressed from semiweekly to almost daily. Any family activity was apt to draw his presence, but he responded most rapidly and 'most irately to the noise of a mower, the squeak of wheelbarrow wheels, or the clang of a splitting maul. All of these pursuits brought Sam swearing and nattering to himself while he alternated between beady-eyed observation of the work and blustering attempts to halt it. After our initial contact, I realized that Sam understood he was dealing with people who would not harm him. However, I still cannot understand his first foray when he had no assurance that I or the mower would not cause serious and permanent harm to his two or three pound body. Truly, he must have been driven mad by love - or the lack of it. The following are several thumbnail sketches of Sam's behavior since he has decided he can depart the scene with his feathers and tail in good order, after threatening and harassing members of our family any time his fancy dictates. When I rake grass, he crowds between me and the wheelbarrow trying to stop the transfer of grass to barrow. I will push him aside with the broom rake and he shoves back cooing and half clucking softly, deep in his throat, sounding like a cross between a low keyed demented pidgeon and disturbed hen. After several gentle pushes have
5 done nothing to discourage his conduct, I will place the rake against him and flip him several feet away. The toss greatly offends his dignity even if it is too gentle to ruffle any feathers. As he sails through the air, he leans back in my direction; and as his feet hit the ground, he rushes back to perform a war dance around me, the rake, and the barrow. As his attention span is not long, he will finally strut away to allow me to complete the yard work. If my wife has the temerity to weed the flower garden, Sam will waddle over, recite to her the error of her ways, and then peck at her hands until she stops work. This scenario changes abruptly if he decides to eat a few blossoms. Helen allows nothing in the insect or animal kingdom to abuse her flowers. As she will not hit Sam, and as he pays no attention to the spoken word, she will spray him with a garden hose. This offends him and he circles her at a fast trot until, completely soaked, he flies off. Sam walks and runs more than flies. He can soar like a rocket, but he prefers to walk - either a pompous waddle or an urgent trot depending on whether his mission at the time is observation or confrontation. Once when I was working up a pine stump with iron wedges driven by a splitting maul, Sam rolled out of the woods using his "Squire of the Manor" waddle. This meant he had come as a spectator. He will watch a while before starting to hammer at my feet and ankles. He moved in steadily on the impact center of the wedge until the tip of his beak was six inches from the striking surface. With each blow his head rocked, his eyes fluttered, but he stood his ground. Given his acute hearing, those maul impacts must have rung out like being inside a cathedral bell at vespers. After two dozen or so blinking observations, Sam indicated enough was enough by pecking at my ankles. I told him I was in agreement by moving him laterally out of the field of play. He retreated cursing in an Upstate New York gallinaceous dialect. At other times, Sam has observed my piling of wood, cleaning of gutters, and practice golf swings. In the end, he disapproves of any human activities. I believe his disapproval is more territorial than personal. It is not so much what we do, but we are doing it on his turf. Sam feeds constantly and from what we can observe, entirely on leaves, seeds, and grasses. In the Spring,
poplar buds were high on his preferred food list. He continued to eat the leaves when they were quite mature. Once he ate two dandelion blossoms in quick succession,- and I thought a splendid work had begun, but he never touched another bloom to my knowledge, and our yard is the dandelion capital of the world. As mentioned, he liked Helen's flowers but these were just quick snacks because she made sure he ate on the run. I think the exercise did them both good. We do not know if Sam's behavior is typical of a non-breeding male ruffed grouse or if he suffers from other causes. He eats well, is alert and in good plumage. In any case, when Sam leaves for whatever reason, we will miss this arrogant, territorial, wrong-headed character.
PLEASURE! A Texas rancher's new boots turned out to be too snug. The bootmaker offered to stretch them. "Not on your life!" said the rancher. ''These boots are going to stay this way. You see, every morning when I get out of bed I have to corral some cows that busted out the night before and mend fences they tore down. All day long, I watch my ranch blow away in the dust. After supper, I listen to the television tell about the high price of feed and the low price of beef. And all the time my wife is nagging me to move to town. "Son, when I get ready for bed and pull off those boots - well, that's the only pleasure I get all day." - Troy Gordon
in Tulsa World
Silence in a wood It is the silence in a wood each night That's miracle. Tribes of giants grow Enough to hide the tallest planet's light Without a sound of strain, while deep below A world absorbed by husbandry, fresh-ploughed By worms, arouses the wood's progeny To dumb but wild conflicting claims that crowd The air with silent green hyperbole. Along the fuse of branch and vine buds burst, Flower, explode, reseed another round Of tree and tangle, to quench whose outstretched thirst Sap will be pumped miles high All Without sound, Save sighs when passing breeze and leaves together Start grapevine rumors on the morrow's weather. -Raymond Henri
6
New York Forest Owner
NEW YORK FOREST OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
INC.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS OF JUNE 12,1984
LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE:
Do We Need More? Budget 1984
Actual to-date
Income Membership Interest Activities
$8,000 400
$5,230 194 269
Total Income
$8,400
$5,693
Expenses Forest Owner Membership Sect'y. Expenses Membership Committee liability Insurance Printing & Supplies Awards Committee Education & Publicity Committee Associated Group Meetings Directors' Elections & Meetings President's Expenses Woods Walks Bumper Stickers
$6,500 850 600 350 100 175 350 50 100 150 50
$2,967
Total Expenses
$9,275
$4,062
Income less Expenses
($875)
$1,631
269 290 32 147 50 72 235
Balance Sheet, June 12, 1984 Assets Checking Account Savings Account Money Market Fund Deposit - Sagamore Meeting Deposit - Syracuse Univ. - Catering Total Assets liabilities & Net Worth Accounts Payable Net Worth 12/31/83 Income less Expenses Net Worth 6/12/84
$
265 108 6,301 400 58
$7,132
$5501 + 1631 $7,132
Stuart McCarty, Treasurer
MEMBERSHIP The New York Forest Owner is presently sent to 663 homes and businesses, in 23 states and three foreign countries. Of these, 183 are listed as Mr. and Mrs. I believe that the women are every bit as interested in their woodlots and prefer to think that we have 846 members as of September first. -Editor
The question of whether Mary and I need additional coverage to protect us from insurance claims on our 64 acre woodlot keeps coming up. Each time I look into it I end up with a different answer. Most recently I decided to do a more exhaustive examination of the problem and after coming to some conclusions I felt I should share them with other forest owners who no doubt have run into the same problem. First, I want to emphasize that the scope of this article does not include the need for worker's compensation insurance. All I need say on this subject is beware. Talk to your insurance agent if you are going to have someone working in your woods. The conclusions I came to about the need for additional liability insurance are as follows: 1) Your homeowners policy covers your woodlot, even though it is not connected to your residence, as long as you are not carrying on a commercial type operation. For instance, you can cut your own firewood with the help of a friend as long as the friend isn't paying you for his or her share of the wood cut. If the friend cuts alone and in payment for his or her share gives you some firewood, there may be additional liability for any injury incurred. Some insurance companies would not exclude this type of activity because it is an incidental business activity to the ordinary business pursuits of the owner. 2) Your homeowners policy covers your woodlot against claims arising from recreational pursuits, as long as you don't have any unusual hazards on your property which you "willfully" or "maliciously" did not properly mark or warn against. On the other hand, if you charge a fee for hunting, for instance, then your liability is on another level and calls for further investigation. The commercial question enters into the picture again. 3) If you plan to allow a logger or firewood cutter to work on your woodlot, then you definitely have additional liability considerations. You should first discuss your plan with a professional forester, with your insurance agent and, perhaps, with your attorney. 4) Mary and I will depend on our homeowners policy (with adequate limits) because we are not planning any
I
September-October
7
1984
logging activity, having had a cutting two years ago, and because we don't plan to sell any firewood or charge a fee for recreational use of our property. If we decide to pursue any of these "commercial" activities, we will consult with our insurance agent and I strongly advise you to do likewise. One insurance agent told me that most homeowners carry liability protection of $100,000. For about $10 this could be increased to $300,000 according to him. In addition, a personal umbrella liability policy can usually be purchased for less than $100 a year. For more detail on this complicated subject, I refer you to an excellent tract provided by NYS Cooperative Extension entitled "Liability Considerations for New York Woodland Owners" (15¢). -Stuart McCarty
TEMPORARY COMMITTEES Woods Walks: Roberts (chairman) Finegan Lecours Proskine
Long Range Planning: McCarty, S. (chairman) Kelley (vice-chairman) Knight Mitchell Steinfeld Ward McCarty (ex-officio)
Editorial: Richards (chairman) Edmonds Lynch Roberts Strombeck
Regional Affiliates: Steinfeld (chairman) Eberley Petrie Pfarner Insurance: McCarty, S. (temporary appointment)
THE AMERICAN TREE FARM SYSTEM The American Tree Farm System of private timberland management had its beginning on the West Coast in 1941, when the term "Tree Farm" was used by a lumber industry firm as a better way of telling its forest management story to the public. From that impressive but humble beginning, the program has become nationwide in scope, with increasing thousands of private landowners joining in what has been described as the greatest voluntary movement of forest conservation in the nation's industry. The idea spread across the nation from Washington State to Maine. In April 1942, Alabama became the first to launch an organized statewide Tree Farm program. In rapid succession, other states became Tree Farm states, and the industry-sponsored voluntary tree-growing movement was on its way. Today, there are over 40,000 Tree Farms embracing over 80,000,000 acres. New York joined the Tree Farm effort in 1956 and presently there are over 800 certified Tree Farms in New York totaling over 750,000 acres of privately owned forest land. The American Tree Farm System is sponsored by the forest industries through the American Forest Institute, Washington, D.C. The New York program is sponsored by the Empire State Forest Products Association. The program is administered by Tree Farm Committees with the assistance of state agencies like the New York Department of Environmental Conservation and the consulting foresters throughout the state. The purpose of the Tree Farm effort is to publicly recognize landowners who provide good examples of forestry for others to follow. The American Tree Farm System works this way: Private and public foresters conduct inspections of forest lands for Tree Farm certification ... their time is donated on a volunteer basis. There is no cost to the landowner. The key requirement for Tree Farm certification is a management plan that includes as a major objective the production of trees as a repeated crop. Other objectives include recreation, wildlife habitat, watershed protection, and appearance of the land. Tree Farm land must be privately owned; however, recently certain mu-
nicipal, 4-H, and Scout lands have been certified that meet the high standard for certification. Tree Farm land must be adequately protected from fire, insects, disease, and destructive grazing to qualify for certification. Most successful tree farmers go well beyond the basic requirements to practice timber stand improvement, and to increase yield through silvicultural methods including thinning, planting and restocking. Working tree farms in the American Tree Farm System range from 10 acres to more than 1.5 million acres. There's even a one-acre demonstration tree farm in Washington, D.C. owned and operated by the Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States. There is really only one common characteristic that seems generally true of tree farmers across the country. That is a desire to fulfill an obligation to the land ... a responsibility that goes with ownership. We have assumed the challenge of improving our environment as a personal objective, not merely as a desirable, abstract concept. Tree farmers pay no fees, dues or other costs to participate in the American Tree Farm System. If you are interested and think your lands qualify, contact: N.Y.S. Tree Farm Committee, c/o St. Regis Paper Company, Timberlands Division, Deferiet, New York 13628.
But Didn't Do you ever think at close of day Of kindly words you meant to sayBut didn't? Do you ever think when day is done Of errands kind you could have runBut didn't? Do you ever think at daytime's leave Of flowers gay you meant to giveBut didn't? Do you ever think when skies are red Of hungry mouths you could have fedBut didn't? Do you ever think of dawn of night Of letters kind you meant to writeBut didn't? Friend, do you think at life's set of sun You'll think of deeds you could have doneBut didn't? -Kathryn
Thorne
Bowsher
-From booklet published by Salesian Missions, New Rochelle, NY
8
New York Forest Owner
FOREST
Bookshelf Working with Your Woodland, by Mollie Beattie, Charles Thompson, and Lynn Levine, published by University Press of New England, 3 Lebanon Street, Hanover, NH 03755, 310 pages, published March 1984, $12.95 paper; $27.50 cloth. Mollie Beattie is a Forester with The Windham Foundation in Vermont. Charles Thompson is with the Department of Forestry and Wildlife at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and President of Atlantic Forestry, Inc., and Lynn Levine is a Consulting Forester with Forest-Care in Vermont. Carl Reidel, Professor of Forestry at the University of Vermont describes the book in the foreword. "This book is about starting. It is a book that has been needed fora long time. Written by three young foresters with first-rate qualifications, it is a practical guide for landowners who want to realize the potential of their forest land. Most important, it is based on sound biology and sound economics, which are critical elements for successful forest management." The book is not a do-it-yourself gUide. It concentrates on advising landowners in decision making and setting objectives through the use of competent technical help. It's a guide to "a middle way between overuse of the forest and not using it at all." The orientation is northeastern starting with a brief New England forest history which is helpful in explaining why New England forests are in their present condition. A chapter on assessing woodland potential contains some useful advice on things to look for in property that may offer strong points or be detrimental. One example is a description of how to identify "pit and mound relief," a sign of poor drainage or thin soils. A section on foresters describes the four types of foresters assisting private landowners in New England. What you can expect from service, consulting, industrial and extension foresters is explained clearly and in detail. Management plans and woodland management techniques are explained in considerable detail and the professional jargon associated with forestry is interpreted.
There is a down-to-earth section on harvesting forest products and some practical information on the financial aspects of forest management. The appendix contains tables with forestry measurements and conversions, a suggested reading list, a summary of forestry related laws for the New England states, and a listing of sources of technical information. Black and white illustrations are used throughout the book to make key points understandable. The book should be a useful reference for landowners in the Northeastern United States. Agricultural Handbook #596. "A Guide to Federal Income Tax for Timber Owners." $4.25. Available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Forest Management Handbook Published for Private Owners Cornell University has published a new handbook for owners of private forests throughout the Northeast. The 56-page, illustrated reference describes all major facets of forest management for timber production. Timber Management for Small Woodlands features a careful explanation of forest management in terms that owners can understand and use. Few owners capitalize on the full potential value of their forest holdings, claim authors Gary Goff, James Lassoie, and Katherine M. Layer, specialists in natural resources for Cornell Cooperative Extension. They are in the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University. Substantial areas of the Northeast are classified as commercial forest land, yet a relatively small percentage is actively managed for timber production. Virtually all private forest lands are harvested at some time, as ownership and needs change, thus there is considerable economic justification for good forest management, the authors state. The handbook may be ordered from the Cornell Distribution Center, 7 Research Park, Ithaca, NY 14850. The $1. 75 charge includes postage and handling.
Cornell's Arnot Forest Site of Spectacular Forestry Equipment Show Ithaca, NY - Bring your hard hats when you come to Cornell University's Arnot Forest to see rugged timber-harvesting machinery in action this fall. Scheduled for September 20-22, the Forestry Equipment Exhibition and Demonstration will feature machinery and equipment used for everything from downing giant trees to converting timber into products ready for manufacturers and users. David W. Taber of the department of natural resources in the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell, one of the coordinators of this event, says: 'The forestry equipment show is a rare opportunity for professional loggers, foresters, and managers of forestry businesses to learn about the capabilities of timber-harvesting. machinery and equipment used under realistic conditions." Among machinery, worth millions of dollars, to be demonstrated under actual working conditions in the woods are a whole tree chipper, skyline miniyarder, fast-track yarding machine, grapple and cable skidders, feller bunchers with shears, and farm tractor attachments for timber harvesting, says Taber, a senior associate for Cornell Cooperative Extension. The three-day event, according to Taber, is expected to attract as many as 5,000 forestry professionals from throughout the Northeast and neighboring states, including North Carolina to the south and Indiana to the west, and Canada. Located about 20 miles southeast of Ithaca, between Newfield and Cayuta (off Route 13 between Ithaca and Elmira), Arnot Forest consists of more than 4,000 acres of forest land. It is managed by Cornell's department of natural resources as a research, teaching, and demonstration area in forestry, wildlife management, soil and water conservation, and biological sciences.
September-October
9
1984
The New Scourge of Elms If you have a beloved elm tree lending grace to your street, shade to your yard or majesty to a neighboring field, go kiss it goodbye. At the very time that Central New Yorkers finally controlled the spread of Dutch elm disease, which through the 1950s, '60s and '70s claimed fully 95 percent of the local population of American elms, trees in eastern Onondaga County were stricken by what has become the single worst outbreak in the world of another elm disease - the socalled "elm yellows." "There were more than a million elms in the Fayetteville-Manlius area when we surveyed in 1978. There's not one of them left," said Dr. Gerald Lanier, entomologist and authority on pathogens afflicting Ulmus americana, the American elm. "I defy you today to find me an American elm there with a trunk larger than the diameter of a pencil. All the big trees are dead, everyone of them." Worse, the epidemic is spreading. "Elm yellows is moving like the tide," radiating in all directions from point of outbreak at a rate of a mile or two per year, Lanier said. The zone of severest infectation has now reached the Syracuse city limits, and isolated incidences have been reported as far east as Cazenovia, as far south as LaFayette. The pending holocaust of elms might be prevented, though that appears unlikely. Lanier's research has found that annual injections of the antibiotic tetracycline protect healthy elms from the virus-like organisms that cause elm yellows. The problem is that such treatment is labor-intensive, and no one locally is authorized - or, at present, seems inclined - to expend the effort. Most municipalities have no "Department of Tree Salvation," and the few that boast anything similar have staffs so small that the possibility of a massive program of elm injections is unthinkable. The forestry unit of the Syracuse Department of Parks and Recreation, for example, is comprised of only two men. Thus most of Central New York appears ultimately doomed to the fate that has already greeted the villages of eastern Onondaga County. Said Gordon
Urban Forestry Teska of the Department of Public Works in Minoa: "We don't have a single elm left on Elm Street." Lanier, a professor at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, was among the leaders of the decades-long effort to stem the spread of Dutch elm disease, a fungal infection transmitted by European and American bark beetles. In collaboration with other researchers, Lanier synthesized the pheremone produced when a female bark beetle attacks an American elm. The odorant attracts to the tree the tens of thousands of bark beetles in the vicinity, greatly increasing the odds that one will carry Ceratocystis ulmi, the fungus causing Dutch elm disease. Lanier's solution was to affix a powerful concentrate of the pheremone to a large sheet of fly paper and to wrap the paper around another species of tree or a telephone pole in the vicinity of elms. Such "tree traps" attract all the bark beetles nearby. Their use, begun in 1975, had reduced the elm loss in Lanier's survey area - parts of DeWitt and most of Syracuse south of Erie Boulevard - to less than one percent per year by 1979. In 1976, however, the new menace appeared in Fayetteville. By 1979, it had reached the area of Lanier's survey. "Nobody knows where it came from in the first place," Lanier said. And compared to Dutch elm disease, "a lot less is known about it." "We know that it can be transmitted by insects" - specifically, by the common leafhopper - "but we don't know that it's transmitted only by insects. There could be other vectors as well." Nor have scientists identified the microplasm that causes the disease. Nor do they know exactly how it kills the tree. What is known is that the microplasm somehow causes "phloem necrosis," a disruption of the tree's vascular system. Nutrients born photosynthetically in the leaves thus fail to reach the roots. Then the roots die. Then the tree dies. By the time visible symptoms appear - yellowing of the leaves and wilting of the smallest branches - the infection has spread too far for treatment. Though the disease was first recognized in the United States in the 1880s, only recently have earlier-warning tests been identified. One is to remove a
sample of outer and inner bark, place it in a jar and smell it. If the tree is infected, the bark will emit a faint odor of wintergreen. Another, which Lanier has proposed, concerns the sheen of the leaves. In one sample plot, "We injected (with tetracycline) the elms only after we saw the symptoms, but we also injected one tree that just didn't look right to me. There was a loss of shinyness of the leaves. "That may be the first symptom. What we know is the next year, all of the obviously sick trees died, and the one that we injected on suspicion recovered," he said. Moreover, all of the 200 healthy trees that Lanier has experimentally injected have remained disease-free, while all those around them have died. Lanier believes that, should Central New Yorkers choose to do so, elms that remain healthy today can be saved. "It's possible," he said, "but somebody's going to have to hustle the money to do it." Whether such hustling can or will be done remains to be seen. Don Robbins, head of the forestry unit in the City of Syracuse, explained: "We go to the public hearings (on the city's budget) and ask for more money, but nobody supports us. People want their sewers, and their police protection, and their sidewalks, but they don't think much about their trees. Even from a fiscal standpoint, however, Lanier contends that protecting the city's trees is cheaper than doing nothing. During the peak years of the Dutch elm epidemic, Syracuse was forced to budget more than $1 million per annum for removal of dead trees. By contrast, Lanier estimates that injections to save the city's few thousand surviving elms would cost only "a few thousand dollars for chemicals, a thousand for equipment, and salaries for a staff. It would be only in the tens of thousands all told." If on the other hand, nothing is done, Central New York will figure prominently - and tragically so - in the history of the mysterious disease. "Elm yellows has appeared in other places and then, for reasons we don't understand, completely disappeared," Lanier said, "but it has never been recorded anywhere to be as bad as it is right now in Syracuse, N.Y." By James Ehmann
New York Forest Owner
10
TREES A Comment on Joint Venture By Gavin McKenzie New Zealand Forest Service
"This article from New Zealand describes an idea many New York forest owners might like to consider. We'll likely learn more about it on a 1985 NYFOA tour to the 'land down under'." Joint venture forestry on farmland is a topic that has received considerable attention in the last 18 months, attracting comment both from those who consider the scheme to have great merit and those who view it with suspicion as an attempt by forest companies to manipulate landowners. Aiding confusion and differences of opinion is the fact that two independent approaches to joint venture agreements have been developed and promoted. One has been developed by the private forestry consulting firm of J. G. Groome and Associates and the other under the auspices of the New Zealand Farm Forestry Association. There are strong proponents of each. The joint venture concept has been discussed previously in these pages by Dave McKinnon (Farmer, June 23, 1983), and comment has been passed by that prolific forestry writer Neil Barr, who noted "for the not so established farmer the joint venture forest is worth serious consideration" (Farmer, May 26, 1983). Personally, however, Neil Barr comments, "Entrepreneurial forestry, joint venture or not, leaves me cold" (Farmer, June 23, 1983). A number of contentious and emotive issues have arisen out of the concept. Joint ventures are seen by some as just another means used by forestry companies to plant trees on good grazing land, thus adding fuel to the general forestry versus agriculture debate. This point of view, however, must be strongly discounted. A joint venture does not involve a change in the ownership of the land and it is the existing landowner who decides which areas of his farm are better suited to trees and which areas he may make available for joint venture afforestation. Joint venture forestry seen in this light, is in fact a vehicle through which good land use can be promoted and practiced. There has been diverging opinion on two main points central to the negotiation of an acceptable joint venture agreement. The two interrelated points are:
• The investor's right to use 100% of the wood produced by the joint venture forest. • The landowner's concern that he will get the highest possible return from the project. It is useful to examine briefly the major differences between the two schemes which have been developed. These are shown in the comparison below. The investor's right to use 100% of the wood produced is obviously embodied in the privately developed approach to joint ventures, and the landowner's concern about obtaining the highest possible returns are catered for in the New Zealand Farm Forestry scheme, which allows the landowner to withhold his share of the wood and sell it as he wishes. It is useful to clearly establish that no one is forced into a joint venture, and that there are a number of landowners with adequate financial resources to go it alone. For a joint venture to be acceptable, i.e., for the landowner to make his land available and the investor to make his financial resources available, an identifiable benefit must be able to be recognized by both parties. To date all those prepared to invest in joint ventures have been wood processing companies that see the strategic advantage of assured future wood supplies as their main benefit. As a result, guaranteed rights to use all the wood produced has been a primary concern. Without it, it is unlikely that these companies would risk their financial resources in joint ventures. To date, no non-wood processing investors have been found to invest in joint ventures, although both schemes provide an avenue for this. It was originally expected that the maximum share, and resulting maximum financial return, would be the main point at issue with landowners. Discussions with those landowners who have entered into joint venture agreements, however, show quite clearly that for most of them other factors were more important in making a joint venture an acceptable project. For some farmers especially, the knowledge that they will no longer need to spend considerable sums of money on expensive and sometimes repetitive weed control, or on fertilizer to maintain grass growth, has been sufficient attraction. Both these benefits allow for financially more efficient farming on the re-
mainder of the property, and a share in a forestry investment in these cases is considered a bon us. For many other landowners who have entered a joint venture the main benefit has been seen as a guaranteed market for the wood produced. A recent study undertaken by Massey University (Farmer, November 24, 1983) indicated that one of the most common reasons given by farmers for not planting their own forest at their own expense was the uncertainty of returns. Under the Farm Forestry scheme, the landowner is able to force the investor (if he is a wood processing company) to take 100% of the wood but also reserves the option of selling the wood independently to try and obtain a better price. In other words, it allows the landowner to back two horses - a guaranteed market and the right to sell to other parties. The investor in the meantime cannot rely on having available 100% of the wood, and certainly will not wish to be faced with landowners vacillating on whether the investor may have the wood or not. The privately developed scheme provides for the investor to have a guarantee that he will have available 100% of the wood, and provides protection for the landowner in that he receives his share of the value of the wood at harvesting, that value being determined by an independent forest valuer. The valuer is required by the agreement to value the wood "as if sold to the best financial advantage." This should reflect the best price that the landowner could receive, even if he sold the wood in his own right. Those who consider that the landowner retaining the right to sell a share of the wood independently is an essential right should remember that small volume sales do not always fetch the best prices. Often small sellers have to band together to achieve an adequate bargaining position and collect adequate market information. There is invariably a cost associated with this. It is interesting that to date only wood processing companies have been prepared to invest in joint ventures, and only in limited specified areas. If the joint venture approach selected by the company involved is not acceptable to a particular landowner, his only alternative at present is to plant trees out of his own financial resources. In the final analysis it is, of course, the interaction between individual land-
II
September-October
11
1984
owners and investors which will determine what rules are acceptable to both parties, and it is interesting to note the number of joint ventures currently in existence. All the investors have chosen to base their joint ventures on predetermined shares, and require the right to use 100% of the wood produced. To the best of the writer's knowledge the Farm Forestry scheme, based on the maintenance of records throughout the rotation and the landowner retaining the right to sell a share of the logs independently, has not yet been put into practice. The basic aim of the joint venture concept has always been to provide a workable mechanism which will allow the practice of forestry on land suited to that purpose without involving a change in traditional land owning patterns. Many landowners still fear forestry because of its perceived association with corporate (government or company) ownership of large areas of land. Although many farmers have long recognized that parts of their farms have been more suited to forestry than grazing, the lack of finance and financial incentives - and the strong desire to keep that land in traditional ownership - has prevented forestry development. The joint venture schemes developed are both vehicles for providing the financial investment required without involving a sale of the land. From this point of view it has been the evolution of practical and workable schemes that has been the main achievement of joint venture development. The final decision still remains with the landowner if he is lucky enough to have an investor willing to put up the finance for a joint venture forest. Privately developed scheme The landowner's share of the value of the mature forest is predetermined before an agreement is signed based on relative contributions. This assumes that inflation will affect both parties equally. Recognition of the different timing of contributions throughout the project is made. The forest is managed by the investor based on a management plan proposed and accepted at the time the project is first proposed. The investor has the right to change the plan within certain constraints. The forestry company has the right to use 100% of the wood grown for whatever purpose it sees fit, provided the
landowner is paid his share of the value . of the trees independently determined and based on the highest value use. NZ Farm Forestry Association Scheme The landowner's share of the revenue is based on records kept of the contributions made by each party. Records are updated and adjusted for inflation quarterly. Land is revalued periodically. No recognition for different timing of contributions is made. The forest is managed according to a predetermined management plan if the investor is a forestry company. The plan is included in the agreement and may be changed by mutual agreement only. The landowner has the right to keep or sell independently a share of the produce (logs) if he wishes, instead of receiving a share of their value.
Monteith Appointed Doug Monteith, Senior Research Associate at the School of Forestry has been appointed Chairman of the S.A.F. Forestry Employment Committee. Doug is a Director of the NYFOA and Chairman of the Fall Meeting at Sagamore.
"Nominations Open" Bob Edmonds, chairman of the nominating and awards committee states that nowis the time for people to send in nominations for potential Directors. Candidates for the Heiberg Award: someone who has greatly benefited forestry in New York State, and the New York Forest Owners Award; someone who has been of great service to the NYFOA. A short biographical sketch would be appropriate.
Letters to the Editor 28 Musket Lane Pittsford, N.Y. 14534 August 1, 1984 N.Y.S. Forest Owners Assoc. c/o Evelyn Stock 5756 Ike Dixon Rd. Camillus, N.Y. 13031 Dear Ms. Stock: As an organization representing private taxpaying forest owners, you should be interested in the "Proposed Amendment to Section 480-a" of the Real Property Tax Law. This amendment reduces the minimum qualifying land from 50 acres to 25 acres. It would open the participation of many small forest land owners for tax relief and stimulate forest management. In the last session of the state legislature, Assemblyman Maurice Hinchey sponsored bill #6472. In the Senate, Sen. Cooke had a companion bill. There was no action on these bills they will be carried to the next session. I am solicitlng your help and would suggest more information to be gathered. Individual members should then write to their representatives in the legislature. Sincerely, Richard J. Bell Consulting Forester
SMOKEY BEAR A full color cacheted envelope (first day cover) is being issued by the National Association of State Foresters to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Smokey Bear Cooperative Forest Fire Prevention Campaign. A Smokey Bear stamp will be affixed and cancelled on the first day of issue. The cost of the covers is $2.50 each, which includes postage and handling. To order, send your name and address to Allane Wilson, Alabama Forestry Commission, 513 Madison Ave., Montgomery, AL 36130. Checks and/ or money orders should be made payable to the National Association of State Foresters.
Non profit org. bulk rate U.S. POSTAGE PAID Camillus. N.Y.
13031 Permit No. 57
Evelyn A. Stock Editor
5756 Ike Dixon Rd. Camillus. NY. 13031
Ask A Forester
Big
"Shadbush
Trees
by AL ROBERTS Good forest managers should abhor "weed" trees such as hornbeam and shadbush, right? So I should be ashamed to admit that I have in our woods a 19.2 inch D.B.H. (diameter at breast height) American hornbeam and a 15.2 inch D.B.H. shadbush. But I'm not. A woodlot is for enjoyment and I enjoy thinking that I may have the first runner-up for the biggest hornbeam on record. The biggest, according to the official register of big trees in New York State has a D.B.H. of 28.3 inches. Can any of our readers beat 19.2 inches? As far as the shadbush is concerned, I'm declaring it a world record, as there isn't any shadbush recorded in the New York register. Can any of our readers beat 15.2 inches for shadbush? I'll give anyone a year's free membership in the N.Y.F.O.A. if they can. Send entries to our editor.
Hornbeam
APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE NEW YORK FOREST OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (Please send to:)
ANNUAL DUES
New York Forest Owners Assoc. Box 69, Old Forge, NY 13420
(Please underline choice)
I would like to help advance forestry in New York State. enclose my check payable to the New York Forest Owners Association, Inc.
Junior Member (Under 21)
$ 3
Regular Member.
$10
(
Family Membership (husband, wife)
$15
(
(
) I own County,
acres forest land in
_
N.Y.
Contributing Member
$12 - $29
) I do not own forest land but I support the Association's objectives.
Sustaining
Member.
$30 - $99
Supporting
Member
$100 - $499
) I am interested
Sponsoring
Member
$500 and up
Name
in
_ Address
-r-r-r-
Zip Code
_