The New York Forest Owner - Volume 22 Number 5

2 New York Forest Owner

Vol. 22, No.5

THENEW YORK FOREST OWNERS

ASSOCIATION

.n This Issue

P.2 New Members; StandingCommittees

P. ,3 President's Message; On theCalendar

P. 4-5 Management Methods byRalph Nyland; Sam BonasaUmbellas, a grouse story

P. 6 NYFOA FinancialStatement; liabilityInsurance Coverage: DoWe Need More? by StuartMcCarty

P. 7 Temporary Committees;American Tree Farm System

P. 8 Forest Bookshelf; EquipmentShow at the Arnot Forest

P. 9 Urban Forestry; The NewScourge of Elms

P. 10-11 Trees: Comment on JointVenture

P. 11 Nominations Open; DougMonteith

P. 12 Big Trees by Al Roberts

FRONT COVER

A roadside scene in the Adirondacks.

By Evelyn Stock

EditorEvelyn Stock

5756lke Dixon Rd.Camillus, NY 13031

WelcomeOur New Members

NYFOACommittee Assignments

1984

Dr. A.R. Garza-Vale920 Deerfield Rd.Elmira, NY 14905

Arthur HackerRD 3, P.O. Box 41Moravia, NY 13118

Philip HintzP.O. Box 57East Berlin, CT 06023

Rick MarsiBinghamton Press Co., Inc.P.O. Box 1270Binghamton, NY 13902

George H. Martin4658 Clover St.Honeoye Falls, NY 14472

Shawn & Samantha Pitre87 South Portland Ave.Brooklyn, NY 11217

Andrew RodenRR#lDiamond Point, NY 12824

Robert F. Schumann27 Stratford Pl.Binghamton, NY 13905

Dr. & Mrs. Frederick Seitz500 East 63rd St., 24-JNew York, NY 10021

Arthur SoonsLower RoadOrchard Hill FarmNew Hampton, NY 10958

President Ross WhaleySUNY SyracuseCollege ES & ForestrySyracuse, NY 13210

STANDING COMMITIEESExecutive: (Officers)

McCarty, M.MonteithRobertsLynchThoringtonMcCarty, S.

Membership; Publicity:Hamel (chairman)EberleyGarrettKelleyKnightFinegan (vice-chairman)Mitchell (ex-officio]LynchStrombeckPfarnerThorington

Auditing:to be appointed

Program:Monteith (chairman)FineganPetrieProskineStrombeck

Budget:Ward (chairman)RichardsMcCarty, S.

Nominating: (and awards)Edmonds (chairman)PfarnerRobertsSteinfeld

TPMB:Strombeck (chairman)HanaburghHamelLecoursSteinfeld

September-October 1984 3

I ON THE CALENDARSeptember 14-15

Fall Meeting at the Sagamore Lodgeat Raquette Lake.

September 20-22Forestry Equipment Exhibition and

Demonstration at Cornell University Ar-not Forest in Ithaca.October 6

#3. Woods walk: The owner is EdwinH. Atwood located at Springwater,south of Rochester.

FALL MEETINGThe New York Forest Owners Asso-

ciation will meet September 14-15 atthe Sagamore Lodge on Raquette Lakefor the annual Fall Meeting.

Anyone who still needs details mayobtain them from Doug Monteith,SUNY College of Environmental Sci-ence and Forestry, Syracuse, NY13210.

October 6 Woods WalkForest owner member Edwin H. At-

wood, Jr., of 4035 East Ave., Roches-ter, N.Y. 14618 will host a woods walkat his property near Springwater, about35 miles South of Rochester.Mr. Atwood owns 350 acres and it is

poor, side hill land. It was mostlycleared for farming in the mid 1800s,and abandoned about 1920. There is apond, several nature trails and a nativemountain brook trout stream.

Part of the land has naturally seededto native hardwoods, and there are pineand larch plantations 25 to 40 years old.

Bring a picnic lunch and meet at10:00 a.m. in the village of Springwaterat the junction of N. Y. Routes 15 and15A where Mr. Atwood will lead thewoods walkers to his property.

October 20th, Woods Walk No. 4by Bob Sand and Doug Monteith. Meetat 10:00 a.m. in the park across fromSherwood Inn, Skaneateles. We will bevisiting three wood lots. One super for-est at Sennett. Second forest near Car-penters Brook. Third is Northeast of theSaunders gravel pit. RESERVATIONSREQUIRED. Bring your lunch. Detailswill be mailed in a letter to follow.

PRESIDENT'S

MESSAGE

Remembrances

Mary McCarty under her Ginko tree.

Since [ can remember, trees have been a part of my life. [n a suburban com-munity in New Jersey in the 1930's my earliest recollections include a three stem-med oak very close to our house, a mountain ash that was messy with its berriesfalling on the driveway. [ remember the Lombardy poplars that died their pre-dictable early deaths and my brother Bill, chopping one down. Also [ rememberthe ginko and the beautiful yellow fan-like leaves in the Fall, the sassafras and theleft and right mittens of the leaves and the smell of the roots, the black cherry thatwas too close to the clothes yard that wreaked havoc with the laundry via thebirds - all these things are remembered.

Then, marriage, a home in another community that also was within commutingdistance of New York City - THE CITY. Stuart and [bought an old farm housein the lovely town of Glen Rock, New Jersey, and it was blessed with a matureNorway spruce in the front yard. Other delights were mature sugar maples, hem-lock, catalpa, pear, cherry, apple, peach, European linden, and more locust thananyone 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 seedlingsfrom Western Maine Forest Nursery - planted the six different species in rows inour 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 didbegin to question my judgment and sanity! But, eternally optimistic, we plantedand 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, theonly thing in its favor was a stately white oak, probably a hundred years old - notanother tree worth mentioning! [ "smiled a lot" and bought trees. We ended upwith a mini arboretum with Frazer fir, red pine, Austrian pine, Gleditsia locust in-ermis, 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 "ade-quate" 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'tleak and the furnace is okay, and we have these wonderful trees! A list of themwas given to us so we have the benefit of the farsighted previous owner plus thespecific identification of these varied trees in our suburban setting.

So, there is joy and success in the "between" environment that is ours. Urbanforestry is a "new" thing, relatively, and our woodlots have been managed foryears and years, but the opportunity to have a "mini" arboretum within sevenmiles of the center of Rochester is an exciting thing. My hope is that the trees willcontinue to flourish and that by their presence we can inspire others to emulateour treasure.

- Mary Soons McCarty


ManagementMethodsBy Ralph Nyland

"Silviculture" - when you harvesttimber you are involved in silviculture.The practice of silviculture involvesestablishing forest stands, tending them,and regenerating them. Natural regen-eration, tree planting, thinning, andregeneration harvests are some of thesilvicultural practices.

Professor of Silviculture, Ralph D.Nyland, Ph.D., of the School of For-estry at the SUNY College of Envi-ronmental Science and Forestry inSyracuse, New York provided valu-able assistance in the preparation of thefollowing silvicultural information whichis a concise and clear introduction tolengthy and complicated forest man-agement concepts.

"Reproduction Methods" - Fivegeneral reproduction methods whichare recognized in silviculture follows:

1. Clearcutting method - removalof all trees in one cutting to form a newstand where all trees have the same age(even-aged) .

2. Seed-tree method - removal ofall trees in one cutting, except for asmall number of seed trees that arereserved for a few years as a seedsource to establish a new even-agedstand.

3. Shelterwood method - removalof all trees in two or three cuttings, leav-ingsome trees for a few years to act as aseed source and a protective shelter forthe even-aged stand which develops.

4. Coppice method-removal of anentire mature stand in one cutting toregenerate an even-aged stand.

5. Selection method - removal ofmature trees every 10-15 years, eithersingularly or in small groups, to establisha new age class in the uneven-agedstand."Selection Method Silviculture" -

Uneven-aged silvicultural practices arecharacterized by always having tall treespresent in a stand and by having theregenerating, tending, and harvesting ofa forest crop occurring Simultaneouslyduring the periodic timber harvests.

"Clearcutting and Even-aged Silvi-culture" -Even-aged silvicultural prac-tices never have all three major compo-nents (regenerating, tending and har-vesting a forest crop) of silviculture per-formed simultaneously. Instead, thetending is only done between harvests;

and once during each rotation a newforest stand is established by harvestingthe mature trees to regenerate a neweven-aged stand.

"Regeneration Sources" - In botheven-aged and uneven-aged forestmanagement, regeneration may comefrom three sources: seeds, sprouts fromstumps, and sprouts from establishedroot systems.

Tree seeds which generate when con-ditions are right may have been storedfor a year or more on the forest floor.

Sprouts developing from root sys-tems of American beech, black locust,and aspens (poppies) are common afterthe overstory in a stand is out. Mosthardwoods form sprouts on stumps ofsmall diameters, but red maple treesand oaks are commonly reproduced bystump sprouts, even when the stumpsare of large sawtimber size.

"Not Scientific Silviculture" - Al-though silviculture may be consideredan art based on science, there are twocommon timber harvesting practiceswhich are not included in the five silvi-cultural reproduction methods previ-ously mentioned. Diameter limit cuttingand high-grading are not reproductionmethods of silviculture; but they arecommonly used by landowners and log-gers to select trees for harvesting.

"Diameter Limit Cutting" - This issimply a convenient method for select-ing trees to be cut. And it usually meanscutting only big trees without consider-ation for regeneration and tending awoodland. Regeneration in the foreststand may become established bychance when a diameter limit cutting isused to select merchantable trees.

"High-grading" - This is a method ofdetermining trees to be cut based onhigh market value. But it is not part of asilvicultural system to regulate thegrowth and development of a foreststand. Regeneration and tending are ig-nored during high-grading, though newtrees may become established in theopenings created when high value tim-ber is removed. Unfortunately, lowvalue and cull trees are often left in theoverstory, occupying space which couldbe used by better growing stock.

Improved forest productivity canoccur if a woodland owner uses silvicul-tural reproduction methods as a basisfor timber harvesting. But with the useof diameter limit cutting and high-grad-ing, there is a likelihood that the sus-tained yield of a forest stand will be lessthan what it would be if silviculturalreproduction methods were used.

Sam Bonasa UmbellasBy R.M. Beal

In my fifty or so years of infrequentacquaintanceship with partridge or ruff-ed grouse, I have considered them awary bird that has survived becausethey avoided man and all other preda-tors as a first rule of conduct. This opin-ion was changed in the Spring of 1983when a ruffed grouse started his matingritual on a large pine stump shielded bya stand of second growth saplings aboutfifty feet from our kitchen window. Hedrummed, he strutted, and he drum-med again - but he never found amate. His constant activity was notanswered by any of his kind. He hadreached marriageable age at a very lowpoint in his species life cycle in northernNew York.

My wife and I felt sad but thought hewould leave to search in other areas fora bride because, obviously, our neigh-borhood was barren of his clan. Sam, aswe now called him, had no intention ofroaming the world looking for a female.They would come to him or to hell withit. Daily he drummed and daily he be-came more frustrated, and as his frus-tration grew, his shyness dissipated. Heleft the protective cover of the woods forlonger and longer periods and retreatedfrom the open yard more slowly whenhumans appeared.

Finally, he decided we had encroach-ed on his territory too often and toolong. He formally announced this oneday while I was cutting the lawn with apower mower. Sam left the cover of thewoods and charged across the inter-vening twenty feet of grass, his neck ex-tended and his bill pointed fixedly at themower. When I realized he intended tohit the machine, I shut it off so that theblade would not decapitate him if his at-tack centered on the grass spout.

As he closed on the machine, he flewup a foot or so and struck the mowerwith the leading edge of his left wing.Then he returned to the ground to circleand make a pass at my ankles. For awhile he revolved around me, closingoccasionally to peck harmlessly at mywork shoes. I could scarcely feel the im-pact of his beak on the leather. Afterseveral minutes of this unusual happen-ing, I told Sam I had a lawn to finish andhe returned to the woods after a few


Sam and friend.

more half-hearted challenges whichwere equally divided between my shoesand the mower.

Following this initial confrontation,Sam's incursions progressed from semi-weekly to almost daily. Any family ac-tivity was apt to draw his presence, buthe responded most rapidly and 'mostirately to the noise of a mower, thesqueak of wheelbarrow wheels, or theclang of a splitting maul. All of thesepursuits brought Sam swearing and nat-tering to himself while he alternated be-tween beady-eyed observation of thework and blustering attempts to halt it.

After our initial contact, I realized thatSam understood he was dealing withpeople who would not harm him. How-ever, I still cannot understand his firstforay when he had no assurance that Ior the mower would not cause seriousand permanent harm to his two or threepound body. Truly, he must have beendriven mad by love - or the lack of it.

The following are several thumbnailsketches of Sam's behavior since he hasdecided he can depart the scene withhis feathers and tail in good order, afterthreatening and harassing members ofour family any time his fancy dictates.

When I rake grass, he crowds be-tween me and the wheelbarrow tryingto stop the transfer of grass to barrow. Iwill push him aside with the broom rakeand he shoves back cooing and halfclucking softly, deep in his throat,sounding like a cross between a lowkeyed demented pidgeon and disturbedhen. After several gentle pushes have

done nothing to discourage his conduct,I will place the rake against him and fliphim several feet away. The toss greatlyoffends his dignity even if it is too gentleto ruffle any feathers. As he sailsthrough the air, he leans back in mydirection; and as his feet hit the ground,he rushes back to perform a war dancearound me, the rake, and the barrow.As his attention span is not long, he willfinally strut away to allow me to com-plete the yard work.

If my wife has the temerity to weedthe flower garden, Sam will waddleover, recite to her the error of her ways,and then peck at her hands until shestops work. This scenario changesabruptly if he decides to eat a fewblossoms. Helen allows nothing in theinsect or animal kingdom to abuse herflowers. As she will not hit Sam, and ashe pays no attention to the spokenword, she will spray him with a gardenhose. This offends him and he circlesher at a fast trot until, completely soak-ed, he flies off.

Sam walks and runs more than flies.He can soar like a rocket, but he prefersto walk - either a pompous waddle oran urgent trot depending on whether hismission at the time is observation orconfrontation.

Once when I was working up a pinestump with iron wedges driven by asplitting maul, Sam rolled out of thewoods using his "Squire of the Manor"waddle. This meant he had come as aspectator. He will watch a while beforestarting to hammer at my feet andankles. He moved in steadily on the im-pact center of the wedge until the tip ofhis beak was six inches from the strikingsurface. With each blow his head rock-ed, his eyes fluttered, but he stood hisground. Given his acute hearing, thosemaul impacts must have rung out likebeing inside a cathedral bell at vespers.After two dozen or so blinking observa-tions, Sam indicated enough wasenough by pecking at my ankles. I toldhim I was in agreement by moving himlaterally out of the field of play. Heretreated cursing in an Upstate NewYork gallinaceous dialect.

At other times, Sam has observed mypiling of wood, cleaning of gutters, andpractice golf swings. In the end, he dis-approves of any human activities. Ibelieve his disapproval is more territorialthan personal. It is not so much what wedo, but we are doing it on his turf.

Sam feeds constantly and from whatwe can observe, entirely on leaves,seeds, and grasses. In the Spring,

poplar buds were high on his preferredfood list. He continued to eat the leaveswhen they were quite mature. Once heate two dandelion blossoms in quicksuccession,- and I thought a splendidwork had begun, but he never touchedanother bloom to my knowledge, andour yard is the dandelion capital of theworld. As mentioned, he liked Helen'sflowers but these were just quick snacksbecause she made sure he ate on therun. I think the exercise did them bothgood.

We do not know if Sam's behavior istypical of a non-breeding male ruffedgrouse or if he suffers from othercauses. He eats well, is alert and ingood plumage. In any case, when Samleaves for whatever reason, we will missthis arrogant, territorial, wrong-headedcharacter.

PLEASURE!A Texas rancher's new boots turned

out to be too snug. The bootmaker of-fered 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 outof bed I have to corral some cows thatbusted out the night before and mendfences they tore down. All day long, Iwatch my ranch blow away in the dust.After supper, I listen to the television tellabout the high price of feed and the lowprice of beef. And all the time my wife isnagging me to move to town.

"Son, when I get ready for bed andpull off those boots - well, that's theonly pleasure I get all day."

- Troy Gordon in Tulsa World

Silence in a woodIt is the silence in a wood each nightThat's miracle. Tribes of giants growEnough to hide the tallest planet's lightWithout a sound of strain, while deep belowA world absorbed by husbandry,

fresh-ploughedBy worms, arouses the wood's progenyTo dumb but wild conflicting claims

that crowdThe air with silent green hyperbole.Along the fuse of branch and vine

buds burst,Flower, explode, reseed another roundOf tree and tangle, to quench whose

outstretched thirstSap will be pumped miles high

All Without sound,Save sighs when passing breeze and

leaves togetherStart grapevine rumors on the

morrow's weather. -Raymond Henri


NEW YORK FOREST OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS OF JUNE 12,1984

IncomeMembershipInterestActivities

Total Income

Budget Actual1984 to-date

$8,000 $5,230400 194

269

$8,400 $5,693

$6,500 $2,967850600 269350 290100 32175 14735050 50

100150 7250

235

$9,275 $4,062

($875) $1,631

ExpensesForest OwnerMembership Sect'y. ExpensesMembership Committeeliability InsurancePrinting & SuppliesAwards CommitteeEducation & Publicity CommitteeAssociated Group MeetingsDirectors' Elections & MeetingsPresident's ExpensesWoods WalksBumper Stickers

Total Expenses

Income less Expenses

Balance Sheet, June 12, 1984Assets

Checking AccountSavings AccountMoney Market FundDeposit - Sagamore MeetingDeposit - Syracuse Univ. - Catering

Total Assets

$ 265108

6,30140058

$7,132

liabilities & Net WorthAccounts PayableNet Worth 12/31/83Income less ExpensesNet Worth 6/12/84

$5501+ 1631

$7,132

Stuart McCarty, Treasurer

MEMBERSHIPThe New York Forest Owner is presently sent to 663 homes and busi-

nesses, in 23 states and three foreign countries. Of these, 183 are listed asMr. and Mrs. I believe that the women are every bit as interested in theirwoodlots and prefer to think that we have 846 members as of Septemberfirst.

-Editor

LIABILITY INSURANCECOVERAGE:

Do We Need More?The question of whether Mary and I

need additional coverage to protect usfrom insurance claims on our 64 acrewoodlot keeps coming up. Each time Ilook into it I end up with a differentanswer. Most recently I decided to do amore exhaustive examination of theproblem and after coming to some con-clusions I felt I should share them withother forest owners who no doubt haverun into the same problem.

First, I want to emphasize that thescope of this article does not include theneed for worker's compensation insur-ance. All I need say on this subject isbeware. Talk to your insurance agent ifyou are going to have someone workingin your woods.

The conclusions I came to about theneed for additional liability insuranceare as follows:

1) Your homeowners policy coversyour woodlot, even though it is not con-nected to your residence, as long as youare not carrying on a commercial typeoperation. For instance, you can cutyour own firewood with the help of afriend as long as the friend isn't payingyou for his or her share of the wood cut.If the friend cuts alone and in paymentfor his or her share gives you some fire-wood, there may be additional liabilityfor any injury incurred. Some insurancecompanies would not exclude this typeof activity because it is an incidentalbusiness activity to the ordinary businesspursuits of the owner.

2) Your homeowners policy coversyour woodlot against claims arising fromrecreational pursuits, as long as youdon't have any unusual hazards on yourproperty which you "willfully" or"maliciously" did not properly mark orwarn against. On the other hand, if youcharge a fee for hunting, for instance,then your liability is on another leveland calls for further investigation. Thecommercial question enters into the pic-ture again.

3) If you plan to allow a logger orfirewood cutter to work on your wood-lot, then you definitely have additionalliability considerations. You should firstdiscuss your plan with a professionalforester, with your insurance agent and,perhaps, with your attorney.

4) Mary and I will depend on ourhomeowners policy (with adequatelimits) because we are not planning any

I


logging activity, having had a cuttingtwo years ago, and because we don'tplan to sell any firewood or charge a feefor recreational use of our property. Ifwe decide to pursue any of these "com-mercial" activities, we will consult withour insurance agent and I strongly ad-vise you to do likewise.

One insurance agent told me thatmost homeowners carry liability protec-tion of $100,000. For about $10 thiscould be increased to $300,000 accord-ing to him. In addition, a personal um-brella liability policy can usually be pur-chased for less than $100 a year.

For more detail on this complicatedsubject, I refer you to an excellent tractprovided by NYS Cooperative Exten-sion entitled "Liability Considerationsfor New York Woodland Owners"(15¢). -Stuart McCarty

TEMPORARY COMMITTEES

Woods Walks:Roberts (chairman)FineganLecoursProskine

Long Range Planning:McCarty, S. (chairman)Kelley (vice-chairman)KnightMitchellSteinfeldWardMcCarty (ex-officio)

Editorial:Richards (chairman)EdmondsLynchRobertsStrombeck

Regional Affiliates:Steinfeld (chairman)EberleyPetriePfarner

Insurance:McCarty, S. (temporary

appointment)

THE AMERICANTREE FARM SYSTEM

nicipal, 4-H, and Scout lands have beencertified that meet the high standard forcertification. Tree Farm land must beadequately protected from fire, insects,disease, and destructive grazing toqualify for certification.

Most successful tree farmers go wellbeyond the basic requirements to prac-tice timber stand improvement, and toincrease yield through silviculturalmethods including thinning, plantingand restocking.

Working tree farms in the AmericanTree Farm System range from 10 acresto more than 1.5 million acres. There'seven a one-acre demonstration treefarm in Washington, D.C. owned andoperated by the Audubon NaturalistSociety of the Central Atlantic States.

There is really only one commoncharacteristic that seems generally trueof tree farmers across the country. Thatis a desire to fulfill an obligation to theland ... a responsibility that goes withownership. We have assumed the chal-lenge of improving our environment asa personal objective, not merely as adesirable, abstract concept.

Tree farmers pay no fees, dues orother costs to participate in theAmerican Tree Farm System. If you areinterested and think your lands qualify,contact: N.Y.S. Tree Farm Commit-tee, c/o St. Regis Paper Company,Timberlands Division, Deferiet, NewYork 13628.

The American Tree Farm System ofprivate timberland management had itsbeginning on the West Coast in 1941,when the term "Tree Farm" was usedby a lumber industry firm as a better wayof telling its forest management story tothe public.

From that impressive but humblebeginning, the program has become na-tionwide in scope, with increasing thou-sands of private landowners joining inwhat has been described as the greatestvoluntary movement of forest conserva-tion in the nation's industry.

The idea spread across the nationfrom Washington State to Maine. InApril 1942, Alabama became the first tolaunch an organized statewide TreeFarm program. In rapid succession,other states became Tree Farm states,and the industry-sponsored voluntarytree-growing movement was on its way.

Today, there are over 40,000 TreeFarms embracing over 80,000,000acres. New York joined the Tree Farmeffort in 1956 and presently there areover 800 certified Tree Farms in NewYork totaling over 750,000 acres ofprivately owned forest land.

The American Tree Farm System issponsored by the forest industriesthrough the American Forest Insti-tute, Washington, D.C. The NewYork program is sponsored by theEmpire State Forest Products Associ-ation. The program is administered byTree Farm Committees with theassistance of state agencies like theNew York Department of Environ-mental Conservation and the consult-ing foresters throughout the state.

The purpose of the Tree Farm effortis to publicly recognize landowners whoprovide good examples of forestry forothers to follow.

The American Tree Farm Systemworks this way: Private and public for-esters conduct inspections of forestlands for Tree Farm certification ...their time is donated on a volunteerbasis. There is no cost to the landowner.

The key requirement for Tree Farmcertification is a management plan thatincludes as a major objective the pro-duction 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-

But Didn'tDo you ever think at close of dayOf kindly words you meant to say-

But didn't?Do you ever think when day is doneOf errands kind you could have run-

But didn't?Do you ever think at daytime's leaveOf flowers gay you meant to give-

But didn't?Do you ever think when skies are redOf hungry mouths you could have fed-

But didn't?Do you ever think of dawn of nightOf letters kind you meant to write-

But didn't?Friend, do you think at life's set of sun

You'll think of deeds you could have done-But didn't?

-Kathryn Thorne Bowsher

-From booklet published bySalesian Missions, New Rochelle, NY


FORESTBookshelfWorking with Your Woodland, by

Mollie Beattie, Charles Thompson, andLynn Levine, published by UniversityPress of New England, 3 LebanonStreet, Hanover, NH 03755, 310pages, published March 1984, $12.95paper; $27.50 cloth.

Mollie Beattie is a Forester with TheWindham Foundation in Vermont.Charles Thompson is with the Depart-ment of Forestry and Wildlife at theUniversity of Massachusetts, Amherst,and President of Atlantic Forestry, Inc.,and Lynn Levine is a Consulting For-ester with Forest-Care in Vermont.

Carl Reidel, Professor of Forestry atthe University of Vermont describes thebook in the foreword. "This book isabout starting. It is a book that has beenneeded fora long time. Written by threeyoung foresters with first-rate qualifica-tions, it is a practical guide for land-owners who want to realize the potentialof their forest land. Most important, it isbased on sound biology and sound eco-nomics, which are critical elements forsuccessful forest management."

The book is not a do-it-yourselfgUide. It concentrates on advising land-owners in decision making and settingobjectives through the use of competenttechnical help. It's a guide to "a middleway between overuse of the forest andnot using it at all."

The orientation is northeastern start-ing with a brief New England forest his-tory which is helpful in explaining whyNew England forests are in their presentcondition. A chapter on assessingwoodland potential contains some use-ful advice on things to look for in prop-erty that may offer strong points or bedetrimental. One example is a descrip-tion of how to identify "pit and moundrelief," a sign of poor drainage or thinsoils.

A section on foresters describes thefour types of foresters assisting privatelandowners in New England. What youcan expect from service, consulting, in-dustrial and extension foresters is ex-plained clearly and in detail. Manage-ment plans and woodland managementtechniques are explained in consider-able detail and the professional jargonassociated with forestry is interpreted.

There is a down-to-earth section on har-vesting forest products and some prac-tical information on the financial aspectsof forest management.

The appendix contains tables withforestry measurements and conver-sions, a suggested reading list, a sum-mary of forestry related laws for theNew England states, and a listing ofsources of technical information. Blackand white illustrations are used through-out the book to make key points under-standable.

The book should be a useful refer-ence for landowners in the NortheasternUnited States.

Agricultural Handbook #596. "AGuide to Federal Income Tax for Tim-ber Owners." $4.25. Available fromthe Superintendent of Documents, U.S.Printing Office, Washington, D.C.20402.

Forest Management HandbookPublished for Private Owners

Cornell University has published anew handbook for owners of privateforests throughout the Northeast. The56-page, illustrated reference describesall major facets of forest managementfor timber production.

Timber Management for SmallWoodlands features a careful explana-tion of forest management in terms thatowners can understand and use.

Few owners capitalize on the fullpotential value of their forest holdings,claim authors Gary Goff, James Las-soie, and Katherine M. Layer, special-ists in natural resources for CornellCooperative Extension. They are in theNew York State College of Agricultureand Life Sciences at Cornell University.

Substantial areas of the Northeast areclassified as commercial forest land, yeta relatively small percentage is activelymanaged for timber production.

Virtually all private forest lands areharvested at some time, as ownershipand needs change, thus there is consid-erable economic justification for goodforest management, the authors state.

The handbook may be ordered fromthe Cornell Distribution Center, 7 Re-search Park, Ithaca, NY 14850. The$1. 75 charge includes postage andhandling.

Cornell's Arnot ForestSite of Spectacular

Forestry Equipment Show

Ithaca, NY - Bring your hard hatswhen you come to Cornell University'sArnot Forest to see rugged timber-har-vesting machinery in action this fall.

Scheduled for September 20-22, theForestry Equipment Exhibition andDemonstration will feature machineryand equipment used for everythingfrom downing giant trees to convertingtimber into products ready for manufac-turers and users.

David W. Taber of the department ofnatural resources in the New York StateCollege of Agriculture and Life Sciencesat Cornell, one of the coordinators ofthis event, says:

'The forestry equipment show is arare opportunity for professional log-gers, foresters, and managers of forestrybusinesses to learn about the capabilitiesof timber-harvesting. machinery andequipment used under realistic condi-tions."

Among machinery, worth millions ofdollars, to be demonstrated under ac-tual working conditions in the woodsare a whole tree chipper, skyline mini-yarder, fast-track yarding machine,grapple and cable skidders, fellerbunchers with shears, and farm tractorattachments for timber harvesting, saysTaber, a senior associate for CornellCooperative Extension.

The three-day event, according toTaber, is expected to attract as many as5,000 forestry professionals fromthroughout the Northeast and neighbor-ing states, including North Carolina tothe south and Indiana to the west, andCanada.

Located about 20 miles southeast ofIthaca, between Newfield and Cayuta(off Route 13 between Ithaca andElmira), Arnot Forest consists of morethan 4,000 acres of forest land. It ismanaged by Cornell's department ofnatural resources as a research, teach-ing, and demonstration area in forestry,wildlife management, soil and waterconservation, and biological sciences.


TheNew Scourgeof Elms

If you have a beloved elm tree lend-ing grace to your street, shade to youryard or majesty to a neighboring field,go kiss it goodbye.

At the very time that Central NewYorkers finally controlled the spread ofDutch elm disease, which through the1950s, '60s and '70s claimed fully 95percent of the local population of Amer-ican elms, trees in eastern OnondagaCounty were stricken by what has be-come the single worst outbreak in theworld of another elm disease - the so-called "elm yellows."

"There were more than a million elmsin the Fayetteville-Manlius area whenwe surveyed in 1978. There's not oneof them left," said Dr. Gerald Lanier,entomologist and authority on patho-gens afflicting Ulmus americana, theAmerican elm. "I defy you today tofind me an American elm there with atrunk larger than the diameter of a pen-cil. All the big trees are dead, everyoneof them."

Worse, the epidemic is spreading."Elm yellows is moving like the tide,"

radiating in all directions from point ofoutbreak at a rate of a mile or two peryear, Lanier said. The zone of severestinfectation has now reached the Syra-cuse city limits, and isolated incidenceshave been reported as far east as Caze-novia, as far south as LaFayette.

The pending holocaust of elms mightbe prevented, though that appearsunlikely. Lanier's research has foundthat annual injections of the antibiotictetracycline protect healthy elms fromthe virus-like organisms that cause elmyellows. The problem is that such treat-ment is labor-intensive, and no onelocally is authorized - or, at present,seems inclined - to expend the effort.

Most municipalities have no "Depart-ment of Tree Salvation," and the fewthat boast anything similar have staffs sosmall that the possibility of a massiveprogram of elm injections is unthink-able. The forestry unit of the SyracuseDepartment of Parks and Recreation,for example, is comprised of only twomen.

Thus most of Central New York ap-pears ultimately doomed to the fate thathas already greeted the villages of east-ern Onondaga County. Said Gordon

Urban ForestryTeska of the Department of PublicWorks in Minoa: "We don't have asingle elm left on Elm Street."

Lanier, a professor at the State Uni-versity of New York College of Environ-mental Science and Forestry in Syra-cuse, was among the leaders of thedecades-long effort to stem the spreadof Dutch elm disease, a fungal infectiontransmitted by European and Americanbark beetles. In collaboration with otherresearchers, Lanier synthesized thepheremone produced when a femalebark beetle attacks an American elm.The odorant attracts to the tree the tensof thousands of bark beetles in thevicinity, greatly increasing the odds thatone will carry Ceratocystis ulmi, thefungus causing Dutch elm disease.

Lanier's solution was to affix a power-ful concentrate of the pheremone to alarge sheet of fly paper and to wrap thepaper around another species of tree ora telephone pole in the vicinity of elms.Such "tree traps" attract all the barkbeetles nearby. Their use, begun in1975, had reduced the elm loss inLanier's survey area - parts of DeWittand most of Syracuse south of ErieBoulevard - to less than one percentper year by 1979.

In 1976, however, the new menaceappeared in Fayetteville. By 1979, ithad reached the area of Lanier's survey."Nobody knows where it came from inthe first place," Lanier said. And com-pared to Dutch elm disease, "a lot less isknown about it."

"We know that it can be transmittedby insects" - specifically, by the com-mon leafhopper - "but we don't knowthat it's transmitted only by insects.There could be other vectors as well."

Nor have scientists identified themicroplasm that causes the disease.

Nor do they know exactly how it killsthe tree.

What is known is that the microplasmsomehow causes "phloem necrosis," adisruption of the tree's vascular system.Nutrients born photosynthetically in theleaves thus fail to reach the roots. Thenthe roots die. Then the tree dies.

By the time visible symptoms appear- yellowing of the leaves and wilting ofthe smallest branches - the infectionhas spread too far for treatment.

Though the disease was first recog-nized in the United States in the 1880s,only recently have earlier-warning testsbeen identified. One is to remove a

sample of outer and inner bark, place itin a jar and smell it. If the tree is in-fected, the bark will emit a faint odor ofwintergreen.

Another, which Lanier has proposed,concerns the sheen of the leaves.

In one sample plot, "We injected(with tetracycline) the elms only after wesaw the symptoms, but we also injectedone tree that just didn't look right to me.There was a loss of shinyness of theleaves.

"That may be the first symptom.What we know is the next year, all ofthe obviously sick trees died, and theone that we injected on suspicion recov-ered," he said.

Moreover, all of the 200 healthy treesthat Lanier has experimentally injectedhave remained disease-free, while allthose around them have died.

Lanier believes that, should CentralNew Yorkers choose to do so, elmsthat remain healthy today can be sav-ed. "It's possible," he said, "but some-body's going to have to hustle themoney to do it."

Whether such hustling can or will bedone remains to be seen. Don Robbins,head of the forestry unit in the City ofSyracuse, explained: "We go to thepublic hearings (on the city's budget)and ask for more money, but nobodysupports us. People want their sewers,and their police protection, and theirsidewalks, but they don't think muchabout their trees.

Even from a fiscal standpoint, how-ever, Lanier contends that protectingthe city's trees is cheaper than doingnothing. During the peak years of theDutch elm epidemic, Syracuse was forc-ed to budget more than $1 million perannum for removal of dead trees. Bycontrast, Lanier estimates that injectionsto save the city's few thousand survivingelms would cost only "a few thousanddollars for chemicals, a thousand forequipment, and salaries for a staff. Itwould be only in the tens of thousandsall told."

If on the other hand, nothing is done,Central New York will figure promi-nently - and tragically so - in thehistory of the mysterious disease. "Elmyellows has appeared in other placesand then, for reasons we don't under-stand, completely disappeared," Laniersaid, "but it has never been recordedanywhere to be as bad as it is right nowin Syracuse, N.Y." By James Ehmann


TREESA Comment on Joint Venture

By Gavin McKenzieNew Zealand Forest Service

"This article from New Zealanddescribes an idea many New York forestowners might like to consider. We'lllikely learn more about it on a 1985NYFOA tour to the 'land down under'."

Joint venture forestry on farmland isa topic that has received considerableattention in the last 18 months, attract-ing comment both from those who con-sider the scheme to have great meritand those who view it with suspicion asan attempt by forest companies to man-ipulate landowners.

Aiding confusion and differences ofopinion is the fact that two independentapproaches to joint venture agreementshave been developed and promoted.One has been developed by the privateforestry consulting firm of J. G. Groomeand Associates and the other under theauspices of the New Zealand Farm For-estry Association. There are strong pro-ponents of each.

The joint venture concept has beendiscussed previously in these pages byDave McKinnon (Farmer, June 23,1983), and comment has been passedby that prolific forestry writer Neil Barr,who noted "for the not so establishedfarmer the joint venture forest is worthserious consideration" (Farmer, May26, 1983). Personally, however, NeilBarr comments, "Entrepreneurial for-estry, joint venture or not, leaves mecold" (Farmer, June 23, 1983).

A number of contentious and emo-tive issues have arisen out of the con-cept. Joint ventures are seen by someas just another means used by forestrycompanies to plant trees on good graz-ing land, thus adding fuel to the generalforestry versus agriculture debate. Thispoint of view, however, must be strong-ly discounted.

A joint venture does not involve achange in the ownership of the land andit is the existing landowner who decideswhich areas of his farm are better suitedto trees and which areas he may makeavailable for joint venture afforestation.Joint venture forestry seen in this light,is in fact a vehicle through which goodland use can be promoted and practic-ed.

There has been diverging opinion ontwo main points central to the negoti-ation of an acceptable joint ventureagreement. The two interrelated pointsare:

• The investor's right to use 100% ofthe wood produced by the joint ventureforest.

• The landowner's concern that hewill get the highest possible return fromthe project.

It is useful to examine briefly the ma-jor differences between the twoschemes which have been developed.These are shown in the comparisonbelow.

The investor's right to use 100% ofthe wood produced is obviously em-bodied in the privately developed ap-proach to joint ventures, and the land-owner's concern about obtaining thehighest possible returns are catered forin the New Zealand Farm Forestryscheme, which allows the landowner towithhold his share of the wood and sellit as he wishes.

It is useful to clearly establish that noone is forced into a joint venture, andthat there are a number of landownerswith adequate financial resources to goit alone.

For a joint venture to be acceptable,i.e., for the landowner to make his landavailable and the investor to make hisfinancial resources available, an identi-fiable benefit must be able to be recog-nized by both parties.

To date all those prepared to invest injoint ventures have been wood process-ing companies that see the strategic ad-vantage of assured future wood suppliesas their main benefit. As a result, guar-anteed rights to use all the wood pro-duced has been a primary concern.Without it, it is unlikely that these com-panies would risk their financial re-sources in joint ventures.

To date, no non-wood processing in-vestors have been found to invest injoint ventures, although both schemesprovide an avenue for this.

It was originally expected that themaximum share, and resulting maxi-mum financial return, would be themain point at issue with landowners.Discussions with those landowners whohave entered into joint venture agree-ments, however, show quite clearly thatfor most of them other factors weremore important in making a joint ven-ture an acceptable project.

For some farmers especially, theknowledge that they will no longer needto spend considerable sums of moneyon expensive and sometimes repetitiveweed control, or on fertilizer to maintaingrass growth, has been sufficient attrac-tion. Both these benefits allow for finan-cially more efficient farming on the re-

mainder of the property, and a share ina forestry investment in these cases isconsidered a bon us.

For many other landowners whohave entered a joint venture the mainbenefit has been seen as a guaranteedmarket for the wood produced. A re-cent study undertaken by Massey Uni-versity (Farmer, November 24, 1983)indicated that one of the most commonreasons given by farmers for not plant-ing their own forest at their own ex-pense was the uncertainty of returns.

Under the Farm Forestry scheme, thelandowner is able to force the investor(if he is a wood processing company) totake 100% of the wood but also re-serves the option of selling the wood in-dependently to try and obtain a betterprice. In other words, it allows the land-owner to back two horses - a guaran-teed market and the right to sell to otherparties.

The investor in the meantime cannotrely on having available 100% of thewood, and certainly will not wish to befaced with landowners vacillating onwhether the investor may have thewood or not.

The privately developed scheme pro-vides for the investor to have a guaran-tee that he will have available 100% ofthe wood, and provides protection forthe landowner in that he receives hisshare of the value of the wood at har-vesting, that value being determined byan independent forest valuer.

The valuer is required by the agree-ment to value the wood "as if sold to thebest financial advantage." This shouldreflect the best price that the landownercould receive, even if he sold the woodin his own right.

Those who consider that the land-owner retaining the right to sell a shareof the wood independently is an essen-tial right should remember that smallvolume sales do not always fetch thebest prices. Often small sellers have toband together to achieve an adequatebargaining position and collect ade-quate market information. There is in-variably a cost associated with this.

It is interesting that to date only woodprocessing companies have beenprepared to invest in joint ventures, andonly in limited specified areas. If thejoint venture approach selected by thecompany involved is not acceptable to aparticular landowner, his only alterna-tive at present is to plant trees out of hisown financial resources.

In the final analysis it is, of course, theinteraction between individual land-

II


owners and investors which will deter-mine what rules are acceptable to bothparties, and it is interesting to note thenumber of joint ventures currently in ex-istence.

All the investors have chosen to basetheir joint ventures on predeterminedshares, and require the right to use100% of the wood produced.To the best of the writer's knowledge

the Farm Forestry scheme, based on themaintenance of records throughout therotation and the landowner retainingthe right to sell a share of the logs in-dependently, has not yet been put intopractice.

The basic aim of the joint ventureconcept has always been to provide aworkable mechanism which will allowthe practice of forestry on land suited tothat purpose without involving a changein traditional land owning patterns.

Many landowners still fear forestrybecause of its perceived association withcorporate (government or company)ownership of large areas of land.Although many farmers have longrecognized that parts of their farms havebeen more suited to forestry than graz-ing, the lack of finance and financial in-centives - and the strong desire tokeep that land in traditional ownership- has prevented forestry development.

The joint venture schemes developedare both vehicles for providing thefinancial investment required withoutinvolving a sale of the land. From thispoint of view it has been the evolutionof practical and workable schemes thathas been the main achievement of jointventure development.

The final decision still remains withthe landowner if he is lucky enough tohave an investor willing to put up thefinance for a joint venture forest.

Privately developed schemeThe landowner's share of the value of

the mature forest is predeterminedbefore an agreement is signed based onrelative contributions. This assumes thatinflation will affect both parties equally.Recognition of the different timing ofcontributions throughout the project ismade.The forest is managed by the investor

based on a management plan proposedand accepted at the time the project isfirst proposed. The investor has theright to change the plan within certainconstraints.

The forestry company has the right touse 100% of the wood grown for what-ever purpose it sees fit, provided the

landowner is paid his share of the value. of the trees independently determinedand based on the highest value use.

NZ Farm ForestryAssociation Scheme

The landowner's share of the revenueis based on records kept of the contribu-tions made by each party. Records areupdated and adjusted for inflation quar-terly. Land is revalued periodically. Norecognition for different timing of con-tributions is made.

The forest is managed according to apredetermined management plan if theinvestor is a forestry company. The planis included in the agreement and maybe changed by mutual agreement only.

The landowner has the right to keepor sell independently a share of the pro-duce (logs) if he wishes, instead of re-ceiving a share of their value.

Letters to the Editor28 Musket Lane

Pittsford, N.Y. 14534August 1, 1984

N.Y.S. Forest Owners Assoc.c/o Evelyn Stock5756 Ike Dixon Rd.Camillus, N.Y. 13031

Dear Ms. Stock:

As an organization representingprivate taxpaying forest owners, youshould be interested in the "ProposedAmendment to Section 480-a" of theReal Property Tax Law. This amend-ment reduces the minimum qualifyingland from 50 acres to 25 acres. It wouldopen the participation of many smallforest land owners for tax relief andstimulate forest management.

In the last session of the state legisla-ture, Assemblyman Maurice Hincheysponsored 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 wouldsuggest more information to begathered. Individual members shouldthen write to their representatives in thelegislature.

Sincerely,Richard J. BellConsulting Forester

Monteith AppointedDoug Monteith, Senior Research

Associate at the School of Forestry hasbeen appointed Chairman of the S.A.F.Forestry Employment Committee.Doug is a Director of the NYFOA andChairman of the Fall Meeting at Saga-more.

"Nominations Open"Bob Edmonds, chairman of the nom-

inating and awards committee statesthat nowis the time for people to sendin nominations for potential Directors.Candidates for the Heiberg Award:someone who has greatly benefitedforestry in New York State, and theNew York Forest Owners Award;someone who has been of great serviceto the NYFOA.

A short biographical sketch would beappropriate.

SMOKEY BEARA full color cacheted envelope

(first day cover) is being issued by theNational Association of State For-esters to commemorate the 40th an-niversary of the Smokey BearCooperative Forest Fire PreventionCampaign. A Smokey Bear stampwill be affixed and cancelled on thefirst day of issue. The cost of thecovers is $2.50 each, which includespostage and handling. To order,send your name and address toAllane Wilson, Alabama ForestryCommission, 513 Madison Ave.,Montgomery, AL 36130. Checksand/ or money orders should bemade payable to the National Asso-ciation of State Foresters.

Evelyn A. StockEditor

5756 Ike Dixon Rd.Camillus. NY. 13031

Big

"Shadbush Hornbeam

Ask A Foresterby AL ROBERTS

Good forest managers should abhor"weed" trees such as hornbeam andshadbush, right? So I should be asham-ed to admit that I have in our woods a19.2 inch D.B.H. (diameter at breastheight) American hornbeam and a 15.2inch D.B.H. shadbush. But I'm not.

A woodlot is for enjoyment and I en-joy thinking that I may have the firstrunner-up for the biggest hornbeam onrecord. The biggest, according to the of-ficial register of big trees in New YorkState has a D.B.H. of 28.3 inches. Canany of our readers beat 19.2 inches?

As far as the shadbush is concerned,I'm declaring it a world record, as thereisn't any shadbush recorded in the NewYork register. Can any of our readersbeat 15.2 inches for shadbush? I'll giveanyone a year's free membership in theN.Y.F.O.A. if they can.

Send entries to our editor.

APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THENEW YORK FOREST OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

(Please send to:)New York Forest Owners Assoc.Box 69, Old Forge, NY 13420

I would like to help advance forestry in New York State.enclose my check payable to the New York Forest OwnersAssociation, Inc.

Non profit org.bulk rate

U.S. POSTAGEPAID

Camillus. N.Y.13031

Permit No. 57

Trees

ANNUAL DUES

(Please underline choice)

Junior Member (Under 21) $ 3

Regular Member. $10

Family Membership $15(husband, wife)

Contributing Member $12 - $29

Sustaining Member. $30 - $99

Supporting Member $100 - $499

Sponsoring Member $500 and up

( ) I own acres forest land in _County, N.Y.

( ) I do not own forest land but I support the Association'sobjectives.

( ) I am interested in _

Name Address -r-r-r- Zip Code _

The New York Forest Owner - Volume 22 Number 5

Documents

Transcript of The New York Forest Owner - Volume 22 Number 5