How can you determine if wood is harvested ethically?

[odie]

Some years ago, there was a big awareness of "saving the rain forest", but that seems to have subsided some. I'm aware there are now many more tree farms in central and south America, but I've never been able to tell what's brought to market with ethics and environmental issues being considered. This doesn't only apply to imported wood, but is also a serious problem right here in the USA. (I believe it was here that we discussed the poaching of burls from trees in a city park......was that NYC?)

As woodturners, we are one of the smallest parts of the total market for wood, but we are probably more conscious/considerate of these issues than the furniture, flooring, siding, home building, and other major consumers of exotic woods.

I guess we could just refuse to use any wood that could be questioned as to origin......but, let's face it......trees die, and are felled for road and building construction, forest health through infestations, and etc.. There is no reason to not use it.

Like most of us, I would rather not support poaching of wood, but how can that be avoided, and still use wood that is ethically available?

ooc

 

[Charlie Knighton]

sort of like a new year's resolution, i'm good til i see that one blank that i got to have, that i have never seen or turned before........not much will power i am afraid to say.......i still have some odd bowl blanks from my first year but just the run of the mill stuff

 

[Bill Weaver]

Well Odie,
Since you are from up in the NW. I was in Washington State this past summer and saw some weird cutting of trees up there. Seems some places are thinning out for growth. Got any wisdom of this?

 

[odie]

Well Odie,
Since you are from up in the NW. I was in Washington State this past summer and saw some weird cutting of trees up there. Seems some places are thinning out for growth. Got any wisdom of this?

Having spent a few years working on a logging crew, and working in a lumber mill......yes, I do know a little about that. Last time I worked in that industry was about 20yrs ago, though.

I think what you were seeing is "clear cutting" of timber on authorized government timber sales. It is done with the health of the forest in mind. The forests are a "renewable resource" and I'm sorry to say that the environmentalists have cause a loss of harvesting our forests to the point, where the authorized sales are now much less than what is naturally sustainable. We now have a great loss of an industry, and it's related jobs......all due to "overreacting" to environmentalists in the courts.

This isn't to say that environmentalism doesn't have a good influence, but it has managed to be far overreaching in it's effect. Certainly it's possible to over-log a forest, or under-log a forest......both, have their negative effects on what a well managed forest, with a self sustaining lumber industry should be.

The pendulum swings both ways on this.........

note: None of this has much effect on wood that turners are interested in using......much of it being fir and pine. It's the construction trades and the costs of homes that suffers with the ignorance of our times.

ooc

 

[hockenbery]

I only know of one environmentally friendly logging practice - the small but growing urban logging
An example is viable lumber : http://viablelumber.com/About.html
Owner Pete Richardson did a presentation at the 2013 AAW symposium. There was also an article in the AAW about 2 years ago.

Basically these urban loggers step in after someone else has decided to take down a tree and they harvest the lumber instead if it going into a landfill.
Being in Florida these Viable Lumber's woods include: Indian Rose wood, red gum eucalyptus, Cuban mahogany Camphor and many other exotic hardwoods.

Commercial logging on any large scale is not environmentally friendly.
ethical harvest designations are just degrees of less bad.

In tropical regions
Plantation grown trees are grown seems great but the plantation was created by clear cutting a rainforest and growing mono cultures which support little wildlife.

In the US commercial harvesting involves cutting roads, replanting clear cuts with a monoculture, or selective harvest which removes some trees from the population and damaging some of those not taken. Usually roads are the most severe and long lasting damage to the environment, not the logging itself.

Lots of trade offs and degrees. We need wood, people need jobs, landowners need money.
Keeping as much primary forest in tact as possible and managing the rest for sustainable harvests should be the goal.

Some sticker may give us comfort and it may in fact mean that some erosion controls were put in place.
But it really means less bad than the one without the sticker.

Al

 

[Bill Boehme]

Odie, you can rest assured that if the wood is a tropical species from an equatorial country that ethical harvesting is just a phrase to help sell the lumber. The rainforests of Madagascar are just a memory now and Brazil is going full tilt in that direction. We would like to think that the rest of the world is as honest as we are, but in a great many countries corruption is the accepted normal way to do business. When wood arrives in this country and the paperwork is "in order" then it is accepted by the inspectors unless it is on the list of banned imports.

 

[odie]

I only know of one environmentally friendly logging practice - the small but growing urban logging
An example is viable lumber : http://viablelumber.com/About.html
Owner Pete Richardson did a presentation at the 2013 AAW symposium. There was also an article in the AAW about 2 years ago.

Basically these urban loggers step in after someone else has decided to take down a tree and they harvest the lumber instead if it going into a landfill.
Being in Florida these Viable Lumber's woods include: Indian Rose wood, red gum eucalyptus, Cuban mahogany Camphor and many other exotic hardwoods.

Commercial logging on any large scale is not environmentally friendly.
ethical harvest designations are just degrees of less bad.

In tropical regions
Plantation grown trees are grown seems great but the plantation was created by clear cutting a rainforest and growing mono cultures which support little wildlife.

In the US commercial harvesting involves cutting roads, replanting clear cuts with a monoculture, or selective harvest which removes some trees from the population and damaging some of those not taken. Usually roads are the most severe and long lasting damage to the environment, not the logging itself.

Lots of trade offs and degrees. We need wood, people need jobs, landowners need money.
Keeping as much primary forest in tact as possible and managing the rest for sustainable harvests should be the goal.

Some sticker may give us comfort and it may in fact mean that some erosion controls were put in place.
But it really means less bad than the one without the sticker.

Al

To a degree, I'm going to disagree with your assumptions, Al........

The logging industry was always regulated by federal and state oversight. You didn't follow the rules, you didn't log......period!

Logging, as an industry, was done with strict management of the Forest Service, with the intent to limit over harvesting and maintain a forest that wasn't over populated to the point where the health of the entire forest is effected. This is what we're seeing now, trees with stunted growth because the natural density means trees, plants, and animals all compete for the available space.

We can look at "official" environmental studies that are based on "junk science" with an objective in mind........or, we can see the influence of times past when our forests were increasing in size, despite a logging industry that supplied the needs of our people.

We have a problem here.......and, it's policy that reflects an agenda, not reality! :mad:

ooc

 

[hockenbery]

This isn't to say that environmentalism doesn't have a good influence, but it has managed to be far overreaching in it's effect. Certainly it's possible to over-log a forest, or under-log a forest......

The other management tool is fire. Most natural Forests in the US were subject to periodic fires as often as every 7 years in average. These fires swept through the understory and never reached the Canopy of the large trees. We now have devastating forest fires exacerbated by 100 years of fire suppression policy and forests of equal age replanted trees

Florida uses fire to manage most public lands with prescribed burns made in 3-7 Year cycles.

I'm not against logging. But we have to realize it is a method of farming.
Not a method of preserving the environment.

Al

 

[hockenbery]

.....or, we can see the influence of times past when our forests were increasing in size, despite a logging industry that supplied the needs of our people.

Depends in what you call a forest. I Live in the green swamp.
We have about the same acreage of Cypress Forest we had in 1920. We have no 1,000 year old cypress except the few that were hollow and deemed not worth cutting in the 40s-60s when these huge trees went for shingles.

Long leaf pine forests used to dominate the south east. Now most of the pine forest is slash pine.

I will agree we have trees. But we won't get the cypress forest back until around 2320


Al

 

[odie]

The other management tool is fire. Most natural Forests in the US were subject to periodic fires as often as every 7 years in average.
These fires swept through the understory and never reached the Canopy of the large trees.
We now have devastating forest fires exacerbated by 100 years of fire suppression policy and forests of equal age replanted trees

Florida uses fire to mange most public lands with prescribed burns made in 3-7 Year cycles.

I'm not against logging. But we have to realize it is a method of farming. Not a method of preserving the environment.
Al

One thing you are failing to realize, Al........is that we are better at preventing the spread of forest fires better than ever. We don't have a mastery over fires, but we do manage them 10x better than we did 50 or 100 years ago, when they basically burned themselves out.

That, in itself, is one reason why our forests are, and have been growing. The other main reason why this is happing, is a responsible forest maintenance plan based on intelligent methods, rather than "feel good" method. This is why we now have larger forests than we had in earlier times. That combined with a lack of responsible management, means undergrowth and overpopulation can add to why fires can get nasty.......just as they were when we had no way to substantially limit the effects of forest fires.

The environmentalists are causing our forests to have a lack of maintenance, and limiting potential for overall growth.......all for emotional appeal from and for those who don't have a clue what the real facts are.




ooc

 

[odie]

Depends in what you call a forest. I Live in the green swamp.
We have about the same acreage of Cypress Forest we had in 1920. We have no 1,000 year old cypress except the few that were hollow and deemed not worth cutting in the 40s-60s when these huge trees went for shingles.

Long leaf pine forests used to dominate the south east. Now most of the pine forest is slash pine.

I will agree we have trees. But we won't get the cypress forest back until around 2320


Al

Yes, of course, Al.......point taken.

You are in Florida, and I'm in Montana.......we can't apply the circumstances concerning our timber resources in the same way.

ooc

 

[odie]

I would really like to see this thread address the original post.....

thanks......

ooc

 

[hockenbery]

One thing you are failing to realize, Al........is that we are better at preventing the spread of forest fires better than ever. We don't have a mastery over fires, but we do manage them 10x better than we did 50 or 100 years ago, when they basically burned themselves out.

That is both the Problem and the Solution.

Fire is a natural good thing for Forests. When allowed to burn periodically the fires don't hurt the big trees because the fire never gets hot enough to burn the big trees or high enough to get in the canopy.

Stop fires for 50 years - the litter and understory creates a fires so hot and high that it burns the big trees up.

The severity of the fires in Yosemite were a result of fire suppression.

When Florida forests are burned on 3-7! Year cycle the large pines are just fine and the little pines survive just fine. Some teenagers go up I'm smoke and life goes on.

 

[hockenbery]

I would really like to see this thread address the original post..... thanks...... ooc

I thought the parts about Viable Lumber were right on point.

http://viablelumber.com/About.html

This is about the most ethical source of lumber and turning wood on the planet.

Al

 

[Mark Mandell]

I would really like to see this thread address the original post...../QUOTE]

You pose a question nearly impossible to answer.

Start by defining what you deem "ethical".
Next, define what "environmentally responsible" means as applied to each source location for the wood.
Next figure out how you can apply those definitions to the chunk of wood you buy at the wood show, and who and how will those "rules" you've made be enforced. With shipping containers of material sold and resold any number of times between the harvest points and final sale to you, the traceability will be a nightmare.

Can we assume that you're not talking about whether the guy down the street has the right to whack up that cherry tree in his back yard and sell it?

You've got a problem, Odie, and the net net is, I think, that you've gotta take it on faith.

 

[odie]

I would really like to see this thread address the original post...../QUOTE]

You pose a question nearly impossible to answer.

Start by defining what you deem "ethical".
Next, define what "environmentally responsible" means as applied to each source location for the wood.
Next figure out how you can apply those definitions to the chunk of wood you buy at the wood show, and who and how will those "rules" you've made be enforced. With shipping containers of material sold and resold any number of times between the harvest points and final sale to you, the traceability will be a nightmare.

Can we assume that you're not talking about whether the guy down the street has the right to whack up that cherry tree in his back yard and sell it.

You've got a problem, Odie, and the net net is, I think, that you've gotta take it on faith.

Mark, the unsure one........

Since you are undecided what the term "ethical" means, and how it applies to what I asked......why don't you apply an answer to what you think it means?

For myself, and most of the rest of us, there is no confusion as to the meaning of the word.....and, the application......and, the question as to how one might deal with the issue.

Yes, you assume right, that I'm not speaking about the guy down the street who wants to "whack" his cherry tree.

So I have a problem because I attempted to get some input on what other people think about the issue of how to avoid purchasing, and sustaining poaching of wood? Too bad, because it's obvious you're being purposefully argumentative, when the original post is perfectly clear as to the meaning of the enquiry.

ooc

 

[Mark Mandell]

C'mon, Odie, stop with the arguments and judgments!

Your response presupposes that what Mr. Odie thinks is "ethical" is some universal truth that every person on the planet agrees on. I'll submit that what Odie in Montana thinks is ethical when it comes to cutting down trees is a far cry from what that subsistence farmer in Columbia or the Amazon jungle regards as ethical when it comes to feeding his family. Consider that your question, as posed, may be shaded with more than a bit of ethnocentricity.

I merely pointed out that your question is far more complex than (perhaps) you thought it was. Maybe you didn't get the responses you wanted because other readers perceived some of the complexity.

So, how about if you step back and first tell us what you regard as "ethically" cutting and using wood?

 

[odie]

Odie, you can rest assured that if the wood is a tropical species from an equatorial country that ethical harvesting is just a phrase to help sell the lumber. The rainforests of Madagascar are just a memory now and Brazil is going full tilt in that direction. We would like to think that the rest of the world is as honest as we are, but in a great many countries corruption is the accepted normal way to do business. When wood arrives in this country and the paperwork is "in order" then it is accepted by the inspectors unless it is on the list of banned imports.

Hello Bill.......

We all know that over-harvesting of rain-forest was (is) a problem, but it appears a major crack-down on that has been going on, depending on who you want to believe. What are we to believe......Sierra Club? Earth First? You can bet the claims that would/could be substantiated by factual evidence/photos/trustable sources.....would definitely be done.......sort of like global warming and polar bears, etc., etc. There has been a lot of scare tactics, supported by our news media on these things, and now the sources we've all trusted for truth, is at very best......questionable.

This is not to say that poaching doesn't exist, but as I understand it, many countries have an increased awareness of the problems, and are dealing with it. There is corruption, and there is a genuine effort to control harvesting to a sustainable level. Both these entities have agendas, and both have connections to those with similar philosophical beliefs. Both will present their "evidence" to those who will agree with them.

So, it seems that some of us just won't use any imported wood that can be questioned, but the remaining fact is that trees die, and others are farmed, perfectly legitimately. There is no reason to shut down a legitimate industry, either over there, or here.....because of overzealous environmental concerns. Of course, the opposite of this is also true......there is no reason to not apply logical restrictions to the ethical harvesting of trees, and have some way to effectively enforce those restrictions.

ooc

 

[odie]

C'mon, Odie, stop with the arguments and judgments!

Your response presupposes that what Mr. Odie thinks is "ethical" is some universal truth that every person on the planet agrees on. I'll submit that what Odie in Montana thinks is ethical when it comes to cutting down trees is a far cry from what that subsistence farmer in Columbia or the Amazon jungle regards as ethical when it comes to feeding his family. Consider that your question, as posed, may be shaded with more than a bit of ethnocentricity.

I merely pointed out that your question is far more complex than (perhaps) you thought it was. Maybe you didn't get the responses you wanted because other readers perceived some of the complexity.

So, how about if you step back and first tell us what you regard as "ethically" cutting and using wood?

Ok, just to humor you......ethically harvesting trees means to do it at a level which is sustainable to a forest, and maintains the health of the forest, without reducing the size of the forest. It also means harvesting trees that are grown for the specific purpose of harvesting them is fine. It also means that trees that die, or are removed for road building, and construction is also ethical.

There is no way to get around the fact that the products of trees will always be available at some level. THAT level is what the big tug of war is all about between environmentalism, and those industries that want to provide wood to a market that wants it.

If the word means something else to you, let's hear it.

ooc

 

[Owen Lowe]

Since you are undecided what the term "ethical" means, and how it applies to what I asked......why don't you apply an answer to what you think it means?

For myself, and most of the rest of us, there is no confusion as to the meaning of the word.....and, the application......and, the question as to how one might deal with the issue.

Odie, Mark isn’t unsure on the definition of ethical; he’s pointing out that the determination of what is ethical varies with respect to individual, community, state, nationality, geography, time, economic status, and a whole host of other factors. The descriptor of “ethical†is unique to the individual; I highly doubt there are two people in all the world who agree on what is ethical in all aspects. It is a Venn diagram of sorts where there are overlapping agreements but impossible to agree in totality.

When you attempt to fortify your argument with “and most of the rest of usâ€, you are generalizing where you have no basis. Who is the “us†to which you refer? Perhaps you will find a number of folks who will agree on one aspect of an issue but likely not the whole scope of the issue.

Now to get back to post #1, I would look for the FSC brand. Here are two articles addressing the topic:
http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/habitats/forests/howwework/responsible-forest-trade-forest-certification.xml

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/habitats/forests/howwework/combating-illegal-logging-and-advancing-responsible-forest-trade.xml

 

[odie]

Odie, Mark isn’t unsure on the definition of ethical; he’s pointing out that the determination of what is ethical varies with respect to individual, community, state, nationality, geography, time, economic status, and a whole host of other factors. The descriptor of “ethical” is unique to the individual; I highly doubt there are two people in all the world who agree on what is ethical in all aspects. It is a Venn diagram of sorts where there are overlapping agreements but impossible to agree in totality.

When you attempt to fortify your argument with “and most of the rest of us”, you are generalizing where you have no basis. Who is the “us” to which you refer? Perhaps you will find a number of folks who will agree on one aspect of an issue but likely not the whole scope of the issue.

Now to get back to post #1, I would look for the FSC brand. Here are two articles addressing the topic:
http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/habitats/forests/howwework/responsible-forest-trade-forest-certification.xml

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/habitats/forests/howwework/combating-illegal-logging-and-advancing-responsible-forest-trade.xml

I guess "ethical" would mean something different to Earth First, over what I might think. I gave my definition of ethical in a previous post, and for the most part, I think those who are reading this will agree with that.......but, you are right, I did make an assumption. I've also made an invitation to hear from anyone who doesn't agree with my thoughts of what "ethical" means, as applied to forest management and harvesting of timber.......

Hi Owen.......Thanks for the links.

I've looked at a bit of this, and am digesting. This paragraph is of interest:

In the US and the EU, governments do not recognize privately certified timber as automatically complying with the law. In the US, legislation says that the companies which trade, use and/or market timber have to apply “due care” to ensure compliance, while in the EU there are more specific requirements for a “due diligence” system. It is the responsibility of companies to decide whether they consider that a system like FSC certification will be enough to demonstrate to the controlling authorities that they are exercising due care or diligence.

ooc

 

[Brian McInturff]

Ok. First misconception is that there are more trees now than there were ages ago. There are more coniferous trees in general. Hardwoods are disappearing and for the most part due to invasive insects being introduced in this country, and of course Mother Nature. Then figure in urban sprawl. And lastly there is no money in hardwood tree farms due to the amount of time that has to be invested. The pulp industry can grow a pine in as little as 7 years for harvesting.

Exotics from foreign countries - Ethical? Haha. For the wood turner or average woodworker there is no way to know where that blank of Amboyna or pink ivory was harvested, or by whom, or even when. Once the tree is harvested, whether that be from an individual or "company" it then goes through brokers. That blank May change hands 10 times before it even leaves country and chances are the paperwork is fabricated. Then, when was the blank harvested? I've got blanks that were purchased 10 years ago. And some of those I bought from people who said they had them for 10 years.

My rule of thumb is I don't worry about where it came from. It's already been harvested and some one will get it if I don't. But that's buying from dealers, individuals, etc. I'm not brokering with someone in Australia or the amazon who may be running out and cutting a tree tonight.

What's ironic is I'm an environmental scientist. So when people talk environmentalist in the aspect of trees(logging) they really are talking about "naturalist". Tree huggers. And not the environmental workers. And before I worry about trees and logging I have a bigger issue with all the places that don't recycle(most southern states).

 

[odie]

Ok. First misconception is that there are more trees now than there were ages ago. There are more coniferous trees in general. Hardwoods are disappearing and for the most part due to invasive insects being introduced in this country, and of course Mother Nature. Then figure in urban sprawl. And lastly there is no money in hardwood tree farms due to the amount of time that has to be invested. The pulp industry can grow a pine in as little as 7 years for harvesting.

Well, yes, Brian......there are more trees here in the NW than there was since the 1910 fire. This is what I attempted to convey with all the new and more effective fire fighting capacity that we have now. Forest fires are always terrible, but not on the level of the enormous fires in the past that eventually burn themselves out naturally......nature's way of handling forest management. By in large, the reason why the forest is bigger and more productive now than a hundred years ago, is because the forest products industry is regulated, and replanting of trees has been an ongoing program for as many years. The forest here, is bigger, because fires are better controlled, and there is/was responsible forest management. If the forces of greed were unchecked, the forests would have certainly been reduced in size.

I wouldn't know about hardwoods back east, but you are probably right about that.

ooc

 

[Mark Mandell]

Tree Hugging

The average of all trees here in New Jersey has been stated to be 60 years. I live in a hardwood forest that 100 years ago was clear cut to the point of being denuded and looking like the Dr. Seuss book, but now has oak and poplar over 100' tall. The reforestation efforts in my area have been hugely successful, although the influx of white tail deer is threatening the understory.

Ok, just to humor you......ethically harvesting trees means to do it at a level which is sustainable to a forest, and maintains the health of the forest, without reducing the size of the forest. It also means harvesting trees that are grown for the specific purpose of harvesting them is fine. It also means that trees that die, or are removed for road building, and construction is also ethical.

Your view, Odie, will be lost on the slash & burn farmers in the tropical areas of the world. The ground they till, the forest floor, is poor in nutrients so they may get two or three crops before they have to move on and slash another section as they have done for thousands of years. They don't care about sustainability, but they are not cutting down the trees for profit or export. Given that scenario (which is very common) how do you view the use of the trees that the tribes have cut down for farming. Clearly there has been no consideration given for the health of the forest, so do those unethical logs just get left to rot? Under your definition, those logs were not cut for proper purpose, yet would it not be ethical to take those trees "to market" in order to spare others?

I perceive that your ethics were developed in your experience in the Western US softwood lumber industry. Where plupwood can be regenerated in under 10 years and lumber source can be regrown in 20, tree farming has real meaning. But tropical hardwoods (even domestic hardwoods) take generations to regrow so they are not viable enterprises except under government reforestation projects.

Road building and "construction" may be valid reasons for cutting down forest land in this country, but they hardly apply as ethical reasons to disrupt the delicate balances of rain forest ecology. Dead trees are a vital part of the rain forest's method to sustain and regenerate itself as they provide vital nutrients as they decompose. Ethically speaking, they should be left to rot in the jungle. You'll find down trees all over my area. Large trunks of Beech, Sycamore, Oak, Poplar, Cherry, Walnut are left to rot, feeding the new growth that will replace them. In the township next to me, a permit is required before a tree more that 6" in diameter is cut and removed.

 

[n7bsn]

Some years ago, there was a big awareness of "saving the rain forest", but that seems to have subsided some. I'm aware there are now many more tree farms in central and south America, but I've never been able to tell what's brought to market with ethics and environmental issues being considered. This doesn't only apply to imported wood, but is also a serious problem right here in the USA. (I believe it was here that we discussed the poaching of burls from trees in a city park......was that NYC?)

Well, there is the Rain Forest Alliance for one.

Also for Tropical woods on the USA list of rare and endangered woods, they have to have proper paperwork to be imported.

Timber rustling is a serious issue in many areas, here in wetter Washington for one. I know of several occurrences where the thieves got away (including one almost in the back yard of the owner of D-Way tools) and ones where they didn't .

In the state of Washington, if you are moving Cedar, Alder or Maple you have to have the proper work, if you don't the state can (will and has) seize the wood and fine you real big money.

 

[Brian McInturff]

If one wants to see what happens when people don't care just take a look at Haiti. They literally cut down almost every tree on that island at one point in time. Now they still haven't been able to get any sustained growth. Island is on volcanic rock and doesn't have the proper nutrients to sustain growth. The trees that were there in the 30s and 40s probably had been there for 1000 years.
You have to have a permit to cut a hardwood here in South Carolina that is larger than a sapling. During the fall and winter I wish I didn't have any trees. Too many leaves, gum balls, and pine needles I have to get up.

 

[Brian McInturff]

Gibson guitar had a huge amount of, I think it was, Rosewood confiscated. And if I'm not mistaken they had what they thought was "proper paperwork.

I'm probably lucky I didn't get stationed in Panama back in the 80's. I would've been hoarding some exotics!

 

[n7bsn]

One thing you are failing to realize, Al........is that we are better at preventing the spread of forest fires better than ever. We don't have a mastery over fires, but we do manage them 10x better than we did 50 or 100 years ago, when they basically burned themselves out.

Eh?

I can tell that you have zero experience in how the Forest Service was managing the forests then. Then the official policy was "out before dark", I know that phrase well as it was one my great-uncle used, alot. (Chief Ranger Region 1).
More of my family was "feet on the ground" enforcing that (father, uncle, 2nd cousins, etc)
From the 1920s (after the Big Burn, ie 1910) thru the 1970s fires were put out as quickly as possible, period.

 

[n7bsn]

Ok. First misconception is that there are more trees now than there were ages ago. There are more coniferous trees in general. Hardwoods are disappearing and for the most part due to invasive insects being introduced in this country, and of course Mother Nature. Then figure in urban sprawl. And lastly there is no money in hardwood tree farms due to the amount of time that has to be invested. The pulp industry can grow a pine in as little as 7 years for harvesting.
...

What's ironic is I'm an environmental scientist. So when people talk environmentalist in the aspect of trees(logging) they really are talking about "naturalist". Tree huggers. And not the environmental workers. And before I worry about trees and logging I have a bigger issue with all the places that don't recycle(most southern states).

Well... The pulp industry doesn't use pine as much as poplar/cottonwood as the fibers from pine are not as useful as the "soft" hardwoods.
Locally the time from planting one of the hybrid hardwoods to harvest (for pulp) is about seven years.

As for profitability, hardwood forests are very profitable. The prices for Maple, Oak, Cherry, etc is much higher (per acre) then softwoods.

I actually know a family (in Indiana) where, back in the 1970s, no-one wanted to take over Granpa/Grandma farm and they didn't want to sell it. Rather then lease it to another farmer they converted it to a hardwood forest. They got a tax break (tax rates for forest is lower then farms) and they are making more now (as they start to harvest wood) then the neighbors are making from planting crops.

 

[Brian McInturff]

Tree farms are big here. All you need is five acres. Some of the pine here is used for paper, chip board, mulch, etc. International Paper owns thousands of acres here and we have a big plant about 28 miles from me. The turn around on their harvest is 7-10 years. SouthWood has a large plant here also. I think they produce plywood and chip board here, possibly particle board too.

 

[Brian McInturff]

The profit may seem more per acre but the turn time is much different. Hardwoods take more maintenance too. And then the trees are graded and price is determined by grade.

 

[odie]

Eh?

I can tell that you have zero experience in how the Forest Service was managing the forests then. Then the official policy was "out before dark", I know that phrase well as it was one my great-uncle used, alot. (Chief Ranger Region 1).
More of my family was "feet on the ground" enforcing that (father, uncle, 2nd cousins, etc)
From the 1920s (after the Big Burn, ie 1910) thru the 1970s fires were put out as quickly as possible, period.

Well, as a matter of fact, I worked in the lumber industry in most of the 80's, so I've seen the forest service enforce the regulations. That's a bit more than having a relative who told you so. I worked for those who were interested in keeping their timber sales, so they didn't break the rules of how the timber in the sale was harvested, or the slash was disposed of. There were both clear cutting of selected parcels, and selective cutting of marked trees. Those trees were marked by the forest service......everything was monitored for compliance.

Of course fires were put out as quickly as possible. The forest service also conducted "prescribed burns" of selected parcels, because burnt timber and growth are all part of what is considered "natural habitat".

ooc

 

[Charles M Gillingham]

1-I don't buy tropical hardwood.

2-I don't knowingly buy any wood for use in my contracting business, cabinet/furniture or turnings that isn't grown in North America.

3-I don't buy wood to use in my turnings, unless it's scraps leftover from other projects.

My approach of wood acquisition for turning and furniture isn't solely based on "Ethics", but partially economics. The marketable price for what I make is rather low for the amount of time I put into a piece. If I buy wood for a piece of furniture or turning, I'm less likely to make a profit or pay myself. There are so many hardwood trees in the "High Desert" area I live in that are being cut down in towns, dyeing, or are available through "Firewood Permits" on National Forests I don't see the need to buy anything. I keep my eyes open for downed trees. If I can acquire some wood (or all) from a tree that's been taken down, have the room and means to processes it and can do it legally, I acquire it.

I don't need Pink Ivory, Rosewood or the like. I have Manzanita, Mountain Mahagony, Big leaf Maple, Juglans Hindi ( Walnut) and a host of species planted in peoples back yards.

cmg

 

[Brian McInturff]

Charles,
I wish I had your luxury. I live in Myrtle Beach, SC. My "local" available species is Pine, Pin Oak, Sweet Gum, and occasionally Magnolia and Bradford Pear(small). Not a good selection for the most part. I have to pay for what you have readily available. lol

 

[Mark Mandell]

Putting our personal codes of "wood ethics" aside for the moment, Odie never did get an answer to his core question which, unless I'm mistaken, centered on the global problem of illegal logging and what woodworkers, not just turners, can do to help.

Certainly, the 2008 Amendments to The Lacey Act have helped, but passing laws is only part of what must be a larger solution. So long as there is a market for the world's wood, regardless of how it is obtained, the global problem of destruction of the planet's forests and the resulting loss of biodiversity will only continue, and creative people will find ways to circumvent the laws.

I, for one, have chosen not to work with imported woods (Canadian sheet goods excepted). We have such a wide variety of domestic wood in the U.S. that I have no need to look elsewhere for material. I work with local arborists and harvest nearly all of my own material for both flatwork and turning. I also share that material with friends who participate in the cooperative effort. We cut, transport, mill, and dry our own stock. I would posit that we can't get more "ethical" than that, and it doesn't take much to find similar-minded people in most every community (excepting, perhaps, dense urban areas).

 

[Brian McInturff]

Mark,
Where do you find time to do that? I work a 50hr week and have to travel half the time to other cities. I value time. Then, when you look at the labor portion of handling large items to convert to smaller turning blanks, it can be a back breaking effort. And I'm not sure we have many species that can compete with the Aussie woods/exotics.
Since trees are a renewable source I think there should be more viable options. Say a tariff and or tax on purchases of exotics that go to replanting/ farming the same woods.

 

[hockenbery]

Charles, I wish I had your luxury. I live in Myrtle Beach, SC. My "local" available species is Pine, Pin Oak, Sweet Gum, and occasionally Magnolia and Bradford Pear(small). Not a good selection for the most part. I have to pay for what you have readily available. lol

Brian,
In central Florida we are somewhat the same 90-95% of the trees are pine, oaks, sweet gum, swamp maple, but the other 5-10% include cherry, camphor, red gum eucalyptus, leechee, 20" diameter crepe myrtle, pecan, holly, Norfolk Island pine, Florida rosewood......

I like turning laurel oak and live oak when i find pieces I like.
Great turning wood is not rare but it can be hard to find.
The benefits of being in turning clubs is that every couple of weeks one or mor members has a good tree to share and club members have some connections with tree trimmers too.
All so Viable lumber is another source.

I had a cherry bowl in our CLUBS booth at the TAMPA WOODWORKING SHOW a few years ago and I probably had half a dozen local people ask me where I got such a great piece of cherry. The would not believe I picked it up off the street in Lakeland where it was left for the yard trash collection.

Al

 

[Charles M Gillingham]

I, for one, have chosen not to work with imported woods (Canadian sheet goods excepted). We have such a wide variety of domestic wood in the U.S. that I have no need to look elsewhere for material. I work with local arborists and harvest nearly all of my own material for both flatwork and turning. I also share that material with friends who participate in the cooperative effort. We cut, transport, mill, and dry our own stock. I would posit that we can't get more "ethical" than that, and it doesn't take much to find similar-minded people in most every community (excepting, perhaps, dense urban areas).

Yes...This is the approach I advocate to acquiring wood for my projects. Tree surgeons should be one of your first contacts. A nice bowl in gratitude of free wood goes along way.

Charles,
I wish I had your luxury. I live in Myrtle Beach, SC. My "local" available species is Pine, Pin Oak, Sweet Gum, and occasionally Magnolia and Bradford Pear(small). Not a good selection for the most part. I have to pay for what you have readily available. lol

I don't mean to cast doubt on the lack of available woods in your area, for you know better than I. I lived on the Coastal Plain of North Carolina in my youth and am well aware of the hardwoods native to the stream beds and forests of that area. I remember a vast number of species native and grown as ornamental varieties in peoples yards. I only wish I had access to them now. Maybe the grass in greener on the other side of the fence?

cmg

 

[Charles M Gillingham]

Brian,

I had a cherry bowl in our CLUBS booth at the TAMPA WOODWORKING SHOW a few years ago and I probably had half a dozen local people ask me where I got such a great piece of cherry. The would not believe I picked it up off the street in Lakeland where it was left for the yard trash collection.

Al

I have similar experiences with items I've been able to pick out of the wood and vegetation plies at the dump. Most rewarding to rescue wood and produce something.

cmg

 

[Mark Mandell]

Mark,
Where do you find time to do that? I work a 50hr week and have to travel half the time to other cities. I value time. Then, when you look at the labor portion of handling large items to convert to smaller turning blanks, it can be a back breaking effort. And I'm not sure we have many species that can compete with the Aussie woods/exotics.
Since trees are a renewable source I think there should be more viable options. Say a tariff and or tax on purchases of exotics that go to replanting/ farming the same woods.

Time: First, it's not an every week kind of thing. We may have a "Sawmill Saturday" 2-4 times a year when we have enough in the way of saw-logs to make it worthwhile to bring the WoodMizer guy in at $40/hr.
Turning stock gets gathered as found or cut from logs as needed.

Sources: We have at least 15 tree removal outfits (arborists and land-clearing pros) within 20 miles of us. These guys are usually begging to get rid of stuff that they otherwise have to haul to the dump and pay to unload. I've had several instances where a stake-side truck simply shows up and unloads 20 logs next to my driveway! I'll usually have to accept firewood in the mix, but that gets cut, split, and shared in the group as well. After Hurricane Sandy, the firewood guys about went out of business in my area. As mentioned above, downed trees here are just being left to rot in the forect and snags are left standing to provide habitat.

I could not, however, do this myself. I can assure you that I don't have that kind of time either. It's a cooperative effort. You might find that there's a local group just like this in your area. Woodworking clubs (AAW Chapters as well ) are everywhere and could be worth a visit to see what's happening around you. As mentioned, turn a nice bowl for a local tree-guy and you're liable to be up to your headstock in wood.