# USFS being sued for not falling a dead tree....



## STEVEGODSEYJR (Apr 11, 2013)

Idaho family sues USFS for $1M after tree hit son
This is craziness. There are too many frivolous law suits these days. Everyone is trying to get rich off of someone else.


----------



## Storm56 (Apr 11, 2013)

Been goin on for years. With so many politicians being lawyers what do we expect?


----------



## slowp (Apr 11, 2013)

There's a case going on here, except nobody seems to know who is the owner of the tree as it is on a boundary line. 

We used to get roads dehazard treed or "snagged" as part of the timber sale process. Fallers would fall the danger trees along a haul route and the trees would go to the mill as part of the sale, if they were sound enough. 

That doesn't happen here. It still could, but purchasers don't ask to do it, and SAs are discouraged from making such decisions. The wildlife folks might not like it. 

Since the tree fell on the mushroom pickers, killing one and injuring the other in their truck, one section--that one, of one road was done. The fatality was about 4 years ago.

I went to the training and was deemed a hazard tree identifier. At the training we were told it was the highest priority. Then we'd go back to our districts and be told there is no money, we can't do any. 

And yes, if a hazard tree exists along a main road, where people stop for any length of time, it is supposed to come down.


----------



## northmanlogging (Apr 11, 2013)

Hel I would volunteer to do it in my limited spare time. Beats having the firewood thieves cutting down good wood.

Didn't Jameson do something like this while he was still in school?


----------



## slowp (Apr 11, 2013)

northmanlogging said:


> Hel I would volunteer to do it in my limited spare time. Beats having the firewood thieves cutting down good wood.
> 
> Didn't Jameson do something like this while he was still in school?



A very good faller here looked into volunteering to do his daughter's school bus route for free. He was told that he would have to go through the USFS falling certification program. He could only be certified up to a "B" level--24" maximum diameter. The road goes through big punkins. He could not be certified as a C faller. We're talking about a good production faller who was able to find work during the slowdown because he is good.

He ended up falling trees for a pittance each. That way he could be hired as a contractor and the above would not apply. I got into a bit of trouble, because once you are walking, instead of driving, you can find a heck of a lot more trees. I packed some of his gear and OKed trees. He ended up coming close to making his usual wage. We had to stop because of budget. The rest of that road was done under a contract that folks bid on, and the wood was left to rot or be sold for firewood.


----------



## slowp (Apr 11, 2013)

Northman, you do have this newly formed group in your area, I think. 

Volunteering - Friends For Public Use


----------



## forestryworks (Apr 11, 2013)

northmanlogging said:


> Hel I would volunteer to do it in my limited spare time. Beats having the firewood thieves cutting down good wood.
> 
> Didn't Jameson do something like this while he was still in school?



I sure did! For a state park in Oklahoma. 

They provided saw gas (I bought my own mix oil) and bar oil, and when I needed it, they bought me a bar and two loops. Took out every hazard tree within striking distance of campgrounds, roads, powerlines, cabins, and offices. 

If I thought it was a nesting tree I'd flag it with yellow for the naturalist to look at - once he/she made their decision, I either cut it or not. (Speaking of nesting trees, one pine had so much witches' broom on one side of it that birds of prey had turned it into a free nest. It was within striking distance of the main road, but it sweeped downhill and away - a dandy pine, too!)

Ended up falling over 1,100 hazard trees during my time there. 

Also passed up on a good number of them, too. But if I could, I'd go back and fall them now; time is a teacher.


----------



## wowzers (Apr 11, 2013)

I usually don't side with the sue happy crowd, but if this snag really was in a campground next to a fire ring then I say the FS is probably negligent. I don't know all the particulars though. When I worked for the Park Service part of my job was dropping snags around wilderness campsites, so I would say a car-campground should have some maintenance done.


----------



## twochains (Apr 11, 2013)

The last government job we cut, we had to drop all dead standing pine, marked or not. We were cutting a tract that had walking trails through out it, so no hazard trees were left. I'm pretty sure that all was wrote up in the bid.


----------



## Icehouse (Apr 11, 2013)

I live in an area where there are many USFS leases for summer cabin sights. The "CIRCUS" does know the negative value of a danger tree. They inventory these lease lots every year and if any danger trees are found the home owner is notified to have the tree removed, at the lessees expense, failure to do so can result in fines and possible lease termination. Because these properties are under the USFS total control they have a safety obligation. I feel sorry for these folks, they have money invested in their cabin, of which they are total prisoners. It takes about 2 years to get a permit to fall a green tree so you can build a small deck. That's the end of my rant. Thanks


----------



## funky sawman (Apr 11, 2013)

Blowdown was severe in northern Idaho last year, of all the people I knew that got injured or killed, they never sued anyone over it. My boss had his skidder and a log loader get hit by windfalls but we didnt ask ANYONE for compensation.


----------



## northmanlogging (Apr 11, 2013)

slowp said:


> Northman, you do have this newly formed group in your area, I think.
> 
> Volunteering - Friends For Public Use



Thanks again, I'll have to look into contacting them folks. I think I know some to the Darrington folks, Don't know many people on the granite falls side... I'm a relatively new transplant to this side of the Mt loop, + I don't actually live in town


----------



## wowzers (Apr 12, 2013)

funky sawman said:


> Blowdown was severe in northern Idaho last year, of all the people I knew that got injured or killed, they never sued anyone over it. My boss had his skidder and a log loader get hit by windfalls but we didnt ask ANYONE for compensation.



Logging and camping are two diffrent worlds. When I stepped over the bank it was on my own accord. If I took my family to a camp ground I wouldn't expect to be camping in a sang infested camp ground.


----------



## floyd (Apr 12, 2013)

It hurts to see equipment hit in the woods. I would hazzard a guess your boss has insurance on his equipment.


----------



## funky sawman (Apr 12, 2013)

The people that got injured were in campgrounds!!!!. The trees that hit the equipment paid for minor repairs LOL


----------



## madhatte (Apr 22, 2013)

Here is a very interesting discussion on the USFS and its current problems. Read the responses at the end as well -- they're at least as provocative as the Senator's points.


----------



## forestryworks (Apr 23, 2013)

The USFS is better off doing research and social media tweets and twitters and trying to educate the severely uneducated, urban mindset of the public. And that's not a bad thing. Somebody's gotta do it. But then again, there's a lot of the public that hates tax dollars funding research projects and papers, but they sure do love having answers to their questions. 

I'd like to see national forest management turned over to NGOs like TNC, they have a better vision for these types of things in today's world. Just don't turn our forests over to those godforsaken bull#### REITs. The only problem with that later on, is if TNC gets too big for their britches. Any organization, government or not, can lose their focus and become governmentally ill when they get too big and gain too much power.

If nobody wants to rx burn the forests (still don't get that - fire is responsible for half of the world's ecosystems we have today, including PNW forests), then there by god better be some logging going on. Although commercial logging is still on the decline, recently and for the foreseeable future (volatile markets), I'd also like to see more ecology-based stewardship logging - that's what provides commercial logging with a future. And good, smart silviculture, too.

As far as fire suppression, meh - they have all the money in the world; usually. This year is no different, per Tidwell, in spite of budget cuts.

So yeah, they've lost their original purpose, mostly, and they suppress too many fires as it is. Smokey is _still_ misguided.


----------



## northmanlogging (Apr 23, 2013)

What exactly does the current FS do anyway? They don't like us cutting firewood (keep changing the rules) they don't want us camping (charging a fee now) or hiking (same fee) Really frown on berry picking, 

Do they all just stand around and watch the trees grow? And wait for em to catch on fire so they can make some overtime?

Roads are getting fixed by volunteers, sure they grade the heavy use roads but the side roads might as well not exist.

I'm just ranting, but it does seem like they are trying awful hard to turn the FS into a low rent park service.


----------



## slowp (Apr 23, 2013)

What is an REIT? Acronyms should be defined--gentle hint.

The trouble is big. It has taken 30 years to get where it is now, and it ain't going to change unless the politicians take some unpopular actions.
I live in one of the small timber towns. I don't know how our last mill is going to stay afloat. It is in a great location for getting wood off Forest Service (FS) land, but not so good for trucking in wood off private and state lands. Most, heck, almost all their logs now come from state and private lands. 

That's 30 years of indoctrination of kids into the enviro movement. Weyco used to leave pamphlets about forest management at the local environmental center/camp. It is a former Job Corps place and now is run by the state school principals. I guess the pamphlets were thrown out by the teachers, who labeled it propoganda. They couldn't keep a supply safe and gave up. 

The teachers, movies, cartoons, etc. are against "chopping" down trees. The politicians need their votes to win, not the timber towns. The FS has fewer folks working for it and most are planners, not implementers. Planning is where the work is. Planning takes up most of the time. Meanwhile management now consists of those former planners. There has only been one forester appointed chief since the late 80s or early 90s.
She didn't go over too well with her 'ologist employees. 

Yup, I'd change the name to the Forest Biology Service. That's what it is. Most of the public can't tell the difference between the FS and Park Service. 

Nope, don't give it over to one of those acronyms. I still want to be free to wander about without having to get a permit. Of course, we do have to get a permit if we go into the wilderness. Our local wildernesses are free though. There is only one, the Alpine Lakes, that you must pay in order to get into a lottery, to get a permit, which you must then pay more for. I don't even try. 

I like the idea of merging it with the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). Might as well. We'd save tax money by doing away with more management. They pay their employees a bit more too! 

I survived quite a few "downsizing" events. What I saw was if you want your job saved, you'd best get on a downsizing planning committee. 

Employees are very frustrated with some of the cost saving measures which actually cost more and use up their time. The computer is the big culprit. Every district used to have a computer expert who could work with you in a timely manner and get your machine going again. Now, you must phone a company in Colorado. They put some kid on the line, who suggests the well known procedures, like "Did you reboot your computer?" Maybe, after an hour, they might fix it over the phone. But usually, a ticket number is assigned and you must try to connect with an in house employee, who is a former district computer person, and set up an appointment for them to either talk you through it on the phone, or come out and fix it. The contractor gets paid either way. I guess that is another form of welfare. Plus, if you are are one of the few employees who goes out to the woods to work, it can be darn hard to get a time scheduled to get things fixed. So add in the hours of your time that had to be spent waiting and on the phone, and it can get pretty spendy. 

It took 30 years to get to this stage. If folks cared, they should have started fighting the process a bit earlier.


----------



## DavdH (Apr 23, 2013)

Real estate investment trust, usually public trusts to buy timber lands and move them to public ownership off the tax roles. Environmental tax dodge.


----------



## slowp (Apr 23, 2013)

northmanlogging said:


> What exactly does the current FS do anyway? They don't like us cutting firewood (keep changing the rules) they don't want us camping (charging a fee now) or hiking (same fee) Really frown on berry picking,
> 
> Do they all just stand around and watch the trees grow? And wait for em to catch on fire so they can make some overtime?
> 
> ...



Of all of those, the road maintenance part is what bugs most people. People who do not realize that the roads USED to be bladed because there was a timber sale on them. I've tried to point that out, but when folks hear it, they refuse to believe it, or I get a lecture on how logging is not needed to keep roads in good shape. I've pointed out that one of the reasons fires get so big is that there are fewer bodies/eyes in the woods, both logging and FS bodies. That too gets rude treatment. Or they start quoting statistics that tax money was used to maintain the roads to timber sales because the sales were below cost. The latter is not true on our productive, PNW lands. But the studies take into consideration the less productive areas.

Grants can be gotten to decommission roads. I am not sure if there are any for maintaining roads. Roads are considered by the 'ologist planners to be a bad thing. In fact, in order to get a timber sale through all the hoops, decommissioning old roads has to be done at some point, or the sale will be appealed because the road density is too much. That's why all the new roads built to access timber are now Temporary Roads. They may have some pretty complicated construction requirements, but they are temporary, by gosh! Unless things have changed, using timber dollars 
(KV money) to decommission roads is illegal. Thus the grants or separate budget.

I think we are doomed.:bang::bang::bang:


----------



## OlympicYJ (Apr 23, 2013)

DavdH said:


> Real estate investment trust, usually public trusts to buy timber lands and move them to public ownership off the tax roles. Environmental tax dodge.



Not really following what you're getting at. REIT or Real Estate Investment Trusts are a tax vehicle for private timber companies big or small, usually big. I don't know all the ins and outs but they are to encourage timber companies to buy timberlands and keep it as forests. Part of this is why you see the ups and downs in the acreage numbers private companies own. Back when I was in high school Weyco was the biggest landowner in the world, then Plumb Creek was, and now I hear it is Hancock. Although this has caused a higher and better use mentality to be used in the selling of timberlands and buying timberlands in more non urbanized areas. Since coming to Idaho I have heard of Forest Service trades with Idaho Department of Lands and I wanna say some private companies but don't quote me on the private part.

Patty, 

I hear every word you're saying. Maybe you said it and I missed it; adding to what you said, the money generated here in the NW went to other parts of the country to pay for costs there.

Jameson,

I too am a fan of stewardship contracts. Best thing to happen management wise since the spotted owl killed logging. One of the REIT's that I worked for would love to bid on FS timber but the biggest problem is FS oversight of their hiring and corporate practices. I don't know if that happens in the stewardship contracts but that is the biggest hindrance as explained to me. 

Personally I would not be opposed to turning ground over to private companies. Keep the un-logged old growth as FS and turn the previously logged ground over to private with the stipulation of allowing recreation. This is murkey water because this has kind of been done before with Scaefer Brothers and Simpson on the Olympic Peninsula. The FS did the road design and sale layout. The companies stood the cost for the road building and maintenance and stumpage was paid but I don't know how that worked, perhaps Patty can shed more light on that than I. Sounds very similar to Stewardship Contracts does't it?

One thing is for sure, the Forest Service needs restructuring, management through litigation needs to be stopped, and logging revenue should be a priority to lessen the use of tax dollars for fire and forest management. And fire should be re-introduced as a management tool with thinning for forested areas.


----------



## slowp (Apr 23, 2013)

I did forget to add that during the timber times, roads may have been costly but they were put in to be reused in additional entries and other spots along them. I walked quite a few overgrown roads on the Siuslaw NF (Oregon Coast) and those roads were built wide for the big machines. 

I am by no means a stewardship contract expert. However, we did learn that you can't build stewardship roads. 

A big problem I see with stewardship and this does happen, is that during the planning process many wonderful and spendy things get put onto the project list. These are supported by the enviros. Then, because the timber is of low quality, or the market conditions are bad, the bids for the timber are low and will not pay for all the things on the wish list. Then the specialists in charge can either try to get their pet projects paid for using regular project money, or not do them.


----------



## OlympicYJ (Apr 23, 2013)

slowp said:


> A big problem I see with stewardship and this does happen, is that during the planning process many wonderful and spendy things get put onto the project list. These are supported by the enviros. Then, because the timber is of low quality, or the market conditions are bad, the bids for the timber are low and will not pay for all the things on the wish list. Then the specialists in charge can either try to get their pet projects paid for using regular project money, or not do them.



Ahh true true. I think that's part of the problem no matter stewardship or otherwise. The money whether generated by timber revenue or tax dollars could probably be spent in a wiser manner such as road maintenance,snag removal, or put to other good use so tax dollars don't have to be used for those projects. I would venture a guess that nine times out of ten those spendy projects are largely un-needed and just a way to spend money.


----------



## forestryworks (Apr 23, 2013)

slowp said:


> A big problem I see with stewardship and this does happen, is that during the planning process many wonderful and spendy things get put onto the project list.



Not a stewardship problem, but a _rules and regulations_ problem. The government has tied their own hands behind their backs with so many of their own rules and "do this" and "include this" lists in their fancy plans that it becomes a big wad of jumbled nonsense - leave it to them to make simple things over-complicated. What ever happened to KISS?


----------



## slowp (Apr 23, 2013)

forestryworks said:


> Not a stewardship problem, but a _rules and regulations_ problem. The government has tied their own hands behind their backs with so many of their own rules and "do this" and "include this" lists in their fancy plans that it becomes a big wad of jumbled nonsense - leave it to them to make simple things over-complicated. What ever happened to KISS?



Nope. None of the projects are mandatory. They are listed and some are even subject to negotiation with the sale winner. The required stuff is not bid on separately, but is always part of the contract--like basic erosion control measures. The bid must be enough to cover reforestation costs, if there is any. 

The EA will say they will do that work, but if there isn't enough money, the contract prevails over the EA. That opens up a can of worms, no?


----------



## northmanlogging (Apr 23, 2013)

What ever happened to cut this stuff, leave that stuff cause it sure is pretty, replant, rinse and reapeat...

I give the FS 20 years before they claim bankruptcy... Then maybe they will start looking at logging as a way to pay all their bills again. But that's wishful thinking they will just get a nice fat "bail out" and our "use" tax will go up.


----------



## RandyMac (Apr 23, 2013)

northmanlogging said:


> What ever happened to cut this stuff, leave that stuff cause it sure is pretty, replant, rinse and reapeat...
> 
> I give the FS 20 years before they claim bankruptcy... Then maybe they will start looking at logging as a way to pay all their bills again. But that's wishful thinking they will just get a nice fat "bail out" and our "use" tax will go up.



They could pull a CalFire and extort money from folks who own property, outside of CalFire's responsibility areas.
I live in the city limits, covered by a county firestation, that is five blocks away. I talked to the city and the county, couldn't get out from under it


----------



## forestryworks (Apr 23, 2013)

slowp said:


> Nope. None of the projects are mandatory.



I was speaking in general terms and didn't say any projects were mandatory. Not sure you're following what I'm trying to say. But you can't argue with the fact that the government has tied their own hands behind their backs with all their silly, needless, redundant rules they write for themselves. Something that takes 20 papers to be filled out to get something done is asinine.

I worked a three month student job for the school last year - a state government entity - and the job application was 6 sheets, front and back - 12 pages for a minimum wage job. I'm sure some office worker could issue his/her scripted statement about why each sheet is needed, but it's just hot air. 

There are still no stewardship problems, it's human problems. 

But I digress, sounds like stewardship logging is pointed towards getting bogged down in endless paperwork. Restructuring should have started long ago.


----------



## madhatte (Apr 24, 2013)

forestryworks said:


> The only problem with that later on, is if TNC gets too big for their britches. Any organization, government or not, can lose their focus and become governmentally ill when they get too big and gain too much power.



I have a lot to say on this subject but am not one to #### where I sleep so you'll have to buy me a beer to get my take. 

Also: REIT's are evil. They exist only to turn a profit for stockholders. In these parts, they generally do this by re-zoning cut-over forest land to residential, and then selling both the land and the houses built on it... after selling the timber from that land, and the lumber milled from it. They make their money FOUR times, then wash their hands of land management and walk away. This leaves nothing for the future except shoddy suburbs and weeds.


----------



## OlympicYJ (Apr 24, 2013)

Some REIT's are bad. The one in Shelton has been there a long time and split the timber division and mill divisions and formed a REIT. To my knowledge they do not engage in the Higher Better Use mindset. Sorry Nate but gonna have to disagree in general with ya. Some are bad some not so bad. But can you blame them from divesting non strategic lands and maximizing profit? Another one on the Harbor has had a hard time selling properties for houses. I can see that in Puget Sound ground would be getting sold off at a higher rate.


----------



## madhatte (Apr 24, 2013)

Weyco, Plum Creek, Hancock... far larger landholders than Simpson these days. Green Diamond seems to be doing some interesting work, notably a cooperative research project on Scots' broom with the USFS, but I am still skeptical. Longfibre: on shaky ground. Rayonier: I am uncertain, haven't followed them closely in recent years. Did I miss any major players?


----------



## Gologit (Apr 24, 2013)

madhatte said:


> Did I miss any major players?



Sierra Pacific. 1.9 million acres in California and buying ground in Oregon and Washington every chance they get.

They also have a very active real estate division.


----------



## northmanlogging (Apr 24, 2013)

Piles and piles of WEYCO land has been sold to Sierra Pacific in these parts over the last 10-15 years. Weyco shut most if not all their local mills down too.


----------



## OlympicYJ (Apr 24, 2013)

Was going to post this last night but fell asleep lol

Port Blakely but can't remember if they are a REIT, a TIMO or nada. Green Crow manages ground for TIMO's. Could be a few missed but too tired to check and see if they're actual REIT's or TIMO's. 

We'll have to agree to disagree as to the evilness of REIT's. I don't necessarily like some of the things done but it's their right to do what they want with their land. Lot's of time the land that they do sell is smaller patches. Could wind up being sold as timberland to an individual who then decides to develop it. In that case the REIT isn't the bad guy but the person who bought it.

And Bob's right Sierra too. At least I think they're a REIT.


----------



## Gologit (Apr 24, 2013)

OlympicYJ said:


> Was going to post this last night but fell asleep lol
> 
> Port Blakely but can't remember if they are a REIT, a TIMO or nada. Green Crow manages ground for TIMO's. Could be a few missed but too tired to check and see if they're actual REIT's or TIMO's.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure if they're an REIT or what...I really don't know much about that kind of stuff. I probably should learn.

What I _do_ know is that they have a real estate division and they're quite active. There are pieces of ground, harvested but not really ideal for reprod, that are being developed as well as old mill sites. SPI is not shy at all about closing mills. I don't know their long term goals, I'm just a grunt, but I see that they're adding very little to their holdings in California and concentrating on buying ground in Oregon and Washington.


----------



## OlympicYJ (Apr 24, 2013)

Real estate investment trust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The purpose of this designation is to reduce or eliminate corporate tax, thus avoiding double taxation of owner income. In return, REITs are required to distribute at least 90% of their taxable income into the hands of investors. A REIT is a company that owns, and in most cases, operates income-producing real estate. REITs own many types of commercial real estate, ranging from office and apartment buildings to warehouses, hospitals, shopping centers, hotels and even timberlands. Some REITs also engage in financing real estate. The REIT structure was designed to provide a real estate investment structure similar to the structure mutual funds provide for investment in stocks.[2]
REITs can be publicly or privately held. Public REITs may be listed on public stock exchanges.

My guess is SPI is not going to expand in CA because of the subjective and prohibitive nature of the BMPs (Best Management Practices, also Known as Forest Practices in WA) there. I'm sure you're aware but for those who are not, in CA the do's and don'ts are not clearly defined by law but left to interpretation of the individual forester representing the state. In WA we have the most stringent, defined by law, Forest Practices in the country. Therefore we have regulatory certainty across all regions whereas that's not the case in CA. OR is much like WA but less restrictive still. I'd say SPI is buying lands where they have more regulatory certainty and divesting of non-strategic lands for Higher and Better Use (HBU.) Whether they exit CA who can say. Maybe after 60yrs they will but I doubt it. Think they're just streamlining and trimming the fat. Also that money can be used to buy timberlands in OR and WA without selling an equivalent sized land base in CA.


----------



## madhatte (Apr 24, 2013)

OlympicYJ said:


> The purpose of this designation is to reduce or eliminate corporate tax, thus avoiding double taxation of owner income. In return, REITs are required to distribute at least 90% of their taxable income into the hands of investors.



And therein lies my distaste for REITs: corporate vultures dodge taxes to line each other's pockets as revenue. I suppose there COULD be a good REIT, but I doubt it. 

Forgot about Sierra Pacific and Port Blakely. Dunno how I missed 'em.


----------



## forestryworks (Apr 24, 2013)

Nothing worse than a land developer these days. Just for the simple fact that they're not making any more new land.


----------



## OlympicYJ (Apr 25, 2013)

"In the U.S., forested area increased 0.1% per year from 2000-2005" 

This stat can be found on page 5, 2nd paragraph under Avoiding Deforestation.

http://www.esa.org/science_resources/issues/FileEnglish/issue13.pdf


This increase isn't from REIT's but it appears permanent land conversion is leveling off compared against afforestation. Also this was when the housing boom was still strong. I would guess it has increased a tad bit more. Hopefully the link works. It's from an article on Forests and Carbon.


----------

