Dogwood Alliance

This is good reason to double the size of public forests
since then the public would some say in their management.
Private lands are less subject if at all to public opinion. Votes: +0

Just so you know, the plantation management in the south aloows many less acres to be harvest as a result of the high productivity levels of the stand. In addition, it has to be said that if you take a way the demand for timber products, you will take away the forest... (i.e. landowners will convert their land to the highest value use such as a trailer park, a development, a peanut field, a parking lot or anything else except a forest). If you want to preserve our land in forests, you had better use them. Votes: +0

"If you want to preserve our land in forests, you had better use them" (Ture (sic) Environmentalist)

We agree with you wholeheartedly! We have no problem with working forests and have no desire to stop all timber, pulp or fiber production. Where we differ is in our definition of forest (plantations do not qualify in our view) and the management practices of single species pine plantations. Sustainable working forests provide more than wood products. They also provide ecosystem services, such as water purification, flood control, diverse habitat, and carbon sequestration, to name a few. Intensively managed pine plantations provide little to none of these services at near the level of sustainably managed forests. A growing number of people and organizations (including some paper companies) are recognizing the importance of the natural ecosystem services of forests and are working to direct revenue for those services to forest landowners who keep their forests intact, even while harvesting trees.

So please, don't use the straw man argument that we are trying to stop all logging or that we are trying to shut down the paper industry. We are trying to find solutions that allow for a sustainable harvest of wood products from intact Southern forests that also provide needed ecosystem services to all of those humans and nonhumans living in the South.

Votes: +0

I think Monoculture pine forests are a great idea. Pine trees are a renewable resource. The issue is that our native forests are not.

Votes: +0

The hand-wringing over monocultures is misplaced, for reasons which I will detail at length below. My comments were too long to post originally, so I am breaking them into "Part 1" and "Part 2."

I am a forester, *not* associated with the forest industry, and work daily with private landowners in south Mississippi(my disclaimer; full disclosure).

If you examine pre-settlement black-and-white photographs of upland sites on the outer coastal plain, you will see...monocultures. Acre after acre of pine monocultures created after catastrophic events, whether a Hurricane Katrina type event, stand replacement fire, or whatever. This fact is never noted; just the 32 million acres of pine plantations and how evil and "lifeless" they are.

While I'm on the evil of plantations and its impacts on biodiversity, I will make an offer to anyone to come to an existing pine stand in south MS where I can put you on the boundary line between a naturally regenerated forest and a pine plantation. You will be unable to tell which is the naturally regenerated area and which is the plantation. Properly managed plantations *can* have a high biodiversity, including threatened and endangered species. The issue is proper management, not the plantations themselves. Improperly managed plantations, yes, will have reduced biodiversity, primarily due to insufficient light getting to the ground to stimulate understory development. This will also reduce the rate of return to the landowner, as tree growth slows considerably, and increases risk from damaging insects such as pine bark beetles. So there are plenty of reasons to manage pine plantations properly, and many private, non-industrial landowners are doing a great job. In the process they are providing quality water, providing and enhancing wildlife habitat, protecting threatened and endangered species, and giving us (society) a variety of other benefits.

I must also comment on the statement that the "vast conversion of our native forests to plantations has scarred the natural beauty of the Southern landscape, endangered the health and well-being of local citizens and displaced countless species of plants and animals." As to scaring the natural beauth--I agree that a clearcut is ugly. No question about it. However, I also know that the revenue often goes to support older landowners who have been good stewards of their land for decades, to pay for a child's or grandchild's college tuition, or a thousand other necessary uses. The landowner plants back, and the process starts again. As to endangering the health/well being of local citizens, this is in NO way substantiated, and is a lie. I have seen no evidence of plantations, per se, causing human health problems, and challenge this site to produce peer-reviewed literature that supports this statement. As to plantations having displaced "countless" species of plants and animals, this is an obvious overgeneralization. We can and do have plantations that support threatened and endangered species, as well as many non-listed species.

This site also identifies "paper companies" as being the apparent culprit in this sorry affair. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of timber markets in the South. In my area (again, south MS), higher value products such as pine Chip-N-Saw, sawtimber, and poles account for almost 70% of the "delivered value" (defined as the income generated at the point of first processing; a commonly used criteria). Pine pulpwood (paperwood) accounts for around 20% of the delivered value. From an economic standpoint, landowners *do not* make a lot of money from producing low-value pulpwood. They make money by managing their forests properly and producing higher value products. The 3rd quarter '07 timber market report for MS shows the following average stumpage figures (stumpage is the price that the landowner receives when he/she sells timber): pine pulpwood--$6.75 per ton; pine Chip-N-Saw--$18.37 per ton; and pine sawtimber--$37.51 per ton. Landowners make money not by selling pulpwood, which is really just a byproduct, but by managing for the higher value products. Let's be honest and up front about this, and quit the red-herring stuff associated with "paper" companies.
Votes: +0

(Note: This is a continuation of an earlier post that had to be separated due to length.) gh

Linking the first 3 paragraphs on this site regarding plantations in the U.S. South with the next 7 paragraphs about the global impacts of tree plantations is like mixing apples and oranges. I have visted forestland in countries worldwide, and always come back grateful for what we have. We have laws the protect landowners rights and encourage proper management, institutions that support research and outreach effots in forestry and natural resources, and markets that enable landowners to make money growing trees. Failing this last item, the obvious decision would be to sell to the local developer. This fragmentation, by the way, is the primary threat to forestland in the South, as identified by the Southern Foreset Resource Assessment.

I would encourage this site to 1) get its facts straight; 2) go out and visit with private non-industrial forest landowners who have been working hard for decades at making a better place for them and their children, 3) cease and desist from using uninformed rhetoric, and 4) work with others, even if not of a like mind, to really make a difference instead of just raising money (I did note the "Donate Today" link).
Votes: +0

Glenn,

I want to take you up on your offer to show me the similarities between pine plantations and natural regeneration down in S. Mississippi. I mean this with all sincerity and I promise to come with as open a mind as it’s possible for a wild-eyed radical Earth First! Granola Cruncher to have My family comes from NE Louisiana (Monroe) and I used to spend a lot of time in and around the bayous down there during long ago summers.

Why don’t you shoot me an email at This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it or give me a call at 828-251-2525 ext. 11 so we can talk about a good time for me to visit.

Sid Cullipher
Executive Director
Dogwood Alliance

Votes: +0

Sid,

Thanks for taking me up on my offer to show both pine plantations and naturally regenerated forests in south Mississippi. Per our phone conversation earlier today I am holding March 27 and 28, 2008, for a field day (specific date to be finalized and posted later). Things are going dormant now, and people will benefit much more from a spring event.

As we discussed, I am posting this as an invitation to anyone interested in forest management. The Forestry Field Day will be at the Lambert Tree Farm near Sumrall, MS. Dr. Lambert was the 1998 Mississippi Tree Farmer of the Year, and has graciously agreed to open his place for this event. Around 70% of the forestland in the South is owned by private, non-industrial forest landowners.

There will be no cost for this Field Day. However, I will need a "head count" to arrange for refreshments. If anyone is interested in attending, please send me an email at This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it . Please put "Lambert Tree Farm" in the subject.

Details will follow, but the tentative schedule is:
8:30--Registration at Lambert Tree Farm, Sumrall, MS
9:00--Begin Field Trip (plantation/natural pine forests; harvesting, prescribed burning, Safe Harbor Program, invasive species);
12:00--End Field Day

Pleae feel free to email me if you have any questions.

Regards,

Glenn Hughes Votes: +0