American Tree Farm System
 

Anybody here a part of this? Seems like it draws my kind of folks and I've been interested in getting my land certified and getting more involved in the organization. And yeah, I love those signs...I think they'd look really cool on my gates:cool:I've worked in forestry for the past 15 years, but I've had no involvement in this organization.

I have been working on a management plan for my land, and it stirs up so many thoughts, it has become so hard to write on paper. It's hard to plan for the future. Especially when you have a million different things you might possibly want to do on your land :confused:

I'm interested in getting involved, so I'm just looking for some input from anybody that might have any knowledge about the ATFS

my stewardship plan is currently being written by a consulting forester. In Florida, the state pays for all or most of the plan. Since I use the CF to run a pulp wood thinning over the last month, he will take what the state pays for the stewardship plan.

And yeah, I want one of those signs on my gate as well.

Cool, tax money well spent IMO:thumb:

When we planted 33 acres in hardwoods through a Wetlands Reclaimation Project with the Land Management Office we got a letter that we'd been designated a Mississippi Tree Farm. We never did drive down (30 miles) to their office to get our sign though.

I am not a big fan of it.

I have been involved with forestry for all my life, and while I consider myself a farmer, the reality is, I have a lot of land that is forested and derive a large part of my income from logging. I am also a certified logger and have logged commercially for others...a lot.

Here in Maine...the most heavily forested state in the nation...forestry is funded through the EQUIP program of the USDA. Being on the Soil and Water Conservation District, I have fought for years against agricultural money going to forestry. It is not that I have anything against forestry...I don't, and engage heavily in it myself. I do that, because here in Maine you don't have to do a lot to a woodlot to get it to thrive. Heck stop farming a field and within 15 years it is growing trees, and it can grow a nice stand of wood with little help from humans, so why spend US Taxpayer money on something that grows without help, when that same money could be used to help feed the people of this nation which is a much better return for tax payers?

I also fight against agricultural money being spent on forestry because as you have alluded too, planning for the future is hard. Here, Tree Farms and the Tree Growth Program have a poor reputation. They seem to get funded for non commercial thinning, building of roads, and forest fire prevention measures, then 5 years later end up nearly clear-cutting the land because they are in a financial bind, gave the land to the next generation, or sold it and moved on. In my town, there is no exception to that...all the Tree Farms and Tree Growth Program recipients have done that...so there is little benefit to the tax payers, and in my town, that means while they have gotten 60% off their taxes on large chunks of land, while the rest of us...in this 720 person town...have had to make up for their tax abatement's by having higher taxes. Ouch.

When it gets right down to it, we live in a very short-sighted society with people who live in a world who want results now. Unfortunately forest stewardship is a long term investment and I am increasingly seeing wood lots be harvested in shorter and shorter time frames. I do not see this changing anytime soon. People will take the short term gain of having their woods lots put into forest tax incentive programs like Tree Farms and Tree Growth Programs, but then also break the rules and harvest their wood lots down the road for the short term gain for money. With no one enforcing the regulations, it is the tax payer that gets really screwed on the deal.

I am sure there are farms and landowners who do the right thing and use the Tree Farm System and Tree Growth Program for the right reasons, but my experience in a life time of forestry is that this is rare. I think the majority of wood lot owners...like myself...who have been conservative with forest harvest operations, and who have done the right thing ethically, do not get motivated by tax incentive tree programs. I am rewarded for my conservative logging by having bigger trees, more of them, and higher quality stands and get financially rewarded every time a truck hauls a lot of wood out of my wood lot. I DO NOT need to screw my fellow neighbors over with higher tax bills to do that.

The one thing that really irks me however is this; as a group that decides where federal and state tax money goes to farmers, every time we have a community meeting to decide where the money goes, the forest service sends multitudes of foresters and forest rangers to the meeting in order to get influence in forestry funding. While farmers are out working and cannot attend the meeting to give input, forestry is plugging state paid and federally paid workers to sway the vote. As a member of this county though, appointed to look out for the best interest of the farmers in it, I feel it is in the best interest of the people of this county to have lower tax bills and to defund forestry programs and instead invest in producing food. Some day my mind may change, and I realize priorities do change, but agriculture should come first, then forestry because we do not eat trees, and by 2050, the world's population is going to outstrip its ability to feed itself.

Plowpoint, you have made a very good point (no pun intended). I hope everybody will read your post twice and give it serious consideration.

Call your local state forestry people and get the facts of the program. It will be somewhat different in every state.

Wow, guess I should of left out the comment on tax money:ashamed:

I didn't realize the ATFS was a tax incentive program. I thought it was a program that recognizes landowners for their conservation efforts :shrug: I thought it would be good to get involved and become a part of a community of similar people.

Plowpoint, I feel your frustration, and you seem very passionate about not having forestland included in the USDA farm bill. But I believe your battle isn’t with the ATFS, it would be with the US Congress and possibly your state government and community members.

After doing a little more research, the ATFS has nothing to do for providing a landowner with tax incentives. Yes, incentives for woodland owners exist through the farm bill, but they are through state and federal government agencies, not the ATFS.

The link to the brochure is here, it should clear up any misconceptions you may have provided about the ATFS:

http://www.treefarmsystem.org/stuff/...ure_web_lo.pdf

An excerpt from the brochure:
“More than 30 organizations partnered to create the Forests in the Farm Bill
Coalition to advocate for private forest landowners. The Forest in the Farm
Bill Coalition, along with hundreds of family forest owners like you, worked
together to send a clear and concise message to Congress, “Family forest
owners are in many ways like your typical family farmer, they too need
assistance and incentives to protect the nation’s water and air, conserve our
soils, provide wildlife habitat, and produce renewable energy feedstocks.”
Congress listened, making many changes to the conservation, forestry,
and energy programs to allow family forest owners to participate in these
opportunities.”

And as it can be seen, the ATFS was one of the organizations to promote this.

Just because someone has an ATFS sign on their gate, I don’t believe their intent is to steal money from the food farmer’s pocket. If they can get tax breaks from managing their land responsibly, well I’m for it, but that’s just me. I'm pretty sure farmers get their share of government assistance including subsidies, and I ain't against that either. I see plenty of government waste going to thousands of programs, and yes, I think this one is a worthy cause.

My intent for this thread had nothing to do about tax incentives or how I can try to get money from the government. I manage my land by my own hands, and I’m not growing timber for profit here. I have a beautiful old growth forest here and my main focus is just keeping it natural and providing for the wildlife.

I felt by being noticed by ATFS as a responsible steward of my land would just give me a little pat on the back, and enable me to get involved with other responsible forest owners.

We get a very, very small incentive check once a year for our Wetlands Reclamation Project (as in less that $150 a year). This stipend will last for 15 years. During that time we can't harvest any of the trees or do anything more than minimal maintenance to the acreage.

The project also paid half of the starting costs...tree purchase and planting. We prepared the acreage ourselves, but hired a service (two men and tree planting equipment) to plant the trees.

We also chose to plant hardwoods. I do not believe anything is "reclaimed" by planting pines for a quick profit. What is left after the pines are clear cut is a mess and renders the acreage useless as far as I can tell.

We do not plan to harvest our hardwoods. In our will the acreage will be designated as wildlife habitat (we're already a desginated wildlife habitat and DO have a sign proclaiming such on our gate). We will do what must be done to maintain a healthy woodlot but that is all we plan to do.

@Ravenlost - there's alot of CRP and WRP land around here, and I think it's a great thing, and as you say, the incentives you get aren't creating hardly any monetary profit for you, and it does limit your management activities. But it is a good thing to sign up for if it works for your plans. Seems like y'all have a good plan!

Thanks, it does work for us. That acreage is in a flood plain (has flooded four or five times in the last eight years) and we already had more than enough acreage for hay. This program was right up our alley.

ForestDude,

I think you are a little lost in the translation; what you are citing is an attempt of the ATFS to obtain funding through the Farm Bill which is indeed a fight against Congress. If you re-read my post (lengthy I admit) you will note that I always included a secondary part, the Tree Growth Program as well and made mention of the EQUIP Program as well.

As with anything, there are multiple ways to fund conservation projects and the woodlot owner has just as many ways. I am not sure what funding the American Tree Farm System provides, but I am well versed in the Tree Growth Program and the Equip Program. I also know that many of the ATFS woodlots use the following funding programs.

The Tree Growth Program is a tax incentive system that has been overly exploited here in Maine unfortunately, and because it is a tax incentive system, anyone who uses it, ends up costing every tax payer in the state more money. There is no avoiding that. I could go on, but I have already laid out my argument against this program.

The part that you greatly missed is the EQUIP Program, which is a US Farm Bill derived program administered by the USDA-NRCS and because I am a Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor who oversees the USDA-NRCS, it is something I have a say in based upon my moral obligation to the people of this county. Because the EQUIP Program is based on county needs, it requires annual public meetings.

What happens is, a local meeting is set up, and the public group decides how much federal money should be invested in what the local community needs for agriculture. This could be nutrient management (manure), crops, pasture, forestry, etc. Since there is only so much money available, for every percentage point given to one category, the other categories get lesser amounts. For years in this county, forestry got 0% but while farmers are out working, the Maine Forest Service has realized they can inject State Paid Maine Forest Service workers into these meetings and get some funding. At one meeting a few years ago, there was 5 Maine Forest Service employees at the meeting. Because of that saturation, 10% of this counties Federal Farm Bill Budget goes to forestry. That is about $100,000 dollars being taken away projects that produce crops, improve pastures and reduce pollution in our streams and lakes and put into forestry.

Trying to state that farmers get subsidies is a very misleading point and one you cannot make in this argument. What each county is given from the farm bill is beyond anyone's control...even Congress I think. :-) The point is, with our current need to feed this nation and the world, it is in the best interest of the American Tax Payer to have as much of this money going to produce food rather then to produce quality trees. As I already stated, a woodlot will thrive without human involvement, why divert money that could be growing food, to growing trees that do not need our help, or our money anyway?

At the same time, why should American Tax Payers be funding a woodlot that has very little regulation regarding price? The better the wood harvesting, the more the woodlot owner gets from the mill...and they have a choice where the wood goes and fetches for a price. That is a far cry from the farmer who gets their milk hauled from their farm, which gets processed and sold on the national food chain, and then two weeks after it is gone, gets told what they will get paid for that milk by the government. That is the reality of farmers, and while it ensures cheap food prices to the American Tax Payer, that is the pay back they get for investing in farms. I do not think it is right that we take from those farmers and give to woodlot owners who will end up getting more money for their wood in an open market system. Its just not right and the American Tax Payer should not be funding something it does not get a return on.

I think the quote that you cited by th ATFS clearly shows where this battle is going; as an organization they want more government funding through the US Farm Bill, and this is NOT good for the American Tax Payer.

(Just to be clear: I have the title as Supervisor for my local Soil and Water Conservation District, yet this is a voluntary, appointed position and I do not receive any money for being part of my local agricultural board.)

I guess i don't like the idea of having some organization tell me how to manage my woodlot for the sake of putting their sign out front.
They do look cool but you have to conform YOUR forest to their standards.
I grew up on a working tree farm and know pretty well how to manage it w/o outside help.
Not only for the forest products but wildlife habitat too.
There are tax incentives here to put the land aside for tree growth but it would cost me money to have a state forester come by and formulate standards that have to be met, thinning, prunning etc. Some of the thinning guidelines are ridiculous IMO
Good for keeping some foresters in business though.
Each to his own.

The standards and management plans for an american tree farm designation:

You may view the specifics of the standards at this HTML link

Plowpoint

Could it be that you are more dissatisfied with the administration of the forestry programs than with the program itself? That is the conclusion I arrive at when reading your replies. As for myself being dissatisfied in how various government programs are administrated gets me riled. I see wage earners being terminated for controlled substances because they fail a drug test. Yet the recipients of government handouts are not tested. I see government housing going to deadbeat recipients. The use of the old food stamp program get PO in the supermarket because they cannot get dog food so they put the dog food back and buy hamburger. One out of 7 now get assistance on food but IMO they are far fewer than 14% of the population that legitimately are entitled. I am aware of a farm venture that is paying $8500/acre for farm land that will never net a return that will justify the purchase. The purchase was to increase the ventures financial income through tax write offs and government programs. To me, all government programs are abused. And again, IMO it is not the recipients fault, the problem is with those we have elected. We need a do over!

Agreed but it isn't just the elected officials, it is also all the bureaucrats that have to justify their jobs, justify larger budgets so they can hire more people because with more people it justifies promotions. And then there are all the lobbyists corporate, associations, and local gov'ts that skew even the good programs towards inefficient and less effective results.

So on some levels, I agree with Plowpoint and you. But I want to participate in a number of conservation programs because I need to further my own education, I want to be able to advertise that my farm supports certain sustainable and conservation goals in the hopes that I might financially benefit to some small degree, and even if no one else ever knew what I had done and I never made a profit, I will be happier in my last days knowing that I did some small thing on my little plot of land to make the world better. And on the off chance some TEOTWAWKI events does happen, my farm will be better able to sustain my family.

However, I would happily trade a total elimination of the farm bill and all its programs for a smaller gov't and a down payment on the national debt.

I would rather see the 100,000 dollars used in my country to fund forestry, go to (4) start up farmers getting $25,000 a piece which in 5 years time will put food on the table for more people in this county, rather then help get big trees 30 years down the road that help only a single woodlot owner.

Since this is directed at me, I will respond to your post:
I am not lost in the translation, the link I provided was a broken link so no one would know what I was directing them to. The link is about the USDA Farm Bill and how it provides for woodland owners. Here is the link that should work http://www.treefarmsystem.org/stuff/...ure_web_lo.pdf
The link has nothing to do with ATFS obtaining funding. The ATFS is a non-profit organization.

The ATFS provides no funding for forest landowners, and if you want the tree farm sign on your gate, yes, you have to pay for it. And it is “EQIP”, Environmental Quality Incentives Program. The EQIP program is through the USDA NRCS, and is part of the Farm Bill.

I have no clue about the “Tree Growth Program” and I haven’t found anything on the net about it. Is that a community or state based forestry program? Do you have any links or more information? I’m not sure how that has anything to do with the ATFS?

I didn’t miss that part, and I now have more knowledge of the NRCS programs that provide funding for landowners and their specific goals. Once again, the NRCS is the federal government, not a non-profit organization.

Like you said, the public group decides. It’s democracy.

So investing money into responsible forest management doesn’t reduce pollution in streams and lakes?


I don’t fully agree with this. Yes, trees can naturally seed and regenerate, but not always. It all depends on what takes hold and dominates. I have no clue about forestry up in Maine, but down here without responsible management, bad things can happen after a cut. Most of all non-native invasive species taking hold.

The “American Tax Payer” is the working people, regardless of what industry they work in. Around here, most of the tax payers work in the forestry and farming industries. We grow trees, cattle, chickens, cotton, soybeans, and corn for the most part. And yes, the “American Tax Payer” still has to pay for that gallon of milk at the store, just like they have to pay for that fence post at the hardware store.

This thread never was a battle. Yes, the ATFS does push for government funding for woodland owners. I don’t think that makes them bad. They are just doing what they believe in. It is your opinion that it is bad for the American Tax Payer. Many would disagree with you, but it is America, and you are free to your opinion.

Maybe I should clearcut my timber, make about $30,000, and then get $25,000 from the government to start farming and feed the nation?

And if a single woodlot owner is getting $100,000 to fund their forest management up there, well, that sounds over the top. They should be investigated for government fraud, as well as the officials that gave them the money.

Very confusing.

You say they are non-pofit, but many non-pofit groups have huge investments, budgets, and saleryes - just can't show a pofit in the business sence.

Then you imply they don't cost us anything; but then you say they lobby for tax money to be spent on their goals?

Which is it? Yu are saying it both ways?

It is exactly the non-pofit groups that lobby for govt money that have undue influence on big chunks of tax dollars...

--->Paul

--->Paul

Maybe you should. I would certainly love to see more land that was formerly farmland, and allowed to grow up into forest go back to farmland to help the crisis that will appear in 2050 when the world's population is so large, it can no longer feed itself. At that time, looking back at all the money spent on forestry will look silly when people do not have anything to eat.

One of the beautiful things about forests is that they naturally filter out sediment from waterbodies. That is why best management practices call for no logging within filter areas, because forest is already doing its part to conserve water and soil. This goes back to my main argument, you do not need inject money into something that already conserves soil and water WITHOUT HUMAN INVOLVEMENT. Now farming on the other hand, oh my that disturbs large acreages of land that exposes soil and puts waterbodies at risk for soil contamination. THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE INVESTED IN so that expensive conservation practices can be put in place...conservation costs that the farmer can not afford to do. In a perfect world the farmer would be able to pay for these on their own, but then people would not be able to afford quality food and we don't want newborns drinking soda instead of milk because their mothers can't afford it.

As for the money spent, you are correct it was not a single woodlot owner that got the money; it was two woodlot owners. They got it for the same thing, to put in woods roads. Now I know you do not need to build a road to do pre-commercial thinning, and you do not need a road to plant trees, nor so you need a road to do pruning; you only need to build a road to do one thing in a woodlot, harvest wood. And as I already said, logging and soil and water conservation do not work. Even then who is aided by these new logging roads? A community of people that need to eat quality food at affordable prices, or a single woodlot owner that makes money on a logging harvest that he could not do otherwise because they cannot afford to put a road in to get the wood out.

I am not anti-logging, I just worked all day in the woods harvesting wood so I know and love forestry. I have acres of tree plantations of two different types, have done pre-commercial thinning, and pruned plenty of trees, as we speak I am in the process of building a logging/field access road and developing an impact plan regarding it. In fact last week I had the Maine Forest Service out to give me some possible routes, and have a NRCS Conservations coming in the morning to give his input on the proposed road and some erosion I have in a new field. But as much as I love logging, a derive a large part of my on-farm income from it, forestry is not where the water and soil conservation need is, it is in my fields.

@Plowpoint - That's a great post and really gives insight into what you believe in and I respect that.

I never wanted this thread to become about funding for government programs...but it is what it is. I'll be backing on out of this thread now, as I don't get on HT to talk about politics.

I did however find some very useful information from discussions on forestryforum.com about the ATFS for anyone who is really interested