Crop Tree Management Report
karl at daviesand.com
Sat Feb 3 09:11:29 EST 2001
Karl Davies wrote:
> Every now and then the USFS does something right. There must be a law
> of probabilities that explains this. The URL below will take you to a
> report by Arlyn Perkey down in West Virginia. He's been researching the
> biology and economics of crop tree management for years. This is a 10
> year progress report. And guess what? Yep, those crop trees grew
> faster than the 3-5% per year in value that forestry bureaucrats figure
> they grow at. The range was 15-20% PER YEAR including grade and market
> value increases.
Arlyn Perkey's paper raises another issue: What is the annual value
productivity of our forests? Here in Massachusetts (and probably elsewhere
in the Northeast) the forestry establishment (USFS-FIA, DEM, SIP, UMass and
NEFF) figures it's only about $22 per acre per year. See
http://www.massforesters.org/public.htm about a third of the way down.
Of course the $22 per acre per year is a lie perpetuated by burros, acados
and orgos in order to keep alive the BIG LIE that forestry is not profitable
and therefore needs to be subsidized by government and non-profits. If you
haven't already, download that Arlyn Perkey paper from
and print it out. It shows crop trees growing $80 per acre per year with
management, and $57 per acre per year without management.
Here's one more issue: If a forester manages forests that only produce $20
per acre per year, what does he/she deserve to earn? Maybe $20,000 per
year? However, if the productivity of those forests increases to $40 or $60
or $80 per acre per year, does the forester deserve to earn $40,000 or
$60,000 or $80,000?
More information about the Ag-forst