Crop Tree Management Report

[Karl Davies]

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.

<snip>

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
http://www.fs.fed.us/na/morgantown/frm/perkey/fmu/i20/article1/article1.htm
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?

KD