Presentation 2.1: Understanding Interface Landowners

Outline Introduction Characteristics of Southern forest owners Family owned forests Interface forests and forest owner Residential migration Management issues in the interface Summary

Introduction Is forest fragmentation really happening as everyone seems to think? Can interface landowners have wrong priorities? Are some management goals the result of misunderstanding and misinformation?

Categories of ownership 215 million acres of southern U.S. is forest 25 million acres (12%) public ownership 61 million acres (28%) forest industry 127 million acres (59%) family forests

Family forests in the South 2003 Size of forest (acres) Total acreage and percent of forests this size (million acres) Number of owners and percent of forests this size (5.7%)2,424,000 (56.1%) (21%)1,338,000 (31%) (14.9%)288,000 (6,7%) (34.5%)243,000 (5.6%) (11%)18,000 (0.4%) (10.8%)8,000 (0.2%) (4.3%)<1,000 (<0.1%) Total Family Forest ,320,000

Family forest ownership

Size of family forests

Fragmentation of forests Majority of forested land is in large tracts (greater than 100 acres) More than 50 million forested acres (23%) are divided into parcels less than 100 acres About 90% of owners will seek assistance on how to manage their small forested lands

Ownership objectives Economic values Ecological values Social values Concerned about: insects and disease (61%) family legacy (58%) fire (57%) rising property taxes (52%) increase in regulations (34%)

Types of forest owners Timber managers  Investments and best management practices Resident conservationists  Preserving natural beauty, wildlife and natural values Affluent weekenders  Second homes on land Low-income rural residents  Inherited the land

Characteristics of interface regions Tourist destination Retirement destination Resource production Trade and professional centers Counterculture opportunities

Motivation for forest ownership Spirituality Farming Recreation Social Ties Build Estate Finance Live Simply Naturalism Ruralism Escapism Parenting Region

Categories of ownership New owners fall into six markets according to forest ownership needs and abilities:  Absentee investors (4%)  Career professional (13%)  Wildlife preservationists (16%)  New pioneer farmers (21%)  Planners (21%)  Young families (19%)

Management actions Str ive to be economically feasible and ecologically sustainable Increase concerns about fire, invasive species, and trespassing Fewer verbal agreements Increased specific site restoration requirements

Embracing land management New owners are not adverse to management. More concerned about protecting amenities and ecological qualities than maximizing profit.

Willingness to cut trees for…

Willingness to…

Residential migration New development increases pressure on amenities Newcomers’ concerns about management practices Dangerous Offensive odors Traffic Competes with additional housing development and retail stores

Professionals can help because … Most landowners are not opposed to managing their land Many landowners do not know possible management options the amount of funds required for management the benefits of management Professionals can address issues through various methodsProfessionals can address issues through various methods

% Agree % Neutral % Disagre e Are a trusted source of knowledge about how to manage the trees on my land Are more interested in making money than in the ecological health of my land Are more interested in cutting timber than in the ecological health of my land I don’t know anything about professional foresters I would be willing to harvest a few trees and saw them up for lumber using a small, portable sawmill I would be willing to accept less money from a timber sale if the logging actions protected other forest qualities

Trusting foresters Foresters are more interested in ____ than the health of my forest.

Addressing challenges Try new methods of reaching landowners Work to develop trust Find tools to produce amenity and ecological quality Work with landowners to develop a formal management plan

Summary Interface landowners are shaping the future of forestry. Natural resource professionals can help best by understanding the various characteristics of the landowners.

Exercise 2.1: Who Lives in the Interface?

Exercise 2.1 Discussion Questions What type professionals service and agency program would best serve your landowners? How do you make these landowners aware of your services and programs? Is this landowner worth your time or should you focus your scarce energies elsewhere? Why or why not?

Exercise 2.2: Creating a Department of Interface Resources

Natural resources agencies are struggling to remain relevant to interface landowners. Answer the following questions for each market segment based on what you know about these interface landowners from the fact sheet and agency politics. Assume your agency will NOT receive new resources, so adding a a new program requires cutting something else.

Exercise 2.3: Advertising Interface Services

Case Study 7: Interface Issues in the Georgia Mountains

Photos Slide 9, 12, 23: Larry Korhnak Slide 15: USDA Forest Service - Rocky Mountain Region Archives, USDA Forest Service, Tables Slide 5, 6, 7: Butler, B. and E. Leatherberry USDA Forest Service National Woodland Owners Survey. Newtown Square PA: USDA, Forest Service, National Woodland Owner Survey. Slide 9: Butler, B. and E. Leatherberry “America’s Family Forest Owners.” Journal of Forestry 102(7): 4-9. and Hull, R. B.; D. P. Robertson; and G. J. Buhyoff “Boutique Forestry: New Forest Practices in Urbanizing Landscapes.” Journal of Forestry 102 (1): Credits

Tables Slide 10: Klunder, R. A. and T. L. Walkingstick “Rethinking How Nonindustrial Landowners View Their Lands.” Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 24(3): Slide 12, 13, 16, 17, 18: Kendra, A. and R. B. Hull “Motivations and Behaviors of New Forest Owners in Virginia.” Forest Science 51(2): Slide 21, 22: Hull, R. B.; D. P. Robertson; and G. J. Buhyoff “Boutique Forestry: New Forest Practices in Urbanizing Landscapes.” Journal of Forestry 102 (1):