# T here are an estimated 620 million acres of forestland in the
conterminous United States (Smith et al. 2004). Nearly two-thirds,or 393 million acres, is in private ownership. Private owners include forest industry companies, other businesses or corporations, partnerships, tribes,families, and individuals. Family forests include lands that are at least 1 acin size, 10% stocked, and owned by individuals, married couples, family estates and trusts, or other groups of individuals who are not incorporated or otherwise associated as a legal entity. Family forest owners constitute the dominant ownership group in the United States, holding 4 of every 10
forested acres.The pattern of forest-landownership in the United States (Figure 1) is
rooted in Euro-American settlement patterns and resultant anthropogenic uses of the land (MacCleery 1993). Inthe East, where Euro-American settlement occurred earliest, 83% of the forestland is in private ownership. Inthe West, the reverse is true, with twothirds of the forestland publicly owned. There, prior to settlement, the federal government owned all land
and maintained control of land that
was not homesteaded or sold. Much of
the latter was too remote or mountainous. Many public forests in theEast were acquired following abandonment or tax foreclosures on large
tracts of land from the late 1800s through the 1930s. Family forests provide important environmental, social, and economic benefits. An owner’s relationship with her land has important implications forforest sustainability, including the sustainable production of timber and the continued flow of services, such asgroundwater recharge, from this valuable resource.
To better understand the factors thataffect the use and management of private forestland, private forest ownershave been surveyed periodically. National surveys were completed in 1978 (Birch et al. 1982) and 1993 (Birch1996). In 2002, the USDA Forest Service initiated a new system of annual

**4** Journal of Forestry

• October/November 2004 

### Brett J. Butler and Earl C. Leatherberry

**The number of family forest owners in the conterminous United States increased from 9.3 mil lion in 1993 to 10.3 million in 2003, and these owners now control 42% of the nation’s forest**  **land. The reasons why people own forestland are diverse. Some of the more common ones are aesthetic enjoyment, the tract is part of a farm or home site, and to pass the land on to heirs.** **Half of the family forest owners have harvested trees, but only 3% of them have a written for est-management plan. Trends in owners’ ages and future land-use intentions suggest**  **widescale transfers of family forestland in the near future.**

Keywords: **Nonindustrial private forests; small-scale forestry; landowner survey; forest in ventory; National Woodland Owner Survey** ABSTRACT 

# America’s Family Forest Owners Butler 11/4/04 10:48 AM Page 46surveys of the nation’s private forestowners. In this article, we present selected findings from the first 2 years— 2002 and 2003—of the National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS).

Methods The NWOS is carried out as part of
the USDA Forest Service’s mandate to conduct “a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the present and prospective conditions” of the nation’sforests (Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974,P.L. 93-378). The NWOS is administered by the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program and represents the social compliment to the program’s biologic resource inventory. The objectives of the NWOS are tocharacterize the private forest landowners of the United States and determinewhy they own land and what they intend to do with it. Basic demographic information is compiled along withdata on forestland characteristics, ownership objectives, forest use and management, forestry education and outreach, landowners’ concerns, and future land-use intentions. Following survey methods outlined by Dillman (2001), questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of the nation’s private forest landowners(B.J. Butler and E.C. Leatherbery, National Woodland Owner Survey manual, in preparation). Attempts were made to contact nonrespondents bymeans of follow-up telephone interviews. As part of the sampling design, a systematic set of points was placed over the United States. Each point was
identified as forested or nonforested through interpretation of remotelysensed imagery and/or ground reconnaissance. For each point that was forested, the owner was identified through public records.Currently, the NWOS is being implemented annually. Survey cycles forstates range from 5 to 10 years. The annual design means that each year, a randomly selected portion (10–20%) of the full sample of private owners ina state is contacted. Although the sample size during the first several years may not provide adequate precision for estimating state-level parameters, the systematic sampling design allows forreliable national and regional estimates. As additional annual surveys arecompleted, the precision of the estimates will increase and detailed results will be published.A total of 17,363 private landowners were mailed surveys as part of the NWOS in 2002 and 2003. Between 27 and 1,412 owners were contacted in each of the 47 conterminous statessampled. The number of owners contacted varied according to the area of private forestland, number of privateforest landowners, and sampling intensity in a state. The relatively small amount of private forestland in Nevada hindered us in contacting landowners there, but we assumed that the State’s
landowners’ characteristics were similar

**5** October/November 2004

• Journal of Forestry Figure 1. Public and private forest ownership in the United States, 2003.to those of landowners from neighboring intermountain states. Although future results will encompass all 50 states,
data for Alaska and Hawaii are not included here.In all, 6,352 family forest owners returned completed surveys. After adjusting for undeliverable questionnaires,the national response rate was 46%. Response rates generally were highest in
the western and northern states and
lowest in the southern states. Because the primary sampling unitsare points on the ground, the probability of a given landowner being included in the sample is inversely proportional to the amount of forestland
that she owns. As the size of an owner’s forest holdings approach the inverse of the state’s sampling intensity (e.g.,15,000 ac), the probability of being included in the sample approaches 1. The Horvitz-Thompson Estimator(Horvitz and Thompson 1952) accounts for the probability proportional to size aspect of the sampling design
and is used to estimate numbers ofowners. For area estimates, simple random sample estimation procedures (e.g., Cochran 1977) are used. The information presented here reflects family and individual forest owners for the 48 conterminous states. The NWOS covers all private landowners, but results pertaining to corporations,partnerships, tribes, and other nonfamily organizations are excluded so that

**6** Journal of Forestry

• October/November 2004 Figure 2. Distribution of (A) family forests and (B) family forest owners in the United States by size of forest holdings, 1993 and 2003.

**A**

**B Family Forest Owners of the**  **Northern United States, 2003**

**Number of owners:**

4.8 million

**Area of forestland owned:**

93.9 million ac
(55% of the region’s forestland)
**Size distribution of landholdings:**

Size Acres Owners
(ac) (thousands) (thousands)

1–9 9,257 2,926

10–49 28,084 1,365

50–99 18,699 280

100–499 29,998 180

500–999 3,596 6

1,000–4,999 2,722 2

5,000+ 1,510 <1
**Average landowner age:**

60 years
**Education (at least some college):**

56% of the family forest owners;
who own 59% of the family forestland

**Absentee owners:**

23% of the family forest owners;
who own 32% of the family forestland
**Most common reasons for owning:**

1. Enjoyment of beauty and scenery
2. Privacy
3. Protection of nature and biological diversity
**Harvesting experience (past 5 years):**

27% of the family forest owners;
who own 39% of the family forestland
**Written management plans:**
4% of the family forest owners;
who own 15% of the family forestland
**Have sought management advice**
**(past 5 years):**

13% of the family forest owners;
who own 31% of the family forestland**7** October/November 2004

• Journal of Forestrythe trends in family forests can be highlighted.

Family Forest Owners How Many Family Forest Owners
Are There? There are an estimated 10.3 million family forest owners in theUnited States. Collectively, they control 262 million acres, or 42%, of thenation’s forestland. Nearly 9 of 10 family forest owners have their land in the
eastern United States. The North accounts for 46% of family forest owners and the South 42%. The remaining 12%, or 1.3 million owners, are dispersed across the West. Who Are Family Forest Owners?From a demographic perspective, family forest owners are somewhat different than the average American. For example, family forest owners have more formal education: 62% have attended college compared to only half of the general population 25 years or older(US Department of Commerce, Census Bureau 2002). Family forest owners also tend to be older than the generalpopulation. The average age of Americans 25 years or older is 49 years. Bycontrast, the average age of family forest owners is 60 years. How Familiar Are Family Forest
Owners With Their Land? Seven of 10family forest owners maintain a primary residence within 1 mile of theforestland that they own. Resident forest owners are more prevalent in the North, where 77% of the owners havea primary residence near their forestland compared to 70% in the Southand 68% in the West. Some family forest owners have a secondary home—
vacation home or cabin—on their forestland. Nationally, 12% of the Figure 3. Reasons for owning family forestland in the United States, 2003. Numbers include landowners who ranked each potential reason as very important (1) or important (2) on a seven-point Likert Scale. Categories are not exclusive.

Figure 4. Relationship between forest-management activities and size of family forest owners’ landholdings. **Family Forest Owners of the Southern United States, 2003** 

**Number of owners:**

4.3 million
**Area of forest land owned:**

127.6 million ac (59% of the forestland) **Size distribution of landholdings:**
Size Acres Owners (ac) (thousands) (thousands) 1–9 7,255 2,424 10–49 26,890 1,338 50–99 18,996 288 100–499 43,993 243 500–999 11,132 18 1,000–4,999 13,749 8 5,000+ 5,543 <1 **Average landowner age:**

60 years **Education (at least some college):**

65% of the family forest owners; who own 70% of the family forestland
**Absentee owners:**

30% of the family forest owners; who own 43% of the family forestland **Most common reasons for owning:**

1. Pass land on to heirs 2. Enjoyment of beauty and scenery
3. Land investment **Harvesting experience (past 5 years):** 18% of the family forest owners; who own 42% of the family forestland **Written management plans:** 3% of the family forest owners; who own 20% of the family forestland **Have sought management advice (past 5 years):** 

16% of the family forest owners; who own 43% of the family forestlandJournal of Forestry

• October/November 2004 **8** owners have a secondary home located
within 1 mile of their forestland. The proportion of owners with second homes is greater in the West and North (17 and 15%, respectively) than in the South (7%). What Size Holdings Do They Have?Most family forest owners hold relatively small tracts (Figure 2). Nine of 10 owners control 1 to 49 ac. Althoughowners with smaller holdings predominate, those with larger holdings own most of the forestland. Owners with 50 or more acres hold 69% of the family forestland but account for only 11% of the family forest owners. Holding sizes tend to be smaller in
the North than in the South and West. In the North, 40% of family forests consist of fewer than 50 ac; in theSouth and West, only about onefourth of family forests are held by owners with fewer than 50 ac. Why Do They Own Forestland? Family forest owners hold their acreage for multiple reasons. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of a seriesof potential reasons for owning forestland on a seven-point Likert Scale. Themost common reasons cited as very important (Likert value = 1) or important (value = 2) are to enjoy beauty/scenery,to protect nature and biological diversity, that the acreage is part of a farm or home site, for privacy, and to pass the land on to heirs (Figure 3). There is regional variability in the reasons why people own forestland.Aesthetic enjoyment is cited more frequently in the North and West than in the South; land investment is morelikely to be cited as important by owners in the West and South than in the North; and family legacy is ranked as important more often by owners in the
South than the North or West.How Important Is Timber Production? Nationally, relatively few owners—only 9%—indicate that timber production is an important reason for holding forestland. Family forestland in the South is more likely to be owned by people who cite timber production as an important reason for holding
forestland than forestland in the otherregions. Forty-one percent of the family forestland in the South is owned bypeople who indicate that timber production is an important reason for owning forestland, compared to 22and 18% in the North and West, respectively. How Likely Are Owners to Harvest
Trees? Half of the family forest ownershave harvested trees at some point during their ownership tenure. When those who harvested only firewood areexcluded, 26% of the owners have harvested timber (e.g., sawlogs or pulpwood). Owners who have harvestedtrees control 71% of the family forestland and 46% of these owners have harvested during the last 5 years. The more forestland owned, the more likely
it is that the owner has harvested trees (Figure 4).How Prevalent Is Forest Management? Only 3% of the owners have a written management plan while 16% have sought management advice. Among owners who have harvested trees, 22% sought professional advice during their most recent harvest. The more forestland owned, the more likely
it is that an owner has a written forest management plan or has sought forest management advice (Figure 4). Figure 5. Age of family forest owners in the United States, 1993 and 2003. **Family Forest Owners of the Western United States, 2003** 

**Number of owners:**

1.3 million
**Area of forestland owned:**

27.6 million ac (12% of the region’s forestland) **Size distribution of landholdings:**
Size Acres Owners (ac) (thousands) (thousands) 1–9 2,711 809 10–49 6,639 325 50–99 3,677 55 100–499 11,706 64 500–999 5,602 9 1,000–4,999 7,550 4 5,000+ 2,329 <1 **Average landowner age:**

62 years **Education (at least some college):**

76% of the family forest owners; who own 72% of the family forestland
**Absentee owners:**

32% of the family forest owners; who own 49% of the family forestland **Most common reasons for owning:**

1. Enjoyment of beauty and scenery
2. Pass land on to heirs 3. Privacy **Harvesting experience (past 5 years):**

9% of the family forest owners; who own 34% of the family forestland **Written management plans:** 5% of the family forest owners; who own 12% of the family forestland **Have sought management advice (past 5 years):** 

27% of the family forest owners; who own 33% of the family forestland**9** October/November 2004

• Journal of Forestry Ownership Dynamics: 1993–2003 The number of family forest owners in the Untied States increased by 11% between 1993 and 2003. Most of this increase occurred among owners with less than 50 ac of forestland (Figure 2).These changes are happening concurrently with the large influx of people moving from urban to rural areas (Egan and Luloff 2000). The average age of family forest owners is increasing. Between 1993 and 2003, the number of family forestowners 65 years of age or older increased by 34% (Figure 5). Owners 65years or older control 44% of the family forestland; 20% is owned by people 75 years or older. The advancing age of these owners portends a large increase
in the transfer of forestland in the near future. This supposition is bolstered by the large number of owners who cite family legacy as an important reason for holding forestland. The reasons for owning forestland have not changed appreciably over the past decade. That the land is part of a home or farm remains important to many owners. However, the relativeimportance associated with some reasons for ownership has changed. For example, owning land to pass along to heirs, for aesthetic enjoyment, and for
land investment have increased in relative importance, while owning for timber production has decreased. Various dynamic, interrelated forces are affecting family forest owners, how they use and view owning their land,
and their view of the future. These forces are social (e.g., demographics and social paradigms), economic (e.g.,timber and real estate markets), political (e.g., tax policies and the availability of incentive programs), and biophysical (e.g., the state of the forest and land resources) in nature. In the next 5years, most landowners plan to do little with their acreage, though a significant number are planning majorchanges or activities. The most common planned activities are some type of harvesting—for firewood, sawlogs, or both. Within the next 5 years, 10% of the owners plan to pass at least someof their land on to their heirs, 8% intend to buy more forestland, and 5% plan to sell forestland. Conclusions New and increasing numbers offamily forest owners will present a challenge and an opportunity for the forestry community, but will the forestrycommunity be ready? With more people owning forestland, there will be more people in intimate contact with the land. This affords an opportunityto educate more people about the benefits and responsibilities associated with forest stewardship. However, foreffective communication to occur, innovative and sophisticated methods of communicating with forest landowners are needed. New owners likely willhave different backgrounds and ownership objectives and be less aware of thepotential benefits of good forest management than previous owners. Also, new owners probably will have fewer management options due to smaller holding sizes and, at least currently,
weak markets for timber. Findings from the NWOS indicate that because of the advanced age ofmany owners and their stated intentions for their land, land transfers will be substantial during the next 10–20 years. The transfer of lands to the next generation could result in minimal or dramatic changes depending on the personal goals of the new owners. Will aesthetic enjoyment as a reason for owning forestland continue to increaseand will ownership for timber production continue to decrease?
The fate of much of the nation’s forests is in the hands of the 10.3 million
families and individuals who control 42% of the forestland. Family forestowners play an important role in supplying the public with timber, outdoorrecreation opportunities, and watershed protection. We need to continue to refine our understanding of family forest owners so that we can developmore enlightened opinions and effective policies.

Literature Cited

B IRCH , T.W. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the

United States, 1994. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station Resource Bulletin NE-134. 183 p.

B IRCH , T.W., D.G. LEWIS
, AND H.F. K AISER. 1982. The private forest-land owners of the United States. USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin WO-1. 64 p.

C OCHRAN , W.G. 1977. Sampling techniques. Wiley, New

York. 428 p. D ILLMAN , D.A. 2001. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Wiley & Sons, New York. 464 p.

E GAN , A.F., AND A.E. LULOFF . 2000. The exurbanization

of America’s forests: Research in rural social science. Journal of Forestry 98(3):26–30.

H ORVITZ , D.G., AND D.J. THOMPSON . 1952. A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite

universe. Journal of the American Statistical Association
47:663–685.

MAC C LEERY, D.W. 1993 American forests: A history of resiliency and recovery. USDA Forest Service FS-540. 59

p. S MITH , W.B., P.D. M ILES , J.S. V ISSAGE
, AND S.A. P UGH

. 2004. Forest resources of the United States, 2002.
USDA Forest Service North Central Research Station General Technical Report NC-241. 137 p.

US D EPARTMENT OF C OMMERCE , C ENSUS B UREAU

.

2002. Census 2000 summary files 1 and 3. US Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Washington,

DC.

Brett J. Butler (bbutler01@fs.fed.us) is research forester, USDA Forest Service,Northeastern Research Station, 11 Campus Boulevard, Suite 200, Newtown Square, PA 19073. Earl C. Leatherberry (eleatherberry@fs.fed.us) is research social scientist, USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 1992 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55018.The results of the new, improved National WoodlandOwner Survey (NWOS) shed important light on the changing face and landscape of family forests. A comparison of 2003 and 1993 data reveal some key trends: • A lot more private forestland is owned by families, with 24

million ac shifting from business or other nonfamily ownerships.• There are more than 1 million new family forestland owners in the decade. • There are more owners of small parcels (10–49 ac) and less

owners of the next size class (50–99). • Owners are expecting to subdivide some 5.4 million ac in

the next few years, of which 60% is in the South. • Owners are planning to convert some 9.5 million ac out of

forestland altogether. Even allowing for other acres beingplanted into forest, this portends a net forest loss to development of 1.8 million ac. Almost half of that net loss looks like it will happen in the West. • Family forest owners as a group are growing significantly

older. In fact, more than 100 million ac of forestland areowned by people 65 years and older. No wonder the question of family legacy is a top area of concern.

These findings are consistent with past surveys by the
USDA Forest Service and with other available data that I reviewed and analyzed in preparation of America’s Private Forests: Status and Stewardship (Island Press 2001). There are major structural shifts in forest ownership underway that will shape the forest landscape for generations to come. Onthe one hand, the economic appeal of development opportunities combined with a massive intergenerational transfer of forest assets ap pear to be fragmenting and shrinking the size of forest holdings, as well as fueling outright forest loss. On the other hand, the major restructuring of the publiclytraded forest products industry over the last decade also appears to have lead to a notable shift of forest ownership away from corporate entities in favor of a family ownerships. What does this changing world of family forest ownership mean for non-governmental conservation organizations (NGOs) such as the Pacific Forest Trust? Together with many others focused on forest conservation and stewardship, we are concerned about the long-term and indeed acceleratingtrends of forest loss and parcelization. We see the looming intergenerational transfer of 41% of family forestland as a driver to more of the same. Many family forest tracts get broken up when aging owners have too many heirs, or heirs who can’t agree on how or if to manage the forest, or no heirs at all. Furthermore, if no other assets are available to pay estate taxes, some larger holdings must be sold to satisfy the IRS. More owners and more parcels undermine efforts to protect and manage privately owned forest resources for their many public benefits, from timber supplies to water flows to wildlife habitat. Efforts to coordinate management acrossownership boundaries for watershed or landscape-scale stewardship benefits are made even more difficult when there aremore owners. In general, owners of larger tracts are more active forest managers than owners of smaller parcels, whether the goal is timber production or natural protection. Largerforest tracts also tend to be less fragmented by non-forest development and can therefore be better managed for forest habitat and watershed values. Therefore, maintaining forestownerships in larger tracts can improve efficiency and effectiveness of conservation and stewardship efforts. Based on the NWOS data, I would suggest goals for conservation-oriented NGOs and other forestry serviceproviders be different for different size family forest ownerships. With small-scale properties, the challenge is to get owners thoughtfully engaged in understanding their forestsas natural systems. We need to reach out to them in a language they can hear, one that is based on assisting the owners in meeting the goals they have for their forest. These may not encompass logging per se but could encompassforest management for habitat values. Gradually, engagement can evolve into active stewardship. For larger-scale ownerships, the challenge is to keep theforest tract intact and functional as forest. The fate of largescale ownerships is much more economically driven thansmaller ones. Conservation organizations need to help support a viable, sustainable forest products infrastructure as an element of a conservation strategy for larger, inherently more commercial forestry holdings. Furthermore, with a highly competitive global fiber market that has been yielding weak wood prices, conservationists also need to work with larger family forest ownerships to build returns from non-woodcommodity sources, whether it is recreation, habitat banking, or carbon sequestration. For families of larger properties who are committed to maintaining forest uses, the sale or gifting of conservation easements is another method thatkeeps family forests from being broken up, provides financial returns, and meets multiple resource management goals. In fact, the new NWOS data show 12.3 million ac of family forestland is already under conservation easement.This is a much greater figure than other less statistically rigorous surveys have suggested. Surprisingly, 45% of this total is in the South. Anecdotal data of transactions reported to me by conservation organizations show a strong increase in the use of conservation easements on working forestlands,

**10** Journal of Forestry

• October/November 2004



# Non-Governmental Organizations: More Owners and **Smaller Parcels Pose Major Stewardship Challenges**

**Constance Best**



# Responses to “America’s Family Forest Owners”regardless of ownership. With almost 5% of family forests already conserved in this fashion, the trends suggest to me that this tool could become even more widely used.In revealing important facts about family forest ownership, the current NWOS also shows us just how little we really know about the people whose decisions shape 42% of America’s forests. We hope that with some basic knowledge now being gleaned regularly, the NWOS and other efforts will seek deeper levels of understanding. We are still very far away from identifying who owns forests in the United States and understanding why they own land and what they intend to do with it. For instance, it is likely that the vast majority of family forest owners don’t even think of themselves as forest owners, as this aspect of their ownership tends to be incidental to other uses. The more we can understand aboutfamily forest owners, the more NGOs and others can provide truly meaningful assistance in conservation and stewardship of forest resources.

Constance Best (cbest@pacificforest.org) is managing director of the Pacific Forest Trust, 416 Aviation Blvd., Suite A, Santa Rosa, CA 95,403, and principal author of America’s Private Forests: Status and Stewardship (Island Press 2001).

**11** October/November 2004

• Journal of Forestry 

# Public Forest Policies and the Family Forest

**Michael A. Kilgore**

The management of the nation’s family forests has an extensive and rich history of influence by public policies and programs. The public’s interest in private forestry is grounded in two fundamental concerns. One is the need to encourage continued investment in land management for awide range of benefits provided by private forests. The longterm nature of forestry and lack of markets for many of its products tend to discourage landowners from investing intheir forests. Public policies are also used to minimize negative impacts that can be associated with forest management and timber-harvesting activities, such as the loss of wildlife habitat, diminished water quality, soil erosion, and reduced visual quality. The policies and programs that collectively constitute the nation’s “family forest policy” were established in response tospecific forest management problems, and within the context of unique economic or political circumstances. Their form varies considerably, as does their ability to influence private landowner decisionmaking. They include: • developing and delivering to landowners information and

education programs on proper stand establishment, management, and timber-harvesting techniques;• assisting owners who wish to apply certain land management practices by providing technical assistance and advice;• identifying appropriate forest management and timberharvesting techniques such as best management practices (BMP) or guidelines; • providing financial incentives in the form of cost sharing,

no or low interest grants or loans, and income and property tax incentives to encourage the application of certain forest management practices or production of forest-based

outputs; • purchasing specific rights (typically development) from

willing forest landowners; and • regulating and zoning the extent and types of practices and
activities allowed on forestland.

Some of these policies can be found across multiple levels of government (e.g., taxation), while others are the exclusivedomain of certain levels of government (e.g., state governments typically have jurisdiction over the regulation of forestry practices on nonfederal lands).
The latest data from the National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) highlight important conditions of and trends inthe nation’s family forests, as well as the attitudes and perceptions of their owners. They include a continued low level ofinterest in planning and management of these forests, declining interest in timber production as an ownership objective,parcelization of forest landownership, and owner age and future land-use intention trends that suggest the possibility of large-scale transfers of family forestland in the near future. These findings have a number of significant implications for the management of private forests. If forest policies are going to be effective at addressing these conditions and trends, attention needs to be given to a number of important factors, including: • Target the most important problems. The issues surrounding

the management and use of family forests are extensive. Public policy should focus strategically on those issues thatpose the greatest threat to the future condition of these resources. • Target problems with the greatest opportunity for influence.

Public policy has varying influence on the management ofprivate forestlands. As such, focus should be on those problems where the potential to positively influence outcomes is the greatest. • Recognize diverse ownership and management objectives. The

2003 NWOS indicates individuals own forests for many reasons in addition to producing timber. Family forest pol-icy needs to acknowledge the fact that timber production is not a high priority for most landowners and may simply beincidental to other land management objectives (e.g., improving wildlife habitat). • Be realistic about the ability of specific policy tools to influence

behavior. Public policies can be effective tools for achieving specific outcomes society desires of its private forests, suchas stimulating greater levels of investment in forest management or applying environmentally sound timber-harvesting practices. The ability of public policies to influence other public objectives for the nation’s private forests, such as mitigating forest fragmentation and development, is
more limited.
• Make incentives worth the landowner’s while. Forest policies

need to acknowledge the opportunity costs of private forest landowner decisions. It is unrealistic to expect, for example, that programs offering landowners a few dollars per acre in property tax relief will be able to compete with realestate markets that price forestland at several times its undeveloped value.• Require landowner commitment in return for benefits provided by public policies. A recent study (Hibbard et al.2003) found that only 16 of 66 forest property tax programs require the landowner to obtain and use a forest management plan in return for preferential property tax
treatment. Landowner commitments need to be commensurate with the private benefits these policies provide. • Be creative in policy design. The attitudes, preferences, and

behavior of private forest landowners continue to evolve.Too often, family forest policy lacks the creativity and ingenuity needed to effectively respond to these changes. In Minnesota, for example, a new forest property tax law uses annual rebate checks as a means of encouraging landowner participation. Although the law has been in place only a few years, initial landowner response suggests the rebate concept may be a powerful incentive for forest landowners. • Monitor policy outcomes and effectiveness. Once in place,

policies need to be periodically evaluated with respect tothe degree to which it is accomplishing its intended objectives, who benefits (and to what degree), and who pays(and to what degree). Such monitoring can help decisionmakers better understand the right mix of policies and programs directed at the nation’s family forests.

The attitudes and actions of the private forest landowners will continue to be shaped by economic and noneconomicforces. By giving attention to these conditions and the aforementioned factors, public policies and programs can positively influence the management of the nation’s family forests for a range of economic, ecological, and social benefits.

Literature Cited

H IBBARD , C.M., M.A. KILGORE
, AND P.V. ELLEFSON . 2003. Property taxation of private

forests in the United States. Journal of Forestry 101(3):44–49.

Michael A. Kilgore (mkilgore@ umn.edu) is assistant professorof Natural Resource Economics and director, Center for Environment and Natural Resource Policy, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, 115 Green Hall, 1530 Cleveland Avenue North, St. Paul, MN 55108.

**12** Journal of Forestry

• October/November 2004 

# Responses to “America’s Family Forest Owners”

**Implications for Forest Production**

**R. Neil Sampson**

The continued division of America’s private forests into smaller ownerships has important implications for the future of forest production. Impacts on the future supply of timber products, the costs of buying and harvesting timber, and land values seem likely and, to the extent that these changesdrive up domestic timber prices in relation to foreign opportunities, they may accelerate the offshore movement of the forest products industry. Adverse impacts on the abilityto achieve sustainable forestry goals may reduce public support for active forest management.

Supply of TimberSmaller ownerships make timber purchasing more difficult, as smaller owners are generally less interested in producing timber as a crop and a neighborhood of small plotsmakes it more likely that there will be opposition to the impacts of a timber-harvesting operation (Sampson and DeCoster 2000). Mills that rely on private purchases for a significant part of their wood needs may find their operations increasingly difficult as local forests are split into smaller ownerships.

Costs and PricesThe average per-acre cost of preparing a timber sale, harvesting, and regeneration goes up as the size of the sale goes down, particularly as it drops below 50 ac (Thorne andSundquist 2001). With over 60 million forest acres in ownerships of 10–50 ac (Butler and Leatherberry 2004, Figure 2), it is obvious that many timber harvests will encounter that higher cost structure. At the same time, for similar reasons, the price paid to landowners for stumpage tends to go down as harvest plots get smaller. The effect is reduced incentive to manage smaller ownerships for timber production.

Land Prices As the demand for rural land builds, it becomes harder to justify holding large acreages for timber production. Land sales, particularly those that subdivide the property to obtain**13** October/November 2004

• Journal of Forestry the higher per-acre return from smaller parcels, and thosethat separate out land of higher value (such as anything adjacent to water), become economically attractive to large landowners. Large-lot zoning, which in many areas requires rural lots of 20–40 ac to qualify for home building, coupled with the price premium for smaller parcels, means that many large areas are being carved up into 40-ac ownerships that arelargely desired as rural homesites. Much of the recent divestiture of forestland by the large forest industry corporations has been accompanied by careful attention to land merchandising for highest value. The result is an increasing amount of rural land that is too expensive to maintain as commercial forestland in the face of market opportunities.

Forest Sustainability It is an ironic fact that, as the attention of foresters andthe general public turns toward the goals of sustainable forestry, which often rely on large-area (landscape) considerations and long-term planning, the modern state of Americanforests increasingly involves smaller parcels and rapid ownership turnover. As ownerships drop below 50 ac, the tendency of owners to seek professional management advice or preparemanagement plans goes down rapidly (Butler and Leatherberry 2004, Figure 4). These factors make it more challenging to achieve sustainability, both for the landowners and industrial corporations. Under the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) program, for example, timber purchasers are challenged to promote the concepts of sustainability to all landowners from whom they buy timber. While there is no evidence that small landowners are any more resistant to sustainable practices than large ones, there will be more ofthem with which to deal in the future, and that has implications both for cost and the probability of success. Because itis generally conceded that the public support of forest management is increasingly based on the demonstrated ability offorestry to maintain sustainable forests, anything that reduces the probability of success is a concern that foresters
must consider.

Opportunities and Challenges The near future may continue to see stress in the forest products industry, largely based on increasing globalization coupled with increased forest fragmentation, parcelization, and land costs in the United States. Over the long-term, however, small forests are going to grow and change into older and larger age classes, and future owners are going tobe faced with the challenge of making management decisions in the face of those situations. If good management can be encouraged today, those future forests could be reservoirs of high-quality, high-value timber products for a society inwhich those commodities are increasingly scarce and valuable.

Literature Cited

B UTLER, B.J., AND E.C. LEATHERBERRY . 2004. America’s family forest owners. Journal of Forestry 102(7):4–14.

SAMPSON , N., AND L. D EC OSTER. 2000. Forest fragmentation: Implications for sustainable private forests. Journal of Forestry 98(3):4–8.

THORNE , S., AND D. S UNDQUIST . 2001. New Hampshire’s vanishing forests: Conversion, fragmentation and parcelization of forests in the Granite State. Report of the New Hampshire Forest Land Base Study. Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, Concord, NH. 153 p.

R. Neil Sampson (rneilsampson@ cs.com) is president, The Sampson Group, Inc., Alexandria, VA 22310.



# Family Forests–The Bigger Picture

**Keville Larson**

“America’s family forest owners” is a warm and fuzzyphrase. This new category is for the first time being separated, surveyed, and reported through the National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS); however, it may not be a particularly helpful category. The over 10 million owners are toodiverse and averages are misleading for most forestry applications. Over 6 million have 1–9 ac. Combining these smallest tracts with much larger properties can give a deceptive picture. There is more consistency based on size of holding than on category. Large ownerships, whether classified as family or business, are run as a business. A 10-ac owner’s level of forestry activity does not compare with that of a1,000-ac owner. Yet a 1,000-ac owner has motivation, concerns, and activity in common with a 100,000-ac owner. Instead of separating the 42% of US forestland in family forests, it would appear more logical and useful to combine and study the family and business owners with more than 100 ac, which totals 44% of US forestland. This category, whichcould be called large private forestland, is much more important to the forestry community than the 37% public or 19% small (less than 100 ac) private forestland. Governmentand private organization policy aimed at encouraging protection, care, and production for forestlands should target this group of owners. On the other hand, political power comes from numbers of people and over 10 million family forest owners carries much more weight than 615,000 large private owners. Nevertheless, the NWOS is a valuable resource providing data about the private owners who have helped create our healthy, diverse, and productive forests. It is most valuable as a plain database, which anyone is free to analyze, interpret, or use for their own purposes. In my opinion, it should bepresented without USDA Forest Service observations, conclusions, or editorial comment. This should be left to the dif-**14** Journal of Forestry

• October/November 2004 fering interests of others. My opinion is there is good news in
the NWOS: • The number of landowners is increasing. It would be an

unhealthy trend if the number was decreasing and forestland ownership was being concentrated in fewer and fewerhands. Property ownership is the basis of our free enterprise economy and possession of a lot, a home, a building, or land is the American dream. The majority of investors say they favor real estate over other investments. • It is also good news that the owners of 60% of the nation’s

forestland are so diverse it is unlikely they can all be enticedto act the same way at the same time. Economic disruptions and unhealthy conditions can occur when one policy is applied to a large percentage of forestland, e.g., USDAForest Service, or everyone reacts similarly and simultaneously, e.g., programmed trading. Private ownership has created such an abundance of productive forestland that we can afford to forego or significantly limit the production offorest products from the 319 million ac of public ownership. • The increasing average age is a good sign. It reflects the fact

people are physically and financially strong. Forest landowners are living longer and are economically able to maintain their property ownership. • Concentrating on the number of owners instead of acres

can produce misleading impressions. This survey cites 3% of family forest owners have a written management plan. There is little, if any, need for a written plan on the nearly
10 million owners with less than 100 ac. Previous studies suggest that for private forestlands greater than 100 ac (family and business) about 50% are covered by written management plans.

Constant change in land use and land ownership is what keeps our resources and economy dynamic and able to adapt to new social, environmental, or economic conditions. Freemarkets and the private enterprise system will find the balances society wants. It is only prudent to collect data andstudy trends. Any person or group may then use the information to design programs or establish policy to influence or deliver their message to the owners they feel are important.However, care must be taken to avoid focusing on the details. Currently, two major trends assure continuing change. One is the break-up of large industrial holdings into both small parcels to be used for other than forestry production and large tracts to be managed for primarily timber. The other is increasing purchase and use of smaller forestland properties for rural homes, recreation, and hobby forests and farms. Future NWOS reports can help track and report such changes.

Keville Larson (klarson@larsonmcgowin.com) is chair, Larson & McGowin, Inc., P.O. Box 2143, Mobile, AL 36652. 

# Responses to “America’s Family Forest Owners”