There 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 ac

in 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). In

the East, where Euro-American settlement occurred earliest, 83% of the

forestland is in private ownership. In

the 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 the

East 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 for

forest sustainability, including the sustainable production of timber and the

continued flow of services, such as

groundwater recharge, from this valuable resource.

To better understand the factors that

affect the use and management of private forestland, private forest owners

have been surveyed periodically. National surveys were completed in 1978

(Birch et al. 1982) and 1993 (Birch

1996). 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 million in 1993 to 10.3 million in 2003, and these owners now control 42% of the nation’s forestland. 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 forest-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 inventory; National Woodland Owner Survey

ABSTRACT

America’s Family Forest Owners
surveys of the nation’s private forest

owners. 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’s

forests (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 to

characterize the private forest landowners of the United States and determine

why they own land and what they intend to do with it. Basic demographic

information is compiled along with

data 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 by

means 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 remotely

sensed 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 for

states 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 in

a 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 for

reliable national and regional estimates. As additional annual surveys are

completed, 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 states

sampled. The number of owners contacted varied according to the area of

private forestland, number of private

forest 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

October/November 2004 • Journal of Forestry 5

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 units

are 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 of

owners. 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
October/November 2004 • Journal of Forestry 7

the 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 the

United States. Collectively, they control 262 million acres, or 42%, of the

nation’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 general

population. The average age of Americans 25 years or older is 49 years. By

contrast, the average age of family forest owners is 60 years.

How Familiar Are Family Forest

Owners With Their Land? Seven of 10

family forest owners maintain a primary residence within 1 mile of the

forestland that they own. Resident forest owners are more prevalent in the

North, where 77% of the owners have

a primary residence near their forestland compared to 70% in the South

and 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 forestland
8 Journal of Forestry • October/November 2004

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. Although

owners 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 the

South 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 series

of potential reasons for owning forestland on a seven-point Likert Scale. The

most 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 more

likely 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 other

regions. Forty-one percent of the family forestland in the South is owned by

people who indicate that timber production is an important reason for

owning forestland, compared to 22

and 18% in the North and West, respectively.

How Likely Are Owners to Harvest

Trees? Half of the family forest owners

have harvested trees at some point during their ownership tenure. When

those who harvested only firewood are

excluded, 26% of the owners have harvested timber (e.g., sawlogs or pulpwood). Owners who have harvested

trees 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
October/November 2004 • Journal of Forestry 9

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 forest

owners 65 years of age or older increased by 34% (Figure 5). Owners 65

years 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 relative

importance 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 5

years, most landowners plan to do little with their acreage, though a significant number are planning major

changes 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 some

of their land on to their heirs, 8% intend to buy more forestland, and 5%

plan to sell forestland.

Conclusions

New and increasing numbers of

family forest owners will present a challenge and an opportunity for the forestry community, but will the forestry

community be ready? With more people owning forestland, there will be

more people in intimate contact with

the land. This affords an opportunity

to educate more people about the benefits and responsibilities associated

with forest stewardship. However, for

effective communication to occur, innovative and sophisticated methods of

communicating with forest landowners

are needed. New owners likely will

have different backgrounds and ownership objectives and be less aware of the

potential 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 of

many 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 increase

and 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 forest

owners play an important role in supplying the public with timber, outdoor

recreation opportunities, and watershed protection. We need to continue

to refine our understanding of family

forest owners so that we can develop

more enlightened opinions and effective policies.

Literature Cited

BIRCH, 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.

BIRCH, T.W., D.G. LEWIS, AND H.F. KAISER. 1982. The

private forest-land owners of the United States. USDA

Forest Service Resource Bulletin WO-1. 64 p.

COCHRAN, W.G. 1977. Sampling techniques. Wiley, New

York. 428 p.

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

EGAN, 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.

HORVITZ, 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.

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

p.

SMITH, W.B., P.D. MILES, J.S. VISSAGE, AND S.A. PUGH.

2004. Forest resources of the United States, 2002.

USDA Forest Service North Central Research Station

General Technical Report NC-241. 137 p.

US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, CENSUS BUREAU.

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 Woodland

Owner 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 being

planted 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 are

owned 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. On

the one hand, the economic appeal of development opportunities combined with a massive intergenerational transfer

of forest assets appear 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 publicly

traded 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 accelerating

trends 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 across

ownership boundaries for watershed or landscape-scale stewardship benefits are made even more difficult when there are

more 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. Larger

forest 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 forest

ownerships 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 service

providers be different for different size family forest ownerships. With small-scale properties, the challenge is to get

owners thoughtfully engaged in understanding their forests

as 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 encompass

forest management for habitat values. Gradually, engagement can evolve into active stewardship.

For larger-scale ownerships, the challenge is to keep the

forest tract intact and functional as forest. The fate of largescale ownerships is much more economically driven than

smaller 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-wood

commodity 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 that

keeps 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 about

family 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).

October/November 2004 • Journal of Forestry 11

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 a

wide 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 in

their 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 to

specific 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 exclusive

domain 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 in

the nation’s family forests, as well as the attitudes and perceptions of their owners. They include a continued low level of

interest 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 that

pose 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 of

private 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 be

incidental 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, such

as 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 real

estate 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 to

the 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 noneconomic

forces. 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

HIBBARD, 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 professor

of 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 changes

drive up domestic timber prices in relation to foreign opportunities, they may accelerate the offshore movement of

the forest products industry. Adverse impacts on the ability

to achieve sustainable forestry goals may reduce public support for active forest management.

Supply of Timber

Smaller ownerships make timber purchasing more difficult, as smaller owners are generally less interested in producing timber as a crop and a neighborhood of small plots

makes 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 Prices

The 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 and

Sundquist 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
October/November 2004 • Journal of Forestry 13

the higher per-acre return from smaller parcels, and those

that 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 are

largely 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 and

the 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 American

forests increasingly involves smaller parcels and rapid ownership turnover. As ownerships drop below 50 ac, the tendency

of owners to seek professional management advice or prepare

management 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 of

them with which to deal in the future, and that has implications both for cost and the probability of success. Because it

is generally conceded that the public support of forest management is increasingly based on the demonstrated ability of

forestry 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 to

be 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 in

which those commodities are increasingly scarce and valuable.

Literature Cited

BUTLER, B.J., AND E.C. LEATHERBERRY. 2004. America’s family forest owners.

Journal of Forestry 102(7):4–14.

SAMPSON, N., AND L. DECOSTER. 2000. Forest fragmentation: Implications

for sustainable private forests. Journal of Forestry 98(3):4–8.

THORNE, S., AND D. SUNDQUIST. 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 fuzzy

phrase. 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 too

diverse 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 a

1,000-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, which

could 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. Government

and 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 be

presented 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 fewer

hands. 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 enticed

to 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., USDA

Forest 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 of

forest 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. Free

markets and the private enterprise system will find the balances society wants. It is only prudent to collect data and

study 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”