The New York
Forest Owner A Publication
of
The New York Forest Owners Association
July/August 2007
Member Profile: Sandy & Maria Babcock Volume 45 Number 4
www.nyfoa.org
The New York Forest Owners Association Officers & Directors Alan White, President 22 Bruce Scudder Rd. Halcott Center, NY 12430; (845) 254-6031
In This Issue . . . From the Executive Director
Mary Jeanne Packer..................................................................................... 3
Members Voices
Mike Greason............................................................................................... 5
Forest Science Becomes Forest Practice
Peter Smallidge. ........................................................................................ 6
Dan Cleveland, Vice President 682 Federal Road Erin, NY 14838; (607) 732-7884
New York State Tree Farm News
Kelly Smallidge, Secretary 611 County Rd 13 Van Etten, NY 14889; (607) 589-7530
Kid’s Corner–Saving the Leaves
Steve Teuscher, Treasurer 1392 Lillibridge Rd Portville, NY 14770; (716) 499-6286 Peter Smallidge, Chair Editorial Committee and Ex-Officio Board Member Cornell University, Fernow Hall Ithaca, NY 14853; (607) 592 3640 2008 Dan Cleveland, Erin, (607) 732-7884 Cindy King, Amsterdam, (518) 842-3556 Gene Reinshagen, Painted Post, (607) 796-6202 Kelly Smallidge, Van Etten, (607) 589-7530 2009 Harry Dieter, Honeoye Falls, (585) 533-2085 Steve Teuscher, Portville, (716) 933-0370 Alan White, Halcott Center, (845) 254-6031 Frank Winkler, Andes, (845)676-4825
Michael Burns............................................................................................. 8
Rebecca Hargrave .................................................................................... 9
Wild Things in Your Woodlands Kristi Sullivan........................................................................................... 10 Stories from the Woods: MFO Program News Jerry Michael............................................................................................. 12 Are New York’s Adverse Possession Laws Unfair to Forest Owners David Colligan........................................................................................... 14 Greensprings Natural Cemetery
Bryn Roshong.............................................................................................. 16
MFO Regional Coordinators. ............................................................. 19 Member Profile – Sandy & Maria Babcock
Alexandra Silva. .......................................................................................... 21
2010 Renee Bouplon, Cambridge, (518) 929-7832 René Germain, Syracuse, (315) 687-6217 Christopher Tcimpidis, Livingston Manor, (845) 439-3989 Neil Walker, Allegany, (716) 375-5233
Chapter-Designated Directors
Dick Patton, Allegheny Foothills; (716) 761-6333 Carl Wiedemann, Capital District; (518) 280-8892 Rich Taber, Central New York; (315) 837-4265 Anne Osborn, Lower Hudson; (845) 424-3683 Bill LaPoint, Northern Adirondack; (315) 353-6663 Bob Preston, Niagara Frontier; (716) 632-5862 John Sullivan, Southern Adirondack; (518) 494-3292 Dana Benjamin, Southern Tier; (607) 723-2958 Dick Harrington, Southern Finger Lakes; (607) 657-4480 Mike Seager, Western Finger Lakes; (585) 414-6511 Mary Jeanne Packer, Executive Director PO Box 210, 124 E. 4th Street Watkins Glen, NY 14891; (607) 535-9790 mjpacker@nyfoa.org Liana Gooding, Office Administrator P.O. Box 541 Lima, N.Y 14485; (800) 836-3566 lgooding@nyfoa.org
All rights reserved. Contents may not be reproduced without prior written permission from the publisher. NYFOA does not necessarily support or approve procedures, products, or opinions presented by authors or advertisers. © 2007 New York Forest Owners Association
Volume 45, Number 4 The New York Forest Owner is a bi-monthly publication of The New York Forest Owners Association, P.O. Box 541, Lima, N.Y 14485. Materials submitted for publication should be sent to: Mary Beth Malmsheimer, Editor, The New York Forest Owner, 134 Lincklaen Street, Cazenovia, New York 13035. Materials may also be e-mailed to mmalmshe@syr.edu. Articles, artwork and photos are invited and if requested, are returned after use. The deadline for submission for the September/ October issue is August 1, 2007. Please address all membership fees and change of address requests to P.O. Box 541, Lima, N.Y. 14485. 1-800-836-3566. Cost of family membership/subscription is $35. This magazine is printed on Accent Opaque paper produced at International Paper’s Ticonderoga, New York, mill from working Adirondack forests, managed responsibly in accordance with the principles of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative.
www.nyfoa.org
Cover:
Photo shows Sandy and Maria Babcock at Applestone, their property in Cazenovia, NY. For complete member profile, turn to page 21. Photo courtesy of the Babcock’s.
The New York Forest Owner 45:4 • July/August 2007
From The
A
Executive Director
big thank you goes out to the many members who have generously responded to NYFOA’s Annual Appeal letter. We have already heard from over 15 percent of our membership. It’s not too late to make your contribution. If you would like to donate, please use the appeal envelope that you received in the mail or clip and return the form on the right side of this page. NYFOA is partnering with Cornell University Cooperative Extension to offer the 2007 ForestConnect Letter Series to forest owners and forest enthusiasts across NYS. So far, over 200 members and friends have signed up to receive the letter. The deadline for participation registration has been extended. Use the form on p. 19 or contact the NYFOA office to sign-up for the letter series today. This educational program is based upon an awardwinning project developed by Cornell Cooperative Extension of Warren County and the Greater Adirondack Resource Conservation and Development Council. Funding is provided through the NYS DEC and USDA Forest Service State and Private Forestry. The 2007 ForestConnect Letter Series will provide unbiased, non-commercial and accurate information about how to manage private forest lands for wildlife habitat, firewood, timber, recreation, and more. The series will include six, eightpage bulletins that provide fact-filled information on how to more fully enjoy the benefits that your forest land can provide. Enrollees will receive one bulletin every three weeks; and can join one of three educational walking tours in the fall. This edition of The Forest Owner fea-
tures the first installment in what we hope will become a long-running series – “Forest Science Becomes Forest Practice.” In this column, Peter Smallidge, NYS Extension Forester and Director of Arnot Forest, reviews practical science to help forest owners sustainably manage their woodlots. In the inaugural review, Pete looks at an article that first appeared in the Northern Journal of Applied Forestry on controlling beech sprouting through the limited use of herbicides. See p. 6.
If you would like to receive updates via email on emerging forestry issues and opportunities for forest owners email mjpacker@nyfoa.org Congratulations go out to Lisa Errington, NYFOA’s 2007 Scholarship Winner. Learn more about Lisa and her accomplishments on p. 4; and how you can contribute to this important scholarship fund. I also want to congratulate Dr. Earle Peterson of Fly Creek, for his recognition by the New York State Tree Farm Program as the 2007 NYS Outstanding Tree Farmer. NYFOA is a sponsor of the state’s Tree Farm Program. Thanks to Tree Farm Committee Chair, Mike Burns, for furnishing the photo and story about Dr. Peterson’s accomplishments found on p. 8. At their meeting in June, NYFOA’s board added a priority activity to their 2007 Action Plan for working more closely with Mike and the state Tree Farm Committee to improve the visibility of the program and to increase participation by forest owners. –Mary Jeanne Packer Executive Director
The mission of the New York Forest Owners Association (NYFOA) is to promote sustainable forestry practices and improved stewardship on privately owned woodlands in New York State. NYFOA is a not-for-profit group of landowners and others interested in the thoughtful management of private forests for the benefit of current and future generations.
www.nyfoa.org
Join!
NYFOA is a not-forprofit group of NY State landowners promoting stewardship of private forests for the benefit of current and future generations. Through local chapters and statewide activities, NYFOA helps woodland owners to become responsible stewards and interested publics to appreciate the importance of New York’s forests. Join NYFOA today and begin to receive its many benefits including: six issues of The New York Forest Owner, woodswalks, chapter meetings, and statewide meetings. ( ) I/We own ______acres of woodland. ( ) I/We do not own woodland but support the Association’s objectives. Name: _ _______________________ Address: _______________________ City: __________________________ State/ Zip: _____________________ Telephone: _____________________ Email: _______________________ County of Residence: ____________ County of Woodlot: _ ____________ Referred by: ____________________ Regular Annual Dues: ( ) Student $10 (Please provide copy of student ID)
( ) Individual $30 ( ) Family $35 Multi-Year Dues: ( ) Individual 2-yr $55 3-yr $80 ( ) Family 2-yr $65 3-yr $95 Additional Contribution: ( ) Supporter $1-$49 ( ) Contributor $50-$99 ( ) Sponsor $100-$249 ( ) Benefactor $250-$499 ( ) Steward $500 or more NYFOA is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) taxexempt organization and as such your contribution my be tax deductible to the extent allowed by law.
Form of Payment: Check Credit Card Credit Card No. __________________________________ Expiration Date ____________________ Signature: _________________________ Make check payable to NYFOA. Send the completed form to: NYFOA P.O. Box 541 Lima, New York 14485 1-800-836-3566 www.nyfoa.org
NYFOA NAC & CCE Offering September Woodswalk in Northern Franklin CounOn Sept 8, 2007, the Northern Adirondack Chapter of the New York Forest Owners Association in association with Cornell Cooperative Extension of Franklin County will host a woodswalk tour of a truly unique property located just minutes from the village of Chateaugay, NY and the border with Quebec, Canada. The property features three exceptional springs, producing a total of over 200 gallons of water per minute. The springs are used in production of four high value fish species, all reared in the owners’ hatchery from their own brood stock and raised in their sixteen rearing ponds. One of the springs also supplies water to a small hydroelectric plant, which constantly produces from three to seven kilowatts of 120 / 240 AC electricity without the use of a dam. A water canal penstock brings the water to the generator, which creates enough electricity to supply almost all of the heat and hot water
used annually in property owner and MFO Garth Stephan’s home. He likes to joke about ‘saving wood’ by using free electricity produced by the hydroelectric plant. Other woodswalk highlights will include a look at one of several black walnut plantations that have been planted in succession on the property over the last quarter century. There are also plantations of white spruce, balsam fir, Douglas fir, and red and white oak, as well as a small stand of roughly 40 year old volunteer Dutch elm. You must pre-register by Sept 6th with no exceptions. Please contact Bill LaPoint, NYFOA NAC Chairman, at bdlny@usadatanet.net or call (315) 3536663, or Vice Chairman/CCE Programs assistant Richard Gast at rlg24@cornell. edu or call (518) 483-7403. To get to this Woodswalk take SR 11 from Malone to Chateugay; at the light
(only 1) go north on 374 (High School is on right at edge of town) for 2 miles; turn right onto the McCormick Road for 1 mile; turn left before the 1 lane bridge onto the Graham Road and the Stephen home is 1 mile on left. The Graham Road is a dead end road. When you turn right onto the McCormick road you will be 1 mile from the Quebec border.
Richard Cipperly
North Country Forestry LLC - Harvest Planning - Management Plans - Loss and Trespass Appraisal - Christmas Tree Management 8 Stonehurst Drive Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 793-3545 or 1-800-862-3451
Since 1964
NYFOA Scholarship Winner René Germain (left) NYFOA board member and Professor at SUNY ESF with NYFOA Scholarship winner, Lisa Errington, who graduated from SUNY ESF in May 2007 with a BS in Forest Resources Management. She also has an A.A.S. in Forest Technology from the SUNY ESF Ranger School as well as an additional A.A.S. from Alfred State University in Veterinary Technology. In the short term, Lisa is hoping to find a position fighting wildfires. Eventually, she wants to be a forestry consultant or a DEC Forest Ranger.
NYFOA Board Members and staff at the June 9th Board meeting at Arnot Forest.
The New York Forest Owner 45:4 • July/August 2007
Members Voices
New York State Has Public Policies Detrimental To Sustainable Forestry Mike Greason
E
ight out of ten New Yorkers live in urban areas. Despite increasing awareness of forest values through the New York City watershed depending on forested landscapes to protect drinking water, New Yorkers create public policies that are seriously detrimental to forest resources. Roughly 62% of New York’s 30,000,000 acres are forest, with approximately 3,000,000 held in “forever wild” parkland of the Adirondack and Catskill Forest Preserves. Approximately 15.5 million acres are available as working forests. Yet, New York public policies work against long term forest investment in spite of the fact that the timber and forest recreational based industries are an important contributor to upstate economic health. New York has the highest real property tax on forest land in the nation; yet some localities are currently beginning to assess and tax timber in addition to
the ad valorem based tax. To me, that is comparable to taxing the furniture in one’s home. Local assesssors lack the expertise to appraise timber; and, even if they could, they cannot react in a timely manner to timber market fluctuations. Forests pay $20 for every $1 of required services while residences pay $1 for every $1.25 in needed services. In looking at surrounding states, New York charges two to four times as much per acre as any adjoining state. In part, this is contributing to the forest industry selling their large forest holdings. Confiscatory real property taxes are only part of the discouraging policies faced by New York woodland owners. When a timber theft occurs on private property, in most cases, the owner is told to seek an appraisal from a consultant forester before any investigation will occur by any police agency. What other crime demands the victim hire someone to determine the extent of the crime?
And then few county district attorneys are willing to prosecute timber thieves criminally; “after all they are only trees and they will grow back.” If the victim has the courage to file a civil suit and is awarded damages, it is unlikely the award will ever be collected. Besides public highways and fire protection, police protection is one of the few services woodlot owners really need; and yet, this service is seldom provided. As with many state forestry agencies across the country, New York’s service forestry program has gone through over three decades of constant downsizing. A modest public investment in private forestry can serve as a catalyst towards sustainable forestry without competing with the private sector. Service foresters have the benefit of joining organizations with institutional memory and expertise. Many private consultant foresters have been forced into private practice through lacking employment opportunities in declining government and industrial forestry organizations. Public foresters can serve roles in technology transfer, role modeling, and as a buffer against restrictive local timber harvesting ordinances. Some state and federal public policies have contributed to introducing exotic invasive species, like Asian longhorned beetle, hemlock wooly adelgid, and garlic mustard. It is small wonder that parcelization and fragmentation continue. In 1970, the average woodlot in the state was 40 acres; today it has shrunk to 24 acres. Smaller lot sizes add to logging costs and the risk of burdensome local ordinances. These costs are passed on to the woodlot owner who is paying an unfair tax burden because 500,000 woodlot owners lack clout in a state of 17 million people. The benefits of rural resources continue to be demanded while society holds onto the rural landowner’s wallet. New York forest owners need to continually encourage their legislature members to improve public policies influencing this important renewable resource. Mike Greason, a consulting foresters, is a member of NYFOA.
www.nyfoa.org
Forest Science Becomes Forest Practice Reviewing practical science to help forest owners sustainably manage their woodlands
Peter Smallidge Controlling beech sprouting through limited use application of herbicides. Article Reviewed: Kochenderfer, JD, Kochenderfer, JN, and Miller, GW. 2006. Controlling beech root and stump sprouts using the cut-stump treatment. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 23(3):155 – 165. Issue and Background: Landowners are often tempted to cut mature beech (Fagus grandifolia) for firewood or during forest improvement to provide additional growing space for more valuable species. However, cutting beech typically results in the prolific development of root sprouts. The density of sprouts from the roots can sometimes exceed 10,000 stems per acre, forming a “beech thicket”. Death of mature stems, by cutting or disease, causes a redistribution of hormones that activate new growing tissue on roots that form into shoots. Overly abundant seedling and sapling beech can produce enough shade to effectively inhibit the reproduction of other hardwood species, reduce forest diversity, and limit owner access for other objectives. In areas with mature beech and a landowner objective to reduce the abundance of beech, what cost effective tools exist to control all beech size classes? Review of Kochenderfer et al. 2006: The herbicide chemical glyphosate (originally marketed as Roundup™) has been successfully applied to freshly girdled stems to kill above ground stems. Other types of herbicides are
applied via a basal application which chemically girdles the tree. Because glyphosate translocates to actively growing tissue, applications to girdled stems would typically move up the tree, but not into the root system. While girdle, basal and ground-mist herbicide treatments are effective, Kochenderfer et al (2006) investigated the potential of cut-stump treatments to distribute the herbicide more fully into the root system and gain additional control beyond the treated stem. The authors note that cut-stump treatments of beech are “target-specific, applicable to small ownerships, and easy to apply. It entails applying herbicide to the cambium layer of freshly cut stumps.”
The research conducted by Kochenderfer et al. (2006) assessed the use of cut stump treatment with a 53.8% active ingredient (ai) glyphosate solution1 applied within one hour of cutting the tree. The authors investigated the spread of the herbicide into the root system and death of adjacent trees based on the size of the treated stump. One-third acre plots in each of two study areas in West Virginia were designated for treatment (cut plus herbicide) or no treatment (cut without herbicide). All beech stems in the plots that were greater than 6” dbh (diameter breast height) were cut, and all cut stumps within the treatment plots were treated with the herbicide solution. Glyphosate was applied to the stump within one hour of cutting at a target rate of 0.12 fl. oz (3.5 ml) per inch of stump diameter. The actual application rate was closer to 4.2 ml per inch of stump diameter. The authors used the equivalent of 1.0 to 1.6 gallons of herbicide per acre to treat approximately 80 stumps per acre. All cutting and treatment was done during September. As a result of the treatment, the
The glyphosate should be applied to the outer two inches of the freshly cut stump to focus the effects on the active plant tissue. The tissue towards the center of the stump is less conductive and does not as effectively transfer the chemical to the root system.
The New York Forest Owner 45:4 • July/August 2007
Pete Smallidge (left) explaining beech stump study plot to Master Forest Owner Regional Coordinators at June 8 coordinators meeting at Arnot Forest. Four of the 13 coordinators are shown here (from left to right): Mike Birmingham, Dick Patton, Keith Hedgecock, and Jerry Michael.
authors found significant mortality of uncut beech seedlings and saplings within the treated plots. Because trees greater than 6” dbh were cut, the herbicide activity was directed into the smaller sprouts resulting in high levels of beech mortality. The treated plots had mortality of more than 90% of the equivalent of 6000 to 9000 beech stems per acre in the two study areas. The cut but untreated control plots had approximately 2% mortality of beech and attributed mortality to damage caused by the felled stems. In another aspect of the study the authors investigated the dose-distance mortality response of beech to determine how far away from a cut stump seedlings and saplings were controlled. The distance away from treated stems that untreated beech stems died depended on the diameter of the treated stumps. Treated 5” diameter stumps controlled more than 50% of all beech stems within 10 feet of the stump. Treated 10” diameter stumps controlled more than 50% of all beech stems within 15 feet of the stump. Treated 1
17” diameter stumps controlled more than 50% of all beech stems within 25 feet of the stump. As an approximate guide based on a calculation of data presented by the authors, at least 50% of uncut beech stems were controlled at a distance equal to 20 times the stump diameter treated, although somewhat further for trees between 5” and 10” dbh. For example, treatment of a 7” dbh beech would be expected to achieve 50% mortality of beech stems within 140” (11.6’) of the stump. In all situations, mortality was almost 100% near the stump and decreased further from the stump. The cost estimate for treatment varied with treatment intensity. The basal area of treated beech stems at the two study sites ranged from approximately 40 to 80 sq. ft of basal area per acre. Cost, including labor and chemical, ranged from approximately $1.00 to $0.75/sq ft of basal area treated. The cost of chemical represented 85% of the treatment cost. This was the equivalent of approximately $45 to $60 continued on page 22
The authors used Glypro, which is a restricted-use herbicide in NY and only available to certified herbicide applicators. Most owners can obtain glyphosate based products with an active ingredient concentration of 40 to 48% in their local garden or hardware store. Always read and follow the label specifications.
www.nyfoa.org
The methods described by Kochenderfer et al. (2006) have potential for use by many NY forest owners. Most glyphosate-based herbicides are not restricted in New York, meaning that people can purchase them through many local farm and garden stores. Cut stump treatments of beech provide a means to kill numerous beech stems with treatment of a small percentage of stems. Treatment costs, in conjunction with fuel wood harvesting, are highly favorable when compared to other herbicide and mechanical treatments. A reasonable approach for applying this research by NY forest owners would include: 1. Evaluate ownership objectives to assess the desired role of beech. 2. Inventory to identify areas needing control of beech, focusing perhaps on areas with diseased rather than healthy mature beech. 3. Read the herbicide label and assemble equipment to comply with provisions of the label. 4. Review safe chain saw use protocols and inspect personal protective equipment. Take safety course if appropriate. 5. Cut the largest beech stems, especially those with beech bark disease, and treat the outer 2” of stump diameter (Figure page 6) with the herbicide solution comprised of a concentrated active ingredient of glyphosate. Large diameter beech left uncut may act as a sink of the herbicide and reduce the mortality of smaller sprouts. Apply treatment to the stump within one hour of cutting and after brushing away sawdust. Treatment should be applied from mid summer to late fall for best effect. Treatments during all times of the year except March and April showed reasonably good control in the southern Appalachian study sites. Dates for NY treatments would likely be best from late June through late fall. Frozen wood in New York would likely limit treatment effects.
New York State Tree Farm News Michael Burns
T
he 2007 New York State Outstanding Tree Farmer, Dr. Earle Peterson of Fly Creek (Otsego Co.), was officially recognized as part of the New York State Arbor Day Celebration at the Governor’s Mansion. This marks the fifth consecutive year that Tree Farmers have had the opportunity to be recognized in this manner. Earle was nominated for this award by his forester, Rod Jones of Northeast Timber Services in Walton (Delaware Co.) due in part to his work with SUNY College at Oneonta and the Otsego Land Trust. As part of his Tree Farm, Earle has renovated a barn into classroom and office space that is used as a Biological Field Station for 150 Undergraduate and Graduate students and their professors. Dr. Willard Hartman, Distinguished Service Professor & Director of SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station, had this to say in support of Peterson being recognized with the award: “Although deeply
Pictured (from left): Department of Agriculture & Markets Commissioner (and Tree Farmer) Patrick Hooker, NYS Outstanding Tree Farmer 2007 Dr. Earle Peterson, First Lady Silda Wall Spitzer, NY Tree Farm Chair Michael Burns, Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Pete Grannis.
involved in timber production, it is the balance between silviculture, wildlife resources and overall ecosystem function and aesthetics that drive (Earle’s) enthusiasm and dedication for the protection of forested lands. His understanding of the consequences of forest fragmentation and the importance of the unique stabilizing attributes of large landholdings regarding our current problems with degraded water resources, aggressive exotic plant species and new forest diseases and their
email halefor@verizon.net
arthropod vectors, contribute to his leadership.” Through his involvement in the Otsego Land Trust, Earl has helped to preserve the working forest landscape in the Cooperstown/Oneonta area by facilitating the process of acquiring easements on over 6,000 acres of forest lands. One unique aspect of these easements is that they are not a tool for preservation, but require a written and active forest management plan. If you have a written and active forest management plan for your woodlot, you may be eligible for Tree Farm Certification. There is no cost to join, it is your reward for a job well done. Contact Liana Gooding at the NYFOA/Tree Farm office or visit www.nytreefarm.org for more information. If you are a current Tree Farmer, you could be recognized in Albany and receive a prize package from Stihl, Inc. (including a Farm Boss Chain saw and full safety gear). Contact your inspecting forester, make sure they know the work you are doing, and ask about being nominated for the Outstanding Tree Farmer of the Year. Mike Burns is Chair of the NYS Tree Farm Committee.
The New York Forest Owner 45:4 • July/August 2007
Do you have a photo of you and your kids or grandkids in your forest? If so, The New York Forest Owner would like to see it! Send an electronic or hard copy to Forest Owner editor, MaryBeth Malmsheimer, (address on page 22) and it may end up on this page!
Kid’s Corner Rebecca Hargrave
Dean & Ruth Delavan submitted this photograph. The picture shows Dean with son Dan and Grandchildren Gen, Kristen, Rachel and Nathan connecting the lower main line lateral to “wet dry” manifold in their Sugar bush this past winter as they prepared for the maple sap.
Saving the Leaves! A good way to take your forest home with you is to press your tree’s leaves in a plant press. Preserving the leaves by drying and pressing will allow you to mount them and start a record of your local trees and what makes them unique. Making a plant press is easy. You’ll need: • 6 pieces of 8” x 10” of cardboardused as spacers between the leaves. • 2 pieces of 8” x 10” pegb o a r d o r p l y w o o d — to form the covers of the press, holes allow for faster drying. (Ask an adult to help you cut the pegboard) • 20 pieces of 8” x 10” paper (used office paper or newspaper works great) — used as blotting paper on either side of the leaf. • 2 straps, bungy cords, or large rubber bands to hold it all together. • Fresh Leaves (or flowers). Collect 7-14 leaves, broadleaves work best. Pick large, healthy leaves, off trees that are growing well and that you like. Try to get many different
www.nyfoa.org
types of leaves. Choose clean ones, and blot any rainwater or dew off before putting in the press. To fill your press: Lay one piece of peg board on the table and place one piece of cardboard and two sheets of blotting paper on top. Place one layer of leaves on the blotting paper. Use leaves of similar thickness and make sure they don’t touch. On top of your leaves add two more pieces of blotting paper and another piece of cardboard. Continue with two more pieces of blotting paper and repeat the pattern until the leaf press is full. The top leaf should be covered by two pieces of blotting paper, followed by a piece of cardboard and topped with the second piece of pegboard. Once the press is stacked, carefully w r a p your straps or rubber bands around the pegboard. The straps should put enough pressure on the press to flatten the leaves. The tighter the better. Store the press in a dry, airy spot. After 2-3 days carefully unstrap your
press and check your leaves. If not fully dry, replace the outside blotting paper and dry for another day or two. Drying flowers can take a week or more. The leaves may be stuck to the blotting paper, so remove them with care. Once out of the press, mount them onto paper using glue and label. Sheet can be easily stored in clear sheet protectors or framed for display. You can use your samples to compare the different types of trees you have as well as do experiments on how well different leaves or flowers dry. Try needled trees for a greater challenge. Rebecca Hargrave is the Community Horticulture and Natural Resources Educator at Cornell University Cooperative Extension in Chenango County.
SAF Certified
(518) 943-9230 forest@mhcable.com
5476 Cauterskill Road Catskill, NY 12414
Wild Things in Your Woodlands Kristi Sullivan
Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) The painted turtle is a brown, somewhat flattened, medium-sized freshwater turtle with several bright yellow blotches or lines on the head and throat, and often with yellow or red markings on the legs and tail. It gets its name from these markings and the attractive patterns of red and yellow along the margin of the shell. Although the shell markings are bright and colorful in many individuals, they can be faint or even absent in some older turtles. The carapace of an adult male can measure up to 15 cm (5.8 in.), and females usually are larger than males.
I
n the northeast, painted turtles are perhaps the most conspicuous turtle, often seen basking on logs and rocks, and along banks of ponds. Painted turtles thrive in marshes, ponds, slow rivers, and along edges of lakes with shallow water, abundant vegetation, muddy bottoms, and plenty of basking logs or rocks. To fulfill their nesting requirements, there should be some nearby open areas with sandy or loose soil. The painted turtle is tolerant of a wide range of conditions and can be seen in swift-flowing and even brackish waters. They also fare well near human developments, in moderately polluted lakes, farm ponds, and golf course ponds. Painted turtles are widely distributed throughout eastern North America and extend in a continuous band, from the east coast to the west coast, along the northern U.S. and southern Canada. In the northeast region, painted turtles are common from sea level up to 300 m 10
(1000 ft), but become scarce at higher elevations. Individuals can be seen basking on sunny days from March to early November. They may be seen mating in spring and actively feeding from April to the end of September. Although primarily aquatic, individuals may be seen on land, especially during the nesting season in June and July. At this time, females may be seen nesting around the edge of ponds, in open areas and along dirt roads, or often moving across roads and highways. During winter, painted turtles remain below water, usually burrowed into the muddy bottom or bank. If the ice is clear, they can be seen resting or sometimes moving slowly along the bottom. They remain under water until the ice melts, and do not become fully active until around mid-spring. Painted turtles reach sexual maturity after they are at least four years old. It is relatively easy to determine the sex of painted turtles that are larger than 9
cm (3 1/2 in.) in carapace length. On their front feet, males have very long claws they use to attract the attention of females during courtship. Males also have much longer thicker tails. Courtship and mating occurs in April and May. Females nest throughout June and early July, and nesting activity is often associated with rainy weather. Excellent long-term studies in Michigan showed that some females will not nest in years when conditions are harsh, but may lay eggs more than once in other years. A typical clutch of eggs contains from three to nine eggs, depending mostly on the size of the female. Painted turtles hatch out of their eggs by autumn, but most hatchlings remain underground during their first winter. There they remain very still, expending minimal energy, until they emerge the following spring and head into the water. Painted turtles are omnivorous, eating a variety of plants, fish, tadpoles,
The New York Forest Owner 45:4 • July/August 2007
and invertebrates. They also are willing scavengers. Although individuals can move on land, they tend to be faithful to the same habitat for their entire lives. Individual painted turtles can live for more than 30 years in the same pond. The usual group of predators such as raccoons, foxes, skunks, birds, and dogs preys upon eggs, young, and adults. Adults frequently are crushed and killed on roads as males move about in the spring and as females travel to nesting sites in the summer. Painted turtles are too small to be of great commercial value for harvesting by humans. They also present very little nuisance to humans, and are generally viewed as a welcome member of any community. Their acceptance and the relative ease with which they adapt to disturbed and artificial environments combine to make the painted turtle extremely common throughout most of its extensive range. Turtles are excellent examples of animals whose strategy is to live a long time. Male painted turtles take 4 to 6 years to reach maturity and females take from six to 10 years. Other turtles can take more than 15 years. Once turtles begin to reproduce, they can continue to do so for many more years, even for decades to come. Normally it is very difficult to determine the age of animals in the wild. However, many turtles carry around their own age and growth records imprinted on their shells; you just need to know how to read the code properly. Long-term studies over many decades have shown that, at the onset of cold weather each year, turtles stop growing and this creates visible lines. If you look at the individual scutes of many turtles, you can plainly see the rings that represent each year of growth. Thus, aging turtles is much like aging trees: you merely count the rings. Landowners can enhance habitat for painted turtles by providing basking logs in lake, pond habitats. A tree or two dropped into the water can offer a place for turtles to bask, and for people to view them. By maintaining open areas with loose soil near aquatic habitats, landowners can also ensure that these turtles have adequate nesting sites. Old log landings, maintained as open habitat, can make suitable nesting sites.
NYFOA POSTED SIGN ORDER FORM
POSTED
P R I V A T E – No Trespassing – Hunting, Fishing or Entry by Written Permission Only
Name & Address - Owner or Lessee
Use this form to order the sign shown above. The signs are orange with black printing. SIGN MATERIAL
COST PER SIGN
NUMBER ORDERED*
COST
Plastic (.024 gauge)
$.50
_________
$_______
Aluminum (.012 gauge)
$.75
_________
$_______
Add Name and Address to Sign $5.00 Set up cost per address $5.00 Plus $.05 per sign _________
________
Handling Cost $5.00 per order $5.00 Shipping Cost** $_______ TOTAL COST OF ORDER $_______
Please specify Name and Address to be printed on signs: Name:________________________________________ Address: _____________________________________
Kristi Sullivan coordinates the Conservation Education Program at Cornell’s Arnot Forest. More information on managing habitat for wildlife, as well as upcoming educational programs at the Arnot Forest can be found by visiting the Arnot Conservation Education Program web site at ArnotConservation.info
Limited to two lines of type (abbreviate where possible). Type is about 5/16 inches high.
Mailing Address
(UPS Shipping Address if different from mailing address) Name:______________________________________ Address: ___________________________________ ___________________________________________
Make checks payable to NYFOA. Mail form to NYFOA at PO Box 541, Lima, NY 14485. For more information call 1-800-836-3566 * Minimum order is 50 signs with additional signs in increments of 25. ** Shipping Costs: 50 signs, $4.50; 75 signs, $4.75; 100 signs, $5.25; 100+ signs, add $.75 for each 50 signs over 100 (150 would cost $5.25 plus $.75 for the additional 50 for a total of $6.00).
www.nyfoa.org
11
Stories
from the Woods Jerry Michael
The goal of the MFO/COVERTS Program is to provide private forest owners with the information and encouragement necessary to manage their forests to enhance ownership satisfaction. 101 forest visits and counting! Master Forest Owner Volunteer, Jerry Michael, has completed 101 visits to forest owners! The magnitude of that accomplishment is overwhelming. Jerry completed his training in 1995, which means he has averaged over 9 site visits per year for a total of at least 5,000 acres (at about 50 acres per visit). Jerry has dutifully submitted reports on all of his visits and I know from reading them and attending a few visits with him, the quality of his advice is equally outstanding. His advice is well tempered with facts, suggestions, and motivation which is just what we hope to achieve with the MFO Program. In addition to the visits, Jerry has hosted a refresher workshop at his hunting club in Delaware County, serves on the MFO advisory committee,
has written several articles for The New York Forest Owner, has given dozens of workshop presentations, and is a member of the board of the Broome County Association of Cornell Cooperative Extension. The forest owners and citizens of NYS, those Jerry has visited and those yet unvisited, owe Jerry a lot for his dedication to private forest management! Please accept my sincere thank you Jerry! –Gary Goff, MFO Program Director
I always enjoyed working on our family tree farm and, when I retired from my “corporate” career, I relished the opportunity to spend even more time in the woods. I joined the NY Forest Owners Association and learned quite a bit from the work-
The old axiom, “what you see is what you get” applies when it comes to assessing regeneration. Seedlings must grow over 5 feet tall to successfully escape deer browsing. Unless appropriate silviculture is applied to this stand, the next stand will be composed of mostly American beech.
12
shops, woods walks and our magazine, The Forest Owner. Another Chapter member who had participated in the Master Forest Owner/ COVERTS (MFO) volunteer program enthusiastically recommended it to me, and I signed up for the 1995 class. Like many new MFOs, I was initially motivated by the opportunity to obtain some training I could put to use in managing my own tree farm. After my first few landowner visits as a volunteer however, I found that I was experiencing a greater sense of accomplishment from the visit than I was from wielding a chainsaw and piling brush on my own property. I think this is the result of the response of the forest owner to the visit. They obviously think they need the information we have to offer or they would not have requested the visit in the first place. They soak up every tidbit, take notes, and ask good questions. And when you leave after two or three hours, they often force you to take along a bag of cookies or a potted plant, since the visit is free. As I approached my 100th MFO visit this past spring, Gary Goff, the Director of the MFO Program at Cornell University, asked if he could come along to observe and take some pictures. What follows is a brief account of that visit. Robert and Elena Schiller live in New Jersey and purchased their 80-
The New York Forest Owner 45:4 • July/August 2007
Jerry Michael showing how sugar maples that are repeatedly browsed by deer fail to grow in height and take on a “bonsai bush” appearance.
acre parcel in rural Broome County three years ago. Their property includes about 50 forested acres, 30 acres of meadows, a house and outbuildings. They had called Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) of Broome County for advice on refurbishing the meadows and managing the forested property, and had been referred to me for a MFO visit. Upon our arrival on May 10th, we established that their objectives for the property were recreation, maintenance of wildlife habitat, and
New MFO Candidate Sign Up The new MFO volunteer training will take place at Cornell’s Arnot Forest Sept. 19-23. Interested candidates should access the MFO webpage www.cornellmfo.info or call Diana Bryant, 607-255-2115, to learn more about the program and how to apply. Applications should be received by Aug. 27. Individuals interested in becoming a MFO volunteer are also invited to attend this summer’s slate of regional refresher workshops (previously listed here and on the MFO website).
sawtimber production, in that order. As the four of us trekked across the closely brush-hogged meadow on the way to the woods, we noted the prevalence of white clover underfoot. Robert asked what might be done to improve the field for wildlife as they enjoyed seeing turkeys, songbirds and deer in the fields. Plus, he and a friend wanted to keep deer using the property so they could harvest some for the freezer. We advised the Schillers to obtain a soil test kit from CCE and then consult with the USDA Soil & Water Conservation District for advice on planting food plots. We also suggested they not be too aggressive with food plots since the existing white clover and mix of other forbs were attractive to a variety of wildlife. The Schiller’s woodlot consisted of at least three distinctly different stands. The forest had endured a high-grade harvest about twenty years ago, and the first stand we toured consisted primarily of large American beech (mostly infected with beech-bark scale disease), with profuse beech and striped maple thickets in the understory. We pointed out that this stand had little sawtimber value at present, except for firewood and woodpecker habitat, and there was no desirable regeneration present to offer promise for the future. Management of this stand would probably require aggressive timber stand improvement, maybe
even a clear-cut, and the use of herbicides to control the undesirable beech brush and striped maple. Moving up to higher ground, we observed scattered mature red and white oak, hard and soft maple, and black cherry up to 24” diameter at breast height. We discussed the concept of “economic maturity” and noted that a few large hardwoods as well as hemlocks had blown down in recent storms. There were relatively few beech in this stand and we were encouraged to find numerous hard maple and black cherry seedlings on the forest floor, although most had been browsed by deer. This gave us the opportunity to discuss the many challenges to effective regeneration of a forest, from browsing deer, to competing, shade-tolerant vegetation, to insufficient sunlight. Should the Schillers harvest their valuable mature hardwoods before they blow over, or wait until their seed has established viable advanced regeneration? Are there enough mature hardwoods to “have your cake and eat it too”? (In other words, to be able to harvest most of the economically mature trees and still leave enough to provide sufficient seed for regeneration?) Tough question, but a question an MFO should not attempt to answer with authority because we are not professional foresters. Many visits I undertake reach this point where, as an MFO, I encourage continued on page 19
MFO Regional Coordinators appointed The newly established MFO Advisory Committee (comprised of NYFOA members, CCE Educators, and MFO volunteers) has recruited 13 volunteers to fill “MFO Regional Coordinators” across the state. The regions generally coincide with the NYFOA Chapter regions. The primary objectives of creating the regional positions is to help improve program communications and administration and improve coordination of regional activities such as recruitment and promotion of MFO services. A partial listing of regional coordinators is given (see page 18) and all MFO volunteers will shortly be receiving information on assignment of counties by coordinator. I wish to thank the volunteers for taking on the assignment and look forward to an even more successful MFO program thanks to their efforts! –Gary Goff
Sponsors of the MFO Program include: The Ruffed Grouse Society, New York Forest Owners Association, NYS-DEC Div. of Lands & Forests, The Robert H. Wentorf, Jr. Foundation, USDA Renewable Resources Extension Program, and Cornell Cooperative Extension.
www.nyfoa.org
13
Are New York’s Adverse Possession Laws Unfair To Forest Owners? David Colligan
Historical Overview New York State’s adverse possession law is an old and generally misunderstood statute. In judging the fairness of this law, it is important to keep in mind that the law is used to resolve property disputes that have occurred centuries after the property was first surveyed. Keep in mind that original surveyors used metal chains and old-fashioned compasses to lay out virgin land for future development. These “experts” often laid out entire counties using these rudimentary tools, camping on the land, hunting, fishing and hacking their way through the woods. Subsequently the townships were subdivided using equally imprecise methods, starting at a variety of beginning points thereby creating a dizzying array of overlaps, gaps, gores and conflicting title issues. When you consider that modern surveying techniques allow surveyors to pinpoint property lines within one-hundredth of an inch accuracy you can understand how a modern survey could deviate from the original, crude survey.
The Latest, Greatest Case An uproar has occurred as a result of the New York State’s Court of Appeals, our highest court, deciding the case of Waller v. Przybylo (June 13, 2006). In the opinion the Court enumerates the five elements required to establish an adverse possession claim and finds them all satisfied by the plaintiff here. Verbatim the requirements are that the possession be: 1) Hostile and under a claim of right; 2) Actual; 3) Open and notorious; 4) Exclusive; and 5) Continuous for the required period [10 years under Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 511]. The parties in this case owned adjoining parcels in Warren County. The plaintiff treated a piece of defendant’s property as if it were a part of plaintiff’s own, installing a 69-foot pipe underground — so that it surfaced on the disputed part of the property. The pipe discharged water from plaintiff’s property into this parcel, making it into a grassy patch consistent with the land around it. Plaintiff then
regularly “mowed, graded, raked, planted, and watered” the disputed land. The plaintiff used the parcel for 20 years continuously from as early as 1986, 15 of which ran from when the defendant bought the property and close to 10 years from when the defendant built a residence on it and moved in. A modern survey revealed that the disputed parcel was defendant’s, but by then more than the required 10 years had expired. When plaintiff found out that defendant claimed the parcel, plaintiff commenced an action to quiet title, and prevailed with a summary judgment against defendant after the Court applies the list of the five required elements listed above and finds the plaintiff to have satisfied all of them. The defendant argued that “there is no claim of right when the adverse possessor has actual knowledge of the true owner at the time of possession,” but the Court finds the argument in conflict with its prior decisional law. The plaintiff’s conduct showed satisfaction of all of the elements of the claim, ripening the adverse possession claim even if the plaintiff knew the disputed piece was the defendant’s. “Conduct will prevail over knowledge,” says the Court, “particularly when the true owners have acquiesced in the exercise of ownership rights by the adverse possessors.” The case appears to have a harsh result but legal scholars consider the case a clarification that a key issue in adverse possession claims is “actual occupation,” not knowledge. Imputing knowledge is always difficult in courtroom proof but proving occupation is much easier to demonstrate, thereby leading to more predictable outcomes, according to the legal commentators. Timber Management generally constitutes cultivation sufficient to indicate possession or occupation. Most timberland adverse possession claims arise under §512 of the New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (hereinafter RAPL),
14
The New York Forest Owner 45:3
•
May/June 2007
which governs the elements of adverse possession under a written instrument (deeds) or judgments. Under this statute, the party claiming adverse possession must demonstrate either: 1) That the land has been usually cultivated or improved, 2) It has been protected by a substantial enclosure, or 3) That, although there is no enclosure, the land has been used for the supply of fuel or of fencing timber, either for the purposes of husbandry or for the ordinary use of the occupant. Additionally, the acts necessary to prove “usual cultivation or improvement” will vary with the specific facts of each case. The cultivation or improvement required by the statute “must consist of such acts as are usual in the ordinary cultivation and improvement of similar lands by thrifty owners.” See Ramapo Mfg. Co. v. Mapes (1915). For example, logging in a forest can be sufficient cultivation if the area is used primarily for logging, whereas thinning a pine grove is not sufficient to claim adverse possession of property on the East Hampton beachfront. Compare Camfield v. Luther Forest Corp., (1980), with Manhattan School of Music v. Solow, (1991). Accordingly, the logging will only be considered “usual” if act of logging is consistent with the character of the land. For the purposes of the statute, a barbed wire fence will generally constitute a “substantial enclosure.” In New York, a party can demonstrate adverse possession, even without color of title, by demonstrating that the land is protected by a substantial enclosure. See RPAPL §§ 512, 522. Generally, a barbed wire fence will constitute a substantial enclosure for the purposes of adverse possession. Furthermore, despite the fact that the courts are divided on the issue of whether or not maintenance of the fence is necessary to support a claim of adverse possession, there is case law in www.nyfoa.org
New York that suggests that an adverse possession claim will not survive if the occupants allowed the fence to fall into disrepair. For example, in Boumis v. Caetano (1988) the court held that the fact that the fence was in disrepair, coupled with the fact that there was no showing that the defendant’s predecessors-in-title regarded the fence as a line fence destroyed the claim of adverse possession. Remember: Even with the elements delineated in §511 and §512 of the RPAPL, the person claiming adverse possession still has to prove the common law elements of adverse possession in order for the claim to survive.
Conclusion Whether you approve or object to the adverse possession laws depends on whether you feel threatened or protected by them. On one hand, it could be argued that the adverse possession law actually protects forest owners from unwanted intrusions. Imagine that you are a long-term owner/manager of a timber tract and your new neighbor knocks on your door and comes in with a survey prepared using modern high technology methods indicating that the new survey shows your west property line 100 feet to the east and you realize he is asking you to give up 20 acres of your prime hardwoods. If you have owned the property for more than 10 years and cultivated it for timber management purposes, you may be able to successfully defend your title even if your new neighbor’s survey is technically correct! On the other hand, adverse possession does hurt the forest owner who does not inspect the property for periods exceeding ten years. Ask yourself if you are likely to permit someone to construct a pipe spewing effluent on a parcel of land you own without objection for ten years or more like the plaintiff in Walling v. Przybylo (above). The best approach to using adverse possession to your advantage is to
make it a habit to mark your property lines with paint or posted signs, inspect your property thoroughly not less often than ten years, and object to any unauthorized use. It is also recommended to confirm all permissible uses in writing, as permission is a complete defense to adverse possession. If you have a survey, use it to mark and maintain your property line. If you don’t have a survey, consider getting one immediately especially if a neighbor appears to be getting too close for comfort. As a long-term timber owner you must decide for yourself if the adverse possession laws are a burden or a benefit of ownership. David Colligan is a member of NYFOA and a partner in the law firm of Watson, Bennett, Colligan, Johnson & Schechter LLP. For more information, visit www.forestrylaw.com.
Bruce E. Robinson, Inc. Forestry Consultants • Forest product marking & marketing • Timber appraisals • Access road design & supervision • Boundary maintenance • Forest management planning • Forest recreation planning • Wildlife management • Forest taxation planning • Tree farm management • Tree planting & tree shelters • Urban forestry & community management
1894 Camp Street Ext. Jamestown, NY 14701-9239 E-mail: ber01@alltel.net Phone: 716-665-5477 Fax: 716-664-5866
15
Greensprings Natural Cemetery
Re-imagines Burial: A Move Back to the Future Bryn Roshong
D
o you remember as a child, holding your breath for desperate minutes on end as your car passed those endless tombstone-speckled cemeteries? And no doubt a walk through a cemetery touches you in some unspeakable way. Well, you may want to try a walk through the Greensprings Natural Cemetery and nature preserve in Newfield, NY. The volunteers who run Greensprings ask us to re-imagine the ancient concept of burial and challenge our ecologically detrimental funeral traditions. Greensprings, barely one year old, joins the nascent eco-burial movement to transform even the very last event of our lives into a more earth-friendly one. Greensprings opened in 2006 after arduous navigation of state rules and regulations, a job undertaken by Susan Thomas, Jennifer Johnson, Carl Leopold, and other dedicated volun-
16
teers. It took about six years to fulfill proper requirements to achieve natural preserve and cemetery status. The site, bought from a former Cornell University faculty member, is one hundred acres of rolling meadows and forests resting on Irish Hill Road, high above Cayuga Lake. It does not bear any of the markings of a conventional cemetery—there isn’t a vertical head stone, statue, or mausoleum in sight. Here you may have a flat, engraved stone or a native shrub or tree to mark your spot. Gravesites are tagged with small ceramic magnets and located thereafter by GPS. Embalming is generally prohibited. All of these considerations work to preserve the organic appearance of the landscape and minimize negative impacts on the land. The idea of natural burial—no superfancy coffins? no concrete vaults? no embalming?—may sound radical, but
Greensprings trustee Carl Leopold points out that it has been happening for thousands of years. “It’s so simple, so natural for the body to go back to the earth,” Leopold says. Indeed, renewal and conservation are fundamental to Greensprings’ philosophy and to that of the eco-cemetery movement in general. Proponents of natural burial are motivated to counteract what they consider to be the wasteful nature of the standard funeral process. Conventional burials seal bodies in hefty coffins and frequently thereafter place those coffins into concrete or steel vaults under ground. Essentially, the body never touches the earth. However, in its insistence on unobtrusive internment vessels—options include cloth shrouds or simple wood coffins made of local species—the process of a natural burial re-integrates the body into the cycle of growth; the body’s vast stores of nutrients nourish resident flora. Preserving the environment is of course one motivating factor in the creation of alternative cemeteries. Greensprings treasurer Susan Thomas views standard cemeteries as virtual “toxic waste areas” because of the process of embalming and the interment of non-native wood coffins, concrete and steel. In the United States each year, about 820,000 gallons of formaldehyde are placed underground along with 350 million board feet of wood, 90,000 tons of steel and copper and about 1.6 million tons of reinforced concrete. Additionally, Leopold notes the unsavory use of herbicides and planting of bluegrass monocultures to maintain the pristine quality of conventional cemeteries. He poses, “Instead of fields of tombstones, imagine an area that is gorgeous and quiet.” Thomas emphasizes that at its heart, the eco-cemetery is a truly progressive move toward conserving beautiful land. “Once our cemetery is filled,” she says, “in 500 years we’ll end up with an old-growth forest there.” So, whereas conventional cemeteries aim to provide an appearance of fixed im-
The New York Forest Owner 45:4 • July/August 2007
mortality, natural cemeteries emphasize cyclical rebirth through their eventual transformation into mature forests. And the hope is that by then, the natural cemetery advocates will have moved on to another piece of land. Also at the heart of our funeral traditions is a certain mindset toward death. Thomas says that conventional funeral and burial processes, not to mention their average cost of $3,000 to $5,000, have created an “out of sight, out of mind” perception that “sterilizes emotions toward death.” She believes that the more hands-on approach of natural internment “helps with grieving” because family members and loved ones have more control over the process; for example, they aren’t forced into embalming the body. Both Thomas and Leopold say that local folks have been largely receptive of natural burial at Greensprings. In one year there have been seven burials and sixty-two plots bought up, at a rate of $500 per plot and $450 for funeral labor. They have observed positive reactions to the burials at the funerals they have witnessed. Leopold has heard family members say that they “appreciate this sort of burial” and “feel so good about the natural beauty of the place.” The lush, bountiful atmosphere of Greensprings seems to have a healing value for people as they deal with their loved one’s death. Natural internment also crosses religious and spiritual barriers, with non-religious, Jewish, and multi-denominational Christian burials at these serene forests and meadows. The eco-cemetery movement is a relatively new one in the United States. Billy Campbell, considered the “granddaddy” of the movement, opened the first American eco-cemetery in North Carolina in 1998. So far, six such cemeteries exist and three more have been proposed. In the United Kingdom and Canada, however, eco-cemeteries are more commonplace. Thomas and Leopold agree that the movement is catching on in the States, though, owing to what Thomas credits as its
www.nyfoa.org
logical simplicity. “It just makes too much sense,” she says; “It’s just like sliced bread. It’s like we’re going back to the future.” If natural burial is indeed an age-old tradition and so obvious in its simplicity, why is it just catching on now? With the environmental movement’s explosion in the Sixties and Seventies, one wonders why eco-cemeteries weren’t all the rage back then. Leopold thinks that the entrance of global warming onto the global consciousness has helped intensify popular concern about our relationship with and impact on the planet. “As sensitivity to the environment increases,” Leopold says, “natural disposal of the body is part of that.” In addition to global warming is the impending threat of overpopulation. “Soon enough, all those places are going to fill up, and then what?” Leopold says, referring to conventional cemeteries. Thomas has a simpler thought about this question: “Well, I suppose nobody thought of it before.” In any case, she adds, now that natural burial is an option in upstate New York, “it has really been resonating with people in such a powerful way.” Greensprings cemetery and its peers throughout America remind us that every day, in so many aspects of our lives, we can choose to be environmentally responsible. And they offer us an alternative to what we know so well.
Instead of holding our breaths in the midst of those tombstone fields, we can embrace an eternity of renewal. Want to know more? You can find information at the Greensprings Natural Cemetery web site: http://naturalburial.org. Sources Fimrite, Peter (2004, 22 August). Marin cemetery: Ashes to ashes, dust to mulch. San Francisco Chronicle. Leopold, Carl. Personal interview. 17 March 2007. Nadin, Elisabeth (no date cited). Grave concerns. Science and Spirit. Retrieved March 3, 2007 from http:// www.science-spirit.org/printerfriendly.php?article_id=451. No author cited (2006). Greensprings Natural Cemetery. Retrieved from http://naturalburial.org. No author cited (2007). Green Burial Council. Retrieved from http:// www.ethicalburial.org/index.php. Thomas, Susan. Personal interview. 20 March 2007. Bryn Roshong, a student at Cornell University, is a communication major in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
Susan J. Keister, L.L.C.
Forestry Consulting and Environmental Management Services Per diem based fee structure for bid sales = no commissions
NYS-DEC Cooperating Consulting Forester SAF Certified, WBE Services Include: Management Plans Damage Appraisals -FLEP -480a
Commercial Timber Harvests/Valuations -High Quality Hardwoods -Low Grade Hardwoods -Softwoods
Timber Stand Improvement -Marking & Treatment
-Strategy and Advice -Valuations & Stump Cruises
New! Sirex Wasp Response Strategies -Analysis and Prescription -Non-Commercial Timber Stand Improvement Work FLEP cost-sharing may be available
General permit and environmental management advice including wetlands, mining, local timber harvesting and special use permits.
7025 Harpers Ferry Road • Wayland, N.Y. 14572 585-728-3044/ph • 585-728-2786 / fax • susanjkeister@frontiernet.net 17
News &
MFO Regional Coordinators
Notes
Regions generally coincide with NYFOA Chapter NFC
Barb Wenke, 716-549-3986; wenkeb123@hotmail.com
WFL North
Geff Yancey, 716-271-4567; gyanceyj@rochester.rr.com
WFL South
Brett Chedzoy, 607-535-7161; bjc226@cornell.edu
AFC
Dick Patton, 716-761-6333; cpatton@madbbs.com Steve & Donna Teuscher, 716-933-6286; steve@jtbusiness.com
SFL
George Koliwasky, 607-739-8345; mkoliwasky@aol.com
SOT
Jerry Michael, 607-648-2941; gotreego@stny.rr.com
CNY
Peter Cann, 315-687-3812; pcann@twcny.rr.com
Western NAC
Diane Church, 315-265-4895; adirondackwoods@hotmail.com
Rest of NAC & Western SAC Kim LaDuke, 518-891-5757; kml62@cornell.edu Eastern SAC
Laurel Gailor, 518-623-3291; lrg6@cornell.edu
CDC
Mike Birmingham, 518-758-2621; mjbirming@berk.com
LHC
Keith Hedgecock, 845-635-1279; hedgeco@us.ibm.com
18
Editor’s Note: The New York Forest Owner has received many requests from NYFOA members for more information on Carbon Sequestration and Carbon Trading (CS&CT). We have asked national expert, Matt Smith (CF, ACF, EMS-A), Forecon Inc.’s Director of Land Management, to write a series of articles on this topic targeted to NYFOA members. Matt is a member of the Society of American Foresters’ (SAF) Climate Change and Carbon Sequestration Task Force. He recently published CS&CT articles in SAF’s Forestry Source and NYSAF’s New York Forester. Mr. Smith’s series will begin in the September/October issue of the Forest Owner. It will include an introduction to the topic, as well information directly relevant to forest landowners. If you have a topic you would like to see covered in the NYFO, please contact Mary Beth Malmsheimer at mmalmshe@ syr.edu.
The New York Forest Owner 45:4 • July/August 2007
Stories from the Woods (continued) the forest owner to engage the services of a DEC or Consulting Forester who can bring a higher level of expertise into play. The third stand we toured consisted of about five acres of hemlock, ranging in size up to 24 inches in diameter. There was a stream and a well-maintained walking trail through this stand, which was also close to the residence. Both Robert and Elena mentioned that they really like walking around these “BIG WOODS”. When they asked what type of management I suggested, I replied that, “If it was mine, I wouldn’t touch it unless a tree fell across the walking trail”. The stand had the greatest aesthetic appeal of the entire forest, and the relatively low stumpage value of hemlock just didn’t justify disturbing it. We concluded the visit by giving the Schillers a pile of handouts, including CCE publications on forest management planning, a tree identification guide, and a crop tree management brochure. I also gave them a NYFOA membership “sales pitch” and a copy of the Forest Owner magazine and a Chapter Newsletter. We encouraged them to digest the written material and call me with any questions. I also offered to give them a list of Consulting Foresters when they were ready for the next step. Overall, this was a fairly routine MFO visit, and the Schillers seemed to be pleased. On the drive back to Whitney Point, Gary and I discussed the visit in terms of what we saw, what actions the Schillers would have to undertake to achieve their management objectives, and how likely they were to find the time and incentive to make a plan and follow through. The property and stands had above average stocking compared to most holdings and had good potential that would benefit from judicious management. We were quite optimistic that our visit would help the Schillers get started with setting some priorities and implementing practices they and their forester would decide on. I don’t expect to complete another 100 MFO visits before I hang up my Biltmore Stick, but I’m working on it. Looking beyond the gratitude of the individual forest owner, you get a lot of satisfaction from realizing how the MFO Program is helping preserve NY State’s forested landscape, water resources, and quality of life. If the advice we offer can help a forest owner manage his resource in a sustainable manner, it is less likely that financial pressures will result in the loss of the forest through parcelization or development. Now there’s a benefit you can reflect on at the end of the day when you put your feet up and open the bag of cookies! www.nyfoa.org
ForestConnect 2007 Educational Letter Series
Would you like to receive It’s N unbiased, non-commercial and Too L ot ate! accurate information about R Dead egistratio how to manage your forest for line E n xt wildlife habitat, firewood, timber, July 1 ended to 0th recreation, and more? Want to learn strategies to reduce your tax liability? You need the ForestConnect 2007 Letter Series. The ForestConnect Letter Series is a joint venture of Cornell University Cooperative Extension and the New York Forest Owners Association. The letter series provides six bulletins, delivered to your home or office (via mail or download), with fact-filled information on how to more fully enjoy the benefits that your forest land can provide. Enrollees in the letter series will receive one bulletin every three weeks during the spring and summer and will have the opportunity to participate in an educational walking tour led by one or more of the Letter Series’ authors and other forestry experts through a demonstration woodlot in September. Registration is $18 for members of the New York Forest Owners Association and $25 for non-members. Deadline to register is April 30th. The ForestConnect 2007 Letter Series is designed for private forest owners throughout New York State. This educational program is based on an award-winning project developed by Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Warren County and the Greater Adirondack Resource Conservation and Development Council. Funding is provided through the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the USDA Forest Service State and Private Forestry. More information is available at: Cornell University’s website: www.ForestConnect.info New York Forest Owners Association website: www.NYFOA.org Or call (800) 836–3566 with any questions.
Registration for ForestConnect 2007 Letter Series _____________________________________________________________ Name _____________________________________________________________ Address _____________________________________________________________ City, State, Zip _____________________________________________________________ Email & Phone _____________________________________________________________ County of Property Check one: o I wish to receive the six bulletins in the letter series via mail o I wish to download the six bulletins in the letter series from the Internet (you will receive an email notice with download instructions when each bulletin is available for download) Enclosed is my check, payable to “NYFOA” for $______ ($18 for NYFOA members, $25 for non-members). Mail to: NYFOA, PO Box 541, Lima, NY 14485.
19
1890 E. Main Street, Falconer, NY 14733 716-664-5602 22½ Groton Avenue, Cortland, NY 13045 607-753-3113 90 East Front Street, Hancock, NY 13783 607-637-4466
Visit Our Website: www.foreconinc.com
Herbicide Applications
www.futureforestinc.com Phone: 585-374-2799 FAX: 585-374-2595
20
The New York Forest Owner 45:4 • July/August 2007
Member Profile: Sandy & Maria Babcock Alexandra Silva
I
n 1940, Sandy Babcock’s parents purchased one hundred acres of land on Thompson Road in the town of Cazenovia, NY. At $40 per acre, a price deemed high at the time, the Babcock’s were one of three families with property along the 1.8 mile narrow dirt road south of Syracuse. For years the Babcock’s leased the property to Norm Harter, their neighbor. Norm was charged with maintaining the fences and paid a sum of $100 dollars and a pig every year, in exchange for keeping his cows on the Babcock estate. As time passed, however, Sandy and Maria Babcock began managing the property, known as Applestone, and are now one of twenty houses along Thompson Road. In 1974 Sandy and Maria built a new house on the property where their three daughters were raised. The girls spent their summers swimming in Chittenango
Creek, which flows behind Applestone, while winters were spent cross-country skiing through the woods. Despite the deerflies, the girls spent much of their childhood enjoying the outdoors, though they have since grown up and moved away. Prior to its purchase by the Babcock’s, the property was comprised of mainly apple orchards and littered with large rocks, which is where the property name “Applestone” originated. Currently, Applestone is mainly hardwood forest. Maple, beech, cherry and ash trees make up approximately thirty-five acres of the property. The Babcock’s lease another thirty acres to Crete Farms, which grows pumpkins and Christmas trees. The property is varied in its distribution of flora and fauna. Sandy and Maria look for site indicators such as ginseng, trillium, and trout lilies during
Sandy and Maria Babcock, with one of ten cats at their house in Cazenovia, NY.
www.nyfoa.org
their evening walks through the woods. Coyotes and deer populate the area as well, though the Babcock’s still manage to keep ten indoor/outdoor cats. Enjoying the wildlife and wooded environment of the forest is one of the primary reasons that the Babcock’s own the land. Aside from their respective occupations as real estate agent and mortgage broker, Sandy and Maria spend a good portion of their time tending to their property. While it is difficult to keep up with the timber stand improvements they would like to see accomplished, Sandy and Maria have the proper training thanks to NYFOA and the MFO program. They have both been members of NYFOA since 1995 and earned MFO status in 1997. As a mortgage broker and a real estate agent, Maria and Sandy are able use their networks to expose current wood lot owners to the benefits of NYFOA and the MFO program. More important, however, the Babcock’s use their knowledge and experience to maintain the integrity of Applestone. Though Applestone was acquired in 1940, the first timber harvest of the property did not take place until 1965. Under the management of Sandy’s father, $3,500 worth of timber was logged by Johnson Brothers. Decades later, in 1997, Sandy and Maria had the property commercially thinned, which removed nearly 500 trees, mostly low-grade hardwoods and hemlock. The Babcock’s hired forester David Skeval to manage their most recent timber harvest. This two week harvest took place in July of 2006 and Sandy has been cutting up the remaining tree tops ever since. In the next ten to twelve years the Babcock’s hope to have another harvest. Whether cutting up tree tops or not, Sandy is usually in the woods three or four days a week working with his Farmi winch-equipped tractor. Maria, a country girl herself, is also very active in the management of Applestone. Over the last seven years Maria has led four woodswalks on their property: two on wildlife and two on identifying edible plants. Sandy is currently treasurer of the Central New York Chapter of continued on page 22
21
Forest Science (continued from page 6) per acre, and represented a relatively small proportion of the fuel wood value of the cut stems. Thus, selling the beech as firewood, those cut for treatment, would have more than covered the costs of treatment. These costs are significantly less than other types of herbicidal control of beech. If you have any questions about the possible use of this forest management activity, please contact your local office of Cornell University Cooperative Extension, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, or a forester who is a certified pesticide applicator. Chestnut hedgerow before planting Filburts.
Sandy and Maria Babcock in front of leftover firewood from their 2006 timber harvest.
NYFOA and sits with Maria on the steering committee. The Babcocks were presented with the 2004 Forest Stewardship Award, as well as an award for outstanding contribution to NYFOA in 2005 for their hard work on the property. Aside from their responsibilities at Applestone and NYFOA, Sandy and Maria are both past presidents of the Fayetteville Manlius Rotary Club and members of the Cazenovia Club. Through their experiences, the Babcock’s have come to learn that a management plan is critical to the successful management of property. Furthermore, contacting a forester or MFO is extremely helpful when considering a harvest or simply for added professional insight.
While Sandy and Maria hope to keep Applestone in the family, none of their daughters have shown interest in managing the property. As a result, they have looked into selling the development rights to the county, but have found that “forestland doesn’t seem to excite enough interest for the required public funding.” Either way, the Babcocks hope to keep the property as forest and prevent further development on the property; maintaining the desired privacy amid encroaching development. Alexandra Silva is a Forest Resources Extension Program Assistant at Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources, Ithaca, NY 14853.
Science Disclaimer: Scientific research is typically applied in a single area under a limited set of environmental conditions. Researchers, and the interpretation of that research, attempt to describe how different conditions might affect the application of results. The results interpreted here should be applied with due diligence by forest owners, incorporating their specific conditions into the practices described. If any questions exist, seek assistance from professionals before proceeding. Pesticide Disclaimer: Please read the pesticide label prior to use. Use pesticides only in compliance with the label instructions. The information contained in this article is not a substitute for a pesticide label. Trade names used herein are for convenience only. No endorsement of products is intended, nor is criticism of unnamed products implied. For assistance with pesticides, please contact your local office of Cornell Cooperative Extension or NYS Department of Environmental Conservation.
tupperlake@fountainforestry.com lakegeorge@fountainforestry.com
22
Peter J. Smallidge, NYS Extension Forester and Director, Arnot Teaching and Research Forest, Cornell University Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, NY. pjs23@cornell.edu; 116 Fernow Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853.
The New York Forest Owner 45:4 • July/August 2007
Advertising
magazine
Deadline
Rates
Materials submitted for the September/October Issue issue should be sent to Mary Beth Malmsheimer, Editor, The New York Forest Owner, 134 Lincklaen Street, Cazenovia, NY 13035, (315) 6554110 or via e-mail at mmalmshe @syr.edu Articles, artwork and photos are invited and if requested, are returned after use.
Display Ads (per insert)
$12 per column inch Full Page: $360 (30 column inch) Half Page: $180 (15 column inch) Quarter Page: $90 (7.5 column inch) Eighth Page: $45 (3.75 column inch)
Deadline for material is August 1, 2007
Marketplace: $10 minimum for 25 words Each additional word: 10 cents
For More Information Contact: Mary Beth Malmsheimer, Editor (315) 655-4110 mmalmshe@syr.edu
“I AM FARM BUREAU.”
Caring for the Next Generation As a leader in the Sustainable Forestry Initiative® program, International Paper
IF YOU CARE ABOUT FARMS, YOU NEED TO BE, TOO.
ensures the perpetual planting, growing and
“Nobody speaks up for land owners better than Farm Bureau. That’s why I am a member. You should be, too.”
harvesting of trees while protecting biodiversity, wildlife, plants, soil, water and air quality. Each time you purchase paper,
–BOB O’BRIEN, FOREST MANAGER, COTTON-HANLON, INC., CAYUTA, N.Y.
packaging or wood products, you help us to grow more trees. Together, we can ensure a bright future for the next generation.
� � � � �
Grassroots action to protect farmland and the rural landscape. Fighting to advance family farm businesses for coming generations. Affordable and dependable workers comp and insurance programs. Farm education programs for schools, PR messages to public. Big savings on Dodge trucks, Grainger supplies, and more.
Visit us at www.internationalpaper.com
Membership in Farm Bureau isn’t just for farmers. It is for anyone who cares about or lives in rural New York. Join now. Send your membership check for $65 to N.Y. Farm Bureau, Box 5330, Albany, NY 12205-0330
OR sign up at www.nyfb.org / 800-342-4143 ©2003 International Paper
www.nyfoa.org
23
Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Syracuse, N.Y. Permit No. 999