[L]awmakers have crafted legislation to protect the timber industry, but loggers say the new proposed state statutes would punish loggers who are following the rules.
The initiative would establish a “right to conduct forestry operations,” much in the same way the state has already recognized a “right to farm.”
But the legislation also addresses abuses by some loggers who have cut forests without a landowner’s permission. In cases of theft of more than $1,000 worth of timber, prosecutors could press felony charges.
Michael Snyder, the commissioner of the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, says the legislation puts “some hurt on the bad guys” by giving the state better environmental enforcement tools and landowners more recourse.
In a series of notorious cases, the state has levied tens of thousands of dollars in fines against a father-son logging duo, Ken Bacon Jr. and Ken Bacon Sr., for environmental damage from timber harvesting in northern and central Vermont. In 2006 and 2007, the Bacons infamously damaged state park property on the shoreline of the pristine Green River Reservoir in Hyde Park. The Bacons subsequently damaged other properties in the region, thumbed their noses at fines and ignored court-imposed limitations on their logging operations.
Robbo Holleran, president of the Vermont Forestry Foundation, says the new requirements would punish responsible loggers in an effort to stop illegal behavior by a handful of bad actors the state has already identified.
Under the proposed law, loggers must notify the state before cutting forestland and would be required to attach tickets to logs identifying where the timber originated. Many loggers already fill out origination tickets because it’s good business practice, Snyder said.
Foresters say the notification requirement would add a waiting period to the beginning of any new project, said Steve Hardy, Vermont Forest Products Association president. That would hurt loggers, Hardy said, because they wouldn’t be able to move easily to another job site if they arrive at a location where the soil is too muddy to work.
Snyder said his department has made an effort to ensure the new requirements are not overly burdensome. Foresters should be able to register online almost immediately for new jobs, he said. They may do so up to a year ahead of time, and registration is good for three years, he said.
“It’s simple, there’s no fee, there’s no permit, there’s no waiting period,” Snyder said. “There’s no review, there’s no denial; if you fill out the information, you’re going to get a harvest notification number.”
Landowners say more regulation is needed.
“Unless a landowner is present on a landing every day, the landowner has no idea how much timber leaves his property,” landowner Putnam Blodgett told the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee. “Most loggers are honest, but it’s an awful temptation for those that aren’t.”
Preserving forest connectivity
Last week the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee split a single piece of legislation addressing forestry issues into five separate bills to ensure passage of certain provisions of the legislation. The original bill would have needed to proceed through seven committees before making its way to the House floor.
While the legislation tightens restrictions on loggers, it also promotes forestry as a way of protecting the working landscape and ecological habitat.
The provisions are based on a report Snyder prepared for the Legislature last year on policies to slow or avert forest fragmentation, whereby large forested parcels get split into smaller lots and sold.
Proponents say forestry is preferable to development, which disrupts habitat more severely than the environmental impacts of logging.
The Vermont chapter of the The Nature Conservancy, which has been involved in the preservation of tens of thousands of acres of forestland in Vermont, is one of the groups promoting the legislation.
Eve Frankel, communications director for the conservation group, said the average Vermont forest landowner is of retirement age, and as large parcels are handed down through generations, it’s important that landowners continue to make a profit from logging. Otherwise, heirs are more likely to subdivide and sell forestland.
“Working forests are intact forests,” Frankel said.
Loggers counter that they don’t need protection.
“A right to practice forestry might be a step in the right direction,” said Holleran, “but does it amount to a hill of beans? Gosh, I wish it did.”
Landowners already face too many legal restrictions, Holleran says, and the Legislature should simply butt out. Instead of passing more regulations, Holleran says the state should ease taxes and regulatory requirements that are putting pressure on landowners to sell smaller parcels.
“As a landowner,” he said, “you’ve got to look at Montpelier and say, ‘What are you thinking?’ All [landowners] want is some stability — whatever it is, just keep it the same for a while, but every year it’s something.”
H.844, one of the bills in play, requires that municipalities adopt bylaws establishing forest tracks or forest connectivity and it allows towns to consider fragmentation of forestland as part of a conditional use review. The law also expands review of the potential impact of development on forest land, soil and habitat connectivity.
Another provision of the bill would immunize landowners from nuisance lawsuits.
CORRECTION: In the original posting of this story, we incorrectly stated that the bill would immunize loggers from nuisance lawsuits. It would immunize landowners.
