Family Forests What Will the Next Generation Do?

1
Family Forests What Will the Next Generation Do?

• Presented by
• Catherine M. Mater
• Senior Fellow The Pinchot Institute
• President Mater Engineering
• Corvallis, OR
• Tel [phone] Fx 541-752-2952
• E-mail catherine_at_mater.com
• www.pinchot.org www.mater.com

2
First, some background

• Private lands 50 of all forest land in the US
  and 60 of all productive timberland

• gt60 of todays private forestland owners are
  older than 55 more than half are older than 65

• 10 of family forestland will have ownership
  transfer in the next 5 years.

3

• Where we started with funding from
• The Wood Education and Resource Center
• (WERC)
• Non-Joiner NIPFs What Drives their Decisions
  to Fragment and/or Convert their Forestland
• (2001)

4

In-depth interviews conducted n 195

• Over 100 non-joiner NIPFs

• Non-joiner NIPFs located in 59 counties

• 44 professional foresters

• 25 Smart growth organizations

• All state stewardship coordinators

• All SAF chairs

• 9 eastern hardwood states

5

• What We Wanted to Learn
• What non-joiner NIPFs regard as drivers in
  family forest fragmentation and conversion
  decisions.
• Whether landowner drivers differ with impact
  groups (professional foresters, state agencies,
  Smart growth organizations).

6
Planning to keep forestland in family hands?

• 79 say yes
• but . . .

• Forestland future discussed with offspring
  42
• Offspring involved in forest plan development
  34

7
2002 non-joiner study results
8
What offspring think is really important! Do we
know?? That lead us to
9
2005 USFS Offspring Study

• 300 direct offspring interviews
• (38 female 62 male)
• 25 states
• Over 200 families
• Almost 300,000 acres

10
(No Transcript)
11
What we wanted to learn

• What are offspring really thinking? (No one
  has asked before!)

• Is their a difference in how they think
  geographically?

• Is there a difference in thinking between male
  and female offspring?

12
Methodology

• NIPF landowner names supplied by state forestry
  agencies, county assessors, university extension,
  county/state forest landowner associations
• Permission obtained from NIPF parents to
  interview their offspring
• Telephone interviews conducted with offspring

13

• What We Wanted to Learn from Offspring
• Who are they.
• What level of involvement do they have in the
  management of their family forests.
• What are their perceptions on the value of owning
  the family forests.
• What decisions are they likely to make with
  respect to managing their family forests.

14
Looking at demographic results . . .
15
Ages of Offspring

• 10 lt20 years old
• 50 20-40 years old
• 35 41-60 years old
• 5 gt60 years old

16

• Acres Owned
• lt 10 acres 2
• 10 49 acres 15
• 50 99 acres 17
• 100 499 acres 44
• 500 999 acres 6
• 1000 acres 15

17

• Years Owned
• lt10 years 9
• 11 30 years 29
• 31 50 years 17
• 50 years 45

18
. . . but trouble may be brewing . . .
19

• Half are professionals (vs. blue collar workers).
  (46 female 50 male)

• Over 50 of both male and females siblings earn
  more than 50,000 per year.

• 53 were not raised on family forestland.

• 52 live out-of-state of not near the family
  forestland.

• 40 wont live on the family forests in the
  future (another 44 werent sure).

20
What do offspring know about their family forests?
Truth is . . . not much!
21

• Many had to check with parents to confirm the
  amount of acreage of the family forest prior to
  interview.

• Some did not even know that their family owned
  forestlands!

• 20 did not know whether their own family forests
  were contiguous or scattered among several tracts.

22
. . . but

• Clear majority (87) wish to own family forest
  when transfer time occurs
• 83 females 88 males
• True for all age brackets
• True for all regions

23

• And while parents have discussed future plans
  with offspring
• 74 females say yes
• 75 males say yes

24
56 of all offspring interviewed have not been
involved with the management of the family
forests!
25
(No Transcript)
26
Of those that have been involved in managing
family forests (44)

• Over 60 stated involvement did not begin until
  adulthood
• 30 began as teenagers
• Only 8 began at lt10 years of age

27

• For almost all regions
• the majority of offspring not involved in family
  forest management do not wish to be,
• and
• sentiment is shared between male and female
  siblings

28
(No Transcript)
29
Reasons for not wanting to be involved

• Its not my land yet, its theirs
  parents
• Dont live close enough to the land to
  manage.
• Im just not involved my parents make
  all the decisions.

30
Reasons for not being involved but wanting to be

• I lack the knowledge to manage
• I just havent pursued it I need to ask.
• My parents dont ask for help I dont know
  how to approach this.

31
The good news when involvement occurs, its
meaningful!
32

• And while offspring note that their parents
  manage the family forests for everything but
  income generation
• 60 - wildlife protection
• 46 - water protection
• 40 - soil protection

33
They clearly have different thoughts in mind for
the family forests
34
Where will income come from? Its pretty
clear . . .
35
A united front on reasons to own the family
forests
But . . .
36
. . . Its all mine and he bottom line are
where the benefits are
37
And while parents didnt rank taxes as a major
challenge to ownership, the children clearly do!
38
Re-looping back to the 2002 non-joiner NIPF
landowner study results. Note Taxes were also
not a major driver to forest conversion either
now nor at transfer time.
39
But offspring clearly view taxes as a force
condition. . .
40
So heres the next generation. They are
Increasingly remote from their family
forests Have livelihoods less connected with the
land Lack prior involvement in the management of
the land, and many do not wish to be involved
now Lack the knowledge to manage, but want
to own the land, and . . .
derive income off the land.
?
?
?
?
?
41
Complicating matters

• Male and female offspring really do think
  differently on important decision points (ie
  income from the land).

• New force conditions we are unprepared to deal
  with are likely to foster land conversion
  decisions (ie medical costs).

• No outreach programs in place to address these
  unique disconnects.

42
So, whats next?
43
. . . then perhaps this

• Re-think venues of communication where they dont
  exist
• Parents to offspring siblings to siblings

• Re-think potential for new financial incentives
  
• forest health human health
• payments for ecosystem services
• successional planning vs just transfer planning

• Re-think family forest management at youth
  levels Future Farmers . Future
  Foresters

• Re-think strategies for reaching female versus
  male offspring Harvard was right they
  think differently!