Small private forest landowners in Michigan's Upper Peninsula : characteristics, ownership attitudes and forestry practices

Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

Bias eee
jase

id

ee ine

| STATION PAPER NO. 95
FEBRUARY 1962

U"'S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
LIBRARY

MAY 8 - 1962

CURRENT S®RIAL REEORDS

PRIVATES
FOREST =

LANDOWNERS

IN
MICHIGAN'S
UPPER
PENINSULA

DEAN N. QUINNEY

RO
* CHICAGS NG

3S iy
ry eS
Sih cemee:

bed Lee

ae x

LAKE STATES FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION
M.B. DICKERMAN Director
FOREST SERVICE U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Foreword

In 1958 the U. S. Forest Service published a comprehensive appraisal of the
timber resources of this country. One of the major conclusions was ‘‘There is con-
clusive evidence that the productivity of recently cut lands is poorest on the farm
and ‘other’ (generally small) private ownerships.”’ With nearly one-half of the com-
mercial forest lands in the Lake States in small holdings, the Lake States Station
decided that it was important to bring about an understanding of the ownership
problems and what might be done to improve the productivity of small holdings.

Thus the Station has made three studies of the small-ownership situation in
the Lake States: Station Paper 77 entitled, “Influences of Ownership on Forestry
in Small Woodlands in Central Wisconsin,” by Dr. Charles Sutherland and C. H.
Tubbs, was published in 1959; a second study by Dr. Con Schallau analyzing small
holdings in northern Lower Michigan will be available later this year; Station Paper
95 by Dr. Dean Quinney summarizes the small-ownership situation in Upper Mich-
igan. The study was made in 1959-60 while Dr. Quinney was stationed at the Mar-
quette, Mich., office of the Lake Forest Experiment Station.

M. B. DICKERMAN, Director

Small Private Forest Landowners
In Michigan’s Upper Peninsula—

Characteristics,
Ownership Attitudes,
and Forestry Practices

by

Dean N. Quinney

Station Paper No. 95 February 1962

Lake States Forest Experiment Station
Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture

ori ieono4 |

| ee: ry
; ae nese wa )
key Lived ib avery ithe >
ie * hy ae partie :
: ae - 7 Pe Take ered

| 7 i ' ‘ His a ee as wy
ents uly a ame
eka ik rir livin re

“ihe a Galina ER
ig | sus aia Nad Ab io

Pe hued

Contents

SUMVEARYGCOR FINDINGS oe ee as ho wie oS cla rele arate ]
SYN CG CROWN DD si ioas el col Eh siietievicoie seoven opsaersNnerdin Yous eyed ewer a Eyceeaee SA SMUNL O
‘TTS, SNP DNs 8 Bhs ea ae a arte OUR ee SU anne as nu eae

SHON INT OI S ere ee a A a wave, Sg d
SAID ACI STINIIDIINE Seo a cel echa ca ace babe ot Ce eae aisle aie" Nev sie 8
Owner and Ownership Characteristics ............. 8
Woodland Practices sive xi bsd dae is ceed Sheed 11
Creditvand Property “laxation a. 02 vee ee 13
Ronestrysbnoorams (sof 02a aches os oe ee aale eee tee 13
Responses to More Intensive Forestry Proposals .... . 15
Mianke timer RaCte eS so wie lacs) costs ala als) ae ti aipele ene an erate 15

COINGIEULISEONS ie ie ioe ie aie dle Weve talons eats Ginehanain Ng
REGO MNIENDATIONS ooo aie ess 5 ele ees be beens © oa bie @rese eyons 19

ENTPIRT RINT DDI By, cat ROE et I A ee peg are 20
Definition of Ownership Classes ................-. 20

Abstract

Quinney, Dean N.
1961. Small private forest landowners in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula —char-
acteristics, ownership attitudes, and forestry practices. U. S. Forest
Service, Lake States Forest Experiment Station, Station Paper No. 95,
20 pp., illus.

Describes the small forest landowner population including its distribution as
to type of owner, size of holding, objectives of ownership, forestry practices, prob-
lems, and responses to existing and proposed forestry programs. The considerable
proportion of absentee owners and the owners whose primary ownership objective
is other than timber production suggest that for the Upper Peninsula the tradi-
tional approaches of public forestry programs may need to be revised.

1. This study, based on a list sample of small pri-
vate forest landowners with ownerships of between
5 and 5,000 acres, disclosed a total population of
close to 30,000 ownerships. These ownerships con-
trol slightly more than 3% million acres of com-
mercial forest land (about one-third of the total)
in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

2. Ownerships were classified on the basis of
owner occupation for (for multiple ownerships) use
categories, as well as the location of the owner’s
permanent residence or source of ownership de-
cisions. Upper Peninsula residents make up the
bulk of the ownership (75 percent of all owners);
the rest are absentee owners who make their per-
manent homes outside the study area. Empirically,
the latter group appears to be on the increase.

3. Local owners range over a wide variety of oc-
cupation or use classes. Wage earners, active farm-
ers, professional or businessman owners, house-
wife-widows, and retired owners share the greatest
proportion of the forest area owned by Upper Pen-
insula residents. Although the average size owner-
ship was slightly more than 100 acres, there was
a considerable range in size of individual holdings.
No recognizable difference appeared between the
resident and absentee owner groups on the basis
of size of ownerships.

4. From the initial sample of ownerships a sub-
sample was taken for the purpose of interviewing
owners concerning specific owner and ownership
characteristics, forestry practices, problems, and
responses to existing and proposed forestry pro-
grams. In all, 198 such interviews were made.

5. Individual ownerships predominate, and about
three-fourths of the area had been acquired by
purchase —largely within the last 20 years. More
than half of the owners do not reside on their prop-
erties; however, with the inclusion of those who
do live on their property, three-fourths make their
permanent residence within 50 miles.

6. Although ownership is spread over many age
classes the average age was found to be 56 years,
with many owners over 60 years old. Expectations
concerning future tenure were not too positive; 40

- Summary of Findings

percent of the individual owners are uncertain
whether they will retain ownership during the rest
of their lifetimes.

7. Objectives of retaining ownership were sorted
out on the basis of the one reason which exceeded
all others in importance. On this basis, the leading
objectives included: ownership to provide a resi-
dence, hunting or fishing use, general farm use,
inactive (no tangible reason at the present), and a
site for a summer home or weekend cottage. Among
Upper Peninsula owners, residence and general
farm use were the most prominent reasons, while
among absentee owners, hunting or fishing, and
summer-home use were the most often cited.

8. Tree planting for forestry purposes is not a
widespread practice. Only 13 percent of the owners
who own land suitable for planting had made re-
forestation-type plantings.

9. Timber sales and timber harvesting occurred
more frequently. than planting, with 43 percent of
all owners having sold or used timber from their
properties within the last 5 years. Farmers, retired
owners, and loggers were most active in making
timber sales from their properties. Many of these
sales provide the owner with the opportunity to
realize an income from the use of his otherwise
surplus labor time. In contrast to these active local
owners, none of the ownership group who make
their permanent homes outside the Upper Peninsula
had sold timber from their lands. Excluding tree
planting or timber sales, few owners had done any
other work in their woodlands.

10. Neither the availability of credit nor the exist-
ing property tax situation seemed to be major fac-
tors affecting the decisions of the majority of these
owners.

11. Present amounts of public forestry informa-
tion and technical assistance provided to small
private owners in the Upper Peninsula are quite
modest and of fairly recent origin. Few owners
had availed themselves of these aids, and the ma-
jority did not even know that help was available.

12. Owners were queried concerning possible
interest in participating in three aspects of more in-

aye

tensive forestry: employment of a consultant, joint
management associations, and leasing of lands
by private companies for forestry purposes. Al-
though there were no outstanding responses to any
of the three propositions, collectively the interest
among absentee owners was greater than among
Upper Peninsula owners, with close to one-fifth
of the nonresidents indicating some interest in

both management associations and leasing.

13. The writer believes that the changing compo-
sition of the ownership population (more absentee
owners and less active farm owners) is producing a
changing complex of ownership objectives, forestry
problems, and probable patterns of forest use.
These altered conditions will necessitate a reor-
ganization and reorientation in public forestry
programs if these small forest ownerships are to
make a greater contribution to the Upper Peninsu-
la’s forest economy.

|
|
}
|

aE Pe I

During 1961 the population of the United States
passed the 185-million mark. Population experts
speak confidently of a population of 300 million
people or more by the year 2000—less than 40 years
in the future. Unless current trends are reversed,
this tremendous increase in population will be ac-
companied by a continuing increase in the individ-
ual standard of living; economists talk of a gross
national product of about 1,700 billion dollars in
the year 2000—a value more than three times the
present figure.

Such dramatic increases likely will place ever-
increasing pressure on all our productive resources
including those of forest lands. We shall be hard
pressed to meet these needs. Probably we shall
have to accelerate the intensity of land use, in-
cluding forest land use, if we are going to provide
the output of products required by the year 2000.

Of the 489 million acres of commercial forest
land in the United States, 27 percent is publicly
owned and 73 percent privately owned. In spite of
the large holdings of pulp and paper companies,
lumber companies, and other wood-using industries,
more than half of our commercial forest land is
owned by a host of diverse small owners totaling
some 4.5 million individuals or groups.

The

for

recently completed “Timber Resources

America’s Future” (a comprehensive review
and analysis of our national timber resource situ-
ation) indicated that on the national level only 40
percent of the recently cut timber stands held by
farmers and other small private owners had been
manner that

improve stand productivity and quality. Because

harvested in a would maintain or
these lands constitute such a large part of the na-
tion’s forest resources, this disclosure is a matter
of serious concern. It was on this basis that one of
the major conclusions of the review was: “A key
to the future timber situation of the United States
lies with farmers and other nonforest industry pri-
vate owners. These ownerships are in greatest need
of improvement.”

In the Lake States small privately owned forest

lands make up 83 percent of the private and almost

Background

50 percent of all commercial forest lands in Michi-

gan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The bulk of this,

although defined as including all private landowners

with less than 5,000 acres of forest land in total, is

made up of ownerships much smaller than this

maximum. Of the area owned, 94 percent is held by

owners having less than 500 acres each and more

than half by owners with less than 100 acres.
While studies had been made of ownership in

the lower regions of the Lake States, no recent ones

had been made of the group in the most northern |

portion. The northern Lake States form a_ belt |

extending from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan |

across northern Wisconsin and northern Minnesota.

Although differing somewhat in physical aspects

and local institutions, these three areas possess

a common land-use heritage of a boom during the

late 1800’s in timber and mineral exploitation, fol-

lowed by a long period of static or regressive econo-

mic conditions. The 1920's and 1930's saw consider-

able shifts in ownership as a consequence of wide-

spread tax delinquency, as well as the liquidation

of lumber and other land-holding companies. To-

day, in all three areas, with the resurgence of the

second-growth forests, forestry seems to offer a

prominent opportunity for economic development.

Specifically, the objectives of this study were as
follows:

1. To determine who are the small private for-
est owners, their groupings by occupation or prin-
cipal area of corporate enterprise, their place of
residency or origin of forest policy decision, and
how much forest land each group owns.

2. To determine specific characteristics of small
private forest landowners including ownership ob-
jectives, forest practices, participation in forestry
aid and assistance programs, forestry problems
typically encountered, and general attitudes toward
managing their forest lands.

3. To determine procedures followed and prob-
lems encountered by the small forest landowner
in harvesting and marketing timber or timber pro-
ducts.

4. To provide the basis for a comprehensive
analysis of the small private forest landowner’s
present role in the timber supply pattern from the
Upper Peninsula, to evaluate his future significance
in this supply, and to suggest policies or programs

that will facilitate a more rational utilization of his

forest lands, from both the individual and social
standpoints.

5. To provide information useful to both public
agencies and private companies in planning for an
increased contribution of the Upper Peninsula’s
forest resources to the area’s economic progress
and development.

Stretching almost 327 miles from the tip of Drum-
mond Island on the east to its boundary with Wis-
consin in the extreme northwest, and 160 miles in
a north-south direction from the north shore of
Keweenaw County to the southern boundary of
Menominee County, the Upper Peninsula has a
total land area of 16,539 square miles —larger than

any of the following nine States: New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecti-
cut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, or Hawaii
(fig 1).

UPPER MICHIGAN

Figure 1. — Lake States region and study area.

Fluctuations in population since 1890 portray
much of the area’s economic history during this
period. There was a steep rise from 1890 to 1920
as mining boomed. Following the peak of mining
activity about the time of the First World War,
there was a decline through the 1920’s. The country-
wide great depression of the thirties produced in
the Upper Peninsula (as in many other essentially
rural areas) a slight rise in population as the unem-
ployed returned from the closed factories of Detroit
and Milwaukee. World War II and the post-war pros-
perity of the late 1940’s produced outside job oppor-

The Study Area

tunities leading to an out-migration and a lower
population in the 1950 decennial census. The very
slight resurgence indicated by data from the 1960
Census can be traced to the construction of two
large military air bases which brought in thou-
sands of military and civilian technicians together
with their families.

The population in the 1960 Census was 305,622 —
approximately evenly divided between urban and
rural. Actually, many of those listed as rural live
in towns and villages too small to qualify in the ur-
ban category. Marquette, Sault Sainte Marie, and
Escanaba, with populations in the 15,000-20,000
range, are the largest cities in the area.

Upper Michigan is largely forest land, with ap-
proximately 89 percent of the land area so classi-
fied. Of the more than 9 million acres of forest land,
40 percent is publicly owned (mostly included in
National and State Forests), 28 percent is in large
private ownership, and 32 percent in small private
ownership (fig. 2).

PUBLIC

Figure 2-—Small private owners control almost one-third
of the commercial forest land in Michigan’s Upper
Peninsula.

The Upper Peninsula economy is based on fores-
try. recreation, mining, and agriculture. Both min-
ing and agriculture have declined in the last several
decades. For mining, these declines have been a
consequence of competition with mining in other
parts of the country and overseas where ore de-
posits are richer and mining costs lower. In agri-
culture the declines have been part of a longer
term pattern. Relatively short growing seasons
(especially in the interior of the Peninsula) and
limited high-quality agricultural soils, together with
long distances to large centers of population and
markets, have combined to limit agricultural de-
velopment. The number of operating farms dropped
from 13,087 to 8,381 between 1930 and 1954, and
then further declined to 5,446 in 1960. The area in
farms declined by slightly more than one-fifth dur-
ing this 30-year period.

The forestry situation in the Upper Peninsula has
changed and is changing. The past three decades
have seen the problems encountered in shifting
from timber use based on old-growth large saw-

timber to utilization of products from second-
growth timber stands. Many towns and villages have
experienced economic hardships with the closing
of a large sawmill built to operate on old-growth
timber. Conversely, the increase in pulp and
paper manufacture and pulpwood production has
created new jobs both in the mills and in the woods
(fig. 3). While six pulpmills or fibreboard mills oper-
ate in Upper Michigan, much of the pulpwood har-
vested is shipped to Wisconsin mills. In 1959 these
shipments amounted to 447,000 cords.

The long coast line, numerous lakes and rivers,
abundant forest lands (including vast tracts of pub-
lic-owned forests), a pleasant summer climate, wild
game, and a relatively small local population com-
pared with land resources make the Upper Penin-
Sula a very attractive vacation-land. It seems pro-
bable that the growing national population and (as

hoped for) even more leisure time and improved
standard of living should reflect themselves in
greater recreational use of Upper Michigan’s for-
ests, streams, and lakes.

Figure 3.—This new fibreboard mill at L’Anse represents new jobs and new incomes for the Upper Peninsula. (Photo
courtesy Celotex Corporation, L’Anse, Mich.)

This study used a list sample to provide both the
basis for the estimate of the small owner popula-
tion and the subsample for personal interviews. 1
A list of eligible owners (individual or multiple
owners of nonplatted rural lands totaling between
5 and 5,000 acres) was assembled from _ public
records. A 3-percent random sample was taken from

this population, and each owner selected was class-

ified as to occupation or type of ownership, place
of residency, and total forest land owned. (Defini-
tions of strata used in the study are included in
the Appendix.)

1 The author wishes to thank Dr. Lee M. James of Michigan
State University who gave many helpful suggestions in planning

the study.

Study Methods

Samples selected as outlined above were grouped
into occupation—or use—class strata, and a sub-
sample was made for interview purposes. Owners

selected for interview included residents of the Up-

per Peninsula and absentee owners residing in
Lower Michigan or Wisconsin. Three separate
schedules or questionnaires were used. One was
concerned with owner characteristics, objectives,
practices,

programs, while the other two were marketing

and attitudes toward various forestry

schedules covering sales of stumpage or cut timber
products made within the last 5 years. The person-
al-interview subsample,
and spring of 1960, included 198 owners.

made during the winter

Za NaF, ww 4
r y pel PER SEY 3 I
: GYs Vrepa/)\ ~ | Wwe. 7 SS ae 4 Ar
413 56 afson a Ls} {4o. Sues iwas eu) LA
kirber/o Clark of 4 Yrolat Ge 1% To es Ss neue Z. ie
Olver Gedvick PD CTUGQAT. Lr7e aa Se
/24-3 160 i
eee gee 292 : ae)
Vick Fe 40 Stale of / 11 C/)1GQ17 G toe State of
UOOSS 56 40 | sO rae OM Maes ae NIC. 2
ZEO a
/ Std te of Micligarr ZuCas
J = 320 ZL 5
ieeZ 2
peer STA LS ae 200 |
ke | iS ADIQa7 3
Feast State \of M1chig i
Pertersor, g BRY tp :
es 2
O 2
STEEP | Koy FE bane i me
30 &. |Zse0/ f\ | Robt Jos
= | 283 8 | | Ste rbreck. | Mose Fayas Rahrry \houre
ie ww E407 Flo. : 3 Cp Me Alt /20 [BazeeOsese
ee “by a | | Ht 5 Arn /59 EXD Sas Bernard
f $ ich) Four COUSINERK: Fp jaar
4 aH 726) ol PEA Oe
ate. necigesecncececesetetntetennne cere de scored WEE AO} os T ———— 7 18, =S
e
: K/wood
Wr Lawe U 7 ML oe en
NEN fren OTN,
/20 <
Ny NN oP Ce
Luh of U| (59
; 9| Aas 7Z7Ze Chas
3/ 32 Sa ee
Ban Petersor)
S JT Petersbn, est 240 TPO JSS
—.+ ——4 iS BO
eee) BIS. 2G ( Z 4697 V2 Faw fees) Fau/ WL
rope ql Larso KTAUSE oy) Fe LYS Fe/leptrer
CST g 525 40 30 OLN Lee Bien] 7?

Figure 4.—To determine forest acreage owned, property descriptions of sample owners were first located on plat records

such as this, and then the corresponding descriptions were examined stereoscopically on aerial photographs.

is) ae

Owner and Ownership
Characteristics

This study showed that the population of small
forest landowners in the Upper Peninsula totaled
close to 30,000 ownerships. These ownerships con-
trol more than 34% million acres of commercial for-
est land. Upper Peninsula owners make up 75 per-
cent of the ownership; the remaining 25 percent are
absentee owners who do not make their permanent
homes in the area. At least in the Upper Peninsula,
it no longer is true that farmers are the dominant
component of the small private forest owner popu-
lation (fig. 5).
percent of the total number of owners and hold 13

Farmer owners represent only 17

percent of the small-ownership acreage; respective
figures for absentee owners are 25 and 20 per-
cent (table 1). Although the size of forest proper-
ties owned varied considerably, the average size
holding for all owners was approximately 108 acres.

Individual ownerships comprise 87 percent of the
total (ownerships held jointly by husbands and

Study Findings

Table 1. — Distribution of ownership by occupation
or type of ownership classification

Percent of Percent of
Category

owners area

Wage earner 18 9
Farmer 17 13
Business-professional 10 22
Housewife-widow 10 13
Retired 10 1]
Logger 3 6
Recreation group 3 2
Undivided estate 2 ]
Multiple-miscellaneous 2 3
All Upper Peninsula owners 75 80
Absentee individual 16 6
Absentee housewife-widow 3 2
Absentee recreation group 4 4
Absentee other 2 8
All absentee owners 25 20
Total 100 100

considered individual ownerships)
(table 2). Many of the properties listed in corpora-
tion ownership actually belonged to hunting clubs

wives were

F-347851
Figure 5. —Many former
farms now serve their
owners primarily as
places of residency. The
owners may now be re-
tired
off-farm work as min-
ers, loggers or industri-
al workers.

or employed in

Table 2. — Distribution of form of ownership among
the small ownership population

Form of Percent of Percent of

ownership forest owners forest area
Individual 87 80
Partnership 6 7
Club 2 |
Corporation 3 10
Undivided estate 2 2

Total 100 100

which were organized as nonprofit corporations.
Slightly more than three-fourths of the total
forest area had been acquired by purchase, while
one-fifth had come into the hands of the present
owners through inheritance (table 3). Land obtained
at tax sales represented only a very small part of
the total. That this should be the case is not too
contradictory (in an area which had a history of
widespread tax delinquency in the 1930’s), as more
than 70 percent of the total land had been acquired
during the past 20 years, during which tax delin-
quency has steadily declined. Regarding expecta-
tions as to future tenure, 60 percent of the indi-
vidual owners believed that they would retain their
properties during the rest of their lifetime (table 4).
More than half of the owners do not reside on
their properties—however, with the inclusion of
those who do live on the property three-fourths
make their permanent residence within 50 miles.
Analyzing the ages of individual owners showed the
average age to be 56 years, with many owners over
60 years old (table 5). Concentration of land owner-
ship in the hands of older owners is particularly

Table 3. — Distribution of forest land by method of

acquisition
Niechod Percent of
Recs forest land
Purchase from relatives 4
Purchase from nonrelatives 72
Tax Sale 2
Inheritance 20

Foreclosure or debt settlement |

Gift |

Total 100

pronounced in an area such as the Upper Penin-
sula where there is considerable out-migration. Even
among absentee owners there is little delegation of
managerial authority over properties, either form-
ally or informally. The only exception to this oc-
curs among the housewife-widow class, both local
and absentee, where decision-making often is dele-
gated to a son or other relative.

Although many owners may have a number of

ownership objectives, or reasons for owning a
property, most can sort out one primary reason that
exceeds all others in importance. On this basis it
was found that ownership objectives varied con-
siderably (tables 6 and 7). Prominent ones cited in-
cluded: ownership to provide a residence, hunting
or fishing use, general farm use, inactive (no tang-
ible reason at the present time), and a site for a sum-
mer home or weekend cottage (fig. 6). Only 6 per-
cent of the owners with 8 percent of the forest land
gave timber production and timber values as their
primary ownership objective. Among Upper Penin-
sula owners, residence and general farm use were

Table 4. —Individual owner's expectations concerning future tenure

Percent of owners interviewed Percent of forest area

Question

Yes No Undecided Yes No Undecided

1. Do you expect property to remain in family
during owner’s lifetime? 60 10 30 47 13 40
2. Do you plan to will property to member of
family? (This question asked only of those
answering “‘yes” to 1.) 51 ] 8 39 1

~

3. Do you believe that heirs will retain owner-
ship of property? (This question asked only of
those answering ‘‘yes”’ to 2.) a. = 44 4 es 35

Table 5. —Age distribution among individual owners
interviewed

Age class
in years

Under 30
31-40
41-50
51-60
Over 60

Table 7. — Objectives of ownership by broad cate-

gories

Objectives of Percent of Percent of

ownership forest owners forest area
Farm use 19 17
Timber values and use 6 8
Recreational aspects 27 14
Residence 19 12
Mineral exploitation 1 8

Investment, inactive

and for sale 28 4)
Total 100 100

Percent of individual
owners interviewed

F-500,000

Figure 6—The recreational

opportunities offered by
the Upper Peninsula’s
forests, lakes, and
streams are one of the
leading reasons for
ownership among small
private forest landown-
ers. More than _ one-
fourth of these owners
cited recreational use
as their main _ objec-
tive in ownership.

Table 6. — Objectives of ownership by specific cate-

gorles

Objectives of

Percent of

Percent of

ownership forest owners forest area
General farm use NZ 16
Pasture 2 1
Source of fuelwood 2 1
Sale of timber and timber products 4 7
Adjunct or part of a resort 1 1
Summer home or
weekend recreation 9 5
Hunting or fishing site 17 8
Residence 19 12
Business site * x
Sale of minerals or
mineral rights 1 8
Investment or speculation 6 26
Inactive 14 10
Property for sale 8 5
Total 100 100

*Less than 0.5 percent.

S10

the two most prominent reasons for ownership,
while among absentee owners hunting or fishing
and summer home use were the two reasons most
often cited. On a percentage basis, the number of
owners attempting to sell their properties was twice

as great among absentee owners as among Upper
Peninsula owners.

Woodland Practices

Tree planting for forestry purposes is not a wide-
spread practice among these owners. Only 13 per-
cent of the owners who owned open land suitable
for planting had made reforestation - type plantings
(table 8). The largest size planting encountered was
25 acres while the average size was about 7 acres.
In contrast to the Lower Peninsula, the tree-plant-
ing “fever”? does not reach to the Upper Peninsula.
Empirically it would seem that this difference be-
tween the two areas is caused by distance and back-
ground. First, the Upper Peninsula is further re-
moved from the metropolitan centers of the Mid-
west, and the opportunities in growing and selling

Christmas trees do not loom so bright. Second, the
Upper Peninsula has a smaller proportion of its
forest area in nonstocked lands suitable for planting.
In addition, farmers who either had cleared the
lands themselves in the early part of the century or
had watched their fathers clear it are apparently not
so keen on planting trees back on fields where tree
stumps so recently had been laboriously removed.

Timber sales and timber harvesting occurred more
frequently, 24 percent of all owners having sold
timber from their property within the last 5 years
(fig. 7). Among owners who had not sold timber the
most prominent reason cited was insufficient mer-
chantable material in their second-growth stands to
date to make timber cutting or sales worth while. In
addition to those making sales, another 19 percent
had harvested fuelwood, posts, or other products
for ““chome use.”

Excluding tree planting and timber harvesting,
few owners had done any other work in their wood-
lands. When queried as to why they had not done
such things as thinnings or other constructive for-
estry measures, more than half said they simply

Table 8.—Summary of owner’s woodland practices '

Percent of owners carrying out forestry-type activities

Ownership class

Sale of Thinnings or

Timber cutting

Reforestation — stumpage or ai _. other forestry
f ; or home use 5
cut products operations

Farmer 25 52 26 1]
Recreation group 33 0 0 0
Professional-business 42 26 9 22
Wage earner 1] 10 28 0
Undivided estate 0 0 33 0
Retired 0 59 18 4
Housewife-widow 0 17 26 0
Logger : 25 56 22 0
Mult:ple-miscellaneous 14 22 11 0
Upper Peninsula owners 14 ail De, d
Absentee individual 0 0 9 4
Absentee housewife-widow 0 0 12 0
Absentee recreation group 33 0 Le, 0
Absentee ‘“‘other”’ 0 0 0 0
All absentee owners 9 0 1] 4
All owners 13 24 19 6

1 r :
Because some owners may have performed more than one practice,
the data are not mutually exclusive; hence no column has been set up

showing the total percentage who have performed at least one of the

woodland practices.

Se

supplement their farm income. Some

ge, to

stumpa

and retired owners are most

5)

s, farmers

Figure 7.— Logger

referred to their winter logging operation (which might

apt to have made sales of cut timber products from

‘‘winter cash

asa
(Photo courtesy of Michigan Department of

)

”

be a pulpwood sale as shown here

crop.

their lands. Many farmers indicated that they depend

Conservation.)

g, either on their own lands or on purchased

on loggin

1

2 SEE

hadn’t thought much about it, while another third
indicated that their interest in holding the land did
not specifically include the physical condition of the
timber.

Performance of the forestry practices discussed
above varied considerably by ownership classes
(table 8). The farmer, business-professional, and
logger classes showed the most activity, while the
local recreation group, undivided estate, housewife-
widow, and absentee classes showed little activity.

Credit and
Property Taxation

The availability of credit did not seem to be a
factor affecting owners in the handling of their
lands, and very few expressed interest in obtaining
credit for forestry purposes even if it was made
readily available. This lack of interest probably is
due to the fact that at this time few owners regard
the forestry potential on their lands as an invest-
ment opportunity —that is, not in the sense of being
interested in large-scale reforestation, thinnings,
or other forestry practices carried beyond the hobby
stage.

Similarly, the property tax did not appear to be a
major factor affecting the decisions of the majority
of these owners even though in many cases property
taxes seemed very high on unimproved proper-
ties. This lack of concern was particularly evident
among absentee owners who have as their index of
comparison urban property taxes in the Lower
Peninsula and elsewhere. However, among some of
the larger small owners (particularly in the busi-
ness-professional group) who expressed interest in
holding lands for forestry or general investment
purposes, the property tax was of real concern. For
these owners Michigan’s main yield tax law, the
Pearson Act, does not appear to be a solution;
most owners who knew of the law believed that a
listing under the law would tie up their property.
Only 16 small owners had lands in the Upper Pen-
insula listed under the Pearson Act in 1959. ?

2 Letter from J. D. Stephansky, Assistant Chief, Lands Division,
Michigan Department of Conservation, Lansing, Michigan, Au-
gust 27, 1959.

Forestry Programs

Although there are a number of public and pri-
vate sources of forestry information and assistance
in the Upper Peninsula, the sum total of such ef-
fort is quite small. The State Service Forestry Pro-
gram, initiated in the Upper Peninsula in 1957, pro-
vided only 16 man-months of professional service
in 1959. One extension forester, working with 14
county extension agents, covers the entire area. In
addition to these sources some forestry advice and
assistance is provided by eight District Soil Conser-
vation Service technicians, two of whom are trained
foresters. Private forestry help is available as an ad-
ditional responsibility of foresters employed by some
of the pulp and paper companies or other wood-
using indutries, or from the two full-time private
consulting foresters doing business in the Upper
Peninsula.

In addition to technical advice, cost-sharing
payments (subsidies) for performing certain ap-
proved forestry practices are available to some of
the small forest owners under the Agricultural
Conservation Program. In 1958 these payments for
tree planting, noncommercial thinnings, pruning,
or other timber stand improvement work totaled
$24,544 —an average of $1,636 per Upper Peninsula
county.

More than 60 percent of the owners did not know
that there were public programs which would pro-
vide a landowner with on-the-ground advice con-
cerning his forestry problems. Of those who indi-
cated some awareness that such services could be
obtained, only a minority could name a specific
source of such help.

About one-eighth of the owners at some time have
had a professional forester or other land-use tech-
nician examine their properties concerning some
phase of forestry or forest use. Most of this help
was to provide advice on tree planting. Of those
owners who had never had their woodlands visited
by a technician, only a small group (4 percent of all
owners) had talked with a technician concerning
forestry problems.

Printed forestry information — bulletins, pamph-
lets, etc. —had been received at some time by about
one-sixth of all owners. This material had come from
a variety of places, but the leading sources were
county extension agents, State foresters (including

==

the Lansing office of the Department of Conserva-
tion), and Michigan State University. Many of those
who had received written information also had had
personal contacts with foresters or other land-use
technicians.

Similar to the situation in respect to the perform-
ance of forestry practices, a considerable difference
existed between ownership classes concerning their
knowledge of and use of forestry aid and assistance
(table 9). Again, the farmer and business-profession-
al groups ranked foremost, while those showing the
least knowledge and use of available forestry assist-
ance were the wage earner, undivided estate, re-
tired, and housewife-widow classes. The absentee
owners as a group did not rank much lower than
Upper Peninsula owners in their awareness that
forestry aid was available and in their use of such
aid.

The big difference is not between the groupings of
Upper Peninsula and absentee owners, but rather
between two ownership classes—farmers and busi-

ness-professional owners and the rest of the popu-
lation. That farmers would rank high is not sur-
prising, because they long have been the target of
various public information and assistance programs.

Forestry literature frequently arrives in the farm-
er’s mail box via the county agent, and forestry cost-
sharing payments under the federal Agricultural
Conservation Program are described in the bro-
chures on the current conservation practices as
mailed out to most farmers by the local Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation office. Because he
works where he lives, he is not difficult to contact
and can easily be found at home by the county
agent, Soil Conservation Service farm planner, or
service forester. In contrast, the business-profes-
sional owner typically must solicit
he receives, and more often than not he does not re-
side on his forest property. Some of the implications
ir this comparison between these two more active
ownership classes will be discussed a little later
under the recommendations section.

any assistance

Table 9.—Summary of owner’s knowledge of and use of forestry aids or assistance

Percent of owners

who have knowledge of and use forestry aids or assistance

Ownership

a Aware that Aware of a Has had Has received verbal Has received

crac on-the-ground specific property advice without an written

assistance source of visited by a on-the-ground forestry

is available assistance technician! Visit material
Farmer 73 33 30 4 18
Recreation group 34 36 18 0 9
Business-professional 61 48 30 17 35
Wage earner 20 10 7 3 14
Undivided estate 0 0 0 0 0
Retired 27 9 9 0 18
Housewife-widow 22 0 0 0 4
Logger 33 22 ll 0 0
Multiple-miscellaneous 44 11 0 0 11
All Upper Peninsula owners 4] 20 15 4 16
Absentee individual 31 9 0 4 26
Absentee housewife-widow 24 12 0 0
Absentee recreation owner group 44. 22 ll ll 44.
Absentee “‘other”’ 66 0 0 0
All absentee owners 34 1] 2 5 24
All owners 39 18 12 4 17

! Refers to a forester or land-use technician.

ah | oe

The receipt of cost-sharing payments for perform-
ance of forestry practices under the Agricultural
Conservation Payments Program is not listed in
table 9 because many owners apparently are not
eligible. Although the actual interpretation of
eligibility requirements concerning forestry pay-
ments seems to vary county by county, a literal in-
terpretation of the enabling law would exclude own-
ers who do not reside on the forested property or,
if absentee, do not have the property operated as a
farm. Of those owners considered eligible for pay-
ments (as interpreted here to consist of resident
owners or nonresident owners whose property is
operated as a farm), more than half had never heard
of this form of forestry assistance. Among owners
who did know of the payments, about one-sixth at
some time had applied for and received payments.
Two-thirds of these payments had been received
for planting trees while the remaining third was for
timber stand improvement work in existing stands.

The study failed to show much participation by
these small owners in the Tree Farm Program. Only
3 of the 198 owners interviewed had their properties
listed as Tree Farms, and 2 of these owners were
professional foresters themselves. A check with the
national agency responsible for administering the
Tree Farm Program disclosed that in the Upper Pen-
insula 128 small owners with a combined area of
31,891 acres were enrolled in the Program. 3

Responses to More Intensive
Forestry Proposals

All owners were queried concerning their in-
terest in participating in three aspects of more in-
tensive forestry: Employment of consultants, joint

3Letter from Mr. Young W. Rainer, Forester, American Forest
Products Industries, Inc., Washington, D.C., March 9, 1961.

management associations, and leasing of lands for
forestry purposes. About one-eighth of all owners
expressed some interest in the joint management
associations or in leasing their lands for forestry pur-
poses. About one-half of this number were interested
in using the services of a hired consultant. Among
ownership classes, the local business-professional
class expressed the most interest in all three pro-
posals. Collectively, the interest among absentee
owners was higher than that among Upper Penin-
sula owners in all three aspects, with close to one-
fifth of the nonresidents indicating some interest in
both management associations and leasing.

Marketing Practices

Sellers of stumpage and cut timber products
seem to form two quite different groups. The first
are quite passive in their sale activity, making trans-
actions largely because of the persuasiveness of the
buyer. The second group—a majority of whom were
loggers, farmers, and retired persons dwelling on or
near the property —typically instigate the sale them-
selves and take an active part in most phases of the
marketing transaction (fig. 8).

The sale of cut products offers the owner the op-
portunity to realize an income from not only the sale
of his stumpage but also his personal labor. On pulp-
wood sales particularly, this difference between
stumpage value alone and value of the cut products
delivered at the roadside, mill, or other transfer
point can be quite significant, making cut product
sales much more attractive than stumpage sales for
the owner who is interested in and able to do the
harvesting himself.

ae

(F-500440)

Figure 8.—If the future sees more of these lands moving into the hands of absentee owners, fewer of whom feel the finan-

cial need to make timber sales or have the ability or time to do logging, the pattern of supply transactions may tend de-

cidedly toward stumpage sales. Reliable contract logging could provide a valuable service to the absentee owner who is

reluctant to sell his timber on a stumpage basis but is unable to carry out the logging himself.

6 =

Apparently there is no simple relationship be-
tween a class of owners or ownerships and their
performance of forestry practices or attitudes to-
ward such practices. This conclusion has also been
reached by other researchers in the field. An analy-
sis of the small private forest ownership situation in
any locality must embrace not only the character of
the forest resource itself, as exemplified by the size
of holdings and condition of tree stocking, but also
the economic, social, and physical environment.
Factors relevant to the analysis would include the
alternative opportunities available to the owner,
his asset position, age and physical ability to do or
supervise forestry practices, educational back-
ground, scheme of social values, ownership objec-
tives, the historical background of the area, and the
extent and effectiveness of existing public forestry
aid and assistance programs. Obviously, the ex-
tent to which these facts can be gathered will de-
pend on the size of the ownership population in-
volved and the purposes for which the analysis is
intended.

At the present time in Michigan’s Upper Penin-
sula there is no basis for unbridled optimism con-
cerning the role of forestery on these small owner-
ships. Most of the properties are relatively small
and support second-growth tree stocking. The in-
vestment potential at this time is not high. Over half
of the owners do not reside on their properties and
usually are not in a position to do woods work in their
spare time. For the majority, their main reason for
owning their property concerns some value other
than forestry. In addition, there is a sizable group of
owners whose future tenure is fragile because they
already have their properties for sale or cannot now
cite any tangible reason why they continue to re-
tain ownership. Public forestry programs have
failed to reach a majority of these owners, even to
the extent of establishing an awareness that the
programs exist.

These factors, although contrary to some stereo-
typed concepts of conditions and opportunities in

Conclusions

small forest ownerships, are not surprising. Pat-
terns of land use, economic opportunities, and
population mobility have undergone revolutionary
changes in the past 20 years. The end of farming as
a leading land use in many marginal agricultural
areas is an established fact. The former small dairy
farmer may still live on the home place, but now he
has a job in town. His spare time for chores around
the property may not be much greater than that of
the doctor or lawyer who is a landowner. His willing-
ness to do extra work for extra income often de-
pends on the relative magnitude of these extra in-
comes in comparison to his primary wages or sal-
ary. More and more urbanites are pushing into the
north country for recreation; many of these are be-
coming landowners. These owners, who visit their
properties for summer vacations or for fishing or
hunting trips, are unlikely to engage in strenu-
ous woods work beyond those casual efforts en-
joyed as a hobby. The belief that these private
lands can be consolidated into economic units un-
der single ownerships for forestry purposes seems
to have little foundation. Excluding public
lands and holdings of the paper companies and oth-
er wood-using industries, it seems probable that the
future will see more rather than less fragmentation
of holdings. The prices now being paid for tracts
for recreational purposes frequently make it more
attractive for holders of larger tracts to dispose of
their lands 40 by 40, rather than to attempt to sell
them as a block.

That there should be a considerable turnover in
properties and many owners with very slim rea-
sons for ownership is not unusual. Personal situ-
ations change, emergencies develop, and plans for
the future are thwarted. Under a political system en-
tailing private landownership we can expect a con-
tinued and endemic proportion of lands to be chang-
ing hands at all times. This reflects the social, occu-
pational, and geographic mobility inherent in our
political system.

SiG

Recognizing the above factors, it still should be estry, it still should be possible to raise forestry to
possible to plan programs that will encourage bet-
ter forestry practices and a greater contribution to
the Upper Peninsula economy by these small for-
est ownerships. Granting that many owners have an position among those owners who do recognize it
ownership objective which is paramount over for- as a primary ownership objective.

a higher ranking among their scheme of secondary

objectives while at the same time strengthening its

= c=

Present public programs of forestry information
and assistance in the Upper Peninsula constitute
only a token measure. Spread over an ownership
population of some 30,000 owners with 3% million
acres of forest land, these efforts could be expected
to have only limited effects. If expanded programs
are socially desirable, the following factors should be
recognized:

1. Expanded programs should be selective, con-
centrating first priorities on larger size properties
and in the ownership classes which show the most
interest and likelihood of carrying out management
recommendations. In this study, the business-pro-
fessional class seems to be a group which, because
of interest and apparent ability to carry out plans,
would offer a “high investment opportunity” for
public forestry education and assistance efforts.

2. Confusion in the minds of owners concerning
public agency services and programs needs to be
reduced. One way to do this effectively would be
to consolidate public programs, especially in the
sense of firmly establishing in the public mind the
image of one agency as the primary source of for-
estry information and assistance. The patterns in-
volved in these various public forestry programs
can be complicated enough for the professional tech-
nician, and in most cases are downright baffling to
the small owner or “‘customer” for whom they are
intended. A potential recipient of assistance is now
referred to one office for one phase, then to another
for a second, and frequently to a third for another.
The recommendation to reforest a piece of land may
be received from a technician employed by one
agency, the trees are obtained from a second, and if
the owner applies for forestry payments this ap-
plication is made to a third, who processes the appli-
cation but defers payment until the practice is cer-
tified as complete by a forester employed by still an-
other agency. Thus there is no creation in the own-
er’s mind of one agency who deals with his forestry
problems. This writer views the failure to identify
“the small forest ownership agency or technician”
as one of the major reasons why forestry programs
have been slow to reach small forest owners. This

i)

Recommendations

is one obstacle to program effectiveness that, with a
certain amount of planning and program reorienta-
tion, could be eliminated or greatly reduced.

3. A high priority should be given to establish-
ing joint management association or co-ops. This
need is especially strong because a significant pro-
portion of the owners do not live on their properties
and many of them do not even live in the Upper Pen-
insula. Such owners have little time to carry on for-
estry practices or even supervise such operations.
Since this group seems to be growing, their partici-
pation in some form of joint management associa-
tion could ensure that their lands would not be lost
to the forest economy through default. In this re-
spect private consulting foresters might very well
play a beneficial role in initiating or assisting the
operations of such institutions.

4. Expanded vocational training and extension
efforts in forestry could pay a big dividend in the
Upper Peninsula. These, of course, should be well
integrated with technical service programs, with
boundaries of responsibilities well defined. In many
instances Upper Peninsula residents combine em-
ployment in various aspects of the recreational in-
dustry with woods work as independent loggers or
company “‘jobbers.”’ This often provides very prac-
tical dual employment, as the peaks of recreation-
al business are seasonal and logging is carried on
during the slack time. Both vocational training and
expanded extension programs, particularly on
phases of timber harvesting and marketing, could in-
crease these opportunities by providing better
trained individuals to carry on logging and other
forestry operations both on industrial and small pri-
vate ownerships.

Summarizing, it appears that if forest practices
and productivity on the lands of Upper Peninsula
small private owners are to be improved, public
forestry programs should better coordinate and con-
solidate efforts and, through recognizing the chang-
ing nature of the owner and his environment, estab-
lish channels and service institutions which are
most effective in reaching and influencing him.

=O

Definition of Ownership Classes *

Farmer. — An individual owning more than 5 acres
of land, devoting at least three-fourths of his work
time to farming, and considering farming his prin-

5

cipal occupation and source of income.

Farmer woods-worker.—An individual owning at
least 5 acres of land which he farms but who, in ad-
dition, spends more than one-fourth of his work
time in logging or other phases of woods employ-
ment.

Part-time farmer. —An individual also fitting the
previous category, but whose nonfarm employment
is other than woods work.

Recreation group.—A collective ownership or-
ganized on a nonprofit basis, such as an informal
group owning land for hunting or fishing purposes.

Business-professional. — An individual engaged in
business, in a recognized profession, or serving as
a public official. Other than business entrepren-
eurs, individuals in this category would be salaried.

4 With the exception of those designated as absentee classes,
all definitions apply to individuals who make their permanent
residences in the Upper Peninsula.

5 The “part-time farmer” and “farmer woodsworker” groupings
were merged with “‘farmer” into one broad category. In the Upper
Peninsula the distinction between the three is quite variable, de-
pending largely on the off-farm opportunities or timber market-
ing conditions prevailing during a particular time period.

Appendix

Undivided estate.—A category in which owner-
ship is in the hands of the heir or heirs of an un-
settled estate in land.

Retired.—A male owner who is retired from ac-
tive work by reason of age or physical disability.

Housewife-widow.— Any woman not classifiable
under any other listed category. Where the owner-
ship is listed under a wife’s name but the husband
is living and apparently the policy maker for the
property, he will be indicated as owner and his occu-
pation cited.

Logger. — An individual who devotes the majority
of his time to logging operations in which he acts as
the entrepreneur, and who does not qualify as a
farmer woods-worker.

Multiple-miscellaneous.—Ownerships listed in
the names of two or more individuals, generally
members of the same family and not man and wife,
in which the purpose for ownership does not fit
any of the other group categories such as recreation
or undivided estate, or could not readily be deter-
mined at the time of the first-stage sample.

Absentee individual. — A masculine owner (or hus-
band and wife co-owners) who makes his permanent
residence outside of the Upper Peninsula.

Absentee housewife-widow. — A female owner who
owns land as an individual and makes her perman-
ent residence outside of the Upper Peninsula.

Absentee recreation group.—A collective organi-
zation, whose members make their pemanent resi-
dence outside of the Upper Peninsula, organized on
a nonprofit basis such as an informal group owning
land for hunting or fishing purposes.

Y=

Some Recent Station Papers

Lake States Forest Experiment Station

European Pine Shoot Moth Damage as Related to Red Pine Growth,
by H. J. Heikkenen and W. E. Miller. Sta. Paper 83, 12 pp.,
illus. 1960.

Streambank Stabilization in Michigan—A Survey, by W. D. Striffler.
Sta. Paper 84, 14 pp., illus. 1960.

Pulpwood Production in Lake States Counties, 1959, by Arthur G.
Horn. Sta. Paper 85, 13 pp., illus. 1960.

Evaluating the Growth Potential of Aspen Lands in Northern Minne-
sota, by R. O. Strothmann. Sta. Paper 86, 20 pp., illus. 1960.

The Climatic Distribution of Blister Rust on White Pine in Wisconsin,
by E. P. Van Arsdel, A. J. Riker, T. F. Kouba, V. E. Suomi, and
R. A. Bryson. Sta. Paper 87, 34 pp., illus. 1961.

The Forest Insect and Disease Situation, Lake States, 1960, by
Gerald W. Anderson and Donald C. Schmiege. Sta. Paper 88,
18 pp., illus. 1961.

Forest Recreation in the Upper Great Lakes Area: Proceedings of a
Seminar on Research Needs, May 11-13, 1961. Sta. Paper 89,
104 pp., illus. 1961.

Wisconsin’s Forest Resources, by Robert N. Stone and Harry W.
Thorne. Sta. Paper 90, 52 pp., illus. 1961.

Field Calibration of a Neutron-Scattering Soil Moisture Meter, by
Richard S. Sartz and Willie R. Curtis. Sta. Paper 91, 15 pp.,
illus. 1961.

Growing White Pine in the Lake States to Avoid Blister Rust, by
Eugene P. Van Arsdel. Sta. Paper 92, 11 pp., illus. 1961.

Farm Lumber Consumption and Use Data: Needs and Methods of
Estimating, by Allen L. Lundgren and Ronald I. Beazley. Sta.
Paper 93, 22 pp., illus. 1961.

Pulpwood Production in Lake States Counties, 1960, by Arthur G.
Horn. Sta. Paper 94, 28 pp., illus. 1962.