Bill addressing liquidation forestry seen as too soft

AUGUSTA – While there was general agreement Friday that something needs to be done about the practice of liquidation harvesting, there was no consensus on how to tackle the problem that many called a “black eye” for the forestry industry.

In fact, a bill that aims to curb the practice, which was the subject of a public hearing Friday, does not even contain a definition of liquidation harvesting, sometimes called “cut and run logging.”

Most consider the practice to entail cutting the vast majority of trees on a plot of land without regard to the possibility of growing more trees there in the future. Most of such plots are then subdivided and sold for housing lots.

“Liquidation harvesting represents a black eye on the forest industry,” said Maine Forest Service Director Tom Doak, who spoke in favor of LD 1920 before the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee.

He said only 6 to 8 percent of the acreage harvested annually would be classified as liquidation cuts by the forest service. Last year, 560,000 acres were harvested in total. Even though the liquidation cuts represent a small percentage of the state’s forestry activities, such harvesting creates public image problems for the industry, Doak said.

LD 1920 would require all landowners who are enrolled in the state’s Tree Growth Tax program, to have in place a forestry management plan prepared by a licensed professional forester. The law would prevent any commercial harvesting before such a plan was prepared. There is no provision, however, that specifically prevents liquidation harvesting from being included in the management plan.

Landowners who participate in a third-party certification program would be exempt from the bill’s provisions. This was problematic to some committee members because certified landowners are now mainly large landowners. Small woodlot owners do not participate in the programs because they are very costly. In addition, there is much debate about the quality of the various certification systems now in place.

The bill is supported by the Maine Forest Products Council and the Small Woodland Owners Association of Maine.

Opponents of the bill featured an odd pairing of environmental groups and private property rights advocates.

Environmentalists didn’t like the bill because it did not do enough to seriously address the problem.

“I am testifying in opposition because while liquidation harvesting is a major problem in Maine’s woods, this bill, despite its title, will do nothing to stop it,” said Cathy Johnson of the Natural Resources Council of Maine.

“[NRCM] strongly urges you to delete everything in this bill after the title and to substitute some real measures that will limit liquidation harvesting,” she said. She suggested the bill should instead contain provisions determining how many trees should be left standing after a harvest.

Those who support private property rights said landowners should be able to use their land as they see fit.

“A landowner has the right to use their assets as they wish,” said Gregory Foster, a professional forester from Raymond.

In addition, he said, he has worked on land that was liquidated 10 years ago and that land now contains some of the best stands he works in.

Because of the vagueness of the bill, however, many groups felt compelled to testify neither for not against it. Liquidation harvesting is a problem, they said, but this bill doesn’t adequately address it.

“We can’t be for it because it will do nothing to stem the damage done to our state by this destructive practice. And yet we can’t be against it because something must be done, and soon,” said Bruce Kidman of the Maine Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.

A work session on the bill is scheduled for Tuesday at 1 p.m.