Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OhioJeeper t1_j4qf3bg wrote

By definition they don't, at least when I got my degree in forestry they didn't.

The simplest way to put it:

National Parks = Preservation

National Forests = Conservation.

I can't think of a single time I've heard of a harvest in an area that was marked for preservation, at least not one that was for commercial purposes, I could see some cutting being done to remove invasive species.

2

IamSauerKraut t1_j4qrf8r wrote

I believe commercial tree farms are not eligible for preservation or conservation easements. But they are for stewardship and, I believe, CREP. Woodlots, on the other hand, are treated differently. Not exactly sure why but it's been awhile since I've looked at the regs or other program language.

0

OhioJeeper t1_j4qtp45 wrote

On what grounds do you believe that?

Privately owned tree farms can (and almost always are) be managed for conservation; they more than anyone else have an interested in being good stewards.

https://www.treefarmsystem.org/certification-american-tree-farm-system

I'm really curious where you're checking, the line between what is conservation and what is preservation hasn't moved in over 100 years.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/features/conservation-versus-preservation

2

IamSauerKraut t1_j4qwnxh wrote

Preservation and conservation as you use them are marketing terms.

Preservation and conservation as I use them are "selling/gifting" of development rights under the tax code or pursuant to ag regs, ie, preserving the family farm (conservation easement) or keeping nature natural (C.R.E.P. program).

Stewardship of tree farms is somewhat related, but not really.

0

OhioJeeper t1_j4r7ly1 wrote

>Preservation and conservation as you use them are marketing terms.

Those terms are from the United States Forestry Service, not "marketing terms". If you read the link I posted instead of doubling down on tax designations you might have learned something today.

1