(Note: I wrote this article years before becoming a forestry consultant...should spark some good discussion)

The other day, I was at the auto mechanic’s and Joe, the mechanic, asked if he could change the way he has been charging for his work.  I had no idea what to expect, so I asked him to explain.  Well, he started by telling me about his forest property and that he had just hired a consulting forester to sell some timber for him.  He went on to say that the consultant’s fee was based on the amount of money generated by selling the trees.  It was during this timber sale process that he decided he had been running his auto mechanic business the wrong way for years.  From now on he was going to change the way he was paid by his customers.  After all, he is a consultant, of sorts, too.

I explained that I liked the old system because I could look at the print-out when I picked my car up and see how much the parts cost and also see how many hours of labor went into my car.  Of course, I knew Joe’s labor rate, and the old system seemed to make good sense for both of us.

Joe, however, wanted things to change.  He was tired of his old hourly rate and his old system of only fixing the things we discussed when I would drop off the car.  Joe began to wonder what his business would be like if he could determine what “needed” to be fixed on each car that came through the door of his garage.  And, Joe wondered how much more money he could generate if he could start being paid a percentage of each corrected “problem.”

You can see where this is going, and so could I.  I asked Joe to give me an example of what he was talking about so he and I started to look my car over, inch by inch.  As we walked through the garage, he would point to what “needed” changed or fixed.  He started with the scratch on the fender and he ended two and a half hours later with a laundry list from under the hood.

OK, I will be honest here, this situation didn’t really happen, and “Joe” doesn’t really exist.  However, let’s think about this from a forestry perspective.  We have been employing forestry consultants to manage our forests for many years.  They are a great resource, very knowledgeable, and work hard to accomplish our objectives with the forest resource.  They are true professionals and are working with one of our most precious resources.  Their job is a very important part of our societal goals of wise use and sustainable forest management.  We absolutely need forestry consultants.  However, we have been paying for most of our forest management work based on the number of valuable trees harvested.  Today’s typical consulting fee is a percentage of the value of the timber sale.

What if your property needed good forest management and the expertise of a good forestry consultant, but it did not have the value in trees to pay for the work?  Or, what if, heaven forbid, there existed a consultant that was only interested in making money?  This consultant may be tempted to remove trees based on their value, rather than using sound science and landowner objectives as the criteria.  This would be like the situation that did not really occur at “Joe’s Auto Consulting.”

As stated before, forestry consultants are an essential part of successful forestry planning.  However, maybe we could look at some new and improved ways to integrate their services and eliminate the obvious temptations they face.  One idea is to pay for forestry services by the hour.  Many sawmills and large landowners are already doing this.  In this case, even if you are not planning a timber sale, you could pay for consulting services by the hour.  You would not have to harvest trees to compensate the consultant in this case.  Boundary line establishment and maintenance, management planning, tree planting, erosion control planning, inventorying forest resources, and developing realistic goals and objectives are all very important services that could fall under a “parts and labor” system of payment.  Even silvicultural work such as data collection, stand mapping, writing stand prescriptions, setting up a timber sale, developing sale contracts, marketing the trees, and managing the harvesting operation could be paid for by the hour.

I can already hear the outrage to this idea from the side of the forestry consultants, but I have not fully explained this concept, yet.  Give me a chance.  In no way do I think forestry consultants make too much money, and in no way do I think that all forestry consultants are misguiding their clients to pad their own pockets.  Actually, the hourly rate that I am imagining is likely much higher than you would think.  In any case the rate should be comparable to the hourly labor rates of the other professional services we utilize.  Doctors, lawyers, mechanics, plumbers, psychiatrists, and others all are paid by the hour for professional services.  Though the hourly rate for each varies based on location and market demand, we are used to paying for “parts and labor” for many of our required professional services.

Maybe the “parts and labor” idea for forestry services is a good one, maybe not.  I do think we should look into improving the system, if for no other reason than to promote professional services for properties without marketable trees.  Additionally, I subscribe to the belief that less temptation is a good thing.  I am certain that most consultants and their clients would agree.

When we look at the big picture, regardless of the improvements discussed, the proper management and sustainability of our forest resources has to be paramount.  What can we do to do a better job with our forests?  How can we better sustain the resource for future generations?  How can we use our resources with increasing wisdom?  Is this idea of “parts and labor” the answer?  Probably not, but it may spark some discussion and thought on the subject.  What do you think?

Mike Wolf

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed