Bill would protect timber owners from unlawful cutting

para4514

Eight Pointer
Contributor
I hate timber trespass, and lost a whole property line of mature oaks a few years back to a sorry arse neighbor. With that said, as I read the proposed change this would put the responsibility to settle disputes on the landowner that cuts timber. So, if you harvest timber well within your property line but a busybody neighbor claims you are across the property line are you required to pay for a survey to settle the dispute? Seems like this is having pay to prove yourself innocent instead of being innocent until proven guilty. Timber trespass penalty does not change under this change, still 2 times stumpage value, all this seems to do is set a landowner up to have to pay an extra cost to conduct a timber harvest, or be held hostage by a neighbor who does not want their view changed by a timber harvest.

I can see both sides as I have lost 100+ year old white oaks to timber theft (no monetary penalty will replace those) but hate being required to justify what is done on my or any private property.
 
Last edited:

nchunter

Twelve Pointer
Should be 10x market value. I'm dealing with it now in another state where it's only market value, hopefully I can get something done on the criminal side. I hate a thief.
 

DRS

Old Mossy Horns
This is a bad bill. The landowner disputing the property line should have to pay for the survey, if the timber was cut on the disputing land owner's property then x amount of dollars for the timber, plus cost for survey should be levied on the logger.

As written I could see land owners being held hostage by a adjoining land owner. I would have a hard time calling them a neighbor.
 

curdog

Ten Pointer
Contributor
I wonder if they will have to pay for the value of stumpage or the value of the log at the mill. The landowner will get one price for the timber on the stump, but once you factor in the cost of getting the wood to the mill, insurance etc. the value will at least double. The mill will pay x number of dollars a 1000 bd ft or ton but that is not what the landowner will receive. Seems like they need clarify things a little.
 

para4514

Eight Pointer
Contributor
When I researched and followed through with our timber trespass issue it was based on stumpage value. It was going to require a civil lawsuit in which a registered forester did a reverse cruise to determine the volume then use a reputable source for timber values at the time of trespass. Timber Mart South was going to be the source in our instance. I was able to negotiate with the survey who marked the line after threatening to report him to the licensing board. Ended up getting between 2 and 3 times my estimated stumpage value without hiring a forester or going to court. But as stated earlier, no amount would have made up for the 30 inch white oak that was removed. My goal was 3 times stumpage value as I had talked to the adjacent landowner on Friday afternoon and told him my concerns and the trees were cut when I returned on the following Tuesday. I felt like this justified the higher rate for a malicious trespass.
 
Top