Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Your trees and carbon credits

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,812

    Default Your trees and carbon credits

    Family-owned forests define Pa.’s landscape. Can they cash in on the carbon in their trees?

    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

    NOV 1, 2021 6:03 AM

    SHAMOKIN TOWNSHIP, Pa. — For many years, Louise Hartman’s deep fondness for her family’s 154-acre forest in Northumberland County was not matched by knowledge about how to help it thrive.

    The 70-year-old retired art historian remembers her father showing her and her two sisters how to pull the bark from a birch tree to chew on when they were young girls and how to find their way back down through the woods to their farm in the valley below.

    But by the time they inherited the property as adults, the sisters’ expertise was elsewhere.

    “We had no clue. An art historian, elementary educator and a pharmacist. What did we know about forests?” she said.

    The program that gave them an encyclopedia of their woods, guidance on how to improve it and money to get it done has a different primary aim: combating climate change.

    The Hartman sisters were among the first people to enroll in the Family Forest Carbon Program, an initiative of the American Forest Foundation and the Nature Conservancy that began as a pilot in 29 Pennsylvania counties in 2020. Now, it is expanding to every county in Pennsylvania, all of West Virginia and five counties in western Maryland.

    It is the first expansion on the way to what the nonprofits hope will be a nationwide program. Their goal: to get 20% of family-owned forest acres across the country to commit to forest health improvements that will pull at least 50 million tons of carbon dioxide a year from the air and lock it into trees. That captured carbon will be sold as credits to corporations that want to zero-out their ledger of greenhouse gas emissions.

    Forest carbon markets have long been open mainly to owners of large forests growing many thousands of acres of trees. Typical carbon measurement and verification strategies are too expensive and complex to pursue on a smaller scale and demand commitments of 100 years.

    That leaves out a huge swath of forests owned by families, which are usually smaller than 1,000 acres each but collectively represent the largest forest ownership class in the U.S. In Pennsylvania, family forest owners hold 51% of the forestland, according to the program.

    The Family Forest Carbon Program is open to forest owners with as little as 30 acres and as many as 2,400 acres. It can do this because, instead of tree-by-tree accounting, it calculates the carbon benefits of sustainable forestry practices that many small landowners agree to adopt.

    So far, the program asks landowners to commit to one of two options: “growing mature forests” — which puts restrictions on timber harvests for 20 years — or “enhancing future forests” — a 10-year contract to remove invasive and unwanted plants so that young, desirable trees can thrive.

    The mature forests practice pays between $100-$230 per acre, depending on how much timber is on the land when it’s enrolled, while the future forests practice pays between $50-$280 per acre, depending on how choked the forest is with competing vegetation that needs to be treated.

    How it works

    The American Forest Foundation and the Nature Conservancy have come up with a new way to check that the program is working. For every plot that’s enrolled, the program identifies 10 plots of similar character that aren’t enrolled, drawing from the U.S. Forest Service’s extensive monitoring network of more than 350,000 stands of trees on public and private land.

    The bet is that enrolled forests will store more carbon than those outside of the program that contain similar trees of similar age in similar settings with like-minded owners.

    If they don’t — “No carbon benefit will be generated by those landowners within our program. No credits will be sold. No companies will be able to make claims,” the American Forest Foundation’s Christine Cadigan and Nathan Truitt wrote in a blog post in May. “This approach helps push the program to design forest practices that produce true, additional carbon.”

    In an interview, Ms. Cadigan, senior director of the Family Forest Carbon Program, said that risk falls on the nonprofits running the program, not the enrolled landowners. “The landowners get a guaranteed fixed payment,” she said.

    As for the program’s operators, “We feel very confident in our methodology and in the practices that we’ve identified,” she said.

    The first verification round will be done at the end of 2022 and then credits will be sold.

    The program has already signed long-term agreements with Amazon and REI Co-op, plus a third so-far unnamed Fortune 500 company, to buy carbon credits once they are verified. Essentially, all of the carbon credits the project is expected to generate through 2025, from properties currently in the program and those yet to be enrolled, have already been committed to those companies, Ms. Cadigan said.

    The methodology is meant to counter critiques that have undermined confidence in forest carbon offsets, including research that even credits verified by outside auditors frequently inflate their carbon benefits or are diminished because they inadvertently push timbering onto unprotected forests.

    Critics argue that by over-counting the amount of carbon cheaply stored away in trees, companies can postpone taking more difficult and expensive — but necessary — steps to limit their use of fossil fuels directly and across the life of their products and services.

    Ms. Cadigan said the program is committed to having a meaningful climate impact and making changes, if necessary, to ensure its carbon benefits are real.

    At the same time, the international scientific consensus is clear that a profound and rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change.

    “We simply cannot afford to not leverage everything at our disposal — which includes natural climate solutions, and absolutely includes forests, because they're some of the most cost-effective solutions,” she said.

    ‘The forests here are very unique’

    According to Pennsylvania’s recent Climate Action Plan, the state’s forests soaked up about 11% of the state’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2017, the most recent date available.

    But trees can play a bigger part, the plan said: By extending the time between timber harvests and reforesting suitable open spaces and abandoned mine lands, Pennsylvania could store an additional 3 million metric tons of carbon in its woods in 2050.

    The Family Forest Carbon Program has competition in its efforts to entice small landowners to lock in more carbon.

    A tech startup called Natural Capital Exchange (NCX), for example, offers to pay forest owners not to cut down their trees for one year, and there is no minimum acreage. The payments vary depending on landowners’ bids and the current price of carbon. Companies buying NCX’s offsets include Royal Dutch Shell and Microsoft.

    “Pennsylvania and the Appalachian region is of special interest to carbon offset project developers because the forests here are very unique,” said Melissa Kreye, an assistant professor of forest resource management at Penn State.

    Pennsylvania’s forests are defined by high-density stands and hardwood species. The trees live for a long time, which means they can hold carbon for a long time, and they are often on private land.

    “All these things together means the potential for carbon storage is very high per acre compared to some other states,” she said.

    It’s clear that Pennsylvania landowners want to know more about the opportunity. More than 1,200 people have participated in Penn State Extension’s introductory forest carbon markets webinar series over the last two years, Ms. Kreye said.

    In the first year of the Family Forest Carbon Program, through January 2021, 61 landowners enrolled nearly 9,000 acres with contracts that will pay them collectively more than $2.5 million over the next two decades.

    But the program’s reach was actually broader, according to its pilot report: 169 landowners in the state, with more than 26,000 acres, had a visit with a forester to assess whether they were a good fit for the program and to get advice on management. Nearly 2,000 landowners inquired if their properties were eligible.

    One feature of the program that stood out during the pilot phase was that forest owners loved interacting with a forester and crafting a management plan, American Forest Foundation spokeswoman Elizabeth Greener said.

    The two biggest barriers for families to begin improving the health and habitat of their forests are the high costs of management practices and difficulty finding technical advice on how to go about it, she said.

    During the pilot, 65% of the enrolled properties did not previously have a forest management plan.

    “Markets are great, because it solves that financial piece for landowners to be able to cover the costs. But really to get landowners active, we have found that it has to be coupled with technical assistance. It just can't be the funds alone,” she said.

    ‘a 100-year decision’

    The Hartman sisters’ forest was once a storied chestnut farm, run by Coleman K. Sober, who was referred to by one historian as the nation’s “greatest chestnut entrepreneur.”

    In 1903, more than 75,000 specially grafted chestnut trees covered 300 acres in the valley. Mr. Sober was known to climb to the 75-foot high cupola in his titanic barn — fashioned from reddish-hued chestnut beams and planks — so he could watch the workers harvesting chestnuts below.

    By 1913, the chestnut blight had laid waste to the orchard and the business.

    The forest that grew up after that ruin is the Hartman sisters’ project today.

    During a walk last week up the hillside woods, Louise Hartman led Sarah Hall-Bagdonas, a forester with the Family Forest Carbon Program, through acres where the forest had mostly been left alone to grow. Further along, the forest became dense with spindly trees and twiggy undergrowth. It was an area where, two decades ago, a timber company had paid the family well to harvest the highest-quality trees, an unsustainable practice.

    The dominant remaining trees were birch, a variety that grows fast but does not live long and carries little value for wood products or wildlife, Ms. Hall-Bagdonas said.

    “When you're cutting out all the big ones, you're cutting out all the good genetics, the ones that thrive, and you're leaving the suppressed trees,” she said.

    “You can make a lot of money one time, but it devalues it for 100 years.”

    “I didn't realize that was a 100-year decision,” Ms. Hartman said. “But now I do.”

    Soon, the Hartmans are planning a targeted harvest to take out some undesirable trees and clear the way for hardwoods to take root. Ms. Hartman coos over the memory of a well-managed forest she once toured, where the trees were straight and spaced apart and the ground was spongy from the water absorbed in the rich soil. She marvels over what her future forest might be like the way some people covet a car or a kitchen.

    “I remember when we were thinking of doing this I said, this is something we can do for climate change,” Ms. Hartman said. “It may not be the be all and end all, but it helps.”

    https://www.familyforestcarbon.org/

    https://www.post-gazette.com/busines...s/202110310059

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    49,831

    Default

    $2,050 year on average for the 61 current enrollees.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Charleston
    Posts
    18,404

    Default

    Before it’s over with, you’ll have to burn bushels of worthless cash to stay warm in Pennsylvania.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    FROG LEVEL
    Posts
    23,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fish View Post
    Before it’s over with, you’ll have to burn bushels of worthless cash to stay warm in Pennsylvania.
    Might be country wide if things don't change and quick. Just ask Venezuela how money burns in the street
    Gettin old is for pussies! AND MY NEW TRUE people say like Capt. Tom >>>>>>>>>/
    "Wow, often imitated but never duplicated. No one can do it like the master. My hat is off to you DRDUCK!"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JABIII View Post
    Family-owned forests define Pa.’s landscape. Can they cash in on the carbon in their trees?

    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

    NOV 1, 2021 6:03 AM

    SHAMOKIN TOWNSHIP, Pa. — For many years, Louise Hartman’s deep fondness for her family’s 154-acre forest in Northumberland County was not matched by knowledge about how to help it thrive.

    The 70-year-old retired art historian remembers her father showing her and her two sisters how to pull the bark from a birch tree to chew on when they were young girls and how to find their way back down through the woods to their farm in the valley below.

    But by the time they inherited the property as adults, the sisters’ expertise was elsewhere.

    “We had no clue. An art historian, elementary educator and a pharmacist. What did we know about forests?” she said.

    The program that gave them an encyclopedia of their woods, guidance on how to improve it and money to get it done has a different primary aim: combating climate change.

    The Hartman sisters were among the first people to enroll in the Family Forest Carbon Program, an initiative of the American Forest Foundation and the Nature Conservancy that began as a pilot in 29 Pennsylvania counties in 2020. Now, it is expanding to every county in Pennsylvania, all of West Virginia and five counties in western Maryland.

    It is the first expansion on the way to what the nonprofits hope will be a nationwide program. Their goal: to get 20% of family-owned forest acres across the country to commit to forest health improvements that will pull at least 50 million tons of carbon dioxide a year from the air and lock it into trees. That captured carbon will be sold as credits to corporations that want to zero-out their ledger of greenhouse gas emissions.

    Forest carbon markets have long been open mainly to owners of large forests growing many thousands of acres of trees. Typical carbon measurement and verification strategies are too expensive and complex to pursue on a smaller scale and demand commitments of 100 years.

    That leaves out a huge swath of forests owned by families, which are usually smaller than 1,000 acres each but collectively represent the largest forest ownership class in the U.S. In Pennsylvania, family forest owners hold 51% of the forestland, according to the program.

    The Family Forest Carbon Program is open to forest owners with as little as 30 acres and as many as 2,400 acres. It can do this because, instead of tree-by-tree accounting, it calculates the carbon benefits of sustainable forestry practices that many small landowners agree to adopt.

    So far, the program asks landowners to commit to one of two options: “growing mature forests” — which puts restrictions on timber harvests for 20 years — or “enhancing future forests” — a 10-year contract to remove invasive and unwanted plants so that young, desirable trees can thrive.

    The mature forests practice pays between $100-$230 per acre, depending on how much timber is on the land when it’s enrolled, while the future forests practice pays between $50-$280 per acre, depending on how choked the forest is with competing vegetation that needs to be treated.

    How it works

    The American Forest Foundation and the Nature Conservancy have come up with a new way to check that the program is working. For every plot that’s enrolled, the program identifies 10 plots of similar character that aren’t enrolled, drawing from the U.S. Forest Service’s extensive monitoring network of more than 350,000 stands of trees on public and private land.

    The bet is that enrolled forests will store more carbon than those outside of the program that contain similar trees of similar age in similar settings with like-minded owners.

    If they don’t — “No carbon benefit will be generated by those landowners within our program. No credits will be sold. No companies will be able to make claims,” the American Forest Foundation’s Christine Cadigan and Nathan Truitt wrote in a blog post in May. “This approach helps push the program to design forest practices that produce true, additional carbon.”

    In an interview, Ms. Cadigan, senior director of the Family Forest Carbon Program, said that risk falls on the nonprofits running the program, not the enrolled landowners. “The landowners get a guaranteed fixed payment,” she said.

    As for the program’s operators, “We feel very confident in our methodology and in the practices that we’ve identified,” she said.

    The first verification round will be done at the end of 2022 and then credits will be sold.

    The program has already signed long-term agreements with Amazon and REI Co-op, plus a third so-far unnamed Fortune 500 company, to buy carbon credits once they are verified. Essentially, all of the carbon credits the project is expected to generate through 2025, from properties currently in the program and those yet to be enrolled, have already been committed to those companies, Ms. Cadigan said.

    The methodology is meant to counter critiques that have undermined confidence in forest carbon offsets, including research that even credits verified by outside auditors frequently inflate their carbon benefits or are diminished because they inadvertently push timbering onto unprotected forests.

    Critics argue that by over-counting the amount of carbon cheaply stored away in trees, companies can postpone taking more difficult and expensive — but necessary — steps to limit their use of fossil fuels directly and across the life of their products and services.

    Ms. Cadigan said the program is committed to having a meaningful climate impact and making changes, if necessary, to ensure its carbon benefits are real.

    At the same time, the international scientific consensus is clear that a profound and rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change.

    “We simply cannot afford to not leverage everything at our disposal — which includes natural climate solutions, and absolutely includes forests, because they're some of the most cost-effective solutions,” she said.

    ‘The forests here are very unique’

    According to Pennsylvania’s recent Climate Action Plan, the state’s forests soaked up about 11% of the state’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2017, the most recent date available.

    But trees can play a bigger part, the plan said: By extending the time between timber harvests and reforesting suitable open spaces and abandoned mine lands, Pennsylvania could store an additional 3 million metric tons of carbon in its woods in 2050.

    The Family Forest Carbon Program has competition in its efforts to entice small landowners to lock in more carbon.

    A tech startup called Natural Capital Exchange (NCX), for example, offers to pay forest owners not to cut down their trees for one year, and there is no minimum acreage. The payments vary depending on landowners’ bids and the current price of carbon. Companies buying NCX’s offsets include Royal Dutch Shell and Microsoft.

    “Pennsylvania and the Appalachian region is of special interest to carbon offset project developers because the forests here are very unique,” said Melissa Kreye, an assistant professor of forest resource management at Penn State.

    Pennsylvania’s forests are defined by high-density stands and hardwood species. The trees live for a long time, which means they can hold carbon for a long time, and they are often on private land.

    “All these things together means the potential for carbon storage is very high per acre compared to some other states,” she said.

    It’s clear that Pennsylvania landowners want to know more about the opportunity. More than 1,200 people have participated in Penn State Extension’s introductory forest carbon markets webinar series over the last two years, Ms. Kreye said.

    In the first year of the Family Forest Carbon Program, through January 2021, 61 landowners enrolled nearly 9,000 acres with contracts that will pay them collectively more than $2.5 million over the next two decades.

    But the program’s reach was actually broader, according to its pilot report: 169 landowners in the state, with more than 26,000 acres, had a visit with a forester to assess whether they were a good fit for the program and to get advice on management. Nearly 2,000 landowners inquired if their properties were eligible.

    One feature of the program that stood out during the pilot phase was that forest owners loved interacting with a forester and crafting a management plan, American Forest Foundation spokeswoman Elizabeth Greener said.

    The two biggest barriers for families to begin improving the health and habitat of their forests are the high costs of management practices and difficulty finding technical advice on how to go about it, she said.

    During the pilot, 65% of the enrolled properties did not previously have a forest management plan.

    “Markets are great, because it solves that financial piece for landowners to be able to cover the costs. But really to get landowners active, we have found that it has to be coupled with technical assistance. It just can't be the funds alone,” she said.

    ‘a 100-year decision’

    The Hartman sisters’ forest was once a storied chestnut farm, run by Coleman K. Sober, who was referred to by one historian as the nation’s “greatest chestnut entrepreneur.”

    In 1903, more than 75,000 specially grafted chestnut trees covered 300 acres in the valley. Mr. Sober was known to climb to the 75-foot high cupola in his titanic barn — fashioned from reddish-hued chestnut beams and planks — so he could watch the workers harvesting chestnuts below.

    By 1913, the chestnut blight had laid waste to the orchard and the business.

    The forest that grew up after that ruin is the Hartman sisters’ project today.

    During a walk last week up the hillside woods, Louise Hartman led Sarah Hall-Bagdonas, a forester with the Family Forest Carbon Program, through acres where the forest had mostly been left alone to grow. Further along, the forest became dense with spindly trees and twiggy undergrowth. It was an area where, two decades ago, a timber company had paid the family well to harvest the highest-quality trees, an unsustainable practice.

    The dominant remaining trees were birch, a variety that grows fast but does not live long and carries little value for wood products or wildlife, Ms. Hall-Bagdonas said.

    “When you're cutting out all the big ones, you're cutting out all the good genetics, the ones that thrive, and you're leaving the suppressed trees,” she said.

    “You can make a lot of money one time, but it devalues it for 100 years.”

    “I didn't realize that was a 100-year decision,” Ms. Hartman said. “But now I do.”

    Soon, the Hartmans are planning a targeted harvest to take out some undesirable trees and clear the way for hardwoods to take root. Ms. Hartman coos over the memory of a well-managed forest she once toured, where the trees were straight and spaced apart and the ground was spongy from the water absorbed in the rich soil. She marvels over what her future forest might be like the way some people covet a car or a kitchen.

    “I remember when we were thinking of doing this I said, this is something we can do for climate change,” Ms. Hartman said. “It may not be the be all and end all, but it helps.”

    https://www.familyforestcarbon.org/

    https://www.post-gazette.com/busines...s/202110310059
    A lot of bullshit tied up in that article.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Georgetown
    Posts
    660

    Default

    If you are a landowner thinking of carbon look long and hard at what’s involved and the length of the project (think 100 yrs). Not saying it’s bad necessarily just not a feasible plan for many landowners. Being pushed very hard by the left and the way I see it will take acres out of productive working forests due to no harvesting for length of the project. In my opinion it’s kinda BS but what does this Forester know. Forestry on the whole is so sustainable now that we do not significantly decrease carbon sequestration by cutting and replanting in my opinion.
    More Ducks, Less People

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Georgetown
    Posts
    660

    Default

    Not trying to step on Timbermans toes just saying get the full scoop before going down the carbon road.
    More Ducks, Less People

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    821

    Default

    "The two biggest barriers for families to begin improving the health and habitat of their forests are the high costs of management practices and difficulty finding technical advice on how to go about it, she said."

    #bullshit

    Like I said, it's loaded down with crap.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    Looks like a 40 year commitment? What if I want to sell the land before 40 years?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Carolinas
    Posts
    1,403

    Default

    You sell it with an easement. Restrictions pass with the land.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    24,412

    Default

    For every acre of forest you own, you eliminate the carbon reduced by 2 vehicles and also produce enough oxygen for 18 people to breathe.

    Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Catdaddy; 11-02-2021 at 07:12 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    The Wild, Wild West
    Posts
    3,490

    Default

    If 2,500 makes enough of a difference that you’d get in bed with ANYONE regarding what you can and can not do on your property, you probably need to sell that land, pay off debt, and downsize.
    “I can’t wait ‘till I’m grown” is the stupidest @!#* I ever said!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Clarendon County
    Posts
    4,593

    Default

    It’s just another tax and lots of bs.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Florida/SC
    Posts
    502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WhitewaterDuck View Post
    If 2,500 makes enough of a difference that you’d get in bed with ANYONE regarding what you can and can not do on your property, you probably need to sell that land, pay off debt, and downsize.
    What he said

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    TheRez
    Posts
    11,292

    Default

    I feel like goin home to burn a couple tires.
    We gave you Corn,you gave us clap,bad trade.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Posts
    5,054

    Default

    bringing up a couple year old thread.

    there was an article in wsj this morning about companies starting to pay for carbon removal...amount companies pay for CO2 removal has increased 5-fold this year alone.

    does anyone have experience in dealing with timberland and carbon credits? is the money still not there and what do the commitments look like? are you putting off cutting for like 50 years if you commit to one of these?
    "JUST BECAUSE I AM NOT A GOOD SPELLER DOESN'T MEAN MY JEAN POLL IS GONNA BE BAD."
    Quote Originally Posted by Mergie Master View Post
    There's evidence coming out...
    Quote Originally Posted by Cottontop74 View Post
    I dabble in a lot of things, but don't get too technical with any of them.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sullivan\'s Island
    Posts
    12,866

    Default

    I would not get in any program that makes you promise to use yet undefined, vague and constantly upgraded "best practices". "Best practices" could be redefined to not allow hunting or even entry onto the land for anything other than tax audits.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Georgetown
    Posts
    660

    Default

    There are a lot of different carbon options out there now. You can even enroll property and defer harvest on an annual basis and get paid. I have a friend who enrolled his family farm in a program through Clemson. He’s getting paid $1,500/acre to not harvest mature loblolly for 5 years. They are doing some sort of carbon study out there. He’s deferring harvest on 90 acres for 5 years to make $135,000. Can’t beat that. If you are seriously interested find a register forester who has experience with carbon to help you. I wouldn’t go it alone
    More Ducks, Less People

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Diameter at Breast Height aka "DBH"
    Posts
    3,291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scquackaddict View Post
    There are a lot of different carbon options out there now. You can even enroll property and defer harvest on an annual basis and get paid. I have a friend who enrolled his family farm in a program through Clemson. He’s getting paid $1,500/acre to not harvest mature loblolly for 5 years. They are doing some sort of carbon study out there. He’s deferring harvest on 90 acres for 5 years to make $135,000. Can’t beat that. If you are seriously interested find a register forester who has experience with carbon to help you. I wouldn’t go it alone
    This right here!! I was fortunate to be able to sign up 6 clients for the "prolonged rotation" harvest deferral of 5 years. That was one of the best cost share applications I've seen yet in regards to carbon. Some of these landowners will end up doubling their revenues by waiting until 2028 to harvest. There are a few other attractive carbon opportunities for smaller landowners 20ac. to 4,000 ac. that used to not have these opportunities in the past.
    Last edited by Timberman22; 12-16-2023 at 05:34 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghetto View Post
    A larger caliber will help you with your deer kills. Try it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sportin' Woodies View Post
    I agree with timber22

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Bowman
    Posts
    6,421

    Default

    The carbon market is a scam. The middle man is taking 3-5x the landowner/farmer from what I have gleaned.
    cut\'em

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •