Timber Theft A Solvable Crime.

When picking up a pencil, opening a door, or using the hundreds of other everyday items made from wood, people seldom consider that those items originated as trees in a forest. Someone harvested, processed, and formed the wood needed to create those items. Although most timber is harvested legally, several thousand trees are harvested illegally each year throughout the United States.

Unfortunately, many of these illegal harvests or thefts go unreported, and those reported often remain unsolved. Many times, when a law enforcement agency receives a report of a timber theft, the department considers it an unsolvable crime. Because most officers have little or no knowledge of the timber industry or timber thefts, they frequently make the mistake of thinking that someone has trespassed to cut firewood and assume that no evidence exists that they can trace to a suspect. Investigations also are hampered because the thefts often occur several weeks or even months prior to their discovery.

What Is Timber Theft?

In most states, the unauthorized control of someone else's property, including timber, constitutes theft. Occasionally, states may include a specific dollar value as part of the prerequisites for theft, and contrary to common belief, timber does have a value.

An officer may ask, "Why would someone want to steal a tree?" The motivation to steal timber is the same as it is to steal any item - profit. Superior quality logs can sell for a high price. The value of timber depends on the species, the quality, the length, and the diameter of the log and will vary depending on current market prices. For example, the current worth for a medium-grade black-walnut veneer log delivered to a veneer mill is $5 per board foot.(1) According to one of several methods used in the industry to price timber, a log with a diameter of 18 inches and a length of 14 feet has 171 board feet and a value of $855.

One Officer's Experience

An officer with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources received information that someone had taken several trees from a farm near an interstate. The officer met with the landowner, who advised that he had found several stumps on his property but that only certain parts of the trees were missing. He advised the officer that the thieves apparently had driven through a neighbor's field, cut his fence, and entered his property. The landowner also believed the theft had occurred within the month.

The officer and the landowner went to the woods and found six black-walnut trees cut with a portion of each missing. Apparently the thieves were in a hurry because each stump had splinter pulls - the uncut fibers of the tree that remain after the tree falls. The thieves had cut the stumps 14 inches or more above the ground, similar to firewood cuts, as opposed to the very low cuts of veneer harvesters. The officer conducted a preliminary crime scene survey and found over 20 empty beer cans scattered throughout the woods, a shoe print on one of the paths, and tire tracks in several locations. The landowner mentioned to the officer that he had seen similar tracks leading into another wooded area approximately 2 miles north of his woods.

After taking photographs and collecting evidence, the officer checked the second woods mentioned by the landowner. The officer observed similar tire tracks and found nine black-walnut stumps cut like those in the first case. The officer also found beer cans scattered, along with other debris, throughout the scene. While surveying the scene of this theft, the officer noticed that the vehicle driven into the woods had scraped various trees leaving paint. The officer photographed and collected paint samples and beer cans from this scene, as well.

Next, the officer needed to determine the value of the stolen property. He contacted a state forestery expert to "re-create" the stolen log. The forester used a technique, accepted in the forestry profession, that uses the stump diameter, the diameter of the second cut at the tree top, and the distance between the indentation where the tree fell and the second cut at the tree top to determine the diameter and length of the stolen log. Determining the quality of the log is a more difficult task; however, by examining the remaining portions of the tree for defects in the wood and the quality of the surrounding trees, the forester can estimate accurately the quality of the stolen log.

The forester estimated the value of the logs taken from the first scene as $2,946 and the total value of the downed trees to be $3,266. The logs taken from the second woods were worth $6,100; the total value of those trees was $6,300. It remains important to determine the value of both the stolen logs and the downed trees because the property owner was deprived of the ability to harvest the trees and sell them legally.

The police laboratory processed the evidence collected from both scenes and found a single fingerprint on one of the beer cans. Although the print was identifiable, the police had no suspects or witnesses to either crime. They suspended this investigation for nearly 2 years. They reopened the case when a landowner in a nearby county caught a suspect stealing black-walnut trees from his property.

The officer from the first case learned that the landowner from the second case was holding the suspect's truck until he received payment for the logs. The officer obtained a search warrant and took paint samples and other evidence from the truck, including a receipt from a nearby veneer mill.

Then the officer met with the owner of the veneer mill, who produced documents showing that the mill bought several black-walnut logs from the suspect. The officer surmised that the suspect had stolen each of the logs because he was not a licensed timber buyer in Indiana. The mill owner informed the officer that he had stopped doing business with the suspect when the suspect had attempted to steal a log from the mill several months earlier. The mill owner thought the suspect also had sold logs to another local veneer mill.

Contact with the employees of the second mill revealed that the suspect had sold logs to them and continued to bring in logs weekly. The mill employees cooperated in the investigation and notified the officer each time the suspect sold logs to them. Upon notification that the suspect had visited the mill, the officer would photograph the logs and obtain copies of the payment receipts given to the suspect. Because the pattern of annual rings and the shape of the tree trunk provide unique information similar to fingerprints, the officer took a cutting from the end of each log for possible comparisons in any future thefts.

After a fourth theft was reported, the officer again found evidence similar to the previous cases. After a thorough crime scene search, the officer recognized an unusual characteristic in one of the stumps. He compared the sample cuttings from the veneer mill and matched three cuttings to the stumps at the new crime scene. He then filed charges against the suspect.

The suspect was charged with theft in state court and later charged with theft in two other counties and once in federal court for theft on a federal wildlife refuge. The courts found the suspect guilty in each case. Additionally, state revenue investigators charged the suspect with tax evasion for failure to report the income he had received from the sale of over 400 logs. The suspect paid restitution to the landowners and spent a total of 6 years in prison.

How to Investigate Timber Theft

The first officers on the scene of a timber theft must determine who owns the property and if the owner has made any arrangements that would allow a renter to sell timber from the property. Some reported cases of timber theft become civil cases due to misunderstandings and landowner-tenant disputes. Once officers determine that a timber theft has occurred, they can process the crime scene as they would any other.

Officers must remember that every crime scene contains evidence, regardless of the location, and a timber theft crime scene is no exception. Each scene always will contain traceable evidence of the timber's being taken, such as tire tracks, occasional paint transfers, stumps, and various other items that the thief may have purposely discarded or accidently left behind. Keeping this in mind, officers should secure the scene and protect any potential evidence for later use or identification.

Before investigators begin the search for stolen timber, they should have an idea of how it may be used. For example, in the Midwestern states, where such trees as black-walnut, white and red oak, maple, and black cherry remain abundant, high-quality logs are harvested and processed into veneer to use as paneling or processed into furniture and other wood products. In such states as Oregon and Washington, Douglas fir and hemlock are harvested for commercial firewood, and cedar is harvested for shake shingles and fence posts. Many other species are commonly are used for other products ranging from building materials to baseball bats.

Once officers determine the suspected use, they can begin to look at various mills in their area. Investigators should not limit their focus to their own jurisdictions but should expand to a large area, including surrounding communities and, in some cases, other states. Forestry experts can help investigators distinguish tree species from their unique identifiers, determine timber quality and value, explain common harvest practices, locate potential timber buyers, and even identify potential suspects.

Conclusion

Although timber theft investigations may sound unique, they are conducted much the same as any other criminal investigation. Often, the lapse of time between when the logs are stolen and when the landowner reports the theft can hinder an investigation. By making contact with area mills; state, national, and private foresters; timber buyers; and other timber industry personnel, officers can gain valuable knowledge that will save them crucial time when a timber theft occurs and will help them in apprehending the thief more quickly.

Endnote 

1 A board foot is an industry standard unit of measure equal to a board 1 inch thick by 12 inches long by 12 inches wide.

Lieutenant David L. Windsor serves as the training officer for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Law Enforcement Division, Indianapolis.