About the 2019 Getting to Know Your Woodlands Webinar Series: A Primer for Beginners

The 2019 Getting to Know Your Woodlands Webinar Series: A Primer for Beginners was targeted at Kentucky’s private woodland owners and designed to assist private woodland owners in the management of their woodlands as well as those with an interest in forests and wildlife. It was a partnership of UK Forestry Extension and numerous Forestry Extension Units from other nearby universities and the Southern Region Extension Forestry team that was hosted by county extension offices with county extension agents/staff serving as local hosts. The program was web-based using the Blackboard Collaborate and ZOOM webinar systems and offered five evenings of educational programming broadcast to the Lewis County Extension Office. Where the Lewis County Agent hosted and recruited the events. 

Webinar dates, titles, and instructors for each of the 2019 Getting to Know Your Woodlands Webinar Series: A Primer for Beginners

• February 21, 2019. Getting to Know Your Woodlands. Dr. Don Bragg (USDA Forest Service), Dr. Bill Hubbard (Maryland Extension), Walt A. McPhail (Distinguished Tree Farmer), Derrick Phinney (Clemson Cooperative Extension)
• February 28, 2019. Managing Your Woodlands. Dr. David (University of Georgia), Dr. Kyle Cunningham (Arkansas Extension), Dr. Wayne Clatterbuck (University of Tennessee)
• March 7, 2019. Identifying and Managing Woodland Threats. Dr. David Coyle (Clemson University), Dr. Lauren Pile (USDA Forest Service), Dr. Hank Stelzer (Missouri Extension)
• March 14, 2019. Wildlife and Woodlands. Dr. Craig harper (Tennessee Extension), Dr. Bronson Strickland (Mississippi State Extension), Dr. Mark McConnell (Mississippi State Extension)
• March 21, 2019. Forestry and Wildlife Assistance in Kentucky. Billy Thomas (UK Forestry and Natural Resource Extension), Dr. Ellen Crocker (UK Forestry and Natural Resource Extension), Pam Snyder (Kentucky Division of Forestry), Clay Smitson (Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources), Deena Wheby (Kentucky Natural Resources Conservation Service)

Background information on Kentucky’s Forests

General information about Kentucky’s forests and the vital role they serve can be found in UK extension publication FOR-53: Kentucky Forest Fact Sheet http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/for/for53/for53.pdf and from the Kentucky Forestry Economic Impact Reports at http://forestry.ca.uky.edu/economic-report. 

Table 1. Amount of forestland, ownership, and number of trees (according to the most recent Forest Inventory and Analysis performed by the US Forest Service and the Kentucky Division of Forestry in 2016). These data are collected from randomly distributed plots across Kentucky with each plot representing approximately 6,000 acres. While the statistics hold up very well at the state and regional level the standard errors on county level data can be large. However, this data represents the best estimates that we have for county level forestry information—we just wanted to ensure you were aware of its limitations.

Table 2. Net volume of sawtimber trees by grade on Forestland and Average Net Volume (according to the most recent Forest Inventory and Analysis performed by the US Forest Service and the Kentucky Division of Forestry in 2016). From a timber value perspective, higher-quality timber demands higher prices; this table shows that (unfortunately) most of the timber in Kentucky is concentrated in lower grades. The distribution of the net volume of sawtimber trees by grade indicates a high potential for improving the quality of the trees through forest management. From a sustainable forestry perspective, it is important to educate woodland owners about woodland management practices and encourage the use of professional foresters such as those with the Kentucky Division of Forestry or Kentucky Association of Consulting Foresters. Efforts such as this webinar series help to bridge this gap.

Results from Returned Evaluations

The information below is based on the returned participant evaluations and allows for the reporting of short term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes that fit the logic model used to evaluate your success stories. Data in Tables 3 through 14 are based on the evaluations that we received. 

Table 3. Evaluations Returned by Webinar and Host County (Master Logger Forms Returned)

If the #s in Table 3 do not reflect the # of evaluations or Master Logger Forms you believe you returned please contact Billy Thomas at billy.thomas@uky.edu 

Table 4. Participants # of Forested Acres Reported on Evaluations Returned by Webinar and Host County

If you did not submit evaluations for a webinar but you had attendees, you could consider using the statewide averages.

Table 5. Participants knowledge of the webinar topic BEFORE and AFTER the webinar: (On a scale of 1 to 4 with 4 being the highest) on Evaluations Returned by Webinar and Host County

Knowledge gain from the webinar can be considered an initial outcome. If you did not submit evaluations for a webinar but you had attendees, you could consider using the statewide averages. Also, please note that evaluations for the final webinar were combined so they reflect statewide averages. 

Table 6. Percentage of participants indicating they know who to contact with questions about your woodland as a result of this workshop? Working with a professional forester or natural resource professional is recommended for woodland owners trying to make their woodlands more productive and healthier. Knowing who to contact is an important first step and can be considered a positive impact of the webinar series. If you did not submit evaluations for a webinar but you had attendees, you could consider using the statewide averages. Also, please note that evaluations for the final webinar were combined so they reflect statewide averages. 

Table 7. Percentage of participants indicating they plan to contact a natural resource professional (extension, forester, wildlife, NRCS, etc.) within the next THREE months about their property. Intent to contact a natural resource professional indicates a positive intermediate behavior change as a result of the webinar series. If you did not submit evaluations for a webinar but you had attendees, you could consider using the statewide averages. Also, please note that evaluations for the final webinar were combined so they reflect statewide averages. 

Table 8. Satisfaction with the relevance of the information to participants’ need.

Participants were asked their satisfaction with the relevance of the information to participants’ needs on a scale of 1 to 4 with 4 being the highest. If you did not submit evaluations for a webinar but you had attendees, you could consider using the statewide averages. Also, please note that evaluations for the final webinar were combined so they reflect statewide averages. 

Table 9. Satisfaction with the presentation quality of the instructors.

Participants were asked their satisfaction with the presentation quality of the instructors on a scale of 1 to 4 with 4 being the highest. If you did not submit evaluations for a webinar but you had attendees, you could consider using the statewide averages. Also, please note that evaluations for the final webinar were combined so they reflect statewide averages. 

Table 10. Satisfaction with the subject matter knowledge of the instructors.

Participants were asked their satisfaction with the subject matter knowledge of the instructors on a scale of 1 to 4 with 4 being the highest. If you did not submit evaluations for a webinar but you had attendees, you could consider using the statewide averages. Also, please note that evaluations for the final webinar were combined so they reflect statewide averages. 

Table 11. Satisfaction with the training facility.

Participants were asked their satisfaction with the training facility (where you hosted the webinars) on a scale of 1 to 4 with 4 being the highest. If you did not submit evaluations for a webinar but you had attendees, you could consider using the statewide averages. Also, please note that evaluations for the final webinar were combined so they reflect statewide averages. 

Table 12. Satisfaction with the overall quality of the training workshop.

Participants were asked their satisfaction with the overall quality of the training workshop on a scale of 1 to 4 with 4 being the highest. If you did not submit evaluations for a webinar but you had attendees, you could consider using the statewide averages. Also, please note that evaluations for the final webinar were combined so they reflect statewide averages. 

Table 13. Understanding of the Information presented.

Participants were asked if the information presented was easy to understand. If you did not submit evaluations for a webinar but you had attendees, you could consider using the statewide averages. Also, please note that evaluations for the final webinar were combined so they reflect statewide averages. 

Table 14. Likelihood of recommending the webinar to other woodland owners

Participants were asked the likelihood that they would recommend the webinar to other woodland owners on a scale of 1 (would not recommend) to 10 (highly recommend). If you did not submit evaluations for a webinar but you had attendees, you could consider using the statewide averages. Also, please note that evaluations for the final webinar were combined so they reflect statewide averages. 

Long-term impacts: increased revenue, improved woodland productivity, improved wildlife habitat, and improved woodland health

The long-term impacts from this program will result in participants’ enhanced ability to address a variety of woodland related issues, resulting in increased revenue, increased woodland productivity, and improved woodland health. These benefits occur to the individual, their county, and our Commonwealth.