TIMBER TRANSITIONS

A Look at Plum Creek’s Shift Toward More Real Estate

Critical mass. Few understand that the removal of Federal timberlands from the woods products supply chain diminished the whole of that supply to a point where the critical mass for a flourishing lumber industry in many areas of the New West sublimated into mountain air, and is now condensing into amenity properties for people with money to spend. Land holdings not able to support themselves with the new conservation ethic being embodied in various laws and regulatory restrictions, is morphing into homesites with views (no trees allow views) and with those homesites come deeded commons that will allow trees to be cut and marketed in the name of fuels reduction. There will still be some timber for the market, and the Plum Creeks of the world can bail out of land, complete, with nice profits. It is a new business model, created by bright minds from the whole cloth of environmental restrictions on public lands and the human desire to live far from street thugs, ghettos, jammed freeways. You got the money, honey, I got the land. We'll go honky tonkin' to a new Western band. The new, young, venturesome managers are taking large land ownerships in new directions because that is what left for them to do. You can join the Friends of (name your own place and cause) and write letters and whine, but you know in your hearts you created the new monster by placing "wilderness" at the forefront of "good" values, by deconstructing the natural resource use industries from public lands, by increasing demands for public use of private property, and making sure Idaho or Montana or Wyoming or Colorado was THE destination of caring retirees, vactioners, second home owners. The amount of private land is half or less of the total land area of those states, and a constricted land ownership created the shortage that drove values through the stratosphere. The New West got what it wanted, what it created. Now you have to live with it, and it will not always be as pretty as you imagined it might be.

You know, one of (I repeat, one of) the reasons that timber harvest on public land is down is because companies like Plum Creek take so much timber off adjacent private land that the FS (for reasons of watershed health--one of the the FS's founding purposes is to protect water quality and supply) can't justify logging the public land. Such is the case, I believe, in the Swan Valley, where Plum Creek is doing major real estate business now.

The fact that we have a lot of wilderness and wild land makes for a high quality of life, which does attract new folks. We need to figure out how to manage growth to preserve that high quality of life.

But let's be straight here: wilderness and environmental regulations didn't force Plum Creek to log off all their own land--that's just the business model. They aren't forcing Plum Creek to sell land now--they just see an opportunity to make money. Do you think it would be better to not have wilderness and a few sensible environmental regs (like the FS watershed protection) and instead have Montana end up a place where no one wants to live?

Mike: I don't have a dog in the Plum Cr. subdivision fight, and wilderness is a part of the scope of forest land use, allbeit a false one. All land was occupied and used, seasonally, by humans for 10,000 years or more. Designated "wilderness" in the Congressional sense, means a denial of that prior use (there are homesteads bought back during the Depression included in some wilderness study areas), and is an unintended act of genocide if you use that word in its true sense. A denial of Native American existence prior to Europeans on the land, as it were, and their 10,000 years of landscape management by fire, hunting and plant use. I think roadless is a more meaningful designation. My issue with common semantics and history in denial, but defendable.

The end to public land timber in the lumber equation has meant the closing of mills due to a paucity of raw material. Each closure diminishes the range and scope of ancillary business that serviced loggers and sawmillers. Local repair, fuel, legal, insurance, and service and material goods suppliers to people, folded up and gone forever. With them goes institutional memory, skills, even a work ethic. Consequently, timber sellers like Plum Creek have fewer options, and I can see accelerated timber harvest in specific areas if only due to the fact that their option was sell it now while there was a mill to sell it to, or cut later, and face more expensive trucking or rail costs to a mill much farther away. Swan Lake country has a viable sawmill at this time.

The real cost to Montana is upcoming, when the pulp mill at Frenchtown closes because their raw material base becomes to little and too expensive. That will take more from the value of logs as wood chips are worth more for pulp than for biofuel. With a vestigal mill capacity remaining, attempts at fuels reduction in forests will not happen because there is no profitable market for the removed material. Forever, a range of tree species and log qualities meant that higher grade logs subsidized lower grade species and log qualities in the market. A logger was required to remove non-profitable logs, and the highest value logs made that possible. Not having logs of higher value in the mix, and not having a mill to send them to profitably, will be a challenge in forest management.

I have a hard time understanding why the public cannot figure out some forestry facts of life. Old logging and burns, for the most part, has been reforested too well (too many trees per acre surviving) and crowded forests stunt all the growing stock. Many fewer trees are not as stressed in lower moisture years, and are not as affected by insects. Many fewer trees also makes an acre more fire resistant, with much lower temperatures in fire events. Public land has too many trees and no real mechanism to remedy the situation. Private land, a mere pittance in terms of forested acres on the landscape, lost the synergy provided by public land logging supplying wood to mills, as those mills closed in light of raw material supplies not being dependable or timely. Plum Creek is now taking their land and their management in a new direction, one that will hopefully sustain their company over time. They play the cards they are dealt. In that light, the unintended results of new public land management direction are to be understood. And the attraction to people to be able to live next to roadless or wilderness has been the fodder of photographers, writers, chambers of commerce, real estate hucksters, and the snob appeal of exclusive living. Plum Creek wants a piece of the new market, and will be in competition with ranchers who have been squeezed by reduced grazing (no grass under tight tree cover) allotments and the public aversion to cow flop. Fence line subdivisions, and huge appreciation in land prices on open winter range offers views of the untrammeled forest. Too many chic magazine covers, a desire for a Western life style, and the creation of a great demand for land has just fallen into Plum Creek's lap. The bright young managers are running with that ball.

Publicly held companies have to profit or be taken over by someone who believes they can run the outfit better. Timber companies are being bought by insurance companies and property management companies every day. Yesterday it was Longview Fiber being bought by a Toronto property management company that owns a huge part of NY City real estate. I doubt the pulp mill will stay open any time at all. Plum Creek might just be running ahead of the dog snapping at its heels as I write. Their land is private property owned by stockholders. It either makes money or gets bought by someone who will. My lifetime observation is that the new owner cuts every merchantable tree to pay for the deal. Weyerhaeuser is in the last throes of liquidating Willamette Industry timber, and is now in the mill closing stage. Plum Creek might be a lot better neighbor than the company that would take them over. It might be as good as it gets right now. Think Hurwitz's take over of Pacific Lumber in the Humboldt country redwoods.

I have been a forester for all of my adult life & "bearbait" makes some excellent points. I am also very green & love the idea of wilderness, grizzlies, wolves & not converting all landscapes into vast human "barnyards". So I often straddle the fence in this debate.
A book could be written about this subject. A few words about forestry: Forest management, if done correctly, can co-exist with bears & wolves, however, these critters can't co-exist with "trophy homes", industrial recreation, mining & such. In Western Oregon & Washington, given the tremendous vegetative growth rates, blocks of land can be closed off--post logging--and if clearcutting is not employed, most forest visitors would not be aware, within 5 years, that logging had occurred. Many of my favorite hiking areas are in mature forests that were thinned, leaving many of the largest trees that, in some cases, the site is more beautiful post than pre logging. Forest management, in many areas of this country, was & is investment driven--cut & run--as opposed to community based. Wildlife issues were often ignored & roads left open--post logging --that is a dream come true to poachers. Logged lands, with multiple resource objectives, can provide "wildland experiences.

But I also understand that old-growth, wilderness & esthetics should be part & parcel of a quality of life that is no longer available in places like Europe or some parts of the east. And we need to ask this question: will our culture be better off if we "shoot the last buffalo"? Will this solve all of our political & social ills? I think not! Our public lands are national treasures, and in selected areas, can be managed for multiple values.

Ultimately this is just an extension of the Luddite Malthusian elitists who are so far from production they have no comprehension of what it involves and who detest corporations.