In Africa, many countries have local organic food production. And annual incomes less than unemployment pays for a week in this country. Their timber is being sold to European and Chinese interests, with no thought of reforestation. The land is soon organically farmed for local food production. The timber money buys guns and booty for dictators and corrupt leadership.

I am in the middle of an article in the New Yorker this week on log smuggling from Russia to China. The rape of the Far Eastern Soviet Forests...by oligarchs and the Russian mafia. And a wink from China, the China of the seemingly inexhaustible appetite for natural resources from around the world.

The one thing about cutting trees and selling them into the world market is that we get some of our oil expenditures back, some of our import money back, and the land can grow another crop of trees while is grows through the seral stages that provide for a diverse habitat.

Oh, that would employ people, we would be just another colonial nation selling our natural resources to the growing markets of Asia. Or, maybe they will get them anyway when our government can no longer service debt to buy mortgages from social engineering loans. Pay now, or pay later, we will pay. That 40% or more of the US owned by the Government will be collateralized to back the Wall Street mistakes. Sooner or later.

And, in this tree cutting deal, they do grow back. It is all that growth that is fueling our forest fire fiasco. All kinds of quotes from forestry officials telling us that no logging has increased fuels, and now fire is reducing them. We have money to burn. And are.

Prices are in the toilet while costs are in orbit?
Never mind that when prices were good, and costs weren't so terrible, outfits like Wildwest/NFC/TECI were fanging and clawing to make sure that when the economy caved it as it was supposed to, the forest products people wouldn't have much in the way of fiscal reserves.
So there ya go.
As for that restoration council...it's just more wheel-spinning. Why are you even there, Matt and Jeff, if in your hearts you would rather fire dominate? I mean, why turn dead trees into bluestain when they could be nurse logs or future firestorms?

As someone whose research program contributed data and provided input on drafts of the MAEDC initiative, there are many statements throughout this commentary that I agree with:
• “a new economic model - based on the principles of sustainability” is needed;
• “Montana is in a unique position to lead this effort towards greater sustainability… a future where Montana workers produce clean and green energy for our homes and the ingenuity of our businesses combines with the skills of our workforce to protect and restore the environment, while also producing locally-made products that enhance the quality of our lives”;
• “Locally, we’ve witnessed the timber industry hit particularly hard by the economic crisis with recent announcements of closures, curtailments and lay-offs. As tough as this news has been, it’s not entirely unexpected since the industry is inextricably tied to the housing and credit sectors of our economy”;
• And, yes, there are a number of collaborative restoration efforts underway in the state which deserve praise and many are hoping will lead to better results in public land management in our state.

However, I strongly disagree with much of the commentary’s characterization of the initiative put forward by MAEDC. The first problem is stating that the initiative was a behind-the-scenes effort; it was not. MAEDC met with members of the wood products industry; forwarded drafts to state legislators, state agencies, and the governor’s office; asked the Forest Industry Research Program at the University of Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research (http://www.bber.umt.edu/forest) for input and data; and posted the final proposal on the MAEDC web site (http://www.maedc.org) for the world to see. MAEDC also met with many of the environmental/conservation groups in Montana.

It is my understanding that representatives of Wild West Institute were among those with whom MAEDC met to solicit feedback on the initiative.

As for summing up the initiative as “log, baby, log”—this is hyperbole and political rhetoric. Just four of the 18 recommendations (#s 6, 7, 16, and 17) mention increasing the amount or type of timber harvested in the short- to mid-term. The initiative does go on to say that a more reliable and larger supply of timber are needed to sustain Montana’s wood products industry, and that national forests in Montana would need to substantially increase the amount they are currently and have recently been supplying.

The volume (300 MMBF annually from national forests in Montana) suggested would be a big increase over harvest levels of the past two years. National forest timber harvest in Montana has been less than 100 MMBF in 2006, 2007, and probably will be lower in 2008. But let’s put that 300 MMBF figure into a historical perspective: the average timber harvest volume from national forests in Montana was 200 MMBF from 1990 to 2005, with a high of 425 MMBF in 1990 , and a low of 95 MMBF in 2001. Looking from 1980 to 2005, the average was 301 MMBF, with a high of 603 MMBF in 1987.

From a standing volume and growth perspective, the 300 MMBF annual harvest from national forests would represent the harvest of about 0.3% of current growing stock volume on non-reserved timber lands in Montana’s national forests, 12% of annual gross growth, or 30% of annual net growth (growth – mortality). That 300 MMBF figure is roughly equivalent to just 20% of annual mortality on non-reserved timber land in national forests in Montana. These volumes/proportions are very sustainable ecologically, with the logging and milling infrastructure we have in the state, and with social needs and demands we place on our national forests.

Neither MAEDC nor my research program is suggesting returning to the harvest volumes of the 1980s, which by the way averaged 463 MMBF, or about 30% lower than the highest decade—the 1960s. A higher harvest level for national forests was being considered when my research program first reviewed the MAEDC proposal, but we advised against a higher level because of concerns about sustainability.

What is truly unsustainable from ecological, economic, and social perspectives is the low harvest level from national forests. That harvest level has been below 200 MMBF annually since 1995. That harvest level was going down when the lumber and housing markets in the US and other parts of the world were going up and setting record highs.

Without sufficient availability of timber for Montana mills when lumber and housing markets turn around (2, 3, or 5 years from now), we will continue to lose capacity in the state, and that loss of capacity will translate directly into less ability to conduct forest management activities (for all landowners), less ability to do restoration work, less ability for landowners to receive revenue form their land, fewer forest products jobs, less tax revenue for the state, less ability to prevent and manage wildfire, less ability to sequester carbon in durable wood products, less ability to meet local & regional demand for wood products, fewer opportunities for some forest recreation activities, etc. The list goes on.

You know as well as I that the Forest Service cannot turn on a dime and increase the harvest 3-fold overnight. It takes years to do planning, environmental analysis, and project implementation. If the agency were to start planning to increase harvest now and got funding to do it, it will still take two to three years before the wood started coming out of the forest.

There are, however, many good reasons to take steps now to keep the industry intact—to keep options and opportunities available for the future. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the MAEDC proposal is perfect or that it will necessarily cure all ills that currently face Montana’s wood products industry. I simply disagree with Mr. Koehler’s analysis of the proposal.

Todd,
I suppose you have access to ANOTHER credible number that needs to be out there?
How much timber volume has burnt in Montana during these same time frames?

I don't have those numbers at hand, but there are several sources I would ask:
Rocky Mountain Research Station - Missoula Forest Science Lab on UM campus & Fire Lab out by the airport: http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/

Also the Region One office in downtown Missoula should have some figures: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/

The acres & volume burned info probably is probably not readily available on their web sites, but the contact information is there.

2.5 to 2.8 cords of firewood per thousand board feet of softwood saw timber. An interesting number.

Years ago, I was in an elevator with a District Ranger in the US Courthouse in Portland. He was a US witness and I was a witness for the defense in a timber theft case. I casually asked him how many fire wood permits had the Estacada RD of the Mt. Hood NF handed out that year. He gave me a number and I did the math in my head, and said, "Gee, your timber sale volume is almost equal to you fire wood permit volume. Where do you get the wood to fill those firewood permits?"

The Estacade RD was close to Portland, and the Ranger District had over 13,000 fire wood permits for 10 cords each out there from a self-serve permitting process. I was peeved that we loggers were losing decked logs on the weekends to fire wood cutters, and the USFS would do nothing about it.

So my testimony, which did include a reference to fire wood permits that had a potential removal of 45 million board feet of wood from the Ranger District, when the total timber sale volume for the year was not even double that, could result in missing trees and logs from a timber sale, those logs or trees having gone down the road in a wood trailer or pickup bed. If the USFS wasn't watching the forest on weekends and evenings, then how could they conclude a logger had stolen the missing volume? I also think I was there because I had a pre-bid cruise on the sale, and I had not bid on it because one species was way undercruised and the price too high on a recovery or scaled sale.

The US Attorney lost her case, and it only took a couple of years for the fire wood permits to undergo a radical change, with tickets, paid permits, identification of the wood, all because the effort to make fire wood available to anyone needed limits or the public would cut down trees after the blowdown and slash piles were gone. They had to quantify the amount of wood going down the road to town.

Somehow, in this age of WFU and burn outs from two ridges over, someone has to quantify the timber volume being lost from this 100 year growth cycle to benign neglect and arson in the name of safety and saving money on fire suppression costs. And if the USFS will not do it, then some photo interpretation expert will use satellite data obtained from NASA or Google or whoever sells that information, and develop an unimpeachable number that will dismay a segment of taxpayers in this country. If you thought the Donato Paper was a stretch using digital satellite data, then you know that Donato apologists are the proof for the use of data in the same way to provide a number that some will not want to see, and others will spend a lot of time and treasure to discredit. That number, the amount of timber consumed in fire, given a world value (the New Yorker story this week says timber is undervalued as a raw material) in the world market, will open some eyes and will eventually tie up a lot of USFS people in drafting explanations for their mismanagement of The Commons....

Todd, Thanks for taking the time to read my commentary. I'm glad you agree with many of the statements throughout my commentary, including my point that "a new economic model - based on the principles of sustainability is needed."

Unfortunately, I guess we'll just have to disagree that MAEDC's calls (which you clearly seem to support) for "immediate action" to triple logging levels on national forest, double logging levels on state lands and have the state seize control of over a million acres of national forests for even more logging is part of a "new economic model based on sustainability."

And then of course, there's the issue about how all the tax breaks to industry (which will just be made up for by Montana taxpayers) fit into that new, sustainable economic model?

But really, the over-aching fact that you seem to acknowledge at first, but then seem to completely ignore as you attempt to rationalize MAEDC's initiative, is the fact that we are in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The demand for lumber has dropped incredibly and we're in the worst housing slump since the Great Depression. Credit markets have froze up. I heard last night that the US stock market has lost $10 trillion in the past year and American's have lost over $2 trillion in retirement funds. This is not some small bump in the road we are experiencing, Todd. This is a major economic crisis that was brought about by over-consumption and unsustainable development.

So, let me get this straight. Lumber mills in Montana are laying off people because, as Plum Creek's vice president said, "Market prices are depressed and don't currently cover the costs of production." And, as Tricon Timber's president said, "We are getting to the point where we're not getting any offers [for our products]."

Yet, given these significant economic realities, your and MAEDC's solution is for the Forest Service to drop everything they are doing right now to put all their resources towards increasing logging levels on national forests in Montana by 330% so that logging companies can spend money, burn fuel and energy to cut down trees then pay their mill workers to produce lumber products that these mills can't even sell in today's market? And even when the mills are lucky enough to sell the lumber products, the mills only currently get about $190 per thousand board feet of framing lumber, compared with $485 four short years ago.

Can you please explain to me how this is anywhere close to "a new economic model based on the principles of sustainability?" Can you please explain to me how this is sound economic or public lands policy? And since you're so fond of numbers, can you provide readers with an analysis of just how much it will cost us taxpayers to have the Forest Service drop everything to pump out timber sales that currently and for the foreseeable future the lumber markets don't need? 

I'm sorry, Todd, but we just don't buy it. I've spoken with other economic development outfits in Montana and they have similar feelings about MAEDC's proposal as I expressed in my commentary. In fact, I even have an email message from the leader of an economic development outfit saying, "Thanks for saying everything I wanted to but politically can't!"

I went to a Missoula County Commissioner meeting on Sept 25 when MAEDC was trying to get an endorsement and the commission also questioned MAEDC's proposal and the process used to put it together, including one commissioner wondering who would end up paying for all the needed road work/repairs from the industry getting all these tax breaks for fuel taxes, vehicle registration, and allowances for heavier trucks on our roadways.

Ask the Sierra Club or The Wilderness Society what they think about MAEDC's plan or the process that was used to put this plan together. Fact is, we are all in agreement that the MAEDC plan is ill-conceived, not based on economic reality and that the process used to put it together was clearly outside of any of the "collaborative" efforts that are successfully moving forward.

But don't take my word about the process. You sent me a string of emails that included the following email that Dick King of MAEDC sent to state of Montana officials on August 8 of this year. King himself states, "We are attaching the final draft of the recommendations we’ve put together based on input from the industry regarding ways to help Montana’s forest products industry during the current crisis situation."

The fact of the matter is that the first time I heard anything about MAEDC's initiative was during an August 15th meeting with Senator Tester's and Governor Schweitzer's offices. This was after Mr. King already had been meeting with the timber industry for nearly a year and had already passed along his "final draft of the recommendations put together based on input from the industry." Let me be perfectly clear: I was never contacted by anyone from MAEDC about having a look at this initiative before the final draft was passed along to the state and other elected officials.

On August 29, I wrote Mr. King a lengthy email (which I'm happy to provide anyone a copy of, if they wish) in which I pointed out numerous concerns with the MAEDC proposal, including some aspects of the 18 "Recommendations for Immediate Action," which we're based on wrong information. In that email I also requested a meeting with Mr. King, which we finally had on September 25 due to our competing schedules.

At this September 25th meeting, which I think lasted about two hours, I again went into specific detail about our concerns with much of the initiative and how the initiative appears divorced from economic reality. I also went into specific details about some of the solutions that we would support, such as making sure all homes/businesses built in Montana are made with Montana wood.

At the end of this meeting I was invited for a meeting on September 29 between MAEDC and the Sierra Club, The WIlderness Society, MT Trout Unlimited and the Clark Fork Coalition. At this meeting I again went into specific detail about our concerns with much of the initiative and how the initiative appears divorced from economic reality. This same basic message was delivered by the all other environmental groups.

Later that same day I attended the MAEDC meeting with Missoula County Commissioners, the details of which I have already provided. I should, however, mention that at this meeting, Mr. King began dropping the names of environmental groups such as WIldWest and the Sierra Club - and even other economic development organizations such as MCDC, to imply MAEDC was either working with or had the support of these groups. I had to point out that this was a completely over-statement.

You know why, Todd? Two reasons. First, Mr. King's email confirms that they had already sent their "final draft of the recommendations we’ve put together based on input from the industry" to state officials, and I assume legislators and the Montana Congressional delegation (since I got the MAECD plan from Sen. Tester's office).

And Second, while Dick King met w/ me (at my request, not his) and also met a few days later with the above-mentioned environmental groups, you know what, Todd? NOT ONE WORD HAS CHANGED in any of the 18 "Recommendations for Immediate Action." Not one word changed, Todd.

So you'll have to forgive me if I take exception at your notion that the MAEDC effort has been a collaborative effort or that MAEDC met with WildWest and other environmental groups "to solicit feedback on the initiative." They got feedback alright: We all seriously questioned and/or opposed their initiative but they haven't changed one word in the list of "Recommendations for Immediate Action", which they had long since sent off to state officials, legislators and the Montana Congressional delegation anyway. If you ask me - or the other environmental groups or other economic development outfits - that's simply irresponsible behavior on MAEDC's part.

Use of timber has changed. Utilized tree size is greatly reduced. And here we are still arguing about cutting dimension lumber when the biggest issue for forest health is how to access, provide and use sub-merch gleanings that prepare a forest for friendly fire. I hear nothing in the is discussion about biomass fuels, generators, distillation for biofuels.

Leave the trees, on public lands, that can withstand fire if the crowns are adequately separated. And remove the rest of the wood for new, innovative use. And the added growth on thinned stands will sequester carbon, and allow the forest to age more gracefully than subjecting it to stand removal fire in the WFU process of spending billions to "watch" a fire until it presents a clear and present danger to lives and property far from its origin.

But nothing, ZERO, happens in Wilderness but total incineration at worst, and some fire benefit but a vast load of air pollution and greenhouse gases in the best of situations. At present, management options, direction, and intent are clouded to say the least. People are looking for answers that help society more than fire, which currently is draining the USFS budget. Time to haul some trash. Put some people to work. Find uses for wood fiber. The University used as a machine to stop work can be challenged to create ways to increase work.

Matt, has it ever occurred to you that the vision you put forth isn't shared by anyone of significance? Except Judge Molloy?

Dave,

I have called for "a new economic model - based on the principles of sustainability and local and regional self-sufficiency."

I have called for "a future where local farmers and ranchers grow our food, Montana workers produce clean and green energy for our homes and the ingenuity of our businesses combines with the skills of our workforce to protect and restore the environment, while also producing locally-made products that enhance the quality of our lives."

I have called for "working together to ensure that every home and business built in Montana is made out of Montana wood products."

And I have called for working together "on sustainable solutions that will benefit our state’s economy, workers and environment."

These are hardly radical solutions, Dave. If, as you state, this vision "isn't shared by anyone of significance" then there is truly no hope for humanity.

Fortunately, I think most people are hungry for the type of solutions and the type of change I have outlined above. The current economic crisis caused by over-consumption and unsustainable development just confirms it how desperately sustainable solutions and positive change is needed.

A new economic model based on farmer's markets and other neo-luddite thinking that ignores the fact that such things would never work in cities.
Forcing Montanans to only buy wood made here? Now, while that sure as heckfire is my preference, I doubt our existing industry could survive on that purchaser pool. Closed economies don't do real well...example one: Albania.
But I guess that's your intent there, too.
This is impractical, pseudo-utopianist-socialism wrapped up in platitudes. How do you maintain modern infrastructure, including modern communications, health care, transportation -- the list is long, in such a regime? You don't.
Montana is inherently suited to produce certain goods for export. I say certain, not all. We'd stink at competing with orange and avocado producers. But we're great at making cows and the best wheat on the planet. We're not too shabby at growing sticks on mountainsides and turning those into products wanted and needed not just here in the state, but around the world. Sure, Oregon might be better at it, but they can't serve the world alone, and that leaves a place at the table for Montana -- a place that environmentalists, empowered by well-intended but shoddy laws that Congress lacks the guts to reform, have fought to deny Montana -- sadly, with way more success than should be.
We could have fine, well-managed productive forests and be stumbling through a downturn right now, the economy is not perfect all the time. We'd buckle down for a while and hope things will perk up soon.
Instead, a vital part of our economy and our culture is on its knees, neat little towns are husks of what they once were, the forests are black and red everywhere you look, and those still green are slicked off and for sale to amenity migrants -- the only value left.
Does that have anything to do with "sustainable solutions that will benefit our state’s economy, workers and environment." Heck no it doesn't, and it never will.

"Matt, has it ever occurred to you that the vision you put forth isn't shared by anyone of significance?"

Dave, you are my hero.

Hello Dave,

I wondered if you caught a recent Time interview with Senator Obama? Sure seems like Obama is supporting a new, green economy based on the principle of sustainability in the exchange below. In fact, he says it's his "No. 1 priority" when he gets into office.

Since you have claimed in the comments section that my vision for sustainability "isn't shared by anyone of significance" I'm wondering if you consider Senator Obama insignificant?

After all, by my calculation, in 10 days Senator Obama's name will change to Mr. President Elect.

"[Obama] wants to launch an "Apollo project" to build a new alternative-energy economy. His rationale for doing so includes some hard truths about the current economic mess: "The engine of economic growth for the past 20 years is not going to be there for the next 20. That was consumer spending. Basically, we turbocharged this economy based on cheap credit." But the days of easy credit are over, Obama said, "because there is too much deleveraging taking place, too much debt." A new economic turbocharger is going to have to be found, and "there is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy ... That's going to be my No. 1 priority when I get into office." (source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1853025-4,00.html)

Right, so let's subsidize hand crews working in substandard conditions to hand clear brush at a zillion dollars an acre and haul it by donkey to a steam boiler for a kindergarten.
The Apollo Project is just an eco-version of WPA, demanding massive subsidies for unnecessary but oh-so-PC projects. Never mind that much of the same net beneficial effect to forested landscapes could be, and should be done, on a profit model using modern techniques, equipment, and skilled, experienced, non-transient manpower. But nooooooooooooooooooooooo.
If Obama is elected, our forests are just going to march toward their doom that much faster. I bet Gloria Flora is the new Chief...

Dave, You never did quite get around to answering this question:

Since you have claimed in the comments section that my vision for sustainability "isn't shared by anyone of significance" I'm wondering if you consider Senator Obama insignificant?

However, since under President Obama "our forests are just going to march toward their doom that much faster," I'm guessing you recognize his significance.

And by the way, who is advocating that we "subsidize hand crews working in substandard conditions to hand clear brush at a zillion dollars an acre and haul it by donkey to a steam boiler for a kindergarten."

Grow up Dave...if you don't want a future based on sustainability, run on green energy and geared towards more local and regional self-sufficiency so be it. More of the same ain't a path I'm willing to travel.

Wouldn't it be interesting to fast-forward 100 years in America and to see how future generations view your constant mocking of those who are working towards a more sustainable future?

Obama is an intellectual pinhead. Couldn't even write his own book.
As for the "sustainable" model, the one you envision requires sustained subsidy from a system that is pritnear collapse at this time thanks to fantasists that don't (or won't, as seems the case) comprehend the economic fundamentals of modern societies -- free OR totalitarian.
There are SO many viable technologies you oppose out of hand, and so many ways of making this stuff PROFIT, and produce SUSTAINED net beneftis that you refuse to consider, it's no longer funny.

Below are snips from the AP article "Lumber industry threatened by glut of unsold homes." The entire article is available at: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081023/lumber_struggles.html?.v=1

Lumber industry threatened by glut of unsold homes
Thursday October 23, 2008
By Timothy R. Brown, Associated Press Writer

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) -- The glut of homes in foreclosure, vacant, or stuck on the market has the nation's lumber industry hanging on by a limb.

Since housing starts hit their peak in mid-2005, demand for lumber used in floors, home frames, and cabinets has declined sharply, and experts say the number of unsold homes would need to significantly decrease before homebuilders commit to building new ones.

Glenn Hughes, a forestry expert with the Mississippi State University Extension Service, said many loggers are faced with difficult decisions. A global economic slowdown, tight credit, and the housing bust are hitting sawmills hard and shutting down logging companies.

"Boy, surviving this downturn. I have talked to a lot of people who have been in the business for many, many, years -- this is probably the roughest they have seen it," Hughes said.

The brutal economics of the housing crisis don't appear to be letting up, continuing to drag down demand for both hardwood lumber, for floors and cabinets, and softwood, used in home frames.

Even if home buyers miraculously returned to the market to purchase unsold homes, Al Schuler, a research economist with the USDA Forest Service, says it may be a little too late to lift up the lumber industry because the inventory of unsold homes is "a huge number."

"We are going to be building smaller houses. We are going to see lot more 2,000 square-foot homes rather than 5,000 square foot," he said.

Snips from the article are below. For the full article visit:
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2008/10/25/news/doc49022a91e76cf893775265.txt

Timber industry falls on tough times
Friday, October 24, 2008

ASTORIA (AP) - A spokesman for Oregon forest owners and wood manufacturers says the economic meltdown is going to be harder on the state's timber industry than was the early 1980s recession that caused a major shakeout.

Ray Wilkeson, legislative director of the Oregon Industries Council, also said the situation caused by the nation's weak housing market will get worse before it gets better.

"The worst thing is we don't really know when we're coming out of it," he said. "There are more foreclosures predicted."

The crisis has brought home construction to a virtual standstill and decreased the demand for lumber.

"Until the housing market stabilizes and the oversupply of housing is absorbed, we'll see new construction stay pretty bleak," he said. "There's only limited demand for the product at a very reduced price."

"Nobody really wants the lumber right now," said Steve Zika, chief executive officer of Hampton Lumber. "Prices are at historic lows.

What's the point of this, Matt? Are you HAPPY that the economy is falling down around our ears? Are you trying to shift blame away from all those lawsuits, all those delays, that left a whacking lot of companies that would otherwise survive a downturn without reserves to weather the storm?
Or is this part of a "give up, you're doomed anyway" propaganda move on your part?
The markets are a factor, but so is constant political attack and obstructionism. If people hate what you do, and they have power no matter their numbers (thank you Don Molloy) or motivations, that hatred manifest is going to affect the fundamental health of your business.

Dave: My "point" is to provide accurate information regarding the economic crisis and how that has affected housing and lumber markets. I believe one cannot propose effective "solutions" if one does not accurately and honestly assess "problems."

For example:

Below are snips taken from the Western Wood Products Association's lumber supply and demand forecast.

U.S. Financial Crisis Will Delay Recovery of Housing, Lumber Markets until 2010
SOURCE: Western Wood Products Association
<http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-financial-crisis-delay-recovery/story.aspx?guid={323BF266-93C2-489B-81BF-295FFCFA16D0}&dist=hppr>

PORTLAND, Ore., Oct 21, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The historic downturn in lumber demand will likely extend another year until the American financial system and housing market can be repaired, according to a new lumber supply and demand forecast from Western Wood Products Association.

According to the lumber trade association, lumber demand is expected to drop 15 percent to 44.3 billion board feet this year, then fall another 3 percent to 43 billion board feet in 2009. In just three years, demand for lumber has plummeted by some 20 billion board feet -- more than what Western mills [in twelve western states] produced in all of 2005.

Housing starts are forecast to reach just 993,000 in 2008 and decline again to 933,000 next year. Since new housing typically accounts for more than 40 percent of annual lumber demand, the more than 50 percent decline in starts from 2005 has been a body blow to lumber mills.

The volume of lumber used in new home construction is expected to total 11.8 billion board feet in 2008 -- less than half of the 23.3 billion board feet used just two years earlier.

The WWPA forecast calls for housing markets and lumber demand to grow in 2010, but cautions that any recovery will be slow.

Snip from the Lewiston Morning Tribune http://www.lmtribune.com/ (account subscription needed to access entire article)

Almost 600 Potlatch Corp. employees, including 220 in Lewiston, are temporarily being laid off as five of the company's seven wood products mills take down time because of sluggish housing starts.

"The wood products market is at a 25-year low now and the amount of orders from our customers is not improving, so we unfortunately have no choice but to balance our product (inventory) with demand," said Matt Van Vleet, Potlatch's Lewiston spokesman.

2x4 and 2x6 studs at $135/mbf fob mill....random length doug fir 2x4, #2 and better, $150/mbf....that is the market. and even at those prices, little is selling. Those are 1970 lumber prices...from logs and logging developed by $3.50 diesel, 400 mile log hauls, $18 an hour wages, into mills with tens of millions spent on upgrades to machinery and software. It is also a millions of dollars lost monthly. It is the price of an industry dying. And a public celebrating the death. I guess Henry Kaiser's post WWII dream of aluminum houses is perhaps possible except that most of the aluminum plants have closed as Starbucks and McDonalds outbid them for the power.

Weyerhaeuser has opened their new mill near Lebanon, Oregon, that will cut 2" dimension on a 24/7/365 basis if they run it like the mill in Cottage Grove it is modeled after. One shift is 13 hours fri.,sat., and sun. for 39 hours total, and 4 days off. Spaghetti mill. And 600,000 acres of fee land to feed it. They can clear cut, spray Oust and plant trees, and be back logging in 30 years. Even the deer have left their tree farms.

But when this all falls out, and there is less US lumber producing capacity, fewer jobs, more of a lumber monopoly, more importation of lumber from environmentally less vigilant areas of the world, please tell me how this, as Martha Stewart puts it, "is a good thing."

By actual statistical computation, by graduate foresters and biometricians, 375,000 acres of wildland fire in Oregon produces more greenhouse gas and particulate matter into the atmosphere than all man made sources. The equivalent of almost 10 million autos running 24/7/365. That is huge. Add to that the soil loss to the fire plume of a researched and measured 1", plus all organic matter in the soil, and most microgranisms, plus a chemical change in the soil making it water repellant, and I have yet to see the "good" of "fire is natural." Those numbers make Idaho and Montana the new Pittsburgs, Clevelands, of the West. We might not be logging, but we are actively managing our forests to lose their heritage trees, the old growth, the old growth species, and add vast amounts of air pollution in some sort of subverted Mark Rey plant to "save" money. And all at a time when old growth is not a suitable raw material for over 95% of the milling capacity out there at the moment. The old growth trees are too big to fit in the mills now configured and managed on the recovery of every possible aspect of the log fiber going into the mill. At a time when sawdust for mulch and hog fuel is now worth more than wood chips are to a pulp mill. Upside down, this woods products world. And as long as it is upside down, there is no upcoming economic recovery in a country that does not willingly look for new natural resources, and does willingly export its manufacturing jobs overseas. Selling post cards and sno-cones three months a year to well paid public employees on continual vacation does not an economy make.

The Forest Products situation is a tragedy for our economy. If you take a hard look, you will see that since the demise of public land logging, our ability to provide meaningful employment in rural areas of the West has declined greatly, leaving behind the McMansion economy that was built on a bad economic model and has now failed us. The election has told us to take the money of those who have it and redistribute it. To buy more imported goods? Export more of our money and jobs?

After the USFS has burned the forests and bird life is a monculture of woodpeckers, the last of the passerines having been ground to feathers by wind turbines, or collision killed on cell towers and urban midnight suns on a stormy spring night, will we all stand in the circle of life and sing our song of green enlightenment, of no more logging or mining or drilling, of our love of melamine in our Cheerios? Time will tell.

“It's not supply that's the concern. They have lots of logs. The concern going forward is consumer demand for the product.”
- Shawn Church, editor of lumber trade magazine Random Lengths.

Loggers, haulers hit hard by slump
By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian (1/13/09)

Entire story at:

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/01/13/news/local/news04.txt

Your snapshot in time, Matthew. The first order of business, on a sunday photo op session for the new Senate, was passing a Wilderness bill to protect 2 million public acres from development. What development? The land does not have roads. The banks don't loan to the people who don't have jobs, and they are legion. Home building is a bust. Logging and sawmilling are a bust. Aluminum, manufacturing, hi-tech, you name it, and the jobs are going away and not being replaced.

You gotta love the Senate. Eye on the ball. Palestine in flames, Afghan Taliban attacking Pakistani Army installations, Somalia high jacking ships at sea (US Marines? I thought that was their job to prevent high seas piracy), our economy in shambles, Wall Street crooks, Stolen and Sold Senate seats, bankrupt California, and they work one of the two days a week they can muster a vote to take up Wilderness? Poseurs. Fakes. Strutting Roosters. Hair Plugged Dilettantes. A great frigging waste of time and legislative effort.

My paper this morning has Cessna, Precision Castparts, Shane Jewelry stores, all cutting jobs by hundreds and thousands, and Shane into bankruptcy. Tomorrow will bring others. Those jobs pay income taxes to support our government. And every single one lost is a revenue loss to government. The thing that is no longer sustainable is government itself in its present scope and form.

2 Million acres of Wilderness is nothing more than land to burn, to not fight fire in, to not keep open trails in. The benign neglect of government and Wilderness, National Parks, is the norm, and this addition of Wilderness in Oregon, does not replace the vegetation lost to Wilderness wildfire, heritage old growth forests incinerated, just in this decade. And, I find having a President from a distinct minority signing a bill to protect Wilderness, a process of denial of aboriginal existence, use, and landscape management prior to the President's ethnic background coming to North America, a sad commentary. That the Senate added expenses to the USFS for signs and maps and all the other added expenses of Wilderness designation is deplorable, but expected. The can print money, after all, which us mortals may not. My opinion.

Matthew, you are spot on by saying there is little demand for lumber and thus little need for additional forest resources. Now. I like the pessimism of that position. There will never be a recovery, an uptick in demand. The US needs no more natural resource stocks, and in fact, fewer. And, with a good plague or some sort of bird flu epidemic, ebola, something of that nature, you could very well be correct.

Right now the unsustainable resource in this country is money for government, and government expansion. We are an income taxing, property taxing, sales taxing country. Add to that the myriad taxes on use and development called "fees" and "licenses" and "franchise tax" or "use tax", and this list is long to endless, so you do have to understand that they are based on economic vigor or at least stasis, to continue to come in at prior rates. Not happening. Unsustainable. So a country that went broke mortgaging its future on an individual basis, now wants to engage in the very same practice on a national, collective basis. God help us!

By the very same reasons we don't need more logs right now, we also need less regulation, less government expense, less government ownership of resources and access, less red tape and regulation of about everything except banking and finance. And that is not going to happen. Senator Schumer of NYC protects Wall Street because Wall Street wages, salaries and bonus money, as well as profits, are taxed by NYC to run their featherbedded union public workforce, from public "safety" to picking up the garbage--sometimes-and clearing the streets of snow, OD'd addicts and dog shit. Chuckie is protecting the revenue stream.

And speaking of revenue streams, how are the NGO's doing since Madoff and Wall Street reduced the Trusts and Foundation net worths by half? Is there still a goodly amount of tax write off money coming to fund whatever round of environmental lawsuits that are planned for this next four years? Is Paulson taking good care of TNC? Baucus have any more timberland brokering deals coming down the earmarked path for TPL? The private sector is broke, and their lobby groups are broke, too. I guess it should be smooth sailing for the tax exempt NGOs. Nothing like government by and for government, financed by government.