The Myth of the More Logging Silver Bullet
By Matthew Koehler, Unfiltered 8-13-08
 | |
|
Earlier in the week, a timber industry-friendly economist from the University of Montana's Bureau of Business and Economic Research, claimed that Montana’s timber industry will face tough times unless we cut down more of our national forests. While this argument is often trotted out by industry supporters, let's look at the current economic reality.
In case anyone’s failed to notice, the overall U.S. economy is in serious trouble. Specific to the timber industry, the collapse of the housing market has resulted in a staggering drop in demand for lumber.
Earlier this year, Stimson Timber Company’s vice president told mill workers at their now defunct Bonner mill, “We are in the midst of one of the worst housing markets of our working lifetimes - most producers simply cannot sell the lumber they have made.” Meanwhile, the Western Wood Products Association reported, “we’re now in the steepest two-year decline in lumber consumption ever. It’s left us with way too much lumber on the market for current demand.”
Throw in nearly $5 a gallon for diesel - resulting in a doubling of transportation costs - and couple that with lumber prices that are nearly half what they were two years ago, and it’s easy to see why this sector of the economy is struggling.
Perhaps these economic realities are the reason that many national forest and state land timber sales are going without any bids. Yet, we should still believe that logging more public land is the answer?
We need look no further than Canada, where the wood products industry in British Columbia has laid off more than 11,000 forestry workers in the past year, despite the fact that Canadian timber companies have nearly unlimited access to cheap, heavily taxpayer-subsidized timber on public lands.
The fact of the matter is that most of Montana’s mills were built during a time of (unnaturally) cheap timber, gas and wholly unsustainable logging practices on public and private lands. It’s simply unrealistic to think that such large, centralized mills would weather the 21st century’s profound economic realities unscathed.
This is especially true given that most of the Montana timber mills ship their finished products all around the country, thereby incurring huge transportation costs, as well as having to deal with the brunt of the housing market collapse that has - so far - largely missed Montana.
Make no mistake, the WildWest Institute supports jobs in the woods and in the mills through a comprehensive, scientifically-based restoration program that would repair degraded watersheds, protect existing wildlands and old-growth and also protect communities from wildfire. However, to think that the existing mills in Montana were somehow built in the 1960s and 70s to restore our national forests is either the height of ignorance or a good example of revisionist history -- perhaps both.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
You wrote that I "know nothing about economics or the timber industry."
Please explain to the readers anything I wrote above that isn't true in terms of the economic situation facing the timber industry. You can attack me all you want Ellen, but that isn't going to convince millions of people to start constructing completely unsustainable 4,000 square foot homes in the wildland-"urban" interface or make the fuel to run all the heavy equipment any cheaper...because that's what your industry needs right now. As I pointed out above, you folks aren't even bidding on many national forest and state land timber sales.
Did you not see these comments? "“We are in the midst of one of the worst housing markets of our working lifetimes - most producers simply cannot sell the lumber they have made....we’re now in the steepest two-year decline in lumber consumption ever. It’s left us with way too much lumber on the market for current demand.”
Go ahead and blame all your problems on lawsuits and the citizens that file them to hold the government accountable and try and force the agency to better manage our public lands. Go ahead and try and convience people that small non-profit organizations such as ours have no support...I know to truth and I know plenty of woods workers and Forest Service employees who are supportive of our efforts to protect and restore our national forests.
But remember, any current lawsuit against a timber sale in Montana - and to be honest, there are only a handful - is a direct result of two things.
First, would be the timber industry's own greed and bad management, which was responsible for the out of control logging and roadbuilding levels on Montana's national forests and private lands during the 1960s to early 1990s. These unsustainable logging levels and poor logging practices led directly to plummeting watershed health, the near elimination of ancient, old growth forests, loss of millions of acres of roadless wildlands and the decline in wildlife habitat for important species such as grizzly bears and bull trout. The origins of most successful lawsuits today are the transgressions of the timber industry in the recent past. Never forget that.
Second would be the Forest Service's own political-motivated agenda. We shouldn't forget that it was the Forest Service (together with some key members of Congress who took campaign contributions from your industry and then passed favorable laws) who was a willing accomplice to the timber industry's "management" of our public lands. Even today, while some improvements have been made, the agency seems too often to ignore the best science and true common ground in favor of a “so sue us” mentality. With former timber industry lobbyist and closed-room meeting specialist, Mark Rey, in charge of the agency is this really any surprise?
Truth be known, if the timber industry is looking to blame anyone for timber sale lawsuits that have reigned them in and led to slowly improving management of our public lands, they should start by looking in the mirror and not point fingers at the members of the public who have held them accountable.
Finally, as I also pointed out above, the WildWest Institute supports jobs in the woods and in the mills through a comprehensive, scientifically-based restoration program that would repair degraded watersheds, protect existing wildlands and old-growth and also protect communities from wildfire. People can learn more at our website http://www.wildwestinstitute.org .
Ellen also displays amazingly "fuzzy math" concerning the numbers of lawsuits. I believe she is simply adding up the number of "court actions" (ie every time paperwork is filed between lawyers) and not the actual number of lawsuits. As the executive director of the WildWest Institute one would assume I'd have some handle on the number of lawsuits our organization has on-going. And again, if Ellen is looking to blame anyone for these lawsuits, she better look in the mirror first, the reasons for which I provide above.
For any readers interested in a more detailed discussion of the issue concerning lawsuits of timber sales in Montana I'd encourage folks to check out the comment section at this previous post.
Finally, perhaps Ellen could explain to readers why she attempted to sabotage the WildWest Institute's DeBorgia Community Wildfire Protection Work week? After all, it was Ellen who personally called a local, Mineral County mill owner and logging contractor who was helping us out with this great community event. Ellen berated the mill owner for working with the WildWest Institute on a community fuel reduction project that focused work around the homes of the homes of elderly members of the community. Ellen may end up denying her back-stabbing on this one, but I got the info directly from the mill owner who wasn't all that happy (an understatement, as he was steamed) with Ellen's meddling. I'm sure we all look forward to your explanation, Ellen.
Bravo, Ellen! It is a comic treat to read your strident and utterly daft defense of a rapacious and dying industry which would never have flourished at all without massive infusions of coporate welfare from a corrupt and captive government, as if it actually were a heroic and noble enterprise.
The timber racket, propped up and sustained for decades by the U.S. Lumber Service with endless below cost sales at public expense is now flou8ndering and dying in Montana because it can't competete in the world market, and she wants not an adjustment or retrenchment based on creative planning, but rather more extraction, more cutting, to create more backlog of lumber that can't be sold.
Go get 'em, Ms. Engsted. Hammer those obstructionists with the wooden mallet of your relentless logic: when you can't sell what you've got, make more of it! Charge!
As far as I can tell from researching numerous sources, the current collapse of the US housing market is due to:
1) years of unsustainable, over-building that bordered on complete speculation by developers, relators, bankers, et al.
2) predatory mortgage practices (I mean, was it really responsible to give $300,000 home loans to people that didn't even have to provide verification of their income?)
3) an overall weakening US economy (the first big depression of the 21st century?), which certainly hasn't been helped by Bush's decision to spend hundreds of billions of tax dollars invading Iraq.
I have never seen one word written anywhere that the current housing market problems are due to a lack of logging on national forests or a lack of wood products in general.
Therefore, I have a hard time understanding what I or my non-profit forest protection organization is supposed to do to, in your words, "help the current housing market?" Please enlighten us KittyDitty.
Enlightenment can only come from within.
In Idaho, timber harvest on the National Forest fell from around 800 million feet in the late 1970’s to its current level of below 70 million feet. During the same period the number of sawmills declined from 133 to 35 mills and capacity declined from over 2 billion feet in 1979 to 1.2 billion in 2006.
These industry trends are the similar across all western states once heavily reliant upon a raw material supply from the National Forest. They occurred during a period of increasing consumption and rising lumber prices while monoculture plantations boomed in the south, less regulated harvest on private non-industrial domestic lands increased, and Canadian imports skyrocketed.
During this period it has been apparent that the decline in timber availability in an area results in an increase competition for raw material thereby increasing its cost and ultimately reducing profitability. This has led some to believe that the laws of supply and demand do in fact apply to the forest products industry.
The recent decline in consumption for softwood lumber as a result of fewer housing starts hardly invalidates the relationship of the declining availability of raw material and a the negative impact on the Western forest products industry.
Debating the pros and cons of timber harvest on the National Forests is a fair and separate debate. Debating whether a decline in harvest on NF lands has adversely affected the western timber industry is like debating the utility of an accordion in a gun fight.
I mean, Paul, Steve and Matt?
The "restoration" programs WildWest claims to support are not the sort of work that would ever be self-sustaining, in that they require government subsidy -- or even particularly ecologically effective in terms of getting the wildfire fuels situation under some kind of control.
The tawdry and deceptive claim that mechanization has killed timber jobs misses the real point, that the remaining jobs are much safer and pay the individual worker more for better working conditions. Bucking trees with a hand saw would be a lousy job if you had to actually make a living doing it in this day and age -- using 1910 methods to make a living means a 1910 life.
And the Bean Counter brings up something through the back door. What's happening to those millions upon millions of feet of wood not being harvested? Piling up in places like the West Fork of the Bitt. When it goes, most of it will go up our noses or down the river, that's the way the soils are.
Finally, speaking of "cheap timber" -- once planted or germinated, trees grow for free, pretty much. Now, what is cheaper...
1. Burn it all down, including other infrastructure that has value held by others (current Forest Service model), or
2. Log the stuff, using modern methods, capture value, capture carbon, provide employment, manage habitat for balanced attributes, finance amenity infrastructure, prepare ground for defensible fuels AND make money?
Duh.
But again, we're talking the anticapitalist Left.
So, Dave, let me get this straight. You're against sustainable, restoration work because it would require government subsidy, right? Are you unaware of how absurd your position is?
The corporate timber racket would have collapsed from its own wastefulness and inefficiency decades ago if it hadn't been coddled and supported by the government--i.e., the Lumber Service--selling it vast tracts of our public timber far below cost.
What that means, Dave, is that you and I and all taxpayers have been propping up this transparent hustle for the last hundred years, paying for the obscene profits that the tycoon owners and big money stockholders have made turning our once vast forests into hammered sun-baked clearcuts. Get up in a plane and take a look at Northwest Montana.
And your farcical notion that take-no-prisoners logging either benefits the forest in some mystical way, or "controls" fire is so far behind the established scientific curve and current common knowledge that you should probably not embrarrass yourself any further advertising your ignorance on that subject.
The timber racket has always fattened on corporate welfare, period. Externalize the cost and internalize the profits is what Corporate Socialism is all about, Dave. The first principle of free market fiscal reponsibility is no subsidies and no bail-outs for private interests.
It's long past time for the timber racket to be taken off the dole and made to operate the way ordinary working Americans do.
We don't need any more rip-and-run extractive industry, taking Montana's bounty and leaving us nothing but the depleted, degraded wreckage of their destructive piracy.
Whaddaya think of the Montana Legacy Project? Got a better alternative? I do.
The best solution to the checkerboard nightmare would be if Congress condemned all railroad lands, restore it to public ownership, all in one bill. Ideally, the bill's language would resemble that used to build the wall in Texas and SW to keep illegals from jobs in the U.S. Not possible.
...next best: (offshore) Land and Water Fund money to purchase the same lands. Possible, but only if Democrats quit trying to be Republicans.
Legacy is a distant 3rd option which panders to congressional "state's rights" zelots and local dependent souls who advocate Clintonesque make-work welfare.
You see, I am not an economist and have never claimed to be one. I am, however, a Certified Forester, a research assistant professor at UM’s School of Business Administration, and the director of the forest industry research program at the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER). I do study forest economics as well as the history, current conditions, and outlook for the forest products industry in Montana and the western U.S. I have conducted research in forest ecology, silviculture, and environmental ethics, and I have been published in Forest Science, Natural Areas Journal, Forest Products Journal, Journal of Forestry, Western Journal of Applied Forestry, and numerous Forest Service research station publications. Additionally, I have two degrees in forestry and a philosophy degree.
I am also confident that the knowledge, academic transcripts, peer-reviewed publication record, research experience, and professional credentials possessed by me and my staff would exceed a reasonable person’s definition of ignorance, particularly in the fields of forestry, wood products, and forest economics.
So, while I may not be an economist, as my education and experience clearly show, I am also not a lawyer. I do, however, detect a libelous pattern in Mr. Koehler’s written responses to the press coverage my research program receives. When the preponderance of factual information repeatedly fails to support Mr. Koehler’s arguments, he first attacked the integrity of my research by falsely suggesting that I was chosen by the industry to do their bidding. After I called him on that misstatement of fact, he now attacks the credibility of my research by attributing a false argument to me, implying I am ignorant, and accusing me of trying to revise history.
I find these tactics unprofessional, desperate, and ultimately unsuccessful, because not only will I correct his factual misstatements about me, my research, and the profession of forestry, but I will continue to present a stronger, historically accurate, and pro-active argument—an argument based on sound research methodologies, vetted by the peer-reviewed publication process, and consistent with the ecological, economic, and social realities of 21st Century Montana.
It is not my desire to see our national forests “cut down.” I do not advocate a return to the liquidation of old growth and 600 to 800 million board feet per year timber harvest levels of the 1960s, ‘70s, and late ‘80s. I do however suggest ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable management of national forests. And I think that management would result in a timber harvest level on national forests in Montana that is substantially—perhaps 2 to 4 times—higher than the current harvest level (i.e., less than 100 million board feet annually). It is my opinion that an increase in harvest volume would readily develop as a by-product of restoring and otherwise actively managing our national forest timberlands.
I would suggest that priority areas for restoration or hazard reduction treatments include those that 1) show a strong departure in structure and function from sustainable conditions given expected climate, disturbance, and human interaction; 2) pose immediate threats to communities, municipal watersheds, and other critical infrastructure; and 3) are logistically and financially feasible under prevailing market conditions. I would also suggest using the combinations of silvicultural techniques that emulate historical disturbance patterns while achieving desired future forest conditions in a cost-effective manner. And I most certainly believe that the agency must continue to follow the laws and policies that govern national forest management, including MUSYA, NFMA, NEPA, etc.
I do not believe that the mills built in Montana 20, 30, or 50 years ago were built with the intent to restore national forests. Rather, I think they were probably built to make money for their owners by manufacturing products that were, and continue to be, in demand in Montana, the U.S., and throughout the world. Those mills that remain and the new ones built since are, however, a vital component of sustainable forest management today and in the future. The timber-processing facilities, loggers, and forestry professionals in our state are the means by which vegetation management is accomplished. They are the willing providers of services, buyers of timber, and suppliers of wood products we consume. It is in this sense that the wood products infrastructure is critical to accomplishing forest restoration and maintaining sustainable forests—without a sufficiently sized and diversified infrastructure, sustainable forest management will not be financially or logistically feasible.
There can be no doubt that the ongoing downturn in the U.S. housing market has impacted lumber, plywood, and other segments of the wood products industry here in Montana, throughout the U.S., and in Canada. Press releases by my program and articles from numerous other sources have indicated as much. Astute observers of the broader trends in wood products, timber harvest levels, and forestry in the western U.S. also recognize the importance of forest management activities on federal lands for a variety of societal and ecological reasons and the importance of a stable, reliable supply of wood for the industry.
For those genuinely interested in historical or current information on the forest products industry, forest economics, forest management, and forest restoration in Montana and other western states, I suggest visiting the BBER’s web site (http://www.bber.umt.edu), reading for yourselves the information my program has produced, and contacting me with additional questions or information requests. If you find that you disagree with our findings or conclusions, we can discuss alternative information and interpretations. However, I would advise against trying to initiate a professional exchange of ideas by making arguments that rely on false premises, inane reasoning, and personal attacks.
I appreciate Mr. Morgan's perspective. Perhaps NW could prevail upon him to write a column from time to time.
Ok, but please explain to everyone just how the "preponderance of factual information repeatedly fails to support [my] arguments."
Except for your over-sensitivity to being called an "economist" (which, by the way, is defined - in part - as "individual who may study, develop, and apply theories and concepts from economics and write about economic policy") I fail to see how the "factual information" fails to support my arguments regarding the timber industry, housing market collapse, transportation costs, national forest management, etc.
You go on to claim that you will "correct [my] factual misstatements [about ] the profession of forestry." Could you please explain what are my supposed "factual misstatements about the profession of forestry?"
You conclude your comment by inferring that I have made "arguments that rely on false premises, inane reasoning...." Again, Mr. Morgan, except for your over-sensitivity with being referred to as an "economist," could you please provide examples to everyone of where my arguments above rely on "false premises" and "inane reasoning?" I look forward to seeing your concrete examples that support your allegations.
Moving on, the other day I received a copy of a new report from the folks at the Montana Community Development Corporation titled, "A New Business Plan: Moving Forest Businesses to Long Term Environmental and Economic Sustainability."
For anyone interested in these issues, I would highly suggest that you pick up a copy, as it contains one of the more honest assessments of the situation in Montana that I've seen. The simple fact that the report is titled "A New Business Plan" suggests - counter to Mr. Morgan's assertion - that the current timber industry in Montana is not, by and large, equipped for "long term environmental and economic sustainability" or for restoring our national forests.
One part of the report particularly stuck out in light of all of the comments above. It's under the section "The need for a new timber business model" (again, note the word "new"):
"It will be natural and logical to hear and consider somewhat simple solutions to the woes facing Montana timber mills. One might be, "open up the National Forest System timber treasure chest, and at very low cost." Another idea could be, "provide financial resources to bridge mills through the current down cycle." But these types of solutions ignore the perfect storm of globalization and new environmental realities that have changed the entire operating environment for Montana timber businesses. Unilateral supply solutions, or short-term financial aid packages, assume that the timber business hasn't changed. Therefore they are like a Band-Aid solution for a patient presenting a compound fracture. It may be important to stop the bleeding, but you won't save the patient."
Further in the report, under the section, "What are we working with?" it states:
"750 MMBF - Montana's public and private forestlands have consistently supplied about 750 million board feet of supply over the past 10-15 years. While there will probably be a moderate decrease in this number over the next 10 years, Montana has supply, and this supply will be used in one form or another by businesses who put together environmentally and economically sustainable business plans in Montana."
To help put that 750 MMBF of timber in perspective, note that 750 MMBF of timber is enough timber to fill 150,000 log trucks lined up end-to-end for 1,285 miles. That would mean that over the past 15 years enough trees have been cut down in Montana by the timber industry to fill approximately 2,250,000 log trucks lined up for over 19,285 miles. Keep these states in mind next time someone tries to tell you that "radical, environmental obstructionists have stopped all logging in Montana."
Finally, Mr. Morgan, if you truly "detect a libelous pattern" in my writing, I suggest you hire a lawyer and pursue that...Good luck and let me know if you need the number for a good lawyer.
In Mr. Morgan's profession being called "hand-picked by the timber industry" may, in fact, cause him professional harm and personal injury to his reputation. Your later characterization is more of an opinion, but the original context stated as a fact could be seen as very insulting and hurtful without your acknowledged correction and apology. We all make mistakes.
As anyone can clearly see in the comments section, I wrote "Todd: You are correct, I used poor judgement in my choice of the words 'hand-picked timber industry economist' and I would like to apologize for that."
So, Craig, I did in fact offer a sincere apology to Mr. Morgan for my poor use of words back in November 2007 and see no need to do so again, especially considering these facts. If you and Mr. Morgan want to keep beating this dead horse, go right ahead. And like I said, if you truly detect a libelous pattern in my writing, go hire a lawyer.
Yet now, in the comments above, seems like Mr. Morgan has downgraded his projection:
"I do however suggest ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable management of national forests. And I think that management would result in a timber harvest level on national forests in Montana that is substantially—perhaps 2 to 4 times—higher than the current harvest level."
Makes me wonder what the figure will be next month...and even where these figures are coming from.
That being said, why are you trying to going through the back door with your tar brush of association to make your arugment? Why not just debate the issues and facts without the personal gotchas?
A TRUE leader can get someone that is totally against your ideas to grudgingly go along with you and/or your plan. The classic, "You know, I really don't like your group or the things you do, but I can supprt this plan/idea/proposal/etc." This is called informed consent. And with it (informed constent) you can do anything (it's that powerful), but not everyone has the skills and abilities to do it. And with all of this agruing and granstanding by you, I truely feel your organization is moving away from informed constent which will ultimately kill the mission, goals and objectives of your group....how many non-profits can you name that this has happened to? I can name a half dozen... I wish the WildWest the best, but continuing these types of internet discussions is not promising and will ultimately hinder your credability for future projects, funding mechanisms, volunteer support, etc. My two cents...
Per your request I am providing examples of your arguments that rely on false premises and sloppy reasoning, and I am correcting more of your factual misstatements.
I assumed that the overall gist of the argument presented in your original (8/13/08) comment here on New West goes something like this: “Only market conditions are affecting Montana’s wood products industry, timber availability is not important, harvesting more timber from national forests will not help the industry and will harm the environment.” Is that pretty close?
So, let’s start with some numbers from your comment, which you also included in your letter to the Missoulian: “We need look no further than Canada, where the wood products industry in British Columbia has laid off more than 11,000 forestry workers in the past year…”.
The most recently available (May 2008) figures from Statistics Canada (similar to US Census Bureau) indicate that the January through May average employment in “forestry, logging & support” is down by 4,900 workers in British Columbia. That is a far cry from the figure you give, which I was only able to locate in one other source: the July 2008 issue of “People’s Voice, Canada’s leading communist newspaper.”
If I were to be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant more than just “forestry workers,” I would include wood and paper products in an analysis of Statistics Canada employment data. Then the employment change figure would be a loss of 8,900 jobs in the three forest products sectors combined from May 2007 to May 2008. That figure is still 20% lower than your “more than 11,000” number.
There is a corrected fact about forestry.
You also stated that diesel fuel is nearly $5 per gallon, “resulting in a doubling of transportation costs”. You may not be aware that there are fixed (e.g., insurance, vehicle payments, etc.) as well as variable (i.e., fuel and driver labor) cost components for transportation. So the total cost of transportation would not necessarily double simply because the cost of fuel may double—which by the way it did not do over the two-year time period you use when comparing the lumber prices in the same sentence.
The retail price of No. 2 diesel fuel increased by 57% over the past two years (from $2.9846 per gallon in July 2006 to $$4.69025 in July 2008) in the Rocky Mountain Region according to published data from the Energy Information Administration. 57% is much smaller increase than “a doubling,” which would be indicated by an increase of 100%.
These are two examples of using false, or at least seriously exaggerated, premises to support your overall argument. But, not only are your facts unsubstantiated, the conclusions you attempt to reach with them do not logically follow. That is, you provide neither necessary nor sufficient information to reach the conclusions you ultimately wish to the readers to reach. Specifically, you neglect to mention the importance of timber availability. You fail to discuss it, because, I believe, you are fully aware of its importance and have no data to refute its importance.
However, my program’s website http://www.bber.umt.edu/forest/ has a great deal of information (most of it peer-reviewed and published) that clearly demonstrates the connection between the decline of federal timber harvest (i.e., timber availability) and the loss of milling capacity in Montana and the western U.S., particularly among states that historically had greater reliance on federal timber. Several of the Forest Products Lab publications that you frequently select excerpts from also mention declines in timber harvest, particularly from federal lands, as having an impact on industry capacity in the western U.S., but I’ve missed where you bother to include those quotes.
You also seem to omit the parts of my press releases and newspaper interviews that note the declines in the housing and lumber markets in your responses. I can understand you omitting information about harvest declines as a tactical decision in your argument about changes in the industry. But by failing to acknowledge that I am aware of housing, lumber market, and broader economic issues, you make a strategic error in your attacks on my credibility.
As for estimates of how much additional timber could be harvested from national forests in Montana, the data I use come from the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program of USDA Forest Service. If you had bothered to speak to me or read the information on my program’s web site rather than simply referring to newspaper articles, you would have realized this, and you would also know that back in November I said growth on national forest timberlands in Montana exceed removals by more than 7 to 1. And that from a simple growth-to-removals standpoint, the harvest from national forests in Montana could increase about seven-fold before more timber was being cut than was growing. That is not a contradiction of my recent comment: “I do however suggest ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable management of national forests. And I think that management would result in a timber harvest level on national forests in Montana that is substantially—perhaps 2 to 4 times—higher than the current harvest level (i.e., less than 100 million board feet annually).” Depending on one’s level of understanding of growth-to-removals vs. volume that could be made available from ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable management, I can see how these may seem to imply the same thing when in fact they do not.
The timber harvest figure you reference from the MCDC document (750 MMBF) is close to the 15-year average harvest from timberlands in Montana (770 MMBF), but to say that these lands “consistently supplied” this volume over the period is not really accurate. In 1993 (the beginning of the 15-year period that ended in 2007) the harvest in Montana was 975 MMBF, with national forests providing about 278 MMBF. That statewide harvest level is about 30% higher than 750 MMBF, and the national forest number is about 209% higher than (3 times) the 2007 national forest harvest. It is not until 2002 that the harvest dropped to 758 MMBF, with national forests accounting for 144 MMBF. In 2007, the harvest was about 516 MMBF, and national forests accounted for about 90 MMBF. So, as you can see, the average is not the same thing as the trend or current condition, and my “2 to 4 times higher than current levels” statement is very near the number produced by MCDC.
I’m not quite sure what kind of perspective “150,000 log trucks lined up end-to-end” really gives people. I have never seen anywhere close to that number of logging trucks at once and I suspect most people haven’t. Maybe a more meaningful context for Montana’s timber harvest would be to break it down by number of houses that can be built with that amount of timber: at about 12 MBF Scribner per house (2,120 sq feet of living space; from Forest Products Lab), 750 MMBF would equate to about 62,500 houses, or about 6% of the single-family housing starts recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2007.
Another meaningful way to put recent harvest levels in Montana in perspective would be to look at volume harvested under recent U.S. presidents. Under G.W. Bush, national forest timber harvest in Montana is 64% of what it was under Clinton; 28% of what it was under Bush Sr.; 25% of what it was under Reagan; 26% of what it was under Carter; 25% of what it was under Ford; and 18% of what it was under Nixon. I can keep going, but I think you get the point. Harvest is way down, and it’s not just due to market factors. There is a mix of good and poor market years in most of these administrations.
I never said “’radical environmental obstructionists have stopped all logging in Montana.’” That seems to be incorrectly attributed to me. I know for a fact that all logging in Montana has NOT stopped. I also realize that there are forces other than environment groups (radical or otherwise) influencing timber harvest levels in the state. If you were to actually have a civil, cordial conversation/discussion with me before spouting off, YOU might realize that I am not a timber beast, I have an educational background in forest ecology, with specific focus on old growth. I also have very strong professional and personal interest in sustainable forest management because I too would like our environment (national forests, private forests, oceans, rivers, air, etc.) to be better for future generations.
Lastly, indeed you did apologize for calling me hand-picked by the industry, and I appreciated that apology—right up to the point where you turned around and called me industry-friendly and accused me of ignorance and trying to re-write history. Those items made your apology seem insincere to me. I’m a public employee; people can see for themselves what my credentials and background are and people can make their own opinions about the information and interpretations I present. Why would they need you to label me? Why do you choose to label me? If your repeated snide postings about me aren’t for the purpose of harming my personal or professional reputation, then why exactly do you make them?
Also, for the record, you're assumption of the overall gist of my argument is also incorrect. I never stated anywhere, nor to I believe, that "only market conditions are affecting MT's wood product industry." I never stated, nor do I believe, that "timber availability is not important." However, unlike you I will not (repeatedly) complain that you failed to call me to check in regarding the overall gist of my argument.
You really want to take me to task about job losses in the Canadian forestry sector. Remember, in my original piece above, I bring up job loses in Canada to illustrate the point that having nearly unlimited access to cheap, heavily taxpayer-subsidized timber on public lands isn't the "silver bullet" that some people make it out to be...just ask the Canadian forestry sector.
The following snips are from articles in the Vancouver Sun, Canadian Press and the Washington Post...you know, those communist media outlets. Regardless of the exact numbers (and I believe that people can look at the numbers and come up with differences) the point I'm bringing up remains valid: access to cheap, heavily taxpayer-subsidized timber on public lands isn't the "silver bullet" that some people make it out to be.
SNIP: "Almost 10,000 British Columbia forest sector workers are out of jobs as sawmills respond to the collapse lumber demand in the U.S. by cutting production and sending people home." Source: Vancouver Sun
SNIP: "A new report on forestry in Atlantic Canada says there will be more pain and loss before the industry finishes its transformation into a leaner, more competitive sector. According to a study released Tuesday by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, the industry in the four Atlantic provinces is going through a major transformation as it adjusts to weak markets, tough global competition and rising energy costs.... more than 7,000 forestry jobs in the region have disappeared over the past three years - a 20 per cent loss." Source: Canadian Press
SNIP: "Similar events are playing out across the Canadian hinterlands, where at least 139 sawmills -- many of which depend on the U.S. market for most of their sales -- have been forced to close indefinitely or reduce shifts over the past 18 months, according to Canadian government statistics." Source: Washington Post
Given all this information, I'm not sure you did provide "a corrected fact about forestry."
You're point that transportation costs include insurance, vehicle payments, fuel and driver labor is a good one and well taken. Perhaps I should have stated "fuel costs," instead of transportation costs. However, regarding your 57% increase in diesel prices since July 2006, I'd like to point out that back in 2002 diesel prices were approximately $1.25 a gallon. That would mean that since 2002 diesel fuel costs have increased 266%. So again, I'm not sure you really provided corrected information here as well. I mean, why did you just go back to 2006? I certainly didn't make any reference to 2006? Perhaps you looked at the numbers and realized that if you went back a few more years you couldn't make your point, since diesel fuel costs are more than 250% higher over the past 6 years.
Also, I never neglected to mention the importance of timber availability as you incorrectly charge. In fact, I made the point that many national forest and state land timber sales are going without bids and the fact that the Canadian forestry sector has all the cheap, taxpayer-subsidized timber available to them from public lands and still there were nearly 17,000 lost jobs in just BC and the four Atlantic provinces over the past few years.
Also, I provided excerpts from the Montana Community Development Corporation's report titled, "A New Business Plan: Moving Forest Businesses to Long Term Environmental and Economic Sustainability", which also addressed the timber availability issues. And if you have issues with the accuracy of their report and the numbers regarding timber harvest in MT over the past 15 years I suggest you contact the authors of that report.
My point is that I simply think you are over-playing the timber availability card, especially as it relates to public lands. However, I clearly recognize that timber availability is a factor.
I should also point out that you seem to think that my statement "Keep these states in mind next time someone tries to tell you that "radical, environmental obstructionists have stopped all logging in Montana" was directed at you. Seriously, Mr. Morgan, stop thinking your so important and being so sensitive, because I 100% wasn't thinking of you when I made this general statement.
Finally, I appreciate the comments of Jeff Schmalenberg's (a soils scientist w/ the MT DNRC) above. I stopped trying to be a "leader" of anything since being the captain of the football, basketball and golf teams during my senior year of high school. I also don't believe that either myself or our organization draws a "sharp line in the sand" about most public land management issues. Over the past five years we've been deeply involved with various "collaborative" processes in Montana, throughout the region and nationally.
As I've written numerous times in this and other venues, the WildWest Institute is actively working to find areas of common ground on fuel reduction, restoration and other public lands management issues...something that you refer to as "informed consent." Our goal is to help craft positive solutions that promote sustainability in our communities through jobs restoring naturally functioning ecosystems and protecting communities from wildfire.
Examples of the WildWest Institute's efforts at "informed consent" follow:
WildWest was one of the founding members of the Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalition (KFSC). To date, the KFSC has endorsed five fuel-reduction projects and helped negotiated a sixth on the Kootenai National Forest. The work covers some 7,000 acres in the Wildland-Urban Interface and these projects will produce over 16 mmbf of wood products. It's also worth mentioning that the KFSC - including environmental groups such as the WildWest Institute and The Lands Council - voted with a "Consensus without Reservation" recommendation on every endorsement.
WildWest helped form FireSafe Montana (http://www.firesafemt.org) and our restoration coordinator is currently the president of that group.
WildWest helped develop the 13 Restoration Principles of the Montana Forest Restoration Working Group (http://www.montanarestoration.org). We also serve on the Lolo and Bitterroot National Forests restoration committees that are working to implement the 13 Principles. In fact, I believe you could ask anyone involved with these groups about WildWest's participation and I'm quite confident that people would tell you how we are seeking common ground and how Cameron Naficy, our staff ecologist who leads this effort for us, has been a positive force on these committees.
These are just a few examples of the WildWest Institute's efforts at "informed consent." However, we seem to get no credit for this extensive work and whenever I bring it up people just seem to ignore these important examples. From my perspective - as someone who have been engaged in public lands management issues for the past 13 years in an advocacy roll - I believe that this issue of public lands management is as emotionally charged as the abortion issue, therefore finding common ground and solutions is pretty difficult. I mean, when WildWest raises the money to hire a local crew of loggers to do fuel reduction work around the community of DeBorgia, MT - specifically targeting the homes of the elderly and disabled - and the head of the MT Wood Products Association goes behind our back and tries to sabotage our work weekend, it gives you some indication of what an organization like ours is up against.
Maybe in the future I'll just write cute posts about puppy dogs and ice cream...Then again, give my luck, I guess that would just be criticized by the cat-loving, sorbet eaters. Like I said, I stopped trying to be a leader my senior year of high school (after we won our school's first basketball conference championship in 45 years and won the state golf tournament) and stopped trying to be popular back in middle school.
"Currently, 11,000 loggers, sawmill workers and pulp mill workers are laid off provincewide [British Columbia]."
The link to the full article is here:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=b557b440-cc2e-4a3c-890e-053cd01447fa
Therefore, I stand by my statement in my original article, which was: "the wood products industry in British Columbia has laid off more than 11,000 forestry workers in the past year, despite the fact that Canadian timber companies have nearly unlimited access to cheap, heavily taxpayer-subsidized timber on public lands."
Following up on the BC employment thing, I too have some more numbers from BC Stats and Statistics Canada. Depending which survey one uses (households vs. employers), which industry sectors are included, and which month or groups of months are compared, estimates of employment changes can vary widely.
Looking at forestry, solid wood products, and paper combined, the employment reduction from May 2007 to May 2008 could be reported as 8,660, 8,900, or 13,500. Going out to July 2008 (with currently unpublished household survey data), the numbers get larger—13,100 to 27,500, depending if using month-to-month or an average of the 1st 6 months of each year. So, the 11,000 figure could be pretty good if the time period and industry sectors are precisely defined.
What I didn’t realize before looking into these numbers was the sheer size of the BC industry—an average of 84,000 workers in the three sectors during 2007 (about 8.5 times the size of Montana’s industry). The 1987 to 2007 monthly average was about 91,000 workers, bouncing between 75 and 105 thousand workers during that period. BC's 2008 employment figures are indeed low in comparison to that period. However, BC's industry grew by several thousand workers at times when Montana’s industry was shrinking, and they had growth earlier in this down market, again while Montana’s industry was losing employees.
Part of the reason for BC’s industry size and its growth during Montana declines is due to greater timber availability in BC. I suspect a contributing factor to BC’s current employment decline, and possible future declines, is a reduction in their timber supply. They harvested heavily when markets were good and to deal with the massive bark beetle outbreak. Beetles and harvesting have impacted their timber supply, and those factors along with the exchange rate, US housing market, softwood lumber agreement, etc. are changing things for BC’s industry.
More logging may not be a silver bullet, but an increase in active forest management that results in a more stable and higher level of timber availability will help Montana’s forests and the industry see improvement when markets recover. With all the emphasis on small wood, biomass energy, hazardous fuels, and a change coming in the White House, there are even more opportunities. However, availability of wood (for biomass, for pulpwood, as well as for lumber and log homes) is still a key factor for Montana’s industry to recover, have the ability to adapt to future market and social conditions, and capitalize on new opportunities.
The national forests in Montana have timberland that needs to be treated for ecological and social reasons, and national forests can help supply more of the wood upon which the industry, its employees, and a portion of Montana's overall economy rely on. That wood can be supplied as a by-product of management activities that are ultimately beneficial (in more than just financial terms) for the land, wildlife, and people.
Mr. Koehler, if the number of law suits attributed to your group is wrong, please give us a list of those presently in the courts.
By Kellen Brown
http://www.flatheadbeacon.com
Plum Creek Timber Company, citing a flat housing market and declining demand for wood products, announced Thursday that it was eliminating 35 jobs at its Medium Density Fiberboard plant in Columbia Falls.
The company will reduce the number of rotating shifts at the plant from four to three, which will cut its current staff of 185 by almost 20 percent. Employees at Plum Creek, the largest private landowner in the nation with about 8 million acres of timberland, have been told about the change, which will go into effect Sept. 29.
“What happens in the national economy affects our business in Montana,” Hank Ricklefs, vice president for Northern Resources and Manufacturing, said in a prepared statement. “News about the housing market continues to be gloomy and these market conditions have a direct impact on demand for our wood products. This change in the shift schedule will allow us to operate more efficiently until the market improves and we are then able to step up production.”
Employees who lose their jobs at the plant will have the opportunity to apply for positions at other Plum Creek facilities in the Flathead Valley. Those who do not secure one will receive severance benefits.
Currently, Plum Creek employs about 1,400 people in Montana, including 1,100 in the Flathead, and makes 25 percent of its revenue here.
“This is a tough, tough market. I'm an optimist, and I can usually see a light in the darkness. But I look down that tunnel today, and it's just black. I can't see any light.” - Plum Creek Timber Co. president and CEO Rick Holley. “
"Land sales, in fact, have propped up company profits in recent years, but now even that sector is struggling, and Plum Creek has recently pulled real estate listings rather than sell at today's depressed prices. With the exception of a large conservation deal to sell 320,000 acres into public ownership, “our land sales in Montana have come to a screeching halt,” Holley said."
Plum Creek cuts 35 at Columbia Falls plant
By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian
COLUMBIA FALLS - Plum Creek Timber Co. announced the latest in a string of shift reductions Thursday, as a sluggish national real estate economy continues to reduce demand for wood products. The cutbacks affect 35 workers, or about one-fifth of the plant's 185 employees.
Full story at: http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/09/12/news/local/news03.txt
Wed Sep 17, 2008
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Construction starts on new homes plunged to a 17-1/2-year low during August as builders scaled back sharply to try to cope with the worst slump in U.S. housing since the Great Depression.
More at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1225498420080917
By Vaughn Palmer
Vancouver Sun
September 17, 2008
Finance Minister Colin Hansen last week conceded to one discouraging note in his generally optimistic take on the state of the provincial economy.
"The downturn in the forest sector is certainly unprecedented," Hansen told reporters at the release of the quarterly update on the budget Friday.
"I think you'd never find a case where the volume has dropped off as fast as it has."
The finance minister was referring to the volume of timber harvested from Crown land, a key measure of economic activity in the provincially managed forests.
More at:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=a2092fdd-57d1-49e3-993e-a4d3f2ea088a&k=59100
Tricon Timber lays off night shift as economy worsens
Sept 21, 2008
Facing a decline in sales, Tricon Timber Inc. in St. Regis was forced to lay off about 18 employees. The move, cutting a late night shift from the plant’s operations, was announced during a mandatory meeting with employees Wednesday.
Full story at:
http://www.clarkforkchronicle.com/article.php/20080921212826228
"Market prices are depressed and don't currently cover the costs of production," - Plum Creek Vice President Hank Ricklefs
Plum Creek to close plant in Kalispell
By the Missoulian
September 24, 2008
Saying market prices are so depressed they no longer cover production costs, Plum Creek Timber Co. will close its finger-joint stud manufacturing plant in Kalispell for the remainder of 2008.
Rest of the story at:
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/09/24/news/local/news03.txt
Written by PAUL STRICKLAND
Prince George Citizen staff
Tuesday, 30 September 2008
Both the forest industry and mining companies in north-central B.C. face significant impacts from financial turmoil in the United States, says a UNBC professor of finance.
"Too many houses are flooding the market in the U.S. at distress-sale prices," Alex Ng said Tuesday. "There is a freeze in credit to finance new housing construction."
The impact on this region's forest industry will be considerable with continuing low lumber prices, Ng said.
Not only did U.S. builders build too many homes, they also started marketing them to people with poor credit histories, said Dan McLaren, president of Commonwealth Financial in Prince George.
"When those poor-quality borrowers stopped making payments, they were stuck with a large inventory of nice new homes with too few people to buy them," he said Tuesday. "If there are too many houses in Phoenix, Las Vegas and all those desirable places, they won't be buying any lumber."
Ng agreed.
"It's hard to see how demand for lumber from the housing sector would come up any time soon," he said.
Full story at:
http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/20080930154021/local/news/financial-crisis-threatens-forestry-mining.html
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.
Full story at:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081023/lumber_struggles.html?.v=1
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.
Full story at:
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2008/10/25/news/doc49022a91e76cf893775265.txt
U.S. Financial Crisis Will Delay Recovery of Housing, Lumber Markets until 2010
SOURCE: Western Wood Products Association
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.
Full article at:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-financial-crisis-delay-recovery/story.aspx?guid={323BF266-93C2-489B-81BF-295FFCFA16D0}&dist=hppr
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.