Thoughts on Oregon's Future (Roseburg, Ashland: sale, university, living)

[Fiddlehead]

I would agree MDVaden,

Certainly, if the timber industry was stabbed, its fingers are on the knife. The whole notion of "wise use" and stewardship of forest and rangelands does not seem to jibe with the American quick money mentality. If short term profits can be made, they almost always trump a longer term vision. Now, I would expect if someone had a large ranch, or a large swath of private timberland in the family, they would want to do a good job. When it becomes corporate, or where profits accrue to relatively few, while the costs go to many (public lands logging, grazing), exploitation just seems too tempting.

The logging industry had a chance to earn the public's trust, but they failed. And I don't really side with the enviros. on this, they have issues too. Point is, rebuilding timber will involved rebuilding trust. No small task.

[rhodan653]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

A productive stand of Douglas Fir, on an 80 year harvest rotation, will yield approximately $50 per year per acre. East side pine forests grow slower and the wood is of lower value, so they may drop as low as $20/year/acre. Oregon has about 30 million acres of forest, so on an average, Oregon could produce about $900 million a year in raw logs. When you add value added milling and wood products like furniture, the wood products industry has the potential to add about $3 billion a year to Oregon's economy on an endlessly renewable basis. The reason it doesn't is that the industry has been almost regulated out of existence. The current housing slump is temporary, but the destruction of the timber industry has been going on for decades.

At this point, the U.S. housing crisis doesn't even need to come in to play from a market perspective. British Columbia shipped close to $1 billion in softwoods to China last year and expects the market to continue to rapidly rise. Canada is laughing all the way to the bank. There is significant demand in Asia for lumber that Oregon could in theory capitalize on should a rational, sustainable practice be developed. Unfortunately, the key word *rational* is not generally used to describe either business policy or environmental policy in this state. It is unfortunate because exports are what this state needs to improve the economy.

[jjpop]

Originally Posted by rhodan653

Unfortunately, the key word *rational* is not generally used to describe either business policy or environmental policy in this state.

So true.

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by rhodan653

At this point, the U.S. housing crisis doesn't even need to come in to play from a market perspective. British Columbia shipped close to $1 billion in softwoods to China last year and expects the market to continue to rapidly rise. Canada is laughing all the way to the bank. There is significant demand in Asia for lumber that Oregon could in theory capitalize on should a rational, sustainable practice be developed. Unfortunately, the key word *rational* is not generally used to describe either business policy or environmental policy in this state. It is unfortunate because exports are what this state needs to improve the economy.

But Canada is symptomatic of the problem. The above post seems to imply that if Canada can do it, we can, too. But Canada subsidizes their timber industry the same way that we subsidize corn, wheat and oil. There is no way we can compete in the export market with Canada unless we subsidize wood products as well. Heck, for that matter, we've had a difficult time competing with Canadian lumber even in the domestic-consumption market right here in Oregon. There's a good possibility that those 2 x 6's you bought at your local Home Depot last month were cut from trees harvested in British Columbia.

[Larry Caldwell]

Canada subsidizes their lumber industry by offering salvage sales at pulp prices, nominally $70 a ton, and some of the salvaged trees are in good enough shape to be milled into lumber. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of beetle killed pine in Eastern Oregon that could be sold the same way, except the feds won't allow salvage sales.

Of course, the lumber companies won't bid anything for salvage, depending on how close the tree is growing to a lawyer. Half a million acres of timber burned in the Biscuit Fire, and there was no salvage, because by the time all the environmental statements and court challenges had been processed all that was left was rot.

[Terryj]

Larry, I have mixed feelings on what should be done in a burn area, if you look at the Biscuit Fire most of it was within the Kalmiopsis Wilderness area. At the point of the fire entering this area the fire suppression should have been stopped, after all it is a wilderness area and nature should have been allowed to take its course. All efforts should have been directed to protect private and government lands that surround the wilderness area. When we take steps to supress a fire within a wilderness area then it is no longer a wilderness area, it becomes a managed forest, we should have salvage logged the Biscuit Burn instead of all this timber going to rot.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by Terryj

Larry, I have mixed feelings on what should be done in a burn area, if you look at the Biscuit Fire most of it was within the Kalmiopsis Wilderness area. At the point of the fire entering this area the fire suppression should have been stopped, after all it is a wilderness area and nature should have been allowed to take its course. All efforts should have been directed to protect private and government lands that surround the wilderness area. When we take steps to supress a fire within a wilderness area then it is no longer a wilderness area, it becomes a managed forest, we should have salvage logged the Biscuit Burn instead of all this timber going to rot.

I agree with you somewhat on this.

Over all I think the Timber industry has done a fairly good job bootstrapping themselves to the point of being sustainable. Unfortunately the number of regulations they've had to deal with put forth by Environmentalists who don't understand all the complexities involved have ham stringed a lot of their work.

That isn't to say that regulations such as being forced to replant logged areas, staying away from old growth stands, basic fire protection procedures, ariel yarding technologies, etc have not been good business and even in many cases increased profits for the Timber companies.

On the same token, those who want to stop logging totally have to realize that until houses aren't built of wood anymore, or we start having a negative shift in population growth, that Logging is a vital part of Oregon's economy and can't simply be done away with.

Keep in mind that a lot of the negativity we see towards the Timber Industry came in the 70 and early 80's. Today's Timber Industry is a completely different beast. One that understands sustainability and the long term needs of a healthy forest and doesn't simply go out and "rape forests" as many still insist on. Many logging companies employ licensed and certified professionals with real degrees who's entire job is to make sure that forests exist for the next 200+ years.

[Terryj]

Originally Posted by hamellr

I agree with you somewhat on this.

Over all I think the Timber industry has done a fairly good job bootstrapping themselves to the point of being sustainable. Unfortunately the number of regulations they've had to deal with put forth by Environmentalists who don't understand all the complexities involved have ham stringed a lot of their work.

That isn't to say that regulations such as being forced to replant logged areas, staying away from old growth stands, basic fire protection procedures, ariel yarding technologies, etc have not been good business and even in many cases increased profits for the Timber companies.

On the same token, those who want to stop logging totally have to realize that until houses aren't built of wood anymore, or we start having a negative shift in population growth, that Logging is a vital part of Oregon's economy and can't simply be done away with.

Keep in mind that a lot of the negativity we see towards the Timber Industry came in the 70 and early 80's. Today's Timber Industry is a completely different beast. One that understands sustainability and the long term needs of a healthy forest and doesn't simply go out and "rape forests" as many still insist on. Many logging companies employ licensed and certified professionals with real degrees who's entire job is to make sure that forests exist for the next 200+ years.

I agree completely with you on this, having been involved in the logging industry in the early 70's I've seen the good and the bad. I think that the 40's and 50's were the worst years for neglect of our forest, there started to be a shift in mindset in the 70's waking up to the aspect that good forest management is the way into the future. Then you have he activiest living in their wooden constructed homes telling the state and federal governments that cutting of trees is just wrong and then pushing these ideas into law. The best way to kill an industry is to regulate it to death, and that is just what we have done.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by hamellr

Many logging companies employ licensed and certified professionals with real degrees who's entire job is to make sure that forests exist for the next 200+ years.

I have taken several timber related classes at Umpqua Community College. One of the most interesting was taught by Dan Newton, who was head silviculturalist for Lone Rock Timber. He later moved to Roseburg Forest Products. You never met a guy more passionate about growing trees. They actually sent cone collecting crews into areas scheduled for harvest to preserve the tree genes suited to that microclimate.

Contrast that with the kid who handed my my order at Carl's Jr. the other day. He flatly stated that all logging should be banned, while handing me my order in a cardboard cup, cardboard burger box and paper bag, with napkins.

As I drove away, I contemplated a vast chasm of ignorance.

[Smiled]

Contrast that with the kid who handed my my order at Carl's Jr. the other day. He flatly stated that all logging should be banned, while handing me my order in a cardboard cup, cardboard burger box and paper bag, with napkins.

As I drove away, I contemplated a vast chasm of ignorance.


There is some of that to be sure.
I saw a Forester job outside Coos Bay and read the description / requirements. Made me wish I'd pursued Forestry instead of manufacturing and accounting.

The debate I have in my head now is that we're exporting logs again - this time to China. However, yes, they will grow back just fine.

I say preserve what's left of the old growth, be it on private or public land (of course compensate for it or do land swaps) - the rest, well, we grow great strong, straight trees. I don't think we can compete with the Southeast in the waferboard market - but we can sure produce beautiful lumber if we're patient enough to lengthen the rotation somewhat.

A book you might like - which puts some of this in perspective - is David Harris' "The Last Stand," which is the story of the takeover of Pacific Lumber by Maxxam Corporation via an LBO. It reads like fiction but it's true.