Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping System

Timber and litigation and fire

RobG

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
5,738
Location
Bozeman, MT
Litigation and timber management are not things I follow closely - the pros and cons of both issues wash each other out in my mind so I have no strong opinions (except for logging road less areas).

So... it surprised the hell out of me when I read an editorial by the ED of the Montana Wood Products Association that said litigation is holding up sales, "impacting over 26,000 acres." You have to be kidding... not logging those 26,000 acres is why we are having such devastating fires? By her own figures, that is only 0.1% of all the timberland in Montana so it is meaningless in terms of fire management.

I have to hit the road but would be interested in people's viewpoints on the numbers.

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...cle_730cc096-a86c-5944-8f49-fdddb1973dc9.html
 
Yes, that opinion column perpetuates the myth that litigation stifling timber extraction projects is what keeps forest management from reducing and controlling the likelihood of severe wildland fires. I think the wood products industry and those who advocate for increased logging are becoming less credible by ignoring the science and the studies by wildfire behavior professionals. I believe that if the wood products folks would instead develop a proactive plan which would identify the urban - wildland interface areas most at risk and the areas with timber worth harvesting where reasonable access already exists, then their cause would be more widely supported. To merely assert that there are dead trees throughout the National Forests and on other public lands and thus the need to thin and reduce fuels is critical, really is not a reasonable well thought-out position. Something needs to change with regard to all the stifling litigation ... but pointing to that as an indirect cause of severe wildland fires is naive, at best.

The column does not even touch upon international trade agreements which adversely impact the timber / lumber industry hugely.
 
Litigation is an issue. But the bigger issue are very unfavorable trade agreements with a heavily subsidized Canadian timber industry.

My father is the superintendent at one of the Pacific Northwest's larger lumber mills. I don't know if it's still this way, but a few years ago he could have a semi load of studs delivered from British Columbia retail for cheaper then he could produce a load of wood harvested from the mountain 5 miles from town.

How do you compete with that?
 
The US/Canadian Softwood trade agreement seems to be one of the most misunderstood topic I see come up on the net. Most comments are way off and seem to be based on hearsay.

Here is a very brief/basic snapshot on the current agreement.

http://www.randomlengths.com/in-depth/us-canada-lumber-trade-dispute/

Something is not right the the stud price scenario above. I buy and sell truck and car loads of US and Canadian lumber every day. I see the mill price lists from most Canadian and US mills (mainly in the NW) daily. I have never seen that kind of price difference. Also with the previous sales quotas put on Canadian mills and the anti dumping rules and penalties the Canadian mills wouldn't have done it and the US wouldn't have allowed it.

Not calling BS on anyone just saying something doesn't add up.
 
Last edited:
Straight Arrow said:
Are you saying the trade agreement has not created a disparity which adversely affects the US timber industry and has caused mills to close?
Click to expand...

The trade agreement is suppose to be designed to help US mills. Did you click the link?
 
The trade agreement is suppose to be designed to help US mills. Did you click the link?
Click to expand...
Yes I did, Tony, and read through all the numbers and language, yet the question remains unanswered. Aside from intent of the "design" has the trade agreement adversely affected the US timber industry?
 
The forest - drought - wildfire relationship question has been answered by none other than Montana's state legislator Kerry White on the Bozeman radio talk show "Voices of Montana". Parker Heinlein's column in the Bozeman Chronicle this morning provides an interesting and entertaining recap. According to Rep White, it's the feds' fault for not harvesting the huge crop of timber in the national forests ... so there are too many trees and they are "sucking up" all the moisture and creating drought.

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...cle_cfb6d3e8-767a-5659-a593-f12eab3aaf99.html
 
Straight Arrow said:
Yes I did, Tony, and read through all the numbers and language, yet the question remains unanswered. Aside from intent of the "design" has the trade agreement adversely affected the US timber industry?
Click to expand...

No, before the trade agreement the wood from Canada flowed like water, especially the low grade. US mills were closing fast. Not all was due to the wood from Canada. Logs, over production, the US economy all played a part. After the trade agreement, which most Canadian mills hate, things seem to get more on a level playing field. Most of the wood the company I work for comes from US mills. Mainly because it is a better deal for our markets. Was the agreement a fix all for the US mills-no. But its better then when there wasn't one.

US mills have developed their export markets for both logs and lumber. China being the main player.
 
Our local timber associations put out some confusing messages to me when they claim they need to cut trees to thin the wildfire threat but also say they plant 7 trees for every one they harvest. Huh? Didn't you just tell me there are too many trees and that's why we are having big fires?
 
RobG said:
Litigation and timber management are not things I follow closely - the pros and cons of both issues wash each other out in my mind so I have no strong opinions (except for logging road less areas).

So... it surprised the hell out of me when I read an editorial by the ED of the Montana Wood Products Association that said litigation is holding up sales, "impacting over 26,000 acres." You have to be kidding... not logging those 26,000 acres is why we are having such devastating fires? By her own figures, that is only 0.1% of all the timberland in Montana so it is meaningless in terms of fire management.

I have to hit the road but would be interested in people's viewpoints on the numbers.

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...cle_730cc096-a86c-5944-8f49-fdddb1973dc9.html
Click to expand...

Here is an interesting read - If interested.
https://www.perc.org/articles/turning-profit-public-forests-full
 
That is an interesting article and although PERC does a good job perpetuating their ideology that the world can only function if making a profit and privatization is the only way to go, the comparisons contrasting state (constitutionally mandated revenue producers) lands versus federal public lands (managed for multiple use, as Congressionally overseen) are fundamentally flawed.
 
Straight Arrow said:
That is an interesting article and although PERC does a good job perpetuating their ideology that the world can only function if making a profit and privatization is the only way to go, the comparisons contrasting state (constitutionally mandated revenue producers) lands versus federal public lands (managed for multiple use, as Congressionally overseen) are fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not opposed to temporary roads in lieu of permanent roads, but others would disagree (there's that multiple use thing again).

Also, in reference to the existing USFS timber staff, how many of their annual hours are devoted to timber sale work vs. firefighting? Was this taken into account? On any given year, I am willing to bet a significant portion of their time (25% or so) would realistically be allocated to firefighting.

I'm not in any way saying the USFS couldn't be streamlined. However, under current operational protocol and fire borrowing, I don't really see it happening.

Hopefully Buzz will chime in on this one.
 
Straight Arrow said:
That is an interesting article and although PERC does a good job perpetuating their ideology that the world can only function if making a profit and privatization is the only way to go, the comparisons contrasting state (constitutionally mandated revenue producers) lands versus federal public lands (managed for multiple use, as Congressionally overseen) are fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...

I try to stay objective and find the contrast of where $ is and where $ goes. It usually shapes the funding anatomy of paying for and covering .

One will complain why something can not reach enough funding then in another thread or discussion complain the funding is not the point... The content is the presence of *possible* better accounting will aid in shaping the funding necessary to potential support the various interests. Again, it is not one aspect that will shape the entire setting. It is many small steps that better prepare the future *potential*.

everything is relative.
 
I try to stay objective and find the contrast of where $ is and where $ goes. It usually shapes the funding anatomy of paying for and covering .
Click to expand...
Good on you and I do agree.

One will complain why something can not reach enough funding then in another thread or discussion complain the funding is not the point... The content is the presence of *possible* better accounting will aid in shaping the funding necessary to potential support the various interests. Again, it is not one aspect that will shape the entire setting. It is many small steps that better prepare the future *potential*.
Click to expand...
I'm not clear on exactly what your point is, but do agree "better accounting" is needed. Again, with regard to the "apples vs oranges", the funding differences between state and federal lands are significant. Funding and improved management is the point for federal lands, as well as somehow establishing different funding and management for fire suppression. Not sure where you see the contradiction, but if that's your take, so be it.
 
Straight Arrow said:
Good on you and I do agree.

I'm not clear on exactly what your point is, but do agree "better accounting" is needed. Again, with regard to the "apples vs oranges", the funding differences between state and federal lands are significant. Funding and improved management is the point for federal lands, as well as somehow establishing different funding and management for fire suppression. Not sure where you see the contradiction, but if that's your take, so be it.
Click to expand...

My point, to be more specific: I'm not a believer of the apples and oranges as both are based on covering expenditures. While State may look at profit, sounds like the Feds *could* take a play out of their book to work towards covering more of the costs. If you look at their breakdown, the Feds recover pennies on the dollar.

I appreciate the conversations, especially ones where we may disagree though hold a mutual respect for our differing opinions.

Here is an article straight from the USDA - FS: https://www.fs.fed.us/speeches/changing-public-land-uses-tale-two-debates it holds some interesting content. Definitely worth the read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pucky Freak
Historically-representative ecosystem management
Replies
12
Views
922
Pucky Freak
Pucky Freak
B
MT Leg 2023 Attack on Access, Timber, Habitat
Replies
13
Views
1K
Sytes
Sytes
P
USFS grazing and timber
Replies
8
Views
901
Straight Arrow
Straight Arrow
jeremy.b
Family Man's 2022 Season Log
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
jeremy.b
jeremy.b
M
A Bull Ek, A Buck Deer and a Huge Black Wolf
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Hunter4Life78
Hunter4Life78

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,057
Messages
1,945,261
Members
34,995
Latest member
Infraredice

Share this page

Back
Top