Lumber is a Crop

[Hobbit]

So, I keep hearing resurgences in the move to ban logging. Greenpeace activists the world over (well, mostly in America) declare that they'd rather have trees than paper and that the forest is disappearing. They're welcome to give me all of their paper if they don't want it, but the second couldn't be further from the truth. We have just as much forest as we did 100 years ago, and much of it is due to logging.

First up is the National Forest Act. The National Forest Act is NOT the National Park Act. While National Forests also function as wildlife preserves, the primary function was for the logging industry. Its main purpose was to prevent short-sighted loggers from drying up their own crop. National Forests are regulated in such a way that loggers must plant trees behind them, and may only cut in designated areas, which are constantly rotated to allow the forest to regrow before being cut again. This is healthy for the forest. Most plant and animal species thrive better in more recent growth, with better access to sunlight and other resources. Occasional, naturally occurring forest fires once ensured that this renewal would occur, but with we pesky humans putting out those fires to save our own lives, logging has stepped into the breach to cause this renewal process while providing Americans with a high quality building material.

The environmental movement, however, sees it differently. In their zero-sum thinking, every tree we cut down is a tree that won't be there 50 years from now. This couldn't be further from the truth. Remember when PETA told global warming activists that the meat industry leads to the growing and cultivating of more livestock, a leading cause of greenhouse gases? Same principle. Although killing an animal is required to get meat, it doesn't really decrease the number of living animals, as many more animals than would naturally grow are bred and raised to feet our appetites. The same goes for wood. To ensure their continued profits, lumber companies plant trees, leading to newer growth forest that grows and spreads far faster than it could have without intelligently applied help. Loggers spend their work days in forests. They know nature is beautiful. That's why they are constantly renewing it as they go. This new growth is the home of species environmentalists claim to protect, but all they're doing is wrecking the lumber industry.

Take the spotted owl as an example. This is the quintessential endangered species. According to environmentalists at the time, the spotted owl was in danger of extinction and only lived in old growth forest, which was the primary target of lumber harvesters. Therefore, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), that land was protected, and lumberjacks couldn't cut there. It was later found, however, that most spotted owls lived in second and third generation forests, which had been planted by the lumberjacks. Common sense would dictate that the old growth forest would be back on the table and that the spotted owl would simply migrate in the tracks of the lumber industry, benefitting from their vigilance and co-existing peacefully with my back deck. But this isn't common sense, it's the government, so instead of lifting the ban, they just enacted a new ban on cutting in second and third generation forests. This ban effectively ended logging in the Pacific Northwest. Now, the United States, one of the most forested countries in the world, must import lumber, in the same way we import oil from countries that are looking to drill it from our continental shelves. In the end, it's not about helping the environment, it's about an anti-capitalist movement piggybacking on the emotional hysteria of the easily bamboozled environmental crowd.

The bottom line is this. Just like PETA said, ordering a steak doesn't destroy a cow, it commissions the creation of more cows. In the same way, buying lumber to build your back deck doesn't forever destroy a tree. It commissions the planting of new trees. Lumber is a crop, and just like any other crop, a replanting always follows the harvest.

[Mr. P]

So, I keep hearing resurgences in the move to ban logging. Greenpeace activists the world over (well, mostly in America) declare that they'd rather have trees than paper and that the forest is disappearing. They're welcome to give me all of their paper if they don't want it, but the second couldn't be further from the truth. We have just as much forest as we did 100 years ago, and much of it is due to logging.

First up is the National Forest Act. The National Forest Act is NOT the National Park Act. While National Forests also function as wildlife preserves, the primary function was for the logging industry. Its main purpose was to prevent short-sighted loggers from drying up their own crop. National Forests are regulated in such a way that loggers must plant trees behind them, and may only cut in designated areas, which are constantly rotated to allow the forest to regrow before being cut again. This is healthy for the forest. Most plant and animal species thrive better in more recent growth, with better access to sunlight and other resources. Occasional, naturally occurring forest fires once ensured that this renewal would occur, but with we pesky humans putting out those fires to save our own lives, logging has stepped into the breach to cause this renewal process while providing Americans with a high quality building material.

The environmental movement, however, sees it differently. In their zero-sum thinking, every tree we cut down is a tree that won't be there 50 years from now. This couldn't be further from the truth. Remember when PETA told global warming activists that the meat industry leads to the growing and cultivating of more livestock, a leading cause of greenhouse gases? Same principle. Although killing an animal is required to get meat, it doesn't really decrease the number of living animals, as many more animals than would naturally grow are bred and raised to feet our appetites. The same goes for wood. To ensure their continued profits, lumber companies plant trees, leading to newer growth forest that grows and spreads far faster than it could have without intelligently applied help. Loggers spend their work days in forests. They know nature is beautiful. That's why they are constantly renewing it as they go. This new growth is the home of species environmentalists claim to protect, but all they're doing is wrecking the lumber industry.

Take the spotted owl as an example. This is the quintessential endangered species. According to environmentalists at the time, the spotted owl was in danger of extinction and only lived in old growth forest, which was the primary target of lumber harvesters. Therefore, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), that land was protected, and lumberjacks couldn't cut there. It was later found, however, that most spotted owls lived in second and third generation forests, which had been planted by the lumberjacks. Common sense would dictate that the old growth forest would be back on the table and that the spotted owl would simply migrate in the tracks of the lumber industry, benefitting from their vigilance and co-existing peacefully with my back deck. But this isn't common sense, it's the government, so instead of lifting the ban, they just enacted a new ban on cutting in second and third generation forests. This ban effectively ended logging in the Pacific Northwest. Now, the United States, one of the most forested countries in the world, must import lumber, in the same way we import oil from countries that are looking to drill it from our continental shelves. In the end, it's not about helping the environment, it's about an anti-capitalist movement piggybacking on the emotional hysteria of the easily bamboozled environmental crowd.

The bottom line is this. Just like PETA said, ordering a steak doesn't destroy a cow, it commissions the creation of more cows. In the same way, buying lumber to build your back deck doesn't forever destroy a tree. It commissions the planting of new trees. Lumber is a crop, and just like any other crop, a replanting always follows the harvest.

Truth is we have more trees in the southeast now than in 1900.

It is true trees are a crop, one that must be managed and planned. If this wasn't done the major paper and lumber companies would go out of business very fast.

[mundame]

ordering a steak doesn't destroy a cow, it commissions the creation of more cows. In the same way, buying lumber to build your back deck doesn't forever destroy a tree. It commissions the planting of new trees.

This whole point of view (PETA, ERA, etc.) is that humans are somehow NOT part of nature.

That nature can only be "natural" if there are no humans anywhere around. So humans shouldn't be involved with animals, or trees, or ---------well, we shouldn't be here at all, messing up Planet Earth.

I think that's silly. How can you get OUTSIDE Nature?

We're part of nature. We belong on Earth, interacting with Earth stuff. I'm not wild about our making too much of it extinct, but interacting otherwise is okay by me.

[loosecannon]

Well Hobbit I have a background in logging and lumber, so I am qualified to speak to your editorial.

What you say is true, but only to a point. In the real world there are a number of meaningful exceptions.

First off tree farms aren't identical to wild habitat. In fact they really aren't even close. Species are sacrificed in order to convert to tree farming. LOTS of species.

Second the land itself has been clearly demonstrated to offer diminishing returns after as few as one rotation of crops (trees), and in many cases will not recover either ever or for hundreds or thousands of years even if the land is taken back out of production.

Third there is lots of room to improve logging esp when prices for timber and pulp are so low that they barely cover operational costs.

Lastly there are other reasons to preserve land aside from equations involving logging and lumber.

I do agree that in the most general terms tree farms are superior land use to farming, industry, grazing land, mining, urbanization and suburbanization. Absolutely.

But tree farming is a giant compromise from actual preservation.

And since the decision about land use is irreversible, well lets preserve as much as possible.

Logging for paper production produces very little return. Other than paper. The profits are negative once you consider all the costs.

[Mr. P]

Well Hobbit I have a background in logging and lumber, so I am qualified to speak to your editorial.

What you say is true, but only to a point. In the real world there are a number of meaningful exceptions.

First off tree farms aren't identical to wild habitat. In fact they really aren't even close. Species are sacrificed in order to convert to tree farming. LOTS of species.

Second the land itself has been clearly demonstrated to offer diminishing returns after as few as one rotation of crops (trees), and in many cases will not recover either ever or for hundreds or thousands of years even if the land is taken back out of production.

Third there is lots of room to improve logging esp when prices for timber and pulp are so low that they barely cover operational costs.

Lastly there are other reasons to preserve land aside from equations involving logging and lumber.

I do agree that in the most general terms tree farms are superior land use to farming, industry, grazing land, mining, urbanization and suburbanization. Absolutely.

But tree farming is a giant compromise from actual preservation.

And since the decision about land use is irreversible, well lets preserve as much as possible.

Logging for paper production produces very little return. Other than paper. The profits are negative once you consider all the costs.

Who did you work for? Just wondering.

[Dilloduck]

This whole point of view (PETA, ERA, etc.) is that humans are somehow NOT part of nature.

That nature can only be "natural" if there are no humans anywhere around. So humans shouldn't be involved with animals, or trees, or ---------well, we shouldn't be here at all, messing up Planet Earth.

I think that's silly. How can you get OUTSIDE Nature?

We're part of nature. We belong on Earth, interacting with Earth stuff. I'm not wild about our making too much of it extinct, but interacting otherwise is okay by me.



PETA practices psychotic denial. They operate on the principal that humans are evil machines ( themselves excluded, of course)

[gabosaurus]

PETA are some sick mofos. They consistently contradict themselves. And they are very publicity hungry.

[loosecannon]

Who did you work for? Just wondering.


Everybody: logging contractors, tree planting contractors, FS, Dept of Agriculture, Weyerhauser, Self employed, as a contractor myself, managed a hardwood mill, founded an environmental hardwood company and have had numerous additional relationships with forestry personel on a personal level.

But I have done many other things as well. 20 years in the timber industry, some of it seasonal or part time.

[Hobbit]

I have experience in National Forests. The Ozark National Forest is criss-crossed with logging trails, and the parts currently not being logged are some of the most natural places I've ever seen, with herds of wild deer, armadillos, and protected plants growing both naturally and prominently.

[loosecannon]

Common sense would dictate that the old growth forest would be back on the table and that the spotted owl would simply migrate in the tracks of the lumber industry, benefitting from their vigilance and co-existing peacefully with my back deck. But this isn't common sense, it's the government, so instead of lifting the ban, they just enacted a new ban on cutting in second and third generation forests. This ban effectively ended logging in the Pacific Northwest. Now, the United States, one of the most forested countries in the world, must import lumber, in the same way we import oil from countries that are looking to drill it from our continental shelves. In the end, it's not about helping the environment, it's about an anti-capitalist movement piggybacking on the emotional hysteria of the easily bamboozled environmental crowd.



OK Hobbit I counted 8 fallacies in your opening post and four are within this short segment.

The Spotted owl does not result in bans on logging. I know that because I live dead center in spotted owl terrain and am intimately involved in the regs pertaining.

The spotted owl requires that you scout them out and log around them, nothing more.

Any other myths you have heard simply glean them from your mind as fictions.

Next the ONLY reason why the US imports (softwood) lumber ( the kind that frames houses and makes plywood) is because Canada simply produces it much cheaper. The "Crown" (Canadian gummit) owns the timber in Canada and sells it at whatever price is necessary to create jobs. They could pay companies to buy it if they wanted to.

In the US companies must bid to buy timber and so they cannot compete.

I live almost 1000 miles south of CA, but daily log trucks full of Canadian logs drive by my house by the dozens. The logs from Canada are so cheap that even with the costs of shipping local loggers and timber managers can not afford to log their own wood for the same price.

So all the local mills buy Canadian logs.

Third fallacy. Logging in the PNW ended because Canadian logs are cheaper, again not a damned thing to do with the owls.

fourth fallacy, the conditions you speak of are NOT the result of anticapitalism. Or twisted environmentalism.

They are caused by capitalism itself. Not by environmentalists.

You convince Canadians to sell logs at a high enough price and logging will rapidly resume. In fact I know folks who own tens of thousands of acres of PNW timber lands who will vouch for that.

Sorry Dude, you struck out. It isn't the owls or enviros who have stopped the logging. It is capitalism itself.

You could subsidize the local loggers, but that would be socialism......

[Hobbit]

Got any sources, or am I just supposed to take your word for it?

As far as the anti-caplitalist movement, just ask the co-found of Greenpeace. He left the organization for just that reason.

[loosecannon]

Got any sources, or am I just supposed to take your word for it?

As far as the anti-caplitalist movement, just ask the co-found of Greenpeace. He left the organization for just that reason.

If you want sources check out the Institute for sustainable forestry. They do exhaustive research and education within the very geographic region in which the spotted owl live. Easy google.

Yes of course many enviro's are anti capitalistic. Capitalism is a poorly suited steward for land use decision making. The certification programs combine the two well enough but profit seeks profit without paying the full price of it's ventures.

Capitalism is at odds with humanity, the earth and even laws of science. It seeks to reap but not sow.

Capitalist timber farming is accurately described as mining the earth because it takes a resource that it can not replace. Which is the original vitality of the land before the first harvest.

But that doesn't change the reality that low cost Canadian timber is what is killing logging in the PNW.

It isn't enviros, or owls. It is capitalism itself.

[Hobbit]

You're about as wrong as you could be about capitalism, but that's a discussion for another time.

I did some google searches, and what I found was that the regulation effectively banned logging in the Pacific Northwest. A 1.3 mile buffer zone is required around every owl nest. The reason the Canadian lumber is cheaper is because this rediculous regulation drives up the cost of harvesting American lumber.

[loosecannon]

You're about as wrong as you could be about capitalism, but that's a discussion for another time.

I did some google searches, and what I found was that the regulation effectively banned logging in the Pacific Northwest. A 1.3 mile buffer zone is required around every owl nest. The reason the Canadian lumber is cheaper is because this rediculous regulation drives up the cost of harvesting American lumber.

We can have that conversation about capitalism anytime, but you won't like it. I have spent years studying economics and capitalism is a crock designed by banks and burgoise elite to serve the interests of the few not the many.

Capitalism was never even intended to raise living standards, but to lower them to the lowest possible level for all but the priviledged who don't work, but let their capital work for them.

The 1.3 miles is the entire area, not a radius. It represents a tiny fraction of land within a timber companies stands and it moves as the owls move. It also depends on an owl pair actually nesting there.

It may add a fraction of a % to the costs of timber operations just based on the manpower to scout and locate owls and then log around them, but it doesn't stop logging at all. And it has an incredibly small impact on the costs of timber farming.

I have a personal friend with 12,000 acres of timber farm. He has never been forced to abort an approved timber harvest plan because of owl habitat discovery. He has only been forced to log around them a few times. It is no big deal. He scouts them himself and does his own forestry management.

The reason why Canadian Timber is cheaper is listed in the opening post I addressed to you.

The Canadian lands are owned by the Crown and they can afford to operate the lands at a loss because they are subsidized.

No matter how cheaply the US can log, the Canadians WILL undercut that price. They have far more virgin stands, far more land and they can afford to do it to keep their employment and industry alive.

There has been a tarriff of 25% on imported Canadian logs and lumber that still did not prevent the Canadians from undercutting our prices.

That tarrif was modified about 6 months ago, but I don't know the details of the new arrangement.

Google "Candian lumber tarriff" or "Institute for Sustainable Forestry" for more info.

It has nothing to do with the owls or the enviros dude.

[Hobbit]

We can have that conversation about capitalism anytime, but you won't like it. I have spent years studying economics and capitalism is a crock designed by banks and burgoise elite to serve the interests of the few not the many.

Capitalism was never even intended to raise living standards, but to lower them to the lowest possible level for all but the priviledged who don't work, but let their capital work for them.

The 1.3 miles is the entire area, not a radius. It represents a tiny fraction of land within a timber companies stands and it moves as the owls move. It also depends on an owl pair actually nesting there.

It may add a fraction of a % to the costs of timber operations just based on the manpower to scout and locate owls and then log around them, but it doesn't stop logging at all. And it has an incredibly small impact on the costs of timber farming.

I have a personal friend with 12,000 acres of timber farm. He has never been forced to abort an approved timber harvest plan because of owl habitat discovery. He has only been forced to log around them a few times. It is no big deal. He scouts them himself and does his own forestry management.

The reason why Canadian Timber is cheaper is listed in the opening post I addressed to you.

The Canadian lands are owned by the Crown and they can afford to operate the lands at a loss because they are subsidized.

No matter how cheaply the US can log, the Canadians WILL undercut that price. They have far more virgin stands, far more land and they can afford to do it to keep their employment and industry alive.

There has been a tarriff of 25% on imported Canadian logs and lumber that still did not prevent the Canadians from undercutting our prices.

That tarrif was modified about 6 months ago, but I don't know the details of the new arrangement.

Google "Candian lumber tarriff" or "Institute for Sustainable Forestry" for more info.

It has nothing to do with the owls or the enviros dude.

Looked up both those links. The Institute for Sustainable Forestry didn't have any information I saw on this specific issue, nor did it have a search feature. The Canadian lumber tariff information that I found has confirmed what I thought. Essentially, the Canadian taxpayers are paying us to buy their lumber. Because their lumberers get paid boatloads of Canadian taxpayer dollars, the price of Canadian lumber goes down and without further U.S. subsidies, American lumber can't compete. It looks like an effort by the Canadain government to strongarm the American lumber industry out of the business, which is dirty and the reason tariffs and other trade restrictions were originally created.

BTW, all that crap you're saying about the spotted owl not having an effect on the lumber industry flies directly in the face of everything every expert I have heard has ever said, on both sides of the issue. I've googled and googled and googled and googled some more, and everybody says the same thing. The enviro-whackos, in their zeal over a stupid owl, have effectively ruined the lumber industry in the Pacific Northwest. You're going to have to do better than, "Oh, I know because I used to... and have a friend who..." I don't know you. I can't confirm your credentials. You're going to have to give me some links to things written by people with credentials before I can start taking all this at face value.

[loosecannon]

Looked up both those links. The Institute for Sustainable Forestry didn't have any information I saw on this specific issue, nor did it have a search feature. The Canadian lumber tariff information that I found has confirmed what I thought. Essentially, the Canadian taxpayers are paying us to buy their lumber. Because their lumberers get paid boatloads of Canadian taxpayer dollars, the price of Canadian lumber goes down and without further U.S. subsidies, American lumber can't compete. It looks like an effort by the Canadain government to strongarm the American lumber industry out of the business, which is dirty and the reason tariffs and other trade restrictions were originally created.

BTW, all that crap you're saying about the spotted owl not having an effect on the lumber industry flies directly in the face of everything every expert I have heard has ever said, on both sides of the issue. I've googled and googled and googled and googled some more, and everybody says the same thing. The enviro-whackos, in their zeal over a stupid owl, have effectively ruined the lumber industry in the Pacific Northwest. You're going to have to do better than, "Oh, I know because I used to... and have a friend who..." I don't know you. I can't confirm your credentials. You're going to have to give me some links to things written by people with credentials before I can start taking all this at face value.

I don't have to provide any links beyond one to your last post.

The subsidized price of Canadian imported logs is undermining the US logging industry. Same thing I have said since my first post and now you agree. Great.

The ISF has done many long and detailed studies and has published many scholarly reports on the demise of the timber industry.

I suggest you e-mail them and ask John Rogers specifically about which articles and studies are concerned with both issues.

Very smart guy, likes to talk.

The ISF is an environmental org. But they spent almost ten years trying to invent a way to make hardwood timber management economically feasible.

They eventually had to cocede that only subsidized timber operations are feasible with the current markets for pulp and softwoods. And they spent a half million dollars trying to prove the opposite.

Reality is logging loses money because of Canadian imports.

The owl has nothing to do with that, and locally environmentalists have been trying to SAVE the logging industry in the PNW.

[MtnBiker]

How do government subsidizes support capitalism?

[LiberalNation]

Pure capitalism isn't a good thing anyway but to answer your question I'd say they don't.

[Hobbit]

Pure capitalism isn't a good thing anyway but to answer your question I'd say they don't.

Pure anything is typically bad. However, I believe in limited intervention in capitalism to prevent such things as stifling of competition, fraud, and other things which are ultimately counter-productive to the benefits of capitalism.

[MtnBiker]

Sorry Dude, you struck out. It isn't the owls or enviros who have stopped the logging. It is capitalism itself.

You could subsidize the local loggers, but that would be socialism......




The subsidized price of Canadian imported logs is undermining the US logging industry. Same thing I have said since my first post and now you agree. Great.

Which is it, capitalism or Canada's subisidize socialism that has effect US market prices?

[loosecannon]

Which is it, capitalism or Canada's subisidize socialism that has effect US market prices?


both. within our own economy, our industry can not compete with canada because of supply and demand and capitalist pressures to use the cheaper product.

But both the US and Canada subsidize agriculture. The US to support farming, Canada tree farming. The US is a socialist state. So Is Canada.

[LiberalNation]

The US is not as socialist as Canada though so I would say they were on equal levels of the socialist state spectrum.