Relax, Everything is Going to be Okay!

[Gulf of America]

Sounds like more cuts may be looming:

Shutdown

Yay, even more efficiency.

 

[Irrelevant]

I think it is more an issue of perception which is also fed by the constant political narrative of "forest mismanagement". As the climate gets hotter and dryer and there are more fires (largely human-caused) the narrative is easy to accept. The report below is from 2020, so it might need updated. The chart is the key shot. The decline is driving by private land harvest, and I would bet a decent sum that is due to the decline of the newspaper industry and print publishing. The reality is America doesn't use as much wood products. If the tree can't be turned into a 2x4 or furniture, it has little value today.


View attachment 385473

https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr1032.pdf

I'll disagree. I think that table supports my claim. The FS has ~9 mil acres in WA. The State owns ~600k. The States owns less than 1/10 the amount as the FS yet they cut almost 10x. And those are relatively consistent, per your table, over the last 15 years. Also your point that private is the driving the decline, is also wrong. In the 1980's the Gifford Pinchot alone was producing 400 million board feet per year. That's 4x that entire production of all FS in WA currently. Unless my research is off, demand has changed but not appreciably from 1980 levels, and only off 10% from historic highs.

 

[SAJ-99]

I'll disagree. I think that table supports my claim. The FS has ~9 mil acres in WA. The State owns ~600k. The States owns less than 1/10 the amount as the FS yet they cut almost 10x. And those are relatively consistent, per your table, over the last 15 years. Also your point that private is the driving the decline, is also wrong. In the 1980's the Gifford Pinchot alone was producing 400 million board feet per year. That's 4x that entire production of all FS in WA currently. Unless my research is off, demand has changed but not appreciably from 1980 levels, and only off 10% from historic highs.
View attachment 387032

I had to go back and check your post to see where we disagree. I'm not sure we do. I don't dispute the numbers, only that finding a single cause is problematic. If your claim is the FS could cut more timber, I guess I would agree. But I stand by everything else. The data on Private/Tribal harvest is clear. Timber harvest continues at a rate that is dictated by demand. Mills have closed in the state because of demand and "market conditions" (which I guess means people decided to work for Microsoft instead of being loggers). Being at the same demand as 1980 isn't a great thing. Going back longer, the post-WWII buildout drives the long-term line, with spikes for the housing bubble (which doesn't show on your chart for some reason), and weird stuff for COVID. Now we come back to a normal trend that is mostly related to population growth. The paper-paperboard trend is pretty obvious. Cardboard boxes and Amazon is supporting that whole market. Even the COVID spike for fiberboard/MDF is rolling off.

You said your parents said "nothing happens" and I speculated it might be a perception issue. But there may be other answers. Is the answer to "nothing gets done" that it takes 40 years to grow a tree? The pictures below show there might be some validity to that. They had harvested a LOT of the GP by 1985 (post Mt St Helens reawakening). Now if you move the satellite to the west side of Ranier, it shows considerable harvest over the same period to more current. As you well know, the west side of the state and the east side are practically two different planets.

I am a multi-use supporter, and am not a fan of endless lawsuits trying to stop everything, but the market forces for the timber business are not great - labor, prices, reduction in pulp (which helped margins).

Here is Gifford Pinchot Forest 1985 between MT St Helens and Mt Adams.

Same picture 2020. I think most people would support cutting the areas that were cut previously if the trees are ready? Maybe I just hope that is the case. Regardless the bottleneck may be the fact there are fewer mills to process.

 

[Irrelevant]

I had to go back and check your post to see where we disagree. I'm not sure we do. I don't dispute the numbers, only that finding a single cause is problematic. If your claim is the FS could cut more timber, I guess I would agree. But I stand by everything else. The data on Private/Tribal harvest is clear. Timber harvest continues at a rate that is dictated by demand. Mills have closed in the state because of demand and "market conditions" (which I guess means people decided to work for Microsoft instead of being loggers). Being at the same demand as 1980 isn't a great thing. Going back longer, the post-WWII buildout drives the long-term line, with spikes for the housing bubble (which doesn't show on your chart for some reason), and weird stuff for COVID. Now we come back to a normal trend that is mostly related to population growth. The paper-paperboard trend is pretty obvious. Cardboard boxes and Amazon is supporting that whole market. Even the COVID spike for fiberboard/MDF is rolling off.

You said your parents said "nothing happens" and I speculated it might be a perception issue. But there may be other answers. Is the answer to "nothing gets done" that it takes 40 years to grow a tree? The pictures below show there might be some validity to that. They had harvested a LOT of the GP by 1985 (post Mt St Helens reawakening). Now if you move the satellite to the west side of Ranier, it shows considerable harvest over the same period to more current. As you well know, the west side of the state and the east side are practically two different planets.

I am a multi-use supporter, and am not a fan of endless lawsuits trying to stop everything, but the market forces for the timber business are not great - labor, prices, reduction in pulp (which helped margins).

Here is Gifford Pinchot Forest 1985 between MT St Helens and Mt Adams.
View attachment 387034
Same picture 2020. I think most people would support cutting the areas that were cut previously if the trees are ready? Maybe I just hope that is the case. Regardless the bottleneck may be the fact there are fewer mills to process.
View attachment 387035

My point is that it's not market based because the state somehow figures it out. That there is something fundamental with the FS in WA that prevents work. Other NFs don't seem to have the same "issue"

 

[SAJ-99]

My point is that it's not market based because the state somehow figures it out. That there is something fundamental with the FS in WA that prevents work. Other NFs don't seem to have the same "issue"

Until I see something to change my mind I have to stick with a market explanation. There is no shortage of 2x4s or MDF. Some explanations is that Federal land might be harder to log or there might be an issue on cost-of-living, particularly on the west side. I know that if we really needed that timber, America could get it done. I need to see something more concrete that says the FS in the state is preventing the logging. But I admit that local regs might be a possibility.

Idaho long term harvest report below. Looks about right. The housing buildup from post-WWII (it's the build out of the suburbs, which was driven by government incentives, but that is a different discussion) drives the entire narrative for that state.

 

[Irrelevant]

Until I see something to change my mind I have to stick with a market explanation. There is no shortage of 2x4s or MDF. Some explanations is that Federal land might be harder to log or there might be an issue on cost-of-living, particularly on the west side. I know that if we really needed that timber, America could get it done. I need to see something more concrete that says the FS in the state is preventing the logging. But I admit that local regs might be a possibility.

Idaho long term harvest report below. Looks about right. The housing buildup from post-WWII (it's the build out of the suburbs, which was driven by government incentives, but that is a different discussion) drives the entire narrative for that state.
View attachment 387064

You keep providing graphs that support my point. Look at the % decline. A market-based explanation would reduce them by about the same percentage. Yet the State is about the same, private is about 67% of the peak, yet the Feds are less than 10% of the peak.

 

[SAJ-99]

You keep providing graphs that support my point. Look at the % decline. A market-based explanation would reduce them by about the same percentage. Yet the State is about the same, private is about 67% of the peak, yet the Feds are less than 10% of the peak.

Yes, because the private market (and maybe even state) has to pay the bills regardless of price of lumber. The feds don’t. In the peak of the chart the Feds wanted houses built and incentivized that process. Today, the Feds auction timber and many auctions go ‘no bid’. Simply, the fed production was higher when demand was higher. The market drives the entire thing. They are the excess capacity.

 

[SAJ-99]

You keep providing graphs that support my point. Look at the % decline. A market-based explanation would reduce them by about the same percentage. Yet the State is about the same, private is about 67% of the peak, yet the Feds are less than 10% of the peak.

Also, that chart is for Idaho. You stated something was unusual in decline of Washington FS lands. That chart says it was the same in Idaho. Although i acknowledge that it doesn’t mean there are not still differences in approvals.

 

[Bonasababy]

Also, that chart is for Idaho. You stated something was unusual in decline of Washington FS lands. That chart says it was the same in Idaho. Although i acknowledge that it doesn’t mean there are not still differences in approvals.

I wonder if the states are selling timber dirt cheap and/or flooding the market like they are here...which drives prices down...and the feds aren't or can't.

 

[SAJ-99]

I wonder if the states are selling timber dirt cheap and/or flooding the market like they are here...which drives prices down...and the feds aren't or can't.

I'm am sure there are differences between State approval process and Feds. State being much easier I would guess. Maybe @kwyeewyk has some insight? I already have gone further down this rabbit hole than I wanted to. The discussion should have really been done in one of the Roadless Rule threads to refute the nonsense idea about more logging and fire mitigation.

 

[kwyeewyk]

I'm am sure there are differences between State approval process and Feds. State being much easier I would guess. Maybe @kwyeewyk has some insight? I already have gone further down this rabbit hole than I wanted to. The discussion should have really been done in one of the Roadless Rule threads to refute the nonsense idea about more logging and fire mitigation.

I probably don't have much valuable insight, clearances and also litigation process are night and day different for state vs. federal, spotted owl adds another layer of difficulty where they occur. There's certainly projects that have been planned for years that haven't been able to get past litigation, they try to accomplish as much as they can under fire emergency work but that's pretty limited.

I know that Hampton mills get backed up and don't take logs somewhat regularly so there's a capacity issue that is probably market driven related to mill closures but I won't pretend to understand the intricacies. Also know that BLM timber offerings in Washington often don't get bids, usually due to difficulty of access/extraction and market values, small scale. Among log truck drivers there's a sense of too many workers competing for the work available in this area so I don't think it's a lack of workers issue.

I think what you mentioned about feds being the excess capacity is probably somewhat accurate, most logging companies probably prefer to work on private, state and fed in that descending order due to regulations, oversight etc. Private timber is focused on one thing. Generating revenue for school trust funds from timber is the primary mission for DNR, so they're mostly focused on one thing with a few side projects thrown in.

Forest Service has multiple use mandate and lots of distractions, lack of staffing and funding, declining ability to attract and retain quality employees leading to constant turnover that results in poor management and low productivity, and internal conflicts over management directions and decisions that contribute to analysis paralysis.

I suspect it mostly boils down to private and state have much more vested interest in selling timber and so they take up most of the market space and feds are filing in the gaps. Mills need consistent supply, so reopening or creating new mills requires long-term assurance of supply that feds haven't been able to provide, so a boom of fed timber harvest is difficult to achieve at this point due to lack of mills and the lack of assurance needed to facilitate more mills.

The roadless rule rescission is unlikely to result in a large increase in harvest, probably unlikely to result in a wave of road building across broad areas as well. I think it's mostly going to affect specific areas where there's some special interest that requires and is feasible for roads, timber extraction or otherwise.

 

[Irrelevant]

Also, that chart is for Idaho. You stated something was unusual in decline of Washington FS lands. That chart says it was the same in Idaho. Although i acknowledge that it doesn’t mean there are not still differences in approvals.

I certainly have never thought about it the way you do, but I'm unconvinced of your argument. In my mind "the market" isn't driving shit. The Feds are choosing to manage or not.

Here's a great example of my original point, that nothing get's done outside of a fire. I saw a post on IG where the FS is promoting the installation of a culvert as part of an active wildfire. If that road needed a culvert, I don't understand why we had to wait until there was a fire to install it

I probably don't have much valuable insight, clearances and also litigation process are night and day different for state vs. federal, spotted owl adds another layer of difficulty where they occur. There's certainly projects that have been planned for years that haven't been able to get past litigation, they try to accomplish as much as they can under fire emergency work but that's pretty limited.

I know that Hampton mills get backed up and don't take logs somewhat regularly so there's a capacity issue that is probably market driven related to mill closures but I won't pretend to understand the intricacies. Also know that BLM timber offerings in Washington often don't get bids, usually due to difficulty of access/extraction and market values, small scale. Among log truck drivers there's a sense of too many workers competing for the work available in this area so I don't think it's a lack of workers issue.

I think what you mentioned about feds being the excess capacity is probably somewhat accurate, most logging companies probably prefer to work on private, state and fed in that descending order due to regulations, oversight etc. Private timber is focused on one thing. Generating revenue for school trust funds from timber is the primary mission for DNR, so they're mostly focused on one thing with a few side projects thrown in.

Forest Service has multiple use mandate and lots of distractions, lack of staffing and funding, declining ability to attract and retain quality employees leading to constant turnover that results in poor management and low productivity, and internal conflicts over management directions and decisions that contribute to analysis paralysis.

I suspect it mostly boils down to private and state have much more vested interest in selling timber and so they take up most of the market space and feds are filing in the gaps. Mills need consistent supply, so reopening or creating new mills requires long-term assurance of supply that feds haven't been able to provide, so a boom of fed timber harvest is difficult to achieve at this point due to lack of mills and the lack of assurance needed to facilitate more mills.

The roadless rule rescission is unlikely to result in a large increase in harvest, probably unlikely to result in a wave of road building across broad areas as well. I think it's mostly going to affect specific areas where there's some special interest that requires and is feasible for roads, timber extraction or otherwise.

That's very good, applicable, and reasonable commentary.

 

[Beignet]

Gotta cut some more American govt jobs to finance the new Argentina we just mortgaged for a cool $20b.

 

[Potsie]

Gotta cut some more American govt jobs to finance the new Argentina we just mortgaged for a cool $20b.

The new ballroom at the white house ain’t gonna pay for itself.

 

[longbow51]

The new ballroom at the white house ain’t gonna pay for itself.

To be fair, the ballroom is paid for with private funds, not taxpayer dollars.

 

[Straight Arrow]

To be fair, the ballroom is paid for with private funds, not taxpayer dollars.

But it's on our property ... and we didn't even get to pick the curtains!

 

[SAJ-99]

To be fair, the ballroom is paid for with private funds, not taxpayer dollars.

I want to see the receipts. Tech titans donating to political pet projects doesn't feel altruistic to me.

 

[longbow51]

But it's on our property ... and we didn't even get to pick the curtains!

True; I know there are some women here, and statistically probably some gay guys who like curtains and stuff too

 

[Bonasababy]

I probably don't have much valuable insight, clearances and also litigation process are night and day different for state vs. federal, spotted owl adds another layer of difficulty where they occur. There's certainly projects that have been planned for years that haven't been able to get past litigation, they try to accomplish as much as they can under fire emergency work but that's pretty limited.

I know that Hampton mills get backed up and don't take logs somewhat regularly so there's a capacity issue that is probably market driven related to mill closures but I won't pretend to understand the intricacies. Also know that BLM timber offerings in Washington often don't get bids, usually due to difficulty of access/extraction and market values, small scale. Among log truck drivers there's a sense of too many workers competing for the work available in this area so I don't think it's a lack of workers issue.

I think what you mentioned about feds being the excess capacity is probably somewhat accurate, most logging companies probably prefer to work on private, state and fed in that descending order due to regulations, oversight etc. Private timber is focused on one thing. Generating revenue for school trust funds from timber is the primary mission for DNR, so they're mostly focused on one thing with a few side projects thrown in.

Forest Service has multiple use mandate and lots of distractions, lack of staffing and funding, declining ability to attract and retain quality employees leading to constant turnover that results in poor management and low productivity, and internal conflicts over management directions and decisions that contribute to analysis paralysis.

I suspect it mostly boils down to private and state have much more vested interest in selling timber and so they take up most of the market space and feds are filing in the gaps. Mills need consistent supply, so reopening or creating new mills requires long-term assurance of supply that feds haven't been able to provide, so a boom of fed timber harvest is difficult to achieve at this point due to lack of mills and the lack of assurance needed to facilitate more mills.

The roadless rule rescission is unlikely to result in a large increase in harvest, probably unlikely to result in a wave of road building across broad areas as well. I think it's mostly going to affect specific areas where there's some special interest that requires and is feasible for roads, timber extraction or otherwise.

Looks like some similarities to our situation but differences as well.

Market voices clamor for more wood but they have lost capacity and just will not buy everything that is offered. Part of that is due to high grading...the less intentional kind where they have chosen to buy the best most accessible wood and what is left is lower quaity or poor access.

But what they say and hunters fall in line with is that agencies have more wood they would buy...when in reality they will not buy most of it, they just want the market flooded so the price of what they do buy is lower.

Somehow all the people who prioritize economic return from logging don't stop to think that offering their timber at lower prices hurts them economically...especially on trust lands where selling as cheap and not taking a long term view is violating the states fiduciary duty.

What is true is that there is a good amount of private wood available in some areas but their offer rates are lower than they have been in the past...which also says something about the price buyers will pay.

The industry bashes the feds the most and yet they are moving some wood here.
In poor NE market areas the feds have had better luck selling timber than the state or counties.

 

[Potsie]

To be fair, the ballroom is paid for with private funds, not taxpayer dollars.

I have yet to see a demonstrable NEED for a gilded ballroom… I’m sure all those private funds went only to the building itself.

All those expedited construction costs and design fees surely never made it into campaign contributions.