Feeding America's insatiable appetite for lumber

[barbender]

How is it a free market, when there are subsidized goods?

[elijah2017]

Well since the great ice storm of 2025 it seems that everyone that was hit here in Northern Lower MI and the South East U.P. is on a race to get their woods cut before the bugs get it. Rumor has it that the mills are backed up. If we could sell more lumber here that would at be great. At least for now.

[thecfarm]

Welcome to the forum.

[nativewolf]

How is it a free market, when there are subsidized goods?

Every country in the world subsidizes ag and forestry.    The countervailing duties on Canadian lumber already offset the subsidy.  

We export lumber which is a process subsidized by USA grants.  Then development of loblolly pine genetics and the radiata pine was all subsidized by govt.   tsi and site prep subsidized by government.  I guarantee that Weyerhaeuser new mill had huge govt incentives.  Usfs timber sales were almost all heavily subsidized as well, not sure today.  I have seen bids for 100k of timber that require the usfs to spend 300k on a road.  That used to be very common, even normal.

Seems hypocritical for us to complain when someone else does the exact same thing we do.  

[barbender]

I've had this discussion with a forester somewhere else, specific to the USFS. I'm only familiar with my area, but here USFS timber is sold at market determined prices. The fact that it costs them more to sell it than what they earn from it, speaks to perhaps the top heaviness of the USFS. I'm not sure. But what they're not doing is flooding the market with cheap timber. Their sales tend to be some of the most expensive, because they put up massive contracts of several thousand cords. 

All the other agencies in the area, State and Counties, sell timber and fund other needs with the proceeds. Again, all sold open market, either oral bid at auctions or sealed bids in some cases. 

So, I don't think that there's fact that the USFS loses money selling timber is a subsidy. It's not lowering the cost of the timber, except by adding to supply.

[Ianab]

The fact that it costs them more to sell it than what they earn from it, speaks to perhaps the top heaviness of the USFS.

To be fair the USFS has a lot of other responsibilities other than selling timber rights. Public campgrounds / access trails / wildlife / research etc. Selling timber rights is only part of their business, and as you say, the market sets the sale price. Charging less could be considered a subsidy, and charging more would mean less sales.

NZ basically has no Govt owned commercial forestry any more. The Govt did kick start the plantation forestry industry back in the day. The largest exotic forest was started as an experiment, then as a  "job creation" scheme back in the Depression days. It's now under Maori tribal ownership, but the forestry licence is held by a commercial company. They basically lease the land to plant and harvest trees, same as you might lease a field to grow corn. NZ Govt owned forest land is either National Parks, or various areas of native forest (some old growth, some regenerating), but it's basically off limits to logging.

On Google maps you can see the Kaingaroa forest (1,000+ square miles) of mostly pine forest, in different stages of growth that you can just by the change from brown to dark green. Zoom in and you can see the access roads / fire breaks / landing sites etc. East of there is Whirinaki Forest Park and Te Urewera National Park, which is either  undisturbed or regenerating forest.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/bNotN8X1xkLU9fQE9

[Ron Wenrich]

The USFS puts in roads for a variety of reasons.  Long term mgmt, fire control, etc.  The timber sale offsets the price of the road.  The road is still a net cost on the public side of the books. 

I believe all the timber sales on public lands are sealed bid sales.  The local prevailing market would dictate price.  I think there are also minimum bids that are required.  I don't know how Canada handles their timber sales.

The US govt does subsidize TSI.  I've only had one that was done using the subsidy.  That work involved cutting undesirable trees and letting them lay.  Most TSI work is handled by doing some sort of harvest.  I did a few that involved taking out firewood.  The local paper company also does a lot of TSI marking with the harvest going to them. 

As for Weyerhauser getting some govt money, they've built every pro football stadium in this country with govt money.  Its a big business thing and not exclusive to the forestry or ag sector of the economy.

[Ron Scott]

Environmentalists have made "Below Cost Timber Sales" an issue to stop harvesting timber from National Forest system lands without valuing the other Multiple Use values accomplished by the implementation of a timbe harvest such as the completion of wildlife habitat development and improvement, landscape and ecosystem management, TSI, road and recreational trail development, fuel breaks etc.

[beenthere]

Right on Ron
I think every 'ologist that existed (biologist, botanist, zoologist, geologist, environmentalist, etc. ) hired on to the USFS and caused the eventual "boot" of the Forester that came hired with all these individual education combined. The forester had no new recruits to train and pass on their experience. The management side of the USFS diverted to "no cutting" to appease those who could simply stop a timber sale easily with just a post card sent to a judge. Threw the baby out with the wash. End of rant.

[barbender]

BT, that's kind of been my observation. The Federal foresters I've worked with have all been professionals, but there is a circus in the background.