I live adjacent to national forest and the forest itself is pretty much the same on public and private land. When people around here clear their land they basically break even or have to pay to get rid of the trees because, shocker, saw mills for lumber aren’t setup to process oak/maple/hickory. So it’s either pulpwood, or truly prize specimens (which are rare) get sold to smaller processors as like “bespoke” trees for making furniture.
Our softwood stands come nowhere close to competing with Canada and the southern states in terms of tree size and number, so even if you do have loblolly (or whatever) it’s not economic to harvest. I mean, you make a little bit, but it’s laughable. It’s only worth it if you are going to clear the land anyway for development.
So cutting a national forest to compete with Canada wouldn’t even work in the most bare naked capitalist, Looten Plunder-ass sense.
So I’m guessing you are either in the north east or parts of the Midwest based on what you wrote. There are three things I’d point out with that being said. Firstly, there are some areas where there are genuinely valuable trees on forest service land, as they allow logging at a minorly limited rate. This is especially true out west. Secondly, evonomies of scale. Much of the lumber industry is set up to clearcut even aged plantations at scale, and as a result it can be hard to find sawmills to buy small and diverse loads of logs from clearing smaller private parcels. Thirdly, there is an increasing demand for wood based biofuel, mainly for export to Europe or japan. This industry is only established in the southeast and Pacific Northwest thus far, but the companies involved in that do seem to be attempting to expand (drax, a British company was denied permits to build two large biofuel pellet plants in California).
Tldr, your observations of the timber industry are accurate but I think there are specific intelligent profiteers behind this type of move
I live adjacent to national forest and the forest itself is pretty much the same on public and private land. When people around here clear their land they basically break even or have to pay to get rid of the trees because, shocker, saw mills for lumber aren’t setup to process oak/maple/hickory. So it’s either pulpwood, or truly prize specimens (which are rare) get sold to smaller processors as like “bespoke” trees for making furniture.
Our softwood stands come nowhere close to competing with Canada and the southern states in terms of tree size and number, so even if you do have loblolly (or whatever) it’s not economic to harvest. I mean, you make a little bit, but it’s laughable. It’s only worth it if you are going to clear the land anyway for development.
So cutting a national forest to compete with Canada wouldn’t even work in the most bare naked capitalist, Looten Plunder-ass sense.
So I’m guessing you are either in the north east or parts of the Midwest based on what you wrote. There are three things I’d point out with that being said. Firstly, there are some areas where there are genuinely valuable trees on forest service land, as they allow logging at a minorly limited rate. This is especially true out west. Secondly, evonomies of scale. Much of the lumber industry is set up to clearcut even aged plantations at scale, and as a result it can be hard to find sawmills to buy small and diverse loads of logs from clearing smaller private parcels. Thirdly, there is an increasing demand for wood based biofuel, mainly for export to Europe or japan. This industry is only established in the southeast and Pacific Northwest thus far, but the companies involved in that do seem to be attempting to expand (drax, a British company was denied permits to build two large biofuel pellet plants in California).
Tldr, your observations of the timber industry are accurate but I think there are specific intelligent profiteers behind this type of move
Thanks for the insight.