Wvmountaineer,
While you like to take the cheap shots, I'd suggest you just go ahead without the insinuations...no reason to beat around the bush with me. I'm a big boy, can take anything you want to dish out...have dealt with guys like you all my life. Heard it all, plus some.
Having spend the last 30 years in the woods, a majority of it every year in the field, I'm pretty well aware of what is going on with the woods, timber, and the markets. Not to mention that my Dad is a retired from the timber industry that he spent 40 years in.
I think part of the problem we may be having is that we're talking about different geographical areas with very different timber types, ways to harvest, rotation ages and the like.
What you imply, that companies don't and haven't put short term profits (some would argue pillaging) of resources in the Interior West as their motive is pure crap. Its been going on where I grew up (Western Montana) for at least a couple hundred years.
There's a reason that ACM slicked the best of the best trees only keeping the boles up to the first limb, followed by selling their timber lands to Champion, who eventually sold to plum Creek (which turned into a real-estate company more than a timber Co. in Western) Montana. When PC purchased the Champion holdings, they were straight with people saying they only intended to keep their MT mills running for 20 years, about the time it would take to liquidate what timber they had.
They did just that, and promptly shuttered their mills, sold the most valuable land to private individuals, and cut deals with the Nature Conservancy and the Legacy project so that some of their land holdings were eventually bought by the Feds.
What they didn't concern themselves with, none of those companies, is to practice any kind of long-term sustainable harvest. They couldn't do it and make a profit. In particular with tree species with rotation ages, best case, of 80 years...many times and sites I would argue that 120-140 years is more reasonable. It is very difficult, if not out-right impossible, to sustain the level of harvest that PC, ACM, and Champion were doing in the 70's-90's while trying to plan for the future. There was no plan or thought of sustainable forestry...it was slick what you can, turn a profit, sell your holdings, and head out.
Cant blame them, for starters they never implied otherwise and with such long rotation ages, and automated timber-gobbling mills, impossible to sustain.
While your pie in the sky vision sounds good in theory, its never been a reality in Montana and most of the interior West. What you're talking about works great in places with 30, 40, 50 year rotations...in particular when the trees are much easier to access.
Everybody wants to blame the FS and tree huggers for mills closing down...nobody said a word (which you cant its their land) while PC, AMC, and CI liquidated their timber with no eye to sustainability and long-term forest management in mind. I would like you to point out where the FS is required, by law, act, or regulation to ensure that any mill stay running via supplying them with raw materials. I'll save you the trouble of looking, there isn't one.
So, while things like this latest forest planning project sound good in theory, the reality is, we aren't going to see a big influx of jobs, timber, and mills to run it. If that plan is relying on job creation, mills opening up, and for timber to pay for the whole thing...its D.O.A. and a huge non-starter. The only way its going to work is from heavy amounts of tax dollars being injected into the idea...and we know that isn't likely to happen with the current administration.
Pay close attention to ChrisS and what he said about...100% spot on.
