Group Appreciation(

Ron Wenrich woodtick at
Wed Mar 11 00:36:41 EST 1998

TREEFARMER at wrote:

> Don, maybe that's the bottom line. Does the public want the products
> from hardwood forests or would they rather have them to look at.
> Could we be about to get to an area where the public will accept
> synthetics and composites rather than have a tree cut for the real
> thing. I say hardwoods because they may be the most dispensible. For
> some reason I get a gut feeling that the future of forestry might be
> pulp and pallets, not sawtimber and veneer.

Hardwoods seem to be more expendable in the South and West, than in the
East.  It is often much easier to apply unevenaged management to
hardwoods than softwoods, which offsets some of the visual aspects of a
timber harvest.

Smaller sized trees for harvest is a problem.  Smaller trees offer less
grade lumber and is more expensive to produce.  Pallet priced lumber
does not offer a good return to the landowner.  Veneer is what carries
timber prices to what they are.  Unfortunately, timber managers
(landowners, loggers and foresters) often don't allow trees to attain
the necessary girth or quality to qualify for veneer.  When the lower
limit is hit, the timber is cut, while if left to grow would increase in
real value.

Pulp markets may be in danger to outside sources of processed pulp.  We
have a mill which is shutting off all chip and pulp producers to import
processed pulp from a country where environmental laws are lower than in
US.  If this trend catches on, there will be some real problems for pulp
producers as well as mill chip.


More information about the Ag-forst mailing list