Fortunately, trees hang around for a long time while we make up our minds what the heck to do with them. However, this is not something that you can change courses every couple of years without severe consequences. Once you commit to a course of action, it's a bit like grabbing the tail of a tiger.
For example, most people understand the concept of non-declining even flow of wood products. Few people understand that you can get vastly more total output over the rotation by departing from non-declining even flow in the scenario where you have a preponderance of slow-growing old-growth, which is the current situation. It's all because managed stands grow at four to five times the rate of the old growth stands. In other words, you cut more now so you can cut more later, but along the way you will have to cut less (decline) than you cut now in order to return to non-declining flow at a higher rate than you would have under by rigidly adhering to non-declining even flow. However, you can't change your mind once you commit to that, you better make sure that's what you want. I guess people have decided they don't, but I'm sure they don't understand the reasons why they will have less wood in the future.
I personally think we should manage for maximum dollar output rather than maximum wood output. That's a concept called financial rotation. Under that scenario, cutting less drives the price up, and you can also manage for value. Poles, for example are worth much more than common lumber. You can manage for quality and more dollars. |
