An idea to make public lands more profitable

[rwc101]

Meh, not really. You would never do this with the expectation of 100% compliance. It isn't a true resource issue either, so if compliance is only 50-60%, no big deal.

I'd be interested in seeing the numbers on how much fees would cost to raise enforcement to that 50-60%. I seldom come across a ranger or warden, and I have a hard time believing current staffing levels would be sufficient. Would the cost be high enough to deter people from using the land?

The Boundary Waters and every back country national park campsite

The Boundary Waters looks like it has 26 entry points. That's a lot fewer than the USFS land I run around on.

Man, what a bunch of Negative Nellies. Go ahead and throw every rock you can at the idea but don't come up with any of your own.

Hey man, you shared your idea on the internet and opened it up to criticism. Good on you for thinking of ways to better our public lands. Some of us simply disagree, and it's not because of what we drive or what we wear.

 

[bullbugle307]

$1.35 RUM (recreation unit month) for a dude/lab pair seems reasonable.

Good grief, I didn't realize they lowered it. Hadn't it gone over 2 dollars a few years back? I don't know why I'm surprised though. In case anyone is wondering, this is a joke about the federal grazing fees (which many think are a joke). If you've ever heard the term welfare rancher, this is where it comes from. Right now, a landowner only pays $1.35 an AUM, or animal unit/month to graze on federal lands. 1 AUM can be a cow/calf pair, 5 sheep...etc. $1.35 is the minimum they can be charged and was based on the fair market value in 1966!

I'll give you guys a first hand example of why this pisses me off so much. When I lived outside of Pinedale WY, I had a cabin with a pasture in the back. The landowner let me rent out the pasture for grazing to some of the neighbors. They were more than happy to pay 30 dollars a head per month to graze that pasture. That was considered a fair market value to them.

Just on the other side of the fence, where the habitat was exactly the same on BLM, some guy who had a grazing permit was paying $1.35 a head per month.

 

[MTGomer]

Bighorn Canyon admission will be free this year - Powell Tribune

Admission had been $5 per car. After completing a cost benefit analysis, park officials found they were actually losing money by collecting entrance fees. In a Tuesday news release, park officials said Bighorn Canyon spent $194,892 collecting …

www.powelltribune.com

 

[antlerradar]

I haven’t seen the pay with memories option on my bills. Until then, my checkbook disagrees that I am profiting from them.

I wouldn’t be opposed to some type of yearly pass. I think if we were interested in public land being more economical the logical first step would be to address the AUM rates and I’m not sure that’s the best route either.

Schaaf, You are confusing an accounting profit with an economic profit. Contrary to popular thinking economics in not about money but values. Money is just a convenient way to measure value. Just because you don't receive payment that you put in a bank does not mean you don't profit economically form you time on public land. When we hunt on public land we place a value on the meat, antlers, experience, memory's and a whole host of other things. There are also costs involved. Some costs like gas are easily assessed in terms of dollars, others like opportunity costs are much harder to assess in terms of money. When you go hunting on public land the economic profit is the value of the benefits you get less the costs. If the costs are greater there is no economic profit and you would not go hunting.

As for accounting profits, lots of companies and individuals that pay to use public lands do not necessarily make an accounting profit. Take grazing. The AUM fees are low when compared to private for sure but that doesn't mean the ranchers are making a big accounting profit. Some ranches only make an accounting profit in the best of years. Today's cattle prices are roughly 60% of what they were a few years ago. It is likely that most ranchers are losing money and getting by on savings or borrowed money.
The coal industry is even in worse shape. Coal companies are going bankrupt right and left but I would not be advocating that the fees ranchers or coal companies pay to the government be reduced or eliminated just because they are not making an accounting profit.

 

[antlerradar]

Is someone going to pick me up in a POS Suburban and feed me a sack lunch, and offer to let me shoot a management buck?

That Suburban and sack lunch and accompanying "expert guide" are going to cost you a lot more. That 100+a day is what it is going to take to cover your part of the lease.

 

[Pelican]

In the late 1990s or early 2000s, some national forests in the Pacific Northwest sold recreation passes for $20. The passes were required to use some trailheads, campgrounds, etc. They dropped it after a few years due to the cost of enforcement vs the revenue they created. I think it was called the “northwest forest pass.”

These ideas are about being proactive, taking away a talking point from the opposition, and possibly providing some funding for public lands.

Don’t kid yourself, the pro PLT crowd does not want public lands to be self funding. They want to get rid of the lands, so I don’t see them supporting any legislation that would make management of public lands less reliant on tax dollars. They use this as a talking point because they think it will convince more people to side with them, not because they actually want it to occur.

 

[Goatshoes]

I'm guessing if you got back the portion of your federal income taxes that actually went to public land management, it would cover maybe one good night at the bar.

That may be but I also wrote that we should apply it evenly across the board. I haven't used any illegal aliens. So can I get that money back too?

What I'm saying is if you are going to have a user fee tax for everything than do it that way and we can all pay for the resources we use, but I think its a load of crap to tax me generally for "government services" and then tax me a second time each time I use a service.

 

[Irrelevant]

In the late 1990s or early 2000s, some national forests in the Pacific Northwest sold recreation passes for $20. The passes were required to use some trailheads, campgrounds, etc. They dropped it after a few years due to the cost of enforcement vs the revenue they created. I think it was called the “northwest forest pass.”



Don’t kid yourself, the pro PLT crowd does not want public lands to be self funding. They want to get rid of the lands, so I don’t see them supporting any legislation that would make management of public lands less reliant on tax dollars. They use this as a talking point because they think it will convince more people to side with them, not because they actually want it to occur.

If they dropped it you should remind them. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/passes-permits/recreation/?cid=fsbdev2_027010

It's $30 and required at all the "popular" trailheads.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

Doesn't Montana already do this with their state lands permit? I think it is something like $5 on your hunting/fishing tag to be able to access the state lands for these purposes?

 

[Pelican]

If they dropped it you should remind them. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/passes-permits/recreation/?cid=fsbdev2_027010

It's $30 and required at all the "popular" trailheads.

Hmm. I didn’t realize they brought it back. Maybe it will work out this time.

 

[Sytes]

I don’t have numbers in front of me but I’m pretty sure that logging actually costs the taxpayers money for building roads and maintenance. I could be wrong. I support logging but I don’t think it’s a winner in terms of adding money to the public coffer.

I was looking more at the State's ability to reduce unemployment and the effects caused by additional employed families.

The Cost of Unemployment to the Economy

Unemployment carries many costs for an economy, both obvious and hidden. It affects individuals and society. Some effects are hard to spot but long-lasting.

www.investopedia.com

Searching for information related to your thoughts, this article was reviewed (Sept '18).

As a result, Montana has become a net importer of logs. Today, Montana mills are dependent on logs flowing in from adjacent states and struggle to get enough timber to operate at their full capacity, making it difficult to take advantage of the current booming lumber market.

But a new national forest management strategy introduced by the U.S. Forest Service aims to increase timber harvest levels. The agency is increasing the removal of timber as a means to improve forest health and address fuel accumulation in the face of extreme wildfire seasons.

The State of Montana Forestry | Montana Business Quarterly

The U.S. Forest Service hopes to improve forest health and reduce wildfires with increased timber harvests. How will that effect Montana?

www.montanabusinessquarterly.com

 

[Straight Arrow]

I was looking more at the State's ability to reduce unemployment and the effects caused by additional employed families.

The Cost of Unemployment to the Economy

Unemployment carries many costs for an economy, both obvious and hidden. It affects individuals and society. Some effects are hard to spot but long-lasting.

www.investopedia.com

Searching for information related to your thoughts, this article was reviewed (Sept '18).

The State of Montana Forestry | Montana Business Quarterly

The U.S. Forest Service hopes to improve forest health and reduce wildfires with increased timber harvests. How will that effect Montana?

www.montanabusinessquarterly.com

Although I concur with support for increased logging in Montana and not so much reliance on importing logs for the wood products industry, I question the seemingly alarmed concern regarding unemployment since the state unemployment rate has been at all time lows in recent years. Many of the effects of "employed families" formerly working in the timber industry have been positive because the wage earners have transitioned to other work, not so seasonal and with lower workers compensation rates.

A recent enigma which is concerning involves the sale of the RY Timber sections in the Bridger Mountains to the Lazy J Ranch, ostensibly transferring renewable resource timberlands to grazing and commercial hunting outfitting lands. A critical adverse element of that transfer for Bozeman area hunters is that several of the sections which were heretofore in Block Management are now closed to public hunting.

Anyone have any insight into RY Timber's business or other motivation to downsize timberland ownership?

 

[Sytes]

Although I concur with support for increased logging in Montana and not so much reliance on importing logs for the wood products industry, I question the seemingly alarmed concern regarding unemployment since the state unemployment rate has been at all time lows in recent years. Many of the effects of "employed families" formerly working in the timber industry have been positive because the wage earners have transitioned to other work, not so seasonal and with lower workers compensation rates.

A recent enigma which is concerning involves the sale of the RY Timber sections in the Bridger Mountains to the Lazy J Ranch, ostensibly transferring renewable resource timberlands to grazing and commercial hunting outfitting lands. A critical adverse element of that transfer for Bozeman area hunters is that several of the sections which were heretofore in Block Management are now closed to public hunting.

Anyone have any insight into RY Timber's business or other motivation to downsize timberland ownership?

In prime forest land... 4.6% Flathead, 5.4% Mineral, 6.0% granite, 6.1% Sanders, 7.2% Glacier, 7.3% Lincoln... That is not good. Especially considering the fantastic employment opportunities our renewable resource surrounding the counties with Montana's worst employment rates. It's there... yet, we import logs... Ass backwards.

Timber transition: Long logging history cut short

National forests can't meet needs of timber mills It was the same old story year after year. Jim Hurst

www.dailyinterlake.com

A review:

Today, Owens & Hurst employs one secretary and four others to handle the company's remaining obligations, including some logging contracts - maybe three years' worth of work. Eureka - which has had one or more sawmills since 1905 - now has none.
That's despite the town being located within the 3,400-square-mile Kootenai National Forest and within a 20-minute drive of the 3,600-square-mile Flathead National Forest. According to Jim Petersen, editor of the Bigfork-based forestry journal Evergreen: "What happened in Eureka is a microcosm of what's happened in mill towns throughout the West."

In 2003, environmentalists obtained a federal court injunction on five Kootenai Forest timber sales, including one going to Owens & Hurst. However, U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., attached a rider to a 2004 appropriations bill that ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to go ahead with the sales - despite environmentalist protests that this blatantly bypassed having the courts decide litigation. In 2004, a federal judge lifted the injunction.
The mill cut and processed 45 million board feet in 2004.
In December 2004, Hurst met with U.S. Forest Service managers to discuss future timber supplies, and could not get any solid figures or predictions.
As he drove home, Hurst thought: "My God, they don't know what direction they're going. How can I make a business plan on that?"
That's when he decided to shut down the mill - hoping to close and take care of his employees on his terms.
Owens & Hurst obtained most of its timber from federal forests, and its success was intrinsically tied to that lumber supply.

A 70 percent drop in harvests from Montana's federal forests is the main factor in the state's overall annual harvest shrinking from 1.2 billion board feet annually to 700 million board feet annually in less than 20 years, a 2004 University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research report said.

"A number of factors caused the declines in national forest timber harvests, including: Appeals and litigation of timber sales, threatened and endangered species protections, cumulative effects of past harvesting and reductions in U.S. Forest Service budgets," the report said.

 

[MTGomer]

I’m the first person in my family to not work in the timber industry.

Of the owners of two logging companies(2 uncles), one road building company(another uncle), one log hauling company(step dad), 4 employees of Stone Container in frenchtown(cousins, brother, dad), two employees of Stimpson(mother and aunt) in Bonner that are in my family, there is only one that is making comparable money today in Montana than they were when the timber industry went down, and that is my cousin who was relatively young and has worked her way up a little with the railroad.

One other family member is making a lot more but he moved to North Dakota and started a business in the oil field.

I’m unaware of many $80k pensioned union jobs in the Missoula area today, like Smurfitt Stone had.

At this point, I don’t see how the timber industry could ever come back much. Most of the mills are gone. Haulage distances have to really effect the economics of many timber sales.

The only seasonality to logging work I remember was briefly for spring breakup and on bad fire summers, in which case the equipment went on fires and the logging employees went and operated it.

 

[BigHornRam]

A new modern mill is going in at the old Tricon mill and they are now hiring.

Idaho Timber Company Acquiring St. Regis Stud Mill - Flathead Beacon

One of the nation’s largest lumber producers based in Coeur d’Alene is acquiring Tricon Timber’s stud mill in St. Regis. The Idaho Forest Group, a family owned wood products company, announced the acquisition last week. The transaction is scheduled to close by Dec. 1. “The St. Regis sawmill...

flatheadbeacon.com

They are betting on the come for obtaining a steady supply of nearby federal timber to opperate this mill. Time will tell how it plays out.

 

[RobG]

The problem with these extra fees is that the lion's share of the money is appropriated by Congress, and they do it at a very minimal level because of the "starve the beast and it will go away" mentality of a certain party. In other words, your camping fee would simply be offset by a budget cut. The last thing that party wants is a smoothly running fully funded government organization.

 

[sharpshooter97]

We already pay enough to enjoy what we do, duck stamps, tags, habitat stamps, pittman-robertson taxes on equipment. Not to mention that this land belongs to the public, the beauty of it is that it is available to anymore to access. I’d like to see them continue to remain accessible for everyone regardless of their financial situation.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

My opinion is that I pay taxes so I am already paying to camp on land that I am a partial owner of.

The idea of paying to camp on USFS or BLM land before they start consistently charging people whose negligence causes forest fires for the cost of putting them out seems silly. Somehow my taxes go to pay for their negligence.

 

[shoots-straight]

I hear "Bring back the Timber Industry" drums all the time here. If you really look at the economics of it, you soon figure out that it's never going to be the nostalgic thing it was in the past.

Most mill operations of today are really mechanical in nature. Machines do most all the work, (Almost). A fraction of the people are needed from the sawyers, to the green chain operators, to packaging. Yes, there will and could be employees hired and wages will be better than most service entry jobs.

Another problem, is Montana Timber sucks by and large. I've been using it for a very long time and have always hated Montana made studs and any type of dimension lumber. It grows very little in a year compared to other areas, and has a higher preponderance of problems in use. Wafer wood, could be made here, but again you need ample supply, and long term commitments. A mill is a huge investment. The forest are a lot smaller than when I was a child. I just don't see it ever being like it was.

I'd feel more like paying a usage fee, if the AUM rates paid where better, like state fees, and if the extraction Industry's paid far more for using my lands to make millions.

 

[BigHornRam]

Slow growth inland fir and larch make stronger lumber that brings a premium for engineered products like trusses. Biggest problem Montana faces, is what to do with Ponderosa pine. Not much of a market for it. Other disadvantages are distances to mills like Gomer mentioned and distances to major markets.