Plum Creek Timber Co pays 25 cents/acre for annual firefighting fee assessment

Two weeks after the Lolo Creek Complex fire started, the Montana news media has finally let the public know that the vast majority of forest land burned in the fire is owned and managed by Plum Creek Timber Company, which just so happens to be the largest private landowner in the state.

Blog readers will recall that I was recently critical of the fact that no Montana media outlet apparently saw fit to mention even once or briefly that the Lolo Creek Complex fire was burning mainly on land owned and managed by Plum Creek Timber Company.

According to this morning’s Missoulian: “Most of the forest burned in the Lolo Creek Complex fire belonged to Plum Creek Timber Co., which hopes to recover what it can of the blackened trees this fall.”

Perhaps the most interesting part of the article was this bit of information about just how little Plum Creek Timber Company pays the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation for fighting wildfire on its private land:

Plum Creek also pays an annual firefighting fee assessment of about 25 cents an acre to the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation that works like insurance on all its approximately 900,000 acres of property in the state.

Montana State Forester Bob Harrington said the fee system is similar to programs used in most Rocky Mountain states to support firefighting efforts on private land. The money pays for equipment and training in years when fire activity doesn’t predominate the expenses.

Plum Creek also lost about 1,700 acres of timberland in the West Mullan fire near Superior in July. That area will also be assessed for possible salvage logging.

What do others think about the 25 cents per acre firefighting fee assessment? If it’s a fee assessment that works like insurance, then Plum Creek’s annual fee is approximately $225,000. Not a bad deal for insuring firefighting coverage over 900,000 acres of land, right?

Looked at another way, Plum Creek’s 7000 acres that burned in the 10,902 acre Lolo Complex Fire kicked in a grand total of $1,750 (7000 acres x 25 cents per acre) as per the firefighting fee assessment. I have yet to see concrete cost totals to the Forest Service, State DNRC and taxpayers for the Lolo Creek Complex fire but given the fact that this was the nation’s #1 priority wildfire recently and nearly 1,000 firefighters were fighting it at one point I’d have a hard time believing that total fire suppression costs would be anywhere south of $10 million.

Is this yet another real-world example of the timber industry getting one of the sweetest sweet-heart deals in America? Or does Plum Creek Timber Company (and other timber companies) paying about 25 cents per acre for a firefighting fee assessment pay their fair share of firefighting costs?

29 thoughts on “Plum Creek Timber Co pays 25 cents/acre for annual firefighting fee assessment”

  1. I guess you’d have to compare it to what other forested land landowners pay..do you know what that is?
    Then you would have to ask “should they pay the same, more or less?”
    Because I’m not sure they are assessed separately for firefighting in many states.

    Reply
  2. Hello Matt,

    So what do other private landowners in Lolo pay per acre-per year?

    What about the people who had firefighters camped out in lawns protecting their spendy homes? Certainly a lot of (most) resoures were committed to structure protection of private homes…not on Plum Creek lands.

    Fair share? “Sweetheart deals”??? Can’t say without knowing what everyone else pays. Using that same assessment rate I’d be paying $2.25 yearly…sweeeet.

    I’m not sure why you’ve spent so much energy trying to villify Plum Creek, but here’s some other fun facts about their company in Montana:

    http://www.plumcreek.com/Timberland/nbspByState/Montana/tabid/244/Default.aspx

    In addition to employing 750 Montanans to work in forestry, manufacturing, real estate and land sales, Plum Creek keeps a significant number of contractors and vendors busy.

    Through the Plum Creek Foundation and a scholarship program, the company provided nearly $451,000 in 2012 to Montana community organizations and college scholarship recipients. Grant requests are accepted and grants are awarded on a quarterly basis.

    Read more about Plum Creek’s grants and community involvement.

    Since 1989 Plum Creek has committed more than 613,000 acres of our Montana property to conservation through land sales, easements, and land exchanges. This committment includes the 310,000-acre Montana Legacy Project, one of the largest private conservation land sales in U.S. history.

    Reply
    • JZ this was pretty impressive..

      All of Plum Creek’s lands in Montana are currently open to the public year-round for hunting, fishing and recreation without charge.

      All roads on Plum Creek lands are open to the public. Some roads may be gated to vehicular traffic on a seasonal or permanent basis, but all can be accessed on foot.

      I wonder how many other landowners could say the same thing about their land?
      And how many people other landowners employ at family wages with health benefits?

      Reply
    • Sharon/JZ: Nope, I don’t know what other private landowners in the Lolo area pay per acre-per year for a firefighting assessment fee. The article included a part which detailed the fact that Plum Creek Timber Company pays an annual firefighting fee assessment of about 25 cents per acre, so that’s part of what I blogged about. The fact that JZ mentioned something that he’d get a sweet deal of paying $2.25 yearly for the acres he owns in Idaho seems to indicate to me that Plum Creek is getting a decent bargain.

      Also, I don’t believe I’ve been trying to “villify” [sic] Plum Creek Timber Co. What I’ve been trying to do is get the Montana media to let the public know that the majority of the forest land burned in the Lolo Creek Complex Fire is owned/managed by Plum Creek Timber Co.

      As I mentioned, for whatever reason, this fact wasn’t shared with the public by the media until yesterday’s Missoulian article, which opened up with this sentence:

      “Most of the forest burned in the Lolo Creek Complex fire belonged to Plum Creek Timber Co.”

      Also, we’ve had ample discussions here on this blog along the lines of “Wildland firefighting costs are too high, how can we reduce costs?”

      Therefore, seems to me that a discussion about the fact that Plum Creek Timber Company (the largest private landowner in Montana) pays 25 cents per acre per year in a firefighting fee assessment is entirely relevant to this discussion. If other large private landowners are paying about 25 cents per acre per year for a firefighting fee assessment is that a “fair share” or a “sweet-heart deal?”

      Reply
  3. Sharon, looks like we were on the same plane…

    Some more thoughts Matt..

    I’m assuming you have spent a good deal of time recreating or traversing Plum Creek land, since you have observed their lands to be heavily logged, roaded and weeded.

    How much did you pay for that experience?

    How about the tens of thousands of other peope who hunt, bike and walk their dogs on Plum Creek lands? How much did they pay?

    You’ve asked if we thought it’s fair how much Plum Creek pays at .25/acre. I’d say no way… think they should pay more, and I think they should pass the cost off to the folks that use their lands for free.

    On every timber project I’ve worked on, one of your friends wll submit some “science” that shows the presence of roads increases the likelihood of human caused fires. if that’s the case, why not make those folks pay…that way when there is an “act of god” as in the Lolo fire, the costs are more evenly shared?

    Here’s what Potlatch (largest private landowner in Idaho) charges for yearly recreation use on their lands. How do you think this would go over in MT?

    Rates
    Passenger Vehicle $55.00
    Motor Home $110.00
    Pickup Camper $55.00
    Trailer/Fifth Wheel Camper $55.00
    ATV, Motorcycle, & Snowmobile $27.50
    Additional Household Members $11.00

    Reply
  4. Actually, I think that’s surprisingly close to what I think folks should pay annually on FS for dispersed camping- still an incredible deal, We could have an army of trained volunteer retirees (gently) out there educating/enforcing on summer weekends and hunting season…so it wouldn’t cost more to administer than the bucks that come in..

    Reply
  5. Lolo Creek Complex is at $11.5 million and 10,902 acres as of this morning’s Sit report. Looks like $1,055/acre should just about cover the estimated cost of suppression.

    Reply
  6. Having researched the role of foundations myself, (a social double whammy in which the exceedingly affluent –achieved most helpfully through their political contributions in exchange for legislative engineering, deregulation, taxpayer subsidies and regressive tax policy filled with countless loopholes — opt for the sweetest of tax dodges: Private Foundations.) Half of a foundation’s corpus should have ended up in the general treasury. Instead a mere 5% annually gets used for leveraging “philanthropy” to polish public relations. The other 95% is of course, invested in the care and feeding of business as usual.

    We live in a period of profound predatory tactics resulting in the disappearance of the American middle class being plunged into poverty. We already know how America’s decline measures up to other social democratic models in Europe and elsewhere. America’s healthcare is abreast of Serbia.

    Is this discussion then, about defending the status quo of Disaster Capitalism while our planet goes down capitalism’s sewer pipe — flushed by its hopelessly dysfunctional methodologies for externalizing costs and subsidizing disaster which of course then become a measure of GDP?

    (whew, I’d hoped for something more.)

    Reply
    • David, it seems to me that “not using” US natural resources makes working class jobs go to other countries.. nevertheless, those jobs take “corporations” to make them happen. Could this be contributing to the decline of the middle class?

      Folks have long said that tourism jobs, where they exist, do not pay a living wage.

      Reply
      • I am not making a case for ‘”not using” US natural resources.’ They are obviously being “used,” through an unethical, and unsustainably rigged economic system (such as publicly subsidized disasters, then including the “services” of firefighting — aka, the EFFECTS of Disaster Capitalism — as part of U.S. GDP.)

        Further, I’m struck by your characterization (esp. as retired USFS) of the long disproven argument regarding the NFS decline in forestry related jobs claiming that by ‘”not using” US natural resources,’ “working class jobs go to other countries.”

        What actually happened to those jobs?

        Agribiz tree plantations “employing” assembly line mechanization such as feller bunchers and especially free trade agreements usurping slave labor in other countries with no environmental protections are well known causations of the decline in the NFS timber industry. Of course, to say nothing of the unsustainable rates of NFS oldgrowth liquidation in the US leading to boom/bust spikes resulting in socio-economic tragedy; species extinction (salmon of the PNW, and T&E ESA listings, etc.); acceleration of climate change; disappearing water tables; etc., etc.

        These are all externalized (socialized costs) to ensure privatized profits to say nothing of the aforementioned politically rigged and taxpayer-subsidized social disasters. I’m more than a little surprised by your coyness as to where (for instance) the “Rust Belt’s”, manufacturing and industry jobs actually went and why.

        I also am not arguing for the elimination of corporations. I am arguing for making them accountable, they pay their fair share to the US Treasury, are properly regulated and properly disincentivised by , and if anything, the elimination of the “personhood” status which allows them to control political outcomes.

        Once again, I am profoundly struck by the clash of our ethical bases which inform and construct our worldview here. Apparently, your goal is to protect the profiting from business as usual, mine is to confront the problems created by BAU.

        Reply
        • I am not sure our ethical bases are all that far off.

          I am arguing for making them accountable, they pay their fair share to the US Treasury, are properly regulated and properly disincentivised by , and if anything, the elimination of the “personhood” status which allows them to control political outcomes.

          I agree with all those.

          Hmm.. which branch of government was responsible for the silly decision about (sorry if any “persons” of the flesh and blood persuasion are offended) “personhood” status?

          I don’t think the Canadians are all that bad to their employees (in fact, some argue that their health care is better) , and they do have environmental protections. That’s where we’ve been mostly getting our wood (and bucks for the trade settlement). Neither are New Zealand, Sweden and Germany, and I can’t say for sure about Chile and Brazil because I don’t read about their societies as much. http://www.softwoodbusinessanalytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Softwood-Lumber-Imports-June-2012.pdf
          (I still don’t get why we’re importing wood from Germany and Sweden; it must be one of the many International Trade Mysteries. ..That could be a new TV show “International Trade Mysteries: Examined.”

          It is true that mechanization and markets can be problems for the wood products industry. It is notoriously sensitive to the economy. But how about letting communities get regular supplies of federal logs so everyone can see for themselves? Apparently it works in South Dakota…

          I don’t think lack of old growth any of the problems you enumerate.. but even if they were it is over, given the old growth set asides, the “liquidation” is over. So those arguments would not apply to the situations we are talking about. Oops.. I had the O&C lands in mind, though we started talking about fires in Montana.

          Reply
          • Sharon

            Re: “Hmm.. which branch of government was responsible for the silly decision about (sorry if any “persons” of the flesh and blood persuasion are offended) “personhood” status?”

            –> That branch of government just so happens to be none other than the US Supreme Court. The battle has been waging since the 1800’s. The most recent case was Citizens United which the Supreme court Decided January 21, 2010 which overturned the former law limiting direct campaign involvement by corporations

            See:
            http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-citizens-united/
            = “In a 5-4 ruling, the Justices declared unconstitutional the government restriction on “independent” political spending by corporations and unions, and determined the anti-Clinton broadcast should have been allowed. The decision overturned century-old precedent allowing the government to regulate such spending. As a result, Citizens United has greatly affected the way corporations and unions can spend on elections …”

            Reply
            • Gil,.. I knew that .. I was just thinking about making the point that the best judges the country has to offer can be catastrophically wrong: not a good argument for placing less worthy judges in charge of national forest conflicts, since one can imagine a variety of alternatives.

              Reply
    • “Is this discussion then, about defending the status quo of Disaster Capitalism while our planet goes down capitalism’s sewer pipe — flushed by its hopelessly dysfunctional methodologies for externalizing costs and subsidizing disaster which of course then become a measure of GDP?”

      Phew is right! David, you seem to carry an immense burden. I can see where you are going with the “disaster capitalism”, however my musings were only intended to answer Matt’s questions at the local/regional level. If my dysfunctional methodologies feed into your theories of where the country is going then I apologize. Seemed like a reasonable solution to me….BTW, did you write the following skit?

      As far as Plum Creek’s philanthropy…well, the fact that they allow people to use private land to obtain personal benefits free of charge seems pretty benevolent to me. Especially when you consier that most other private landowners in MT these days charge trespass fees to the tune of tens/hundreds a day (how’s that for capitalism?) for things like hunting priviledges. Does that put things in context? Gone are the days of a handshake or a days labor, sadly here where I live too.

      Howabout backcountry skiing? Seems that there are a LOT of folks who like to utilize PCTC roads/property for backcountry skiing…why? So they don’t have to pay for the parking sticker at places like Lolo Pass or pay resort fees. Those roads make for great skin-up access and boy the skiing in clearcut/seed tree/shelterwood areas is way better than the adjacent dog hair stands of LPP. You’d be amazed how crowded any gated PCTC road in western MT is in the winter.

      Wow….chasing a rabbit here..away from the original post. Here’s some final thoughts/levity towards “going down the tubes”…all a matter of perspective I suppuse. Start at 2:32:

      Reply
      • JZ,
        Actually, I was replying to Sharon.

        You’re right though, I often regret my participation in this as a colossal waste of time, yet while finding it interesting in a perverse sort of way… As in finding the causation of problems directly related to the post being regarded as ” chasing a rabbit.”

        Then again, I am all too familiar with the somnambulance necessary to be a federal employee, as I used to be one myself, back in the Vietnam era.

        During which time, I woke up at 19 yrs of age and felt morally compelled to think for myself. Yet the ranks of the USFS are flush with the burdened-by-awareness. Many, despite great personal risk, have become whistleblowers. Most (alas), answer the universal question, “What’s in it for me?” and go back to sleep.

        Or as George so eloquently stated, “its all about the American Dream, but you have to be asleep to believe it.”

        And “burden?” Yep, got burden.

        But that happens only if one wakes up and recognizes what is being done in one’s name, as citizen of a (former) constitutional republic operating under the pretense of democ(k)racy.

        It’s not that I had any illusions of what I might be capable of changing by commenting here. It’s more about stating the obvious in order to witness the spectacle of denial that follows.

        My hat’s off to Matthew for baiting the set to catch the spectacle of denial (and though the gnashing teeth and odoriferous scent was everywhere, he didn’t even get sprayed once!)

        Reply
  7. I’m not sure what the intent of Matt’s post was but he seems to suggest some sort of conspiracy on the part of the press to suppress the fact that the fire burnt on private land (read his first two paragraphs) and that Plum Creek was getting some sort of special deal (read his last paragraph). Plum Creek’s 25 cents per acre fire assessment is in addition to land tax and severance tax and is paid by all but the smallest forest land owners in Montana. The state and local (and federal) governments in Montana fight fire on all private land in Montana,not just Plum Creek. That’s what governments do. I must agree with JZ when he says “I’m not sure why you’ve spent so much energy trying to villify Plum Creek” Perhaps Matt will tell us why.

    Reply
  8. Matthew

    1) So all of that hyperventilating that you did beginning on August 23rd about the great coverup by the media was for naught. Plum Creek (PC) didn’t hire any hit men to threaten any newspapers if they disclosed PC’s portion of the acreage. Nor did PC pay off any media. So now that the facts are out and there is no conspiracy, is your paranoia doing any better? I really, really, really do hope that you get well soon. 🙂

    2) Now let’s address your view of costs as you stated: “What do others think about the 25 cents per acre firefighting fee assessment? If it’s a fee assessment that works like insurance, then Plum Creek’s annual fee is approximately $225,000. Not a bad deal for insuring firefighting coverage over 900,000 acres of land, right?
    Looked at another way, Plum Creek’s 7000 acres that burned in the 10,902 acre Lolo Complex Fire kicked in a grand total of $1,750 (7000 acres x 25 cents per acre) as per the firefighting fee assessment.”

    — a) PC paid ($224,000 times (7,000/(total PC acres burned that year that required state or federal resources))) towards fighting this fire. Your analysis of $1,750 would only be appropriate if all 897,000 of PC lands in Montana had burned and all had required government intervention. Don’t forget that all of the other private land owners in Montana put money towards this fire without all of their properties being burned. I know, it still doesn’t come close to paying for this fire but more on that below.

    — b) These funds aren’t insurance. They are part of a state arrangement to primarily pay for the maintenance of state equipment, training, labor and administration of an “initial attack” and “small fires” state fire fighting force.

    — c) Here is why the rate is $0.25 by law: “The Forestry Division must set rates at a level that raises no more than one-third of its budget from assessments; the other two-thirds is to come from the State General Fund and federal funds” See bottom of page 601-4 @ http://www.readygallatin.com/docs/state_plans/601FFProtection.pdf The pages following 601-4 discuss what agency covers what acres.

    — d) In the state of Washington the fee averages $0.30 for the state. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/rp_fire_ffpa_general_info.pdf

    — e) Did you forget that individuals, corporations and corporate shareholders pay income taxes for fire protection of our natural resources because it is a task that requires a single command structure across all ownerships in order to be most effective? Every taxpaying citizen and all corporations paid taxes to fight that fire. Citizens who will never see any west coast beauty and corporations who have nothing to do with forestry, all paid to provide that single command service. See below for more on this tax fairness issue:

    So, Matthew, what is your next step?
    – Are you going to save the world from Montana law and bad fire fighting costing agreements between federal and state agencies?
    – Are you going to change the law to where every private citizen and corporation has to pay its prorated share of total fire fighting expenditures? Are you going to do the same for all other natural disasters like tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods?
    – Are you going to lower private landowner and corporate tax rates or give them a tax deduction to accommodate them for direct charges billed for fire fighting services on their lands? Or were you just going to double dip and let that be a new source of revenue for the government?

    Reply
    • Mac: The only person suggesting some sort of “conspiracy” here is you. I have done nothing of the sort. Yes, I openly wondered why the Montana media would fail to let the public know the fact that the majority of the land burning in the Lolo Creek Complex wildlife is owned/managed by Plum Creek Timber Company. Also, once finding out that Plum Creek Timber Company pays 25 cents per year into a firefighting fee assessment I posed the question to the group, which was basically is Plum Creek Timber Co getting a sweet-heart deal or are they paying their fair share of firefighting costs?

      Gil: Let’s get a few things straight. I never ” hyperventilated” about any of this. I simply shared factual information about land ownership within the Lolo Creek Complex fire with this blog and the public that the Montana news media didn’t see fit to print or talk about.

      I never suggested that Plum Creek hired “hit men to threaten any newspapers if they disclosed PC’s portion of the acreage”….YOU DID.

      I never suggested that “PC [paid] off any media”….YOU wrote that.

      I also never suggested that there was any “conspiracy”….YOU and Mac suggested that.

      As I pointed out above, we’ve had ample discussions here on this blog along the lines of “Wildland firefighting costs are too high, how can we reduce costs?”

      Therefore, seems to me that a discussion about the fact that Plum Creek Timber Company (the largest private landowner in Montana) pays 25 cents per acre per year in a firefighting fee assessment is entirely relevant to this discussion. If other large private landowners are paying about 25 cents per acre per year for a firefighting fee assessment is that a “fair share” or a “sweet-heart deal?”

      If people don’t want to have this type of discussion, that’s fine with me.

      Reply
      • Matthew

        Yes, you did “openly wondered why the Montana media would fail to let the public know the fact that the majority of the land burning in the Lolo Creek Complex wildlife is owned/managed by Plum Creek Timber Company.”

        And some of us openly wondered why you wondered about it in the tone that your comments took which seemed to imply unfairness.

        So why did you ignore the rest of my comment of September 2, 2013 at 12:43 pm in which I made an honest effort to answer your other questions as to fairness and why things were the way they were and what others paid?

        Re: “I never suggested that Plum Creek hired “hit men to threaten any newspapers if they disclosed PC’s portion of the acreage”….YOU DID.
        I never suggested that “PC [paid] off any media”….YOU wrote that.
        I also never suggested that there was any “conspiracy””

        –> You are correct in part but if you will re-read what I said you will see that I never said that you said that. I simply ruled out some possible reasons that “Montana media would fail to let the public know the fact that the majority of the land burning in the Lolo Creek Complex wildlife is owned/managed by Plum Creek Timber Company.”

        Two posts on the same subject and the tone of your statements depicting Plum Creek in a negative way before you took the time to do a Google search to find the facts, as I was able to do very quickly, seemed to indicate that you were a bit extreme. Please forgive me for torquing you off by saying that you hyperventilated.

        Reply
  9. I didn’t make the comment above about the “Lolo complex cost is….” Please change.

    I wonder if Plum Creek did any “fire fighting” on their own land? In the days before “liability issues” I know they did. I looked at Sierra Pacific’s “facebook” page the other day…and they had cut 12 miles of fire break on their lands on the Rim Fire.

    I’m with Sharon…the days of subsidizing “All Cost” recreation on USFS lands needs to end. I’m a big believer of user fees. Why….Just because ALL Americans own the forests, I don’t see why all taxpayers in the US should subsidize the few who use the forests.

    Subsidized wilderness use? Gotta go. Why should taxpayers subsidize trail clearing for the .5-2% of forest recreational visitor days.

    Reply
    • With a lack of projects going on in the forests, dozers, pumper wagons and water tenders are farther away from new fires. Yes, loggers have fire suppression duties and equipment requirements, while they are working of Forest Service contracts. I’m sure that contractors have similar things in their contracts with timber companies, too.

      Reply
    • I am all for Wilderness fees. Regular readers of this blog know I don’t believe in subsidizing areas for a limited few elitists who like the idea or experience of going “where man is a visitor who does not remain” in areas that have been heavily used (albeit seasonally in many locations) by local families for thousands of years.

      There are other reasons. My four-year degree was in Forest Recreation because it was the only forestry discipline that accounted for the management of cultural resources — including many of those now enclosed within Wilderness boundaries and riparian “zones.”

      In Forest Recreation classes focused on “user surveys” I learned that the typicall Wilderness user was: 1) white, 2) in good physical shape, 3) well educated, 4) relatively young (few small children, babies, or older adults), and 5) steadily employed. Few black people, no Mexicans (except workers and growers), few American Indians, few poor people, very few physically handicapped, etc. Basically, a private playground for privileged white people in good health and without young children — for which the County collects no tax revenues, there are no tax-producing jobs, and everybody else (including minorities, older people, children, the disabled, and the poor) pays for their “Wilderness experience.”

      Bottom line is that it is a racist, elitist, a-historical, and costly program reserved for a privileged few white people, at little or no expense to themselves. I think the discussion on this earlier post would be a good and inexpensive way to rethink our fee programs:

      https://ncfp.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/rethinking-the-recreation-opportunity-spectrum-in-forest-service-plans/

      Reply
  10. It seems to me that all these arguments and points of view go back to: The purpose of government; The role of the individual; What is the appropriate role of influence in the political realm; Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Teddy Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus Christ, Mahatima Ghandi, and others. The debate goes on.

    Thanks be to God.

    Reply
  11. Matthew, How much do The Nature Conservancy and The Trust for Public Land pay the state for fire protection on the 310,000 acres of forestland they bought from Plum Creek between 2008 and 2010 (the Montana Legacy Project)?

    Reply
    • Steve, I have no idea because the article was about the fact that Plum Creek Timber Company pays about 25 cents per acre per year for a firefighting fee assessment.

      RE: The Plum Creek Timber land that US Taxpayers (not TNC or Trust for Public Lands) bought from Plum Creek as part of the Montana Legacy Project, looks like US Taxpayers may have paid $302 million extra dollars for that land.

      Also, see “What is Plum Creek’s End Game? Montanans and Wall Street surely want to know” from Dave Skinner, perhaps the most pro-logging writer in the state.

      Reply
      • Matthew

        Re: What is Plum Creeks end game?

        –> In 2009 the end game of every company in the forest industry was survival. That is the year that I retired because of a big Weyerhaeuser layoff and there were no jobs to be found (remember that big unemployment %) and especially not for seniors in spite of everyone’s claim to be an equal opportunity employer. When Uncle Sam’s artificially induced housing bubble popped, every forest timberlands and manufacturing company laid off zillions of workers. As I recall unemployment sorta went through the roof.

        I have worked for Plum Creek and Weyerhaeuser and many of their acquired companies. They are no more evil than any other company. They provide good, well paying, jobs as well as quality products and they believe in taking care of the environment more than required in order to provide sustainable forests and jobs and profits for their shareholders. Are they imperfect? You bet. Are environmental groups imperfect? You bet.

        Given your focus on what is wrong with the world and a perceived animosity towards business, USFS, and many other groups, what needs to happen to make you good with the world? What single act would assuage your fears the most?

        Reply
    • Gil, I’ve been told by someone who works for MT-DNRC that large, private landowners in the eastern part of Montana don’t pay anything for an annual firefighting fee assessment, not even the 25 cents per acre per year paid by Plum Creek. People may recall that eastern Montana gets its fair share of wildfires too, such as last year’s Ask Creek Fire.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Sharon Cancel reply