History: Timber, brief
History: timber, brief, pertinent, land base
Historically, the timber companies have generally high-graded the Upper Peninsula in the past. It has been somewhat a rape and plunder place. There are some fascinating exceptions thought, described under the US Steel story and the CCI Story. These exceptions show an interesting relationship with a mill, and, the other with, no mill at all. Further: the Public lands have their own cheated or manipulated story as regarding “the Mill”. So, historically, the mill relationship is very important to the overall principle of the UP forests.
Great Depression Era
Back before the great depression, there was what is called the Lumber Barrens. You can imagine what this means. I suspect; the old growth or virgin forest were cut, period. Apparently, the scattered private ownership couldn’t pay its taxes during the Great Depression. So, the State of Michigan took the land, and this is why it owns so much land today. Private ownership cut its land, and then let it go for back taxes. Apparently, massive amounts of acres reverted to the state. And, on this butchered over land, time played it’s part, now for 80 years. In addition, the state of Michigan, has foresters (todays world) to control future cutting, making sure the proper trees were cut, so that high-grading did not occur. Therefore these forests have matured into good healthy forests.
Now, dear readers, maybe you will understand when a politicians says: “the state has massive value in our forest today”; you will have some insight into this curious statements. And you can see the importance of the topic “high-grading”.
The timber companies are a mixed breed. Two companies have reasonably managed their forest wisely, while 7 or so have functioned poorly. Although these 7 have turned around and today are doing a much better job. I’ll bet there history is complex and fascinating as I don’t begin to know it. What little I know is: butchering and high grading have been prolific.
Timber companies were a bust and boom of the past. They would cut like wildfire sawing up thousands of board feet of lumber. They helped supply the growth of America in the 20th century. This is simply the way we human have been, we consume. Even in comparison, our farmlands are not much different, the soils were so badly managed in the past that we had what is called a “dust bowl”. Indicative of more poor land use, and the timber industry is no exception, generally.
However, what is interesting to me, is the relationship between a sawmill and lands that the mill might own, called it’s land base. A mill would employee so many men (one work force), while the woods crews, jobbers and others supplied the mill (the other work force), all under one ownership. The issue becomes, what happens when the mill runs out of wood, or that the woods crew does not have any more owned lands to cut to supply the mill (one work force cannot supply the other). I here what happened frequently was, the mill crew needed wood so fast, and it cut it up. But then, so to speak, they cut themselves out of work. I wish I had a better understanding of this relationship between the two work forces, yet this simple presentation is sufficient. It is especially important in the CCI story. An entire essay is devoted to this... the mill relationships
These few points are spoken here because they illustrate important points to this project and also reflect that I do not know it all, and I am not pretending to say so. The history is a huge and fascinating topic, and I am sure much can be gleaned from it.
To continue:
Further, generally 20 to 40 years ago (plus), the timber companies owned land in huge scattered blocks, some solid, some not, all called tracks. These tracks did not consider or think about water frontage to a significant degree. (Can you imagine miles and miles of lake Superior frontage being owned by timber companies, as it has be so in the past). I wonder in the past, was it just a pass of GODS hand and then a timber company owned a 100,000 acres here and there. Streams and lakes and rivers were ignored, generally. Yet time marched on, and things changed. The companies began to split off their water fronts.
I thinK in the late 60s and early 70s this change occurred hard or fast. The first one was Kimberly Clark, later International Paper, in-between was the company I worked for, Connors timber company, Mead was and is there and CCI. All the timber companies have done this to some degree or the other, and they are continuing now. That is: separate the lakes rivers (some) apart form the tracks. Most stuff recreational gets spun off. Why you ask, answer is: taxes, American’s way, getting as much for the buck, competing with China, corporate greed.
Again, the CCI Story is a example of a developing company and that it is still indirectly splitting of its recreational lands, or will soon. Actually, this is one big factor motivating me to attempt this project, because I think it’s not too late. This company (now Heartwood Forest) owns around 10 to 20 times the recreational lands of any other timber company who’s recreational lands are left.
The true pulse of the UP is these timber companies, and what this process is. I suspect I am trying t stop it. FOUR PARKS WILL.
Remember, the timber companies cannot grow trees in lakes or river.. They prefer to drive through creeks and cut along all their shorelines until the state came along and told them to stop this. The companies do not want problems, they need to make money, and even pay their reduced taxes, and pay their shareholders too.