by Ben Lobb, President, Associated Contract Loggers and Truckers of Minnesota
As Northern Minnesota still smolders from the July fires, we ask ourselves ... How much cost and suffering are the taxpayers of Minnesota going to have to endure before the “powers that be” see the VALUE in forest management and having a healthy forest products industry?
When we look at the fires of 2025 in Minnesota, we see that over 27,000 acres burned with a cost to us, the taxpayers, of over $40 million. For 2026, we are up to 68,000 acres and potentially $50 million, and the year isn’t over, not to mention the lost revenue to local businesses probably reaching up to $100 million. These fires aren’t cheap. We shouldn’t be cheap with how we steward the forest either! People may not like the noise of logging equipment near their homes or having logging trucks drive through their peaceful neighborhoods, but it’s less than convenient to have to evacuate their homes or businesses for extended periods of time without knowing when they can return, or if anything will be left to return to. Now, to be clear, I’m not ragging on the brave men and women who courageously leave their loved ones to go to protect others’ lives and livelihoods.
What’s the old saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Maybe we need to think ahead and work together to solve the gridlock between industry and extreme environmentalism. Fires, although natural, show no mercy to nature as they rip through the forest. Timber harvesting can be strategic and can be done with environmental precision, not at the whims of the wind that day.
Let’s look at the economics of the situation a little deeper. If you add the cost for firefighting the fires from the last two years, you end up with $90 million in direct cost, plus the potential $100 million in lost revenue for business; we end up with $190 million in two years. IF an economic relief package is passed (and at some level I believe it should be), we the people could foot the whole bill; just add it to the American people’s tab.
What if the scenario was different? What if our state welcomed new forest products-consuming industries? What if we didn’t hold them up in red tape till they find greener grass on the other side of the fence?
Between all the fires the last two years, you’re looking at round numbers 95,000 acres averaging out to 47,500 acres/year burned. In Minnesota, we harvest 150-180 thousand acres/ year or 1% of our available wood basket (over 15 million acres). That means that almost two-thirds of what we usually harvest annually has gone up in smoke in the last two years from an acreage perspective.
Now I fully well understand a lot of what has burned was not prime timberland. We will never completely eradicate the risk of wildfires. Maybe we should let the free market system stand on its own two feet, encourage new markets that utilize our natural resources, and let true economics enable the proper management of these less desirable, rough-terrain areas. If we were to increase our harvest by 50,000 acres/year, that would be approximately a 30% increase in harvest, but only about .5% more out of the available wood basket. On one hand, that seems drastic; on the other hand, that doesn’t even move the needle. According to the “all-knowing” Google search (all the facts and figures I used in this article are sourced from Google), annual harvest sits at 2.65 million cords. It also says our forest net growth is over 7 million cords/year, so when based on growth alone, over 5 million cords of annual harvest is sustainable.
Let’s go back to the average of 47,500 acres burned each year in the last two years. Let’s say we increase our harvest by that much each year because ultimately that much has been “managed” at 15 cords to the acre; you are looking at over 700,000 cords of increased harvested volume. Now, we could easily support that in our great state, but I realize all the acres that burned did not have 15 cords/acres. So let’s just say that 1/2 of those acres did; that drops us to 350,000 cords.
That number hits home all too well when the proposed Huber plant would have consumed about that much volume. Huber would have had gross sales of over $300 million/year, with $150180 million of that being injected into Minnesota’s economy. That sounds a lot better than potentially extracting $95 million each year to right the wrong of poor forest resource utilization and management. Huber would have created 500600 jobs in our local economies. That probably sounds really good to the laid-off miners right now on the Iron Range. In logging alone, there would be the need for an additional 25 crews to harvest, plus all the supporting services. Even the local small-town restaurants and gas stations would feel the benefit.
So the next time (if there is one) Minnesota has a Huber, an alternative fuel plant, or any raw forest products-consuming industry that wants to build in Minnesota, let’s pray our leaders welcome with open arms and level heads.
Let’s not give credence to unsubstantiated bluffs about environmental impact when wildfires show no favoritism toward the air we breathe or, for that matter, the water we drink and enjoy. Let’s support strategic, well-planned, environmentally safe forest products utilization and the industries that allow our forests to EARN their keep, not BURN off into the air we breathe. Let’s allow capitalism to do its work and produce management and prosperity, not reduce the taxpayers’ wallet and cripple long-term investment in our local communities.
