![For afew days in early spring the aspen and birch of the Northern forest glow with a luminecent green, like a painters brush dabbled on the wooded landscape. This was the scene north of Park Rapids in Mid May. ] Minnesota _State of Wonders, Spring in NW Minnesota. BRIAN PETERSON • brian.peterson@startribune.com Park Rapids, MN 2/14/2014](https://arc.stimg.co/startribunemedia/OFDGSRKD2DW5CIIQHSWKGAG7DE.jpg?&w=1080)
The March 12 commentary "A saturated market won't help forest or landowners" purported to show the economics of the forest-products industry. It missed the mark on several accounts.
It argued that Minnesota has had low wood costs (stumpage prices). But prices for standing aspen timber have rocketed approximately 40 percent in the last four years (from $25 per cord to $35 per cord). Red pine prices have increased the same percentage in this time frame, while black spruce prices have gone up 50 percent.
We've seen this movie before. In the early to mid-2000s, wood prices reached similarly unsustainable levels in Minnesota.
The result was the permanent closure of one-third of the forest-products capacity in Minnesota. The products from these mills continued to be made, but they were made in other states or countries.
The reason wood prices again are rocketing is simple — supply and demand. No matter the size of demand, if supply is insufficient to meet demand, prices will rise rapidly.
People who own forestland do so for many reasons — wildlife, recreation, clean water and income, among many others.
Attempting to time timber markets is no wiser than attempting to time the stock market.
Just as the stock market will inevitably fall, at current wood prices and with other uneconomic costs in Minnesota, it is inevitable that another company will blink and shut down another mill or machine, with devastating impact on people and communities.
