GROWTH AND UTILIZATION" 



161 



lower. The sawtimber cut in specified years, 

 1920-52, was as follows: 



United West 



States 



{billion Billion Per- 



Date:' Report :2 bd.-ft.) bd.-ft. cent 



1920 Capper Report 56. 1 _ _ 



1930 Copeland Report. _- 54.6 18.5 34 



1938 Joint Congressional 



Committee 42.4 14.5 34 



1944 Reappraisal 49.7 18.8 38 



1952 Timber Resource Re- 

 view 48. 8 22. 5 46 



' Timber cut is not to be confused with timber drain as 

 reported in the 1944 Reappraisal and previous national 

 studies, because the drain estimates included not only the 

 amount due to cutting for commodities but also losses 

 from fire, epidemics of insects and disease, wind, ice, and 

 other destructive agents. For purposes of comparability, 

 only the volume removed by cutting in these various 

 periods is listed here. 



2 For references, see section on Forest Land and Timber, 

 p. 125. 



Periodic estimates of timber cut are more nearly 

 comparable than similar estimates of annual 

 growth and even timber volume where changing 

 standards, definitions, and concepts result in 

 considerable differences from one period to an- 

 other. Changing standards, such as size criteria 

 ■■ for sawtimber, have not affected the estimates 

 of timber cut appreciably. However, it was 

 necessary to deduct the volume of hardwood 

 limbs from the 1944 figures to make tiiem com- 

 parable to the timber cut estimates for 1952. 



Although output of major products has in- 

 creased, the total 1952 sawtimber cut of 48.8 

 billion board-feet was not significantly different 

 from the 1944 cut of 49.7 bilUon board-feet: 



North 1944 



1952 

 South 1944 



1952 

 West 1944 



1952 

 United States 1944 



1952 



The decrease in hardwoods cut between 1944 

 and 1952 was due largely to a declining use of 

 fuelwood and to generally adverse conditions in 

 hardwood lumber markets since World War II. 

 The strong demand for lumber and pulp was 

 responsible for the increased cut of softwoods. 

 Not reflected in the figure for softwoods is the 

 considerable cut of dead and cull trees and plant 

 residues used for fuel and pulp, which tended to 

 hold the cut of live sawtimber lower than it might 

 otherwise have been. 



The cut of softwood sawtimber increased only 

 in the West. The 20-percent rise reflected mainly 

 an increase in California, where the cut more 

 than doubled between 1944 and 1952. In addi- 



Total 

 (billion 

 bd.-ft.) 



Softwood 

 {billion 

 bd.-ft.) 



Hardwood 

 {billion 

 bd.-ft.) 



8.3 



2. 8 



5. 5 



6. 7 



2. 4 



4.3 



22. 6 



14. 1 



8. 5 



19. 6 



11.7 



7. 9 



18. 8 



18. 7 



. 1 



22. 5 



22. 4 



. 1 



49. 7 



35. 6 



14. 1 



48.8 



36. 5 



12. 3 



tion, substantial percentage increases took place 

 in the two Rocky Mountain Regions in response 

 to the strong demand for softwood lumber. The 

 rising trend in the West will ultimately be re- 

 versed as the old growth is cut over and as cut is 

 more nearly related to forest area and growth 

 capacities of the land. The South will hold 

 important advantages when the forest economy in 

 the West, as in other sections, is based primarily 

 on second-growth timber. 



In contrast to the West, the cut of softwood 

 sawtimber dropped about 16 percent in both 

 the South and North. Of the three southern 

 regions, the West Gulf suffered the largest de- 

 crease. The decline in the South, as a whole, is 

 particularly significant in view of the greatly 

 increased pulp-mill capacity brought into opera- 

 tion during the period. The resulting increase in 

 softwood cut for pulp, from 7.2 to 11.8 million 

 cords between 1944 and 1952, is therefore indi- 

 cated as being almost entirely from poletimber. 



The decrease in the cut of softwood sawtimber 

 in the North was more pronounced in the Lake 

 States than elsewhere, reflecting the general 

 scarcity of the larger timber in this region. 



COMPARISON OF GROWTH 

 AND CUT 



For the country as a whole, it appears that saw- 

 timber growth is not quite equal to cut but that 

 growth of growing stock is 32 percent in excess of 

 growing stock cut (table 100 and fig. 65). 



In the near-balance for sawtimber, a growtii 

 deficiency of S% billion board-feet of softwoods is 

 largely hidden by a surplus of over 7 billion board- 

 feet of hardwood growth, mostly in the North. 

 Similarly, in the near-balance for sawtimber, a 10 

 billion board-foot excess of growth over cut in the 

 East is offset by an 11 billion board-foot deficit 

 in the West. 



These figures indicate how misleading an overall 

 comparison of growth and cut may be. For one 

 thing, the significance of the comparison is quite 

 different in the West, where there is still a large 

 volume of old-growth timber, from what it is in 

 the East, where a balance of growth and cut is of 

 much more significance. 



Even where applied to specific local or regional 

 situations, comparisons of growth and cut must be 

 interpreted with caution. The level at which 

 comparisons are made are extremely important. 

 For example, situations where cutting has declined 

 because of limited merchantable timber or other 

 reasons are more likely to show favorable relations 

 between growth and cut. On the other hand, 

 situations where cutting is at a high level because 

 of active and diversified demand or remaining old 

 growth are more likely to show unfavorable rela- 

 tions. 



