Comparing Mechanized and Non-Mechanized Logging Firms in Wisconsin: Implications for a Dynamic Ownership and Policy Environment‪.‬

Abstract Wisconsin's logging sector, like many across North America, is changing. Although manual, chainsaw-based systems are still widely used, fully mechanized harvest systems are becoming more prevalent. In 2003, we surveyed 173 Wisconsin logging contractors, inquiring about their annual production, sources of supply, and distribution of timber ownership within their wood basket. Respondents were also asked to evaluate the impacts of forest ownership parcelization on their business. Seventy-six respondents (44%) indicated they had adopted a mechanized harvesting system whereas 97 (56%) used chainsaws and skidders or forwarders. Mechanized and non-mechanized logging firms were significantly different from each other ([alpha] = 0.05). Mechanized firms reported average annual production over three times that of non-mechanized firms. Mechanized firms indicated higher proportions of their stumpage came from county and state forests, while non-mechanized firms reported a higher portion from non-industrial private forests (NIPFs). Relatedly, mechanized firms were more likely to have a higher portion of county and municipal timberland in their wood basket. Respondents from mechanized firms were also more likely to see parcelization as a potential problem. Based on these findings, we hypothesize that division "by source" or "by timber sale size" is occurring, with mechanized firms tending toward larger, public sales, while non-mechanized firms tend toward those NIPF stumpage. In light of changing timberland ownership patterns, two implications are discussed. First, continued timberland parcelization may provide an important niche for non-mechanized firms. Second, given differences between mechanized and non-mechanized firms, changes in forest and land use policy may differentially affect logging firms.