Date: 7/4/2000, 2:40 pm
There a reason why redwood is becoming expensive: it's rapidly disappearing! Poof, gone! The politics, the history, and the economics behind logging in America is complex, but quickly stated, cutting one old, huge tree down (in a old growth forest) is a vastly profitable venture. Pine trees are much much smaller and the ratio of profit is greatly reduced. This indiscriminant mass cutting generated huge profits, but the real blame is everyone who buys redwood, all believing that redwood is cheap, fireproof, waterproof, termite proof, yadda yadda yadda. In actuality, redwood is brittle (most trees shatter, even when falling onto prepared dunnage beds...just try to bend a piece), take a lot longer time to grow in relation to pines (a 30-year redwood is 9-11 inches in diameter versus 14-17 inches for a sugar pine, grown in the same location and conditions, and the redwood rate of growth slows with time), only the bark is somewhat fire-resistant the rest of the tree burns as well as any other, termites (and wood boring beetle, to name another) gobble down redwood with relish, redwood is susceptible to a host of fungi and readily breaks down due to it's structure. The big marketing thing is just to support the industry. What is the benefit to cutting down redwoods from old growth forests? Granted the wood is clear and has a beauty all it's own however, imagine those pristine and rare tracts completely gone. So, to answer your question of why redwood is expensive...the wholesale consumerism and the special deals to big logging have allowed for the cutting down of the majority of existing redwoods.
To think that the majority of those redwoods of the past can still be found...buried in our landfills, slowly turning into methane and carbon dioxide...and they are because redwood decks, sidings, fences, etc, have been thrown away because redwood is a soft, porous wood that breaks, curls, rots and is gobbled down contrary to the typical consumers beliefs. Ah, but it is renewable...but in several hundred years.
Cherish that wood, it is precious! At different rates, it all is disappearing...
-Tig (in case anyone is curious, I investigate and prosecute environmental crimes)
: I built my coastal 4 years ago using redwood and pine when clear pine was
: expensive and redwood was cheap (Cedar was hard to find in So Cal). Now,
: the redwood is SOOO expensive and I'm not sure what pine is (besides
: heavy).
: In the 4 years of fairly steady use of the boat, I did notice dicoloration
: due to the salt water penatrating the wood due to microscopic cracks in
: the epoxy. The salt water turns the redwood almost jet black. You should
: be aware of this since once it is stained, you WON'T be able to get ride
: of it.
: Now, I look at the boat and the coloration adds character. You can tell that
: its a boat that is USED and not one that JUST looks great.
: take care jim gabriel
Messages In This Thread
- Redwood vs. Cedar
Craig Doyle -- 6/30/2000, 2:17 pm- Re: Redwood vs. Cedar
RM Dalton -- 6/30/2000, 10:42 pm- Re: Redwood vs. Cedar
Mike Nicholson -- 7/2/2000, 7:35 pm- Thanks for the response
Craig Doyle -- 7/3/2000, 8:34 am- Re: Thanks for the response
Paul G. Jacobson -- 7/5/2000, 12:51 am
- Re: Thanks for the response
- Thanks for the response
- Re: wood hues and on-water visibility
Dean Trexel -- 6/30/2000, 8:55 pm- Re: Redwood vs. Cedar
David barrett -- 6/30/2000, 8:17 pm- Re: Redwood vs. Cedar
Rehd -- 6/30/2000, 10:22 pm
- Re: Redwood vs. Cedar *Pic*
Jim Gabriel -- 6/30/2000, 4:27 pm- Re: Redwood vs. Cedar (RANT session)
Tig and Tink -- 7/4/2000, 2:40 pm
- Re: not a problem *Pic*
Ross Leidy -- 6/30/2000, 2:45 pm- Re: caveat
Ross Leidy -- 6/30/2000, 2:50 pm
- Re: Redwood vs. Cedar
Dale Frolander -- 6/30/2000, 2:35 pm- Re: Redwood vs. Cedar
Addison M. -- 6/30/2000, 2:44 pm- Re: Redwood vs. Cedar
Craig Doyle -- 6/30/2000, 2:43 pm - Re: Redwood vs. Cedar
- Re: Redwood vs. Cedar
- Re: Redwood vs. Cedar