The ha

A FOREMOST concern

.Cl.for hardwood companies over the last few years has been protecting access to forest resources to ensure their very survival. And they saw the industry's poor public image as a major contributing factor to the increasing legislative and regulatory problems.

Faced with similar challenges, other agriculturalrelated businesses, including cotton and beef producers, have instituted industrywide checkoff programs. The beef industry, for example, charges producers a per-pound assessment. For three and a halfyears, hardwood producers have grappled with the possibility of an industrywide checkoff and, just when it seemed to be gaining momentum, support fell through and consideration was dropped.

What happened?

In January 1993, the National Hardwood Lumber Association's long range planning committee introduced a checkoff as a possible solution to raising the needed funds for a national-level program to address forest resource issues. The board polled hardwood mills, wholesalers and distributors, researched other industries' programs, presented a concept paper to the USDA, had an appointed panel develop plans for implementation, and hired a consultant to prepare sample types of messages that might be legally delivered under checkoff legislation.

The rationale for a checkoff program was simple: while environmentalists create the perception that the hardwood lumber industry is bad and, therefore, should be heavily regulated both at the federal and local levels, no proforestry public education campaign existed on a national level. Even if all the resources of existing hardwood lumber trade associations were combined, the funding would fall short of making an impact nationwide, since less than 2O7o of the industry typically join trade associations.

A checkoff would bring the entire industry together,

Story at a Glance

Why didn't the hardwood checkoff pass? will it ever again be considered?