BELOW-COST TIMBER SALES

[Mark & Jo Ann Hamm]

In article <3nnrj4$h2n at parsifal.nando.net>, orw at nando.net says...
>
>I can speak only about the US forest of the southeast, particularly NC. 
>Most of these forest were clear cut by narrow gauge rails about the turn 
>of the century.  These lands were at that time, owned primarily by lumber 
>cmpanies with a cutout-getout policy.  Very little effort was used to   
>reforest these vast cutovers.  The majority of the forests regenerated   
>back to low-value specis.   
> 

>

Perhaps part of the problem here is semantic.  It sounds like the 
intention is to rehabilitate land that is presently not productive:  so 
it's not as if the forest service is taking a loss because they're 
inefficient, but rather that they are replacing productive forest on areas 
which presently are not productive and subsidising that treatment by 
selling whatever timber happens to be there.

All that presumes that timber production is the primary management 
objective, which of course may not be the case at all.

I read a recent article on the internet from a policy analyst in 
Washington which was specifically concerned with below-cost timber sales 
in the US -- over 80 million US dollars worth, apparently.  That got this 
Canadian thinking about US complaints regarding subsidised industry in 
British Columbia, of course.  From what Mr Willingham says, it sounds as 
though there's more to the issue than what I read about.

Unfortunately, I printed the article and then deleted it, so I can't 
forward it to you (Todd Roffe).  I'll see if I can find it and at least 
give you the address.

Good luck with your paper!