Sounds like a rather one-sided forum.

Aren’t they all? Lots of people beating their gums, but at the end of the day what’s going to happen will still happen. Can’t be otherwise, because the ‘facts’ still have to be able to conform to the ‘figures’. Even if the ‘figures’ are flawed, once that “$” sign goes in front of them they’re ‘set in stone’. Created entirely by man, but as unchangeable as the laws of nature, so they are ALL convinced. Long as that notion is universally held, not much that could be done that should be done will be done.

In other words, this forum will be one to discuss means of shifting the provincial level socialism (ownership of the means of production – the land) to local governments to increase their direct involvement in commerce. So, “community-based” socialism is the desired goal.

Volume-based to Area-based tenure changes are the equivalent to swatting flies on a carcass.

The debate that shall not be allowed is where one questions why BC not join the rest of civilized forest-based jurisdictions and privatize. The working forest (the net land-base that will see rotational forestry practiced) is about one half of the provincial forest (20 million hectares). Selling that off at a provincial average value of say $2000/ hectare for all age classes would be enough to eliminate all provincial debt with the benefit to BC’s fiscal situation of plus $2.5 billion per year (current debt servicing costs). That’s more than triple the unreliable status quo from stumpage, which, after netting out Forest Service costs is much less.

Selling to locals to ensure a high percentage of smaller ownerships similar to woodlots wood offer a non-socialist community-based forest alternative.

Invite Jimmy to be guest speaker. Unlike any of our governments, he knows how to make a buck. AND create jobs.

Wow changing format, when the resources are under stress. Doesn’t that give away to exploitation of one of our most important resources.

What company in Canada has a 80 year plan. Companies like West Fraser and Canfor, are just going to reap all that they can now, and leave us with bald mountains. Eventhough I may be a capitalist, but I like the current way, where the government is the gatekeeper of what gets cut down.

Right now I have a “80 year plan”. I hope to remain alive til I’m 80. Then after I’m gone come to my grave and tell me how things are working out. I care.

Posted by: He spoke on April 8 2014 11:20 AM
Wow changing format, when the resources are under stress. Doesn’t that give away to exploitation of one of our most important resources.

What company in Canada has a 80 year plan. Companies like West Fraser and Canfor, are just going to reap all that they can now, and leave us with bald mountains. Eventhough I may be a capitalist, but I like the current way, where the government is the gatekeeper of what gets cut down.

————

The government will still own the trees, the government will still set the stumpage and the government will still set the AAC.

This is what scares the bejezzus out of me, “Ewart says the object is to give people more say and more control over what happens to the resource.” Joe Average is an idiot, do you really want him in control?

foresteconomist:_”Selling to locals to ensure a high percentage of smaller ownerships similar to woodlots wood offer a non-socialist community-based forest alternative. “
——————————————-
The problem is, are these smaller ownerships then going to be profitable *enough* to repay the costs of their purchase and continued management as timberlands?

This is the problem we’ve continually tried to solve by expanding its boundaries. By creating ever larger companies, and then combining them, again and again, until you’re back to just a few. And then, when they can’t make it either, what happens? Your’re right back to the call for ‘socialism’, to preserve whatever ‘jobs’ are still left and correct the depredations that’ve occurred in the forests themselves.

I don’t personally have anything against selling timberlands now owned by the Crown into private ownership. All things being equal, you’d probably get better forest management than now.

But the way the financial system currently operates most of those private owners will quickly find they’ll make more by sitting and speculating and trying to make the resource artificially scarce to drive up its price than they ever will providing proper management of the forest and supporting a forest products manufacturing industry here.

You can’t get away from that any way I know of, short of changing the cause of the problem ~ the way the financial system itself currently operates. But go ahead and try through fiddling with tenure and ownership models, if you don’t believe me. They say the things you learn the hard way you never forget, but collectively that often doesn’t seem to apply.