Thats right, give our resources away while our people are not working.
When things turn around for our forest industry we will have no trees left for our people to harvest.
What are these people thinking.
Our forests are just that, ours.
Why give away our trees just so the companies will keep making money in the USA and elsewhere?
If it's not economical to saw logs here in BC then what makes it economical to do it in another country? Nonunion low wages and no benefits I suspect. Sounds like a union busting exercise.
We have to stop raw log exports not increase them.

Sounds good to me. Gave away BC Rail, BC Ferries and most of BC Hydro and now the right wing business lobby wants to give away our logs. How about all of our natural resources and our fresh water? Might as well give those away too for a few bucks. Along with the above our soul and our culture will follow. Some days it's great to be alive.

I wonder whether the local Chambers agree with the BC Chamber's recommendation. It would seem to me that if the locals do not agree, they should attempt to get the recommendations changed.

I am a Chamber member in my community and I will contact our manager and the president to hear their comments.

If we are to export logs from economically depressed areas, that is not just the coast, but from Mackenzie, Fort St James and others who will suffer dramatically if this proposal goes forward.I would suggest that everyone who wishes input to forward your concerns to the Chamber of Commerce in Mackenzie, Fort St james, Vanderhoof, PG, and anywhere else as the BC Chambers will bring this policy forward next week.
So get your info in as this will give the local Chambers strength to try and stop this bull.

I believe the intial report was intended to REDUCE the export of primarily coastal logs out of the country, a practice which has been carrying on for some time, by putting quasi export taxes on the logs.

"so we do things such as "encourage the liquidation of low-value stands and invest in silviculture to create and promote healthier and economically viable stands for the future."

Sounds like about time to me, whether we export or not.

The actual policy is titled "Enhanced Log Markets"
How could ANY exporting of raw logs out of ANY community that depends on logging and sawmilling for it's very existance, be justified?
Why the B.C.Chamber of Commerce supports this kind of economic suicide goes beyond all logic!
The end result can only be devastating to many small communities, as is ANY exporting of raw logs period!
Obviously, the B.C.Chamber hasn't been listening very well!

And by the way,good job Opinion 250!
;-)

Don't forget that the Chamber of Commerce is still stuck in the thinking that there is nothing more important than money. People and their lives are secondary to the need for greed. I put their comments where they belong; in the garbage.

I just talked to the ED at the PG Chamber. They are going to be voting against the ammendment.

The chamber of commerce should be doing more than voting NO, they should write a letter of official protest. This kind of b.s. must be stopped, it is only about profits, that do not even have much benefit for the regions the logs are coming from. Total b.s.
metalman.

I could not agree more metalman!

I hope that these comments provide information rather than simple rhetoric.
For every one job in a mill, there are two jobs required in the harvesting end of the business. Right now we see a situation where the Canadian sawmilling sector cannot produce lumber economically enough to operate. Mills are going down weekly. This is not due to log exports - it is due to economics. If log exports were supported, we would see many more jobs created. As long as the coast continues to have outdated and inefficient mills, there will be jobs lost due to economic inabilities - not due to a lack of fibre.

In the long term we need to find ways to bring investment into our coastal sawmilling sector so that we can compete and so that there is no reason to export logs. In the short term we need to preserve our workforce, sustain our communities and help those who work in the woods to support their families. The BC Chamber should be congratulated for having the courage to say what is right rather than what is convenient. Certain portions of the public believe that banning log exports will create jobs. The reality is that without further government subsidies we will be throwing away good jobs with doomed ones anyways. In the long term we must focus on the key issue of creating certainty so that companies want to invest in our coastal manufacturing sector - in the short term lets not penalize those who want to work in the bush for the economic innefficiencies of our coastal mills.

Here is a very simple example to illustrate the log export issue in its brutal reality. I am a former Mayor of a small resource town that had lost its major sawmill. THe main employment came from logging. In bad times, the sawmill in another town couldn't afford to pay what it cost to harvest the timber so not only did the mill go down, but so did the loggers in my town. Had we been allowed to export wood, those loggers could be working but instead they are penalized. As time goes by, the sawmill in another BC town becomes less and less competitive - so down time increases. More job losses in the woods. Eventually the mill goes under - was that a result of not getting fibre or an inability to pay what the fibre was worth to its competitors? We can continue to subsidize the private sector through lower stumpage and reduce the amount of money that government gets for our hospitals and education system - or we can make the best of a bad situation in the meantime and maximize our benefits. The end goal is to create a system that encourages investment in competitive mills - rather than the current system which seeks to reward inefficient ones at the expense of everyone else.

I don't know that I have ever heard anyone say that banning raw log exports will create jobs. However when you shut down our mills and export our logs out of the country, you are effectively giving our fibre and our jobs to foriegners all for the continued profits of the corporations.
If our wood can be milled outside of our country then it can damn well be milled inside of our country?
Corporate greed dictates where our Canadian fibre is sent.
Lowest bidder definitely wins that contract.

Former Mayor... your rhetoric sounds much like that of a politician.
While your logic may wash on the coast,I seriously doubt it would carry any weight at all in the the northern parts of B.C. where we are basically taken for granted and ignored by a government on the lower mainland.
The shipping of raw logs while sawmills sit idle is a recipe for disaster over the long term and nothing more.
And I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who just watched a load of logs being hauled away from his community while he himself is unemployed at the sawmill to agree with you!
Not only will the shipping out of logs kill the sawmill,it will also kill the community,and while that may be acceptable on the coast,it is not acceptable up here!

'' BC Chamber Of Commerce Recommends Unrestricted Log Exports''

I think we should replace the entire CHAMBER and replace the idiots with a pannel of RUSSIAN'S who it appears have a better grasp on economics.
In Russia today the government has implemented export taxes on logs that will increase to 80% (currently 25%) of the logs value in a short period of time.

By discouraging exports, the result will be a higher demand for lumber, which will vastly increase job creation in that country and lumber exports.

From what I understand up here we have the most efficient sawmills in the world at producing dimension lumber--- that's why we could probably supply 100% of the demand in the US instead of the effective 30% we are "restricted" to. Just a shame that our politicians don't have the nerve to "link" all our trade and demand real free trade with the US. The US will always be our major market -- building practices in the far east will never result in demand large enough to replace the US to any extent.

This is a circle of issues, each of which can be explained in half truths or half lies.
One question that answers some of the questions is; if you had a large timber licence and you had the choice of spending 100 million dollars to build a new mill OR you were allowed to export the logs and make about the same net profit--you as corporate CEO would make which decision for the interests of your employer--the shareholders? "RISK" isn't something to eat and when coastal forestry has been nearly devastated by the environmental policies or higher costs of logging of the last decades, what would you do?

Markets do change as Japan taught us this lesson, however high cost coastal timber must be made into high value products or the success will be short lived.
Like lemmings the industry CHOSE its path in adapting to (and boxing itself into)the US dimension lumber market which is really the lowest cost,lowest labor and lowest price market possible. This is defined as "efficency" and listen to our forest minister tell you this over and over. Coastal logging is too expensive to convert this timber into low value products--no matter how "efficent" your dimension sawmills are. Even if and when it is profitable, it is stupid to take the best timber and make the lowest price products with the least possible benefit to the province. This of course is not the question which a corporate CEO must make as this mandate does not include the interests of the worker, the community or the province. Corporate choice is made with corporate interests only and when you don't have to process the timber, why would you?

When the market loggers have no restrictions on where their timber is sold there is no security of supply for a non tenured company to properly finance and build any type of facility. So--little chances of new operators setting up to prove that viability is in fact possible.
This wouldn't make the corporate giants look very good --would it? There is a clue in all that involves this.

The "former mayor" recites the symptoms as he/she has been programmed with half of the arguments,half the solutions with half of the facts as our forest minister has.
There is a difference between a corporate profit/risk decision and a decision of what is MOST profitable and a decision which is actually a profit OR loss decision. They are not the same thing and they lead to different outcomes.

Tenure reform is one of the new "buzzwords", however it is a matter of genuine intent of the ministry of forests to replace the corporate/political partnership with a public/political focus for the publics best interests which must happen. This will not instantly fix everything, but it will head towards improvements over time.

As a large exporter of raw logs for the last six years from southern Vancouver Island to the US, Japan, Koera, and China I support the ex Mayor's views for the Coast. There are two issues on the Coast, Crown land and Private Land Crown granted after 1906 which has a fee in lieu and Private Land Crown ganted prior to 1906- mostly the E and N lands where there is no fee in lieu. Our Coastal mills are the highest cost and least efficient in the world. The woods and mills is most countries are now separated, what we need to do is create an environment so these mills can become efficient, by subsidizing them it will delay the need to make them efficient. As for the post re Russia and there 80% tariff it has been a complete and utter disaster- no investment- no promise by a very suspect player and the illegal export of wood is completely out of control. What we need is long term tenures like New Zealand (included first nations) and Austriala (sp) as well as a diversity of smaller tenures- woodlots and community forests. Until BC realisltic with the change in forestry global we are dead in the water.

What "dogs" and "former Mayor-TLA member" are advocating will be the final nail in the coffin for BC's coastal forest industry.

It'll be "cut out and get out", with the only certainty a short-term gain by a few big tenure holders, and the decreasing possibility of the same for a handful of their equally greedy, high-stakes gambler, logging contractors.

Some of whom will bite off more than they can chew, and end up just like the two whose equipment was auctioned off in Chemainus a week or two ago. Brand new stuff, for the most part, but they still couldn't get the costs down low enough to suit their lords and masters.

Given the opportunity, these guys would scalp the whole country bare. They've got one fixation~ "unit cost is a function of VOLUME". And the new mills they talk about, they're 'super-mills'. Capable of bumping out a massive volume, running 24/7, with a minimum of people.

What they overlook though, is that even if the "unit cost" is lowered, it's the TOTAL COSTS of producing ALL the "units" that has to be liquidated.

So you dump more lumber onto a market that's already saturated. And when it ALL can't sell where does your price go? Can you slow your new 'super-mill' down to bring it up? Run it on a 'human' schedule, and still make it pay?

No, the capital costs and overheads of it will eat you alive! And they CAN'T be reduced. So you try to do the 'wrong' thing, again ~ and run it faster. Or browbeat the few working in it into concessions. To 'save' their jobs. It's a 'race to the bottom'. And if we're wise we'd hang onto our logs, and export the idiots that advocate what these two are advocating instead!

Socoredible- I do not see this as a race to the "bottom" rather a change in the way we do business- super mills such as Sierra Pacific's, Simpson's and the new mill being built by Weyerhauser in Longview are here to say and will be built in BC in Time. We have gone from Company Union Crew's on the coast, to big contractors - Munn's some of who's equipment was auctioned at Chemainus to smaller contractor's/owner operator's similar to the interior of BC and Washington State- business is changing in forestry globally BC better get on board. While I realize we now have a perfect storm here- high Canadian dollar, low lumber prices, very weak demand and a stupid 15% tariff we need to run forestry in BC as a business not as a social welfare program.

We have also gone to operations that are working their crews so many hours now they're completely bagged out and ready to drop at the end of every day.

Where's the opportunity for these people to have any kind of 'family life' anymore? Or does that not count for anything in the pursuit of the almighty dollar? They're not complaining, you say, they like those extra hours of straight time, and the opportunity to go seven days a week for months on end?

Maybe so, but where do we go, and what do we do, when all those extra hours STILL aren't enough? When the 'costs' STILL are too high? Even with the best and latest of modern equipment, the CAPITAL COSTS of same can NEVER be lowered once incurred. That money's spent. Gone. The only place to effect any saving? Lower the current LABOUR COST! And you say it's not a race to the bottom?

Will it be when those people who bought Munn's and Leroy's equipment, and thought they got a good deal, find they've worn it out faster than anticipated, and have to replace it? And it's replacement's price has gone through the roof?

And being a sub-contractor of a sub-contractor of a contractor leaves them too low on the totem pole to negotiate a raise?

Or when their operating costs, particularly fuel now, but others too, rise faster than expected, and they can't recover them?

Where does the idea of 'sustainability' come in? The same place it did when the hills out west of Youbou through to Port Alberni were scalped absolutely bald to try to "get the costs down, so we can compete". And after all that, could we?

It's one thing to "talk the talk", and pay some Mafia like environmental organization some hush-money every year to "certify" you have as much, or more, "fibre" growing than you're logging.

But isn't there an element of "time" involved before that growing "fibre" becomes the sawlog you've just exported? Of course we all know that when it comes to statistics "figures lie, and liars figure", but do WE know that by the time WE "figure" it all out all we'll be able to glut is the annual market for Christmas trees!

You know, dogs, if the new American 'super mills' of Simpson's, and Sierra Pacific's, and Weyco's at Longview are such a wonderful thing, then let them try to supply them with logs using THEIR OWN TIMBER. And we'll see who's the 'last man standing' down there.

I'm not for a total ban on raw log exports. There are certainly instances where log exports have been followed up by lumber orders. Such was the case with Mich-Cal Lumber (now Sierra-Pacific) at Camino in California in their dealings with the Japanese. They started sending them logs, and when the Japanese realized it was more cost-effective to ship lumber instead, they got orders for it.

And it would be a logistical nightmare for any BC mill to ever try to supply ALL the various lumber dimensions found in a traditional Japanese house. We can supply the most common sizes readily though, and if they are able to mill the others from the same species imported as logs from here, it's certainly good business to supply them those logs.

But consider this scenario, which was written up some time ago in a forest industry trade magazine out of the States.

North Carolina has long billed itself as "The Furniture Manufacturing Capital of the World". Which, to anyone but an American,
means "America".

Some of the world's finest hardwoods grow in the Smokey Mountains, between western N.C. and eastern Tennessee. And there's long been an extensive lumber industry existent there that supplies the makers of some of America's traditional brand-name furniture. Broyhill, and the like.

North Carolina is not what you might call a 'socialist welfare State'. It's "Norma Rae" Country. The Bible belt. Where the good old fashinoned Protestant 'work ethic' is ingrained in its good old fashioned 'good ol' boys'. And where the only difference between the blacks of the Old South and the blacks of the New, is that the slaves of the Old were 'owned'. While those of the New are just 'rented'.
It ain't a high wage place, in other words.

Now the furniture industry, a 'value-added' industry like many would envision us having here, has fallen on hard times in good old North Carolina. Seems it's now 'cheaper', by the conventions of accountancy coupled with currency conversion, to rail a N. C. log all across America, load it on a ship, take it across the Pacific to China, reload on a train for transport up into the interior of that vast country, saw it, dry it, manufacture it into a finished piece of fine furniture, and then send it all the way back, half way around the world, to within probably, in many cases, a few hundred miles of where that hardwood tree grew to sell it to Americans.

The "figures" say it's 'cheaper'. But what does the physical reality of the natural law of cost say? What was 'consumed' in sending it halfway around the globe, and back again? More, or less, than what would've been 'consumed' doing the work in North Carolina? You tell me, dogs.

Finance is supposed to reflect reality. If it doesn't, then that kind of finance is pure delusion. And we have too many delusional people in positions of influence everywhere these days, in my opinion.

Good posts socredit. I also oppose the idea of raw log exports. If I was a paying member at the Chamber of Commerce I would be canceling the membership.

IMO the Chamber loses all credibility with some of the agenda's like this one that they champion. I wouldn't take their advice on anything relating to commerce or industry.

Once again - let's try to reduce the rhetoric and personal attack BS and look for a solution. I fully understand that being an unemployed sawmill worker is difficult while logs are shipped out of your community. But how many sawmills have operated consistently over the past ten years? Is it because they can't get fibre or is it because they can't get fibre that they can afford? Those who are too close to the issue will find this very difficult to understand and I appreciate that. I have not lost my job due to the issue so my words will seem cheap to those who have. I accept that. What I hope can happen at some point is that we refocus our efforts to creating a manufacturing industry that can compete globablly. We are price setters in terms of cedar and some companies such as Husby and Terminal go way down the value chain. They have 10% of the wood supply of a major licensee, yet they produce 10 times the number of products. The days of commodity mills driving the agenda on the coast are over. The sooner we realize the entire industry's purpose is not to support the commodity sawmill the sooner we will be on our way to solving the problem. Who negotiated the softwood lumber deal - sawmillers. Who has driven policy - sawmillers. We are where we are because of them. We hold competitive advantages over China in terms of our delivered log cost (50% less). We have an industry where trust and sustainability are huge advantages - yet we don't leverage those. We have a skilled and trained workforce but it is being depleted. We need to change our mindset in the long term to one focused on the value that we have. We have never done that in this province - we should. But that takes time and until the current volume based mentality is shifted we are going to see things get worse. Eventually we will hit the wall. We could wait for that to occur and then start over. I hope that we don't choose that route because then the two in the bush will suffer the same fate as those in the commodity mills. Let's find a way (in the short term) to shift that mentality. The only way to do that is to STOP subsidizing the inefficient operators. SHort of government building or subsidizing new technologically competitive mills I don't see an environment that is going to attract that investment. What must be realized is that 60% of our fibre on the coast lends itself to commodity products. We need to find ways for investors to operate in that market. We need those investors, but as long as they drive the agenda and policy we are all destined to fail because there is not enough value in it to support the system. Publically traded companies are greedy and I doubt that they choose to lose money but they continue to do so because they are not big enough to control their own destiny but they are not small enough to be flexible and nimble in their product lines and diversity.

The Chamber of Commerce is an association that is focused on assisting business and providing policy direction to government. They are not a social service that is responsible for finding jobs for unemplyed sawmill workers. Assuming that some of the posters are correct and their policy would result in the loss of sawmill jobs, wouldn't it support the creation (or at least) reservation of two harvesting jobs? In my experience they deal in realities, rather than platitudes. While we would all like to see the good old days come back - the reality is that isn't going to happen unless we change the current model. While moving to a system that allows the free trade of logs may not provide the benefits to our communities and provincial economy that we once saw it is at least sustainable. I agree that we should not stop there - but in the short term I am not prepared to cut off my nose to spite my face.

I like many of socreds comments and I don't think that we are that far apart in our views. Once the current mentality is erased and there is a healthy supply of logs moving offshore - investors will do exactly what he says has happened previously - they will invest here to ship lumber/product instead of logs. That would be an end goal of mine. I hope that with the removal of trade restrictions we encourage local processing. I am not a fan of going to a complete private land model. In my opinion it is very difficult to assert that based on the current large scale private land management that we have seen on the coast. But as long as we continue to have a forest management system with a complete lack of certainty of supply and certainty of investment - no one will invest in a new sawmill. Let's make forestry a priority instead of a melting ice cube - anyone who says that it is a sunset industry is simply deluded. The sun goes up and down everyday. With Forestry we have a choice. So far we have made a choice to reduce it. The new Port in Rupert may provide a new lease on life for forest products on the North Coast given the economic advantages it may provide. The timber profile is challenging at best. Hopefully a system can be created and implemented that provides the certainty for an investor to build an economically viable mill there and the owners choose to control their own product lines and markets instead of falling into the commodity trap.

Commodity lumber producers have got us to where we are today. Their business model has failed and their workers and investors are sufferring the consequences. That is truly unfortunate and I wish it weren't the case. But if anyone thinks that continuing to change policy and subsidize this sector more is the sustainable answer I will agree to disagree with you.

Dave Lewis

Dave, what you say above sounds reasonable enough, but you're overlooking the same thing that got us in this mess in the first place.

Dating right back to the time when TFL's were first proposed, and distributed, in an effort to provide the supposed sustainability firms could 'take to the Bank'. And get the funds they needed to re-invest through having long term tenure.

To put it in one word :- "inflation". The COSTS rose faster than the PRICES ever did that were supposed to be able to liquidate them.

The 'gap' was bridged by expanding debt, which could only be accessed by increasing 'credit worthiness' through a further expansion that 'rationalized' tenure holdings ~ by concentrating and consolidating them into the hands of ever fewer holders.

The same problem exists today, only the tenure holders are getting fewer and fewer. And ones like Timberwest are already trying to live off their 'capital', rather than off the 'income' it can no longer generate ~ even when they do export raw logs.

So they're "selling the store", so to speak.

To even begin to talk about re-vitalizing the forest industry without first understanding and finding a way to deal with this salient and over-riding FACT is going to be a complete waste of time.

Our resources belong to the people of BC and Canada.

We need to stop treating our resources like they belong to these corporations that only want to invent new ways of using less employees to increase their profits.
The latest invention is the purchase of mills in the USA and the shipping of our logs to those mills to be processed by low paid workers.
There are no tariffs on raw logs but there are on finished lumber products.
Why have we allowed these corporations to continue to lay off workers because they now have this fancy new machine that can do the work of ten men.
These companies are putting Canadians out of work every day because of corporate GREED and they are cashing in on it using OUR resources.
Why are we continueing to allow these corporations to destroy our lives while they use OUR resources to enable them to
build even larger personal bank accounts.
People are losing everything and these corporations don't give a damn.
Everyone deserves to have a job.
What these corporations are doing with the help of our own government is no less that criminal.
You should be ashamed of yourselves for what you are doing to the people of this country.

Regardless of what economics and finance may tell us, we live in a democracy. I think if you went to a referendum and asked the people their position 99%, or more, would ban log exports.
LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK!

Regardless of what economics and finance may tell us, we live in a democracy. I think if you went to a referendum and asked the people their position 99%, or more, would ban log exports.
LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK!

The previous post is probably a likely outcome of a referendum, but it would be the wrong thing to do. Banning export of logs SEEMs to be the answer to ordinary folks, but it is a far more complicated matter than most people realise. The 1% of people which this "govsux" writer refers to are likely the people who actually have money invested into this industry.

I do not support wide open export either as this can cause other problems.
There is a balance to this and there are specifc circumstances in certain places at certain times which also way into this equation.
The former mayor speaks to the investment needed in manufacturing facilities and I agree. The key to this investment actually occurring is in the risk and security which these investments can be made. Who in their right mind would do this over the last two decades?

With wide open export and timber supplies controlled by independent log marketers, there will be little security in log supply and therefore no investment.
Log exporters view their business as a stand alone cost/profit center and this makes sense as a business to them. However when this happens and it is simply a matter of highest price markets get the logs, that supply volitility prevents the security needed to finance proper local facilities. Good for exporters, but doom to the concept of local processing.

One solution to this debate is to change the fee in lieu of manufacture into a manufacturing deposit. This would redirect the proceeds of export from general revenue into the future capital required to build/expand/modernise local facilities. It is putting the "benefits of log export into the bank" for a time or opportunity which local processing is viable, and therefore truly beneficial.
Markets do change remember, adapting is possible if there is capital available to those who have the timber supply security.

Lostfaith- posted that "there are no tariffs on raw logs but on lumber"- this is incorrect- there is a fee in lieu on all Crown logs exported out of BC and on all Provinical Private wood exported out of BC. There is no fee in lieu on "federal" Private wood exported out of BC. The Federal Government controls log exports on all "private" property granted prior to March 12, 1906. Even if the BC could they no jurisdication on "federal" private lands. The only one that can alter serial notice 102 on these lands is the feds.

Oh ok, I thought there were no tariffs on logs. My source sucks.
I do believe the fees for lumber are very much higher than logs, correct?
That is what makes log exports so good for the companies.

Not sure how they compare- any way the 15% tariff is a major issue -now the US congress wants another 14-20 bucks per shipment. The feds need to re-open the softwood deal.

In response to Dave Lewis' post ....

There was a time almost 100 years ago that the railway came to the PG area. As it was built, little communities grew up along the new transportation corridor with sawmills that were able to cut the local feedstock and produce lumber for far away places.

With the change of technology, transportation systems were improved which allowed larger mills to be built that took feedstock from a wider geographic region. The result was that the smaller mills closed, and the communities dependent on the mills eventually died since they did not have a critical mass to survive. In fact, the very transportation network they were part of eventually became overshadowed by the new asphalt ribbon transportation technology and they were no longer on the most efficient and effective transportation system when it comes to regional tranportation.

Into the turn of the 20th to 21st century, the interior forests grew supermills both in BC and Alberta. The manpower per million board feet of lumber dropped drastically. The same had happened over time for the woodland workers. I do not know the figures, but I would not be surprised if we now have more people working in forest and silviculture planning, surveying, accounting, enforcement, regulating, etc. etc. than those working in the woodlands to harvest, plant, and in the factories to manufacture.

So, now we have the potential of allowing the feedstock to be sent to overseas mills in order to preserve the jobs in the woods along with those "planning" and administrative jobs (which forestry workers and others often appear to forget about).

The history of steel mills and the feedstock they rely on is not much different. Neither is the history of many resource intense manufacturing processes. Feedstock for manufacturing is typically moved to where production facilities are and where the major markets are, which is as close to a large population base as possible.

I think those who think that those mills that gear up for new feedstock sources in other countries will shut down when we are ready to build or reactivate mills again are forgetting history and have rose coloured glasses on.

The decision we have to make is whether we want to draw a line in the sand over which we will not cross. We know that the Russians are facing the same problem. They are trying to switch from a policy of allowing primarily the bordering Asian countries into their woodlands to highgrade it and remove logs to be manufactured outside of Russia. Whether they will be successful or not, we do not know. However, that may also be putting pressure on those mills built in those countries to find new sources of feedstock.

We have failed at adding substantial value to the lumber and the pulp we have been producing. How far are we going to go to allow even those secondary manufactured items to be lost from our industrial profile.

Before we move much further down the path of exporting feedstock, I think we need to have a look at the longer term strategy before we deal with short term tactics of bridging a downturn in the industry caused primarily by being complacent over the decades with serving one market – the USA housing market.

Good post owl!

The issue lies solely on the BC Softwood Lumber Agreement with the US. This agreement “caps” our market access and once we exceed that “cap” costly export taxes are applied…with the exception of “raw logs” Therefore it can not come as a surprise BC’s sawmills are shutting down when the “reward” for US-bound logs face taxes of zero.
The BC Liberal government to their lasting discredit knew full well this agreement and their forest policy changes would mean the door to raw log exports would not just swing open, but come right off its hinges.
Equally catastrophic is the BC Liberals scrapping of the provisions linking forest tenures to sawmills, this coupled with Forest company concentration has resulted in a steady decline in the amount of money paid for our timber. The end result of fewer stumpage dollars being collected, is where we find ourselves today, with fewer men and women working in sawmills and more and more logs are shipped out of province to determent of BC
So now to read the BC Chamber of Commerce recommending the BC Liberals increase “raw log” exports shows who they really are concerned about.

Wide open, unrestricted log exports will only result in our flooding THAT market the same as we've flooded the lumber market, and, in the past, markets for pulp, woodchips, OSB, etc.

People will get into the logging business expecting those big export prices will last, only to find that they're right back behind the financial eight-ball when they don't.

To try to get the "costs down" they'll go ever the harder. And glut the markets even more. For the financing on their equipment ~ all that ultra-modern, high-tech iron that's needed to be a 'state-of-the-art' big time operator, is all based on TIME. Not on where the prices for the product produced happen to be at any point in it.

Those who think that 'value-added' will save us from the vagaries of the 'commodity market' are also dreaming in technicolour so long as the current financial conventions rule unchanged.

There are very, very limited opportunities to 'value-add' any raw material that is already highly valuable to begin with, and especially through any process of 'separation'. Which is essentially what cutting lumber and further processing it into high end products entails. All waste and fall-down in such a process is already high cost, and must be added into the final price the customer will be asked to pay.

If you look at the history of the industry in the US Pacific northwest, where log costs exceed even those on the Coast, most of the mills that were built there since their National Forest timber lands were kept off limits to logging, were NOT plants producing 'value-added' products. They were stud mills. Cutting that most "commoditized" of all lumber dimensions, the simple 8 (and 9, and 10) foot 2x4. The reasons, I believe, are fairly simple. Studs always sell, if there's any market for lumber at all; they can be made out of 'anything'; the process itself is simple and lends itself well to high-speed, low cost manufacturing; crews are much easier to train; and, most importantly, the TIME between the log being received and the end product being sold is minimal ~ a vital consideration, since what's been put out in 'money' comes back very quickly. (In some cases, payment for the studs might even be received BEFORE the mill has to pay for the logs.)

Contrast that with 'value-added' ~ where the distance between a mounting set of process costs and an often rather uncertain cheque from some customer at the end of it grows ever the longer the more supposed 'value' is being added.

Again, I think a few facts might help, Bond seems to think their are no tariffs/taxes on raw logs- wrong- their are fee in lieu charges on all Crown lands (94% ofthe land base) and Provincial wood- Private property crown granted after March 12, 1906. Their are no taxes on Federal log exports- lands crown granted prior to March 12, 1906. Private Lands are about 4% of the land base in BC and mostly in the Nelson/Cranbrook and South Vancouver Island regions. Also yes the people do own the Crown resource and the trees, however they do not own the Private Land Trees- the owner does. At the moment many exporters including myself are not harvest do to the very poor markets- eg Fir gang (8" top) is down approx 55% from one year ago. There are a few "sorts" do well, Cedar gang, Cedar merch, High grade Fir old Growth and some pole sorts but the rest of the market has fallen off at least 50% from one year ago.

Way back around 1978 or so, Crown Zellerbach Canada's Courtenay operations found themselves burdened with about 100 highway truckloads of 'blister rust' killed Western White Pine 'snags' plugging up an increasing amount of one of their in-woods dry-land sorts.

Snags, at that time, all had to be felled as a safety issue. The rigging crews were instructed to leave them to rot. But that's easier said than done.

They'd be in the way, on top of other logs to be yarded, so they'd be chokered or grappled and yarded up to the landings.

Where they were very soon in the way again.

So they'd soon be loaded and hauled to the sort, just to get rid of them. And pretty soon they mounted up, and were in the way there.

There was no market for them, mainly because on a log scale basis there was no way of accurately determining just how much usable lumber might be in them. No one buying them could do so on a 'cut-to-order' lumber file basis. Also, that species is a minor one on the Coast, and not many mills cut it.

Rather than just haul them out to another area and burn them, CZ's logging superintendent took it upon himself to see if he could interest a small, local mill in taking them. And he did.

A deal was struck that the mill would haul them away, and pay CZ $ 50 per MBF on a tally of marketable lumber recovered from them.

CZ was rid of a 'problem' that would have cost it a fair bit to be rid of had they opted to burn these logs.

And the mill received some low cost wood, and the opportunity to "value-add" it, by seeing what it could get out of it. It was what both parties might call a 'win-win' solution. No one was taking the food out of someone else's mouth ~ everyone benefited. A very practical solution to what seemed to be a mounting problem, you might say.

One that might hold some promise of repitition, since WWP snags would still accumulate over time again in the sorting yard, you might think.

Well, such was not to be. The little mill got busy and sawed up the pine, and, working from scratch, developed a market for it.

It was a labour intensive process, but there turned out to be enough margin in it that the mill could pay the going 'union' rate for labour, though it couldn't fund similar benefits. There wasn't enough in it for that, not at that point. No matter, its employees weren't complaining. They were working steady, and getting paid every week more than they could've got many other places.

Everything went along fine, until the 100 loads or so was nearly all gone. Then the mill's owner approached CZ to see if they had any more they wanted to get rid of.

Well, you bet they did. Only their 'accountants' had had a little look at this very sensible transaction, and determined that if CZ was to repeat the process they'd need $ 250 per MBF now, not $50.

When asked why there was such an increase in price for something that was still just 'waste' the following rationale was given. CZ's 'annual allowable cut' was determined by combining its cut on its 'fee simple' private lands, (on which the WWP had grown), with its tenure on 'public lands'. "Selling" WWP snags that were low grade waste, instead of just burning it, meant that this timber could possibly be deducted from their 'annual allowable cut'. And they then wouldn't be able to harvest higher value 'public' trees of equivalent volume. The $ 250 per MBF would 'compensate' for their expected loss.

Needless to say, the small mill, whose owners had put considerable effort into a building a market for their pine products, couldn't pass those kind of costs on to their customers. They went on to other things, and what could have beeen utilized, to the benefit of all concerned, went back to being burned.

Now you might ask why I relate all this story, something that happened thirty years ago. Well, it's this. Crown Zellerbach Canada is no more. It was absorbed into Fletcher Challenge Canada, along with BCFP, and when vertical integration proved to be less than hoped for financially, that company devolved, with its public and private timberlands now held by Timberwest.

Timberwest is a log exporter. It cuts its timber, its 'fee-simple' land timber, and makes 'export' logs from it. In doing so it develops massive burn piles of 'waste'. Butt cuts with a small swoop to them. Or maybe a little bit of rot in the centre. Material that COULD be utilized. Material that SHOULD be utilized. For something, even if it was 'firewood'. Though much of it is far too good for that.

I'm told it can be purchased. But at a price, similar to that price which priced the pine snags right out of the market in comparison to what such wood was really worth. No one could make any money cutting it at that price, and to let the 'public' see such waste of a resource that, even though they don't 'own' those trees, could still be put to SOME use, just wouldn't do. It wouldn't square with the propaganda department's efforts to portray TW as a 'responsible' forest operator.

This is the kind of mentality, corporate mentality, that pervades the rotten to the core BC Liberal Party. It's 'global capitalism' at its absolute worst. It's the tail of "figures", and "figurers", wagging the dog of sensible, physical reality. And that's only the tip of the iceberg!

Great story Socred. I enjoyed the parable.

IMO there is something to be said about realizing a sunk cost as a sunk cost at the split-off point, so as to better utilize the bi-product, or scrap material after the split off point.

A log logged... then processed into dimensional lumber... which of the two are the split of points... dimensional can be many dimensions each with their own revenue potential as well as a share of the sunk costs to that point... so how then to allocte those sunk costs... is it Net Realizable Value, a physical method of volume, sales value, traced costs, negotiated, ect ect... the various accounting options are as infinite as the imagination, but... each of these methods is very importing in deciding what dimension of lumber to make and what will be profitable.

Taken to the next level after the dimensions are sawed we have another split of point where we now have the bi-products of hog fuel (co-gen fuel), saw dust (specialty mills as pallet plants, wood chips (pulp mills, and trim block ends (finger joiners). This is the area of all importance IMO because it is at this area where the public receives or does not receive value for those logs. If this stage is never reached these opportunities will never exist. It is this stage that adds full value to the logs and as such has potential to subsidize the cost of the dimensional miller through an allocation of shared (joint) sunk costs (but if no allocation takes place does it still have value to others, and therefor should be mandated).

How those joint and sunk costs are allocated, if at all, determines the viability of any process beyond the milling split off point.

If a company can make all its profits just selling the raw logs then we will never know what kind of real value those exported logs cost us because we will never know the value that could have been generated with the by-product. The dimensional lumber company can make or break the value added sector simply by playing with the allocation of sunk costs for its waste bi-product and in the process either sink or swim with those related industries.

I say we make the large forest companies either sink or swim... thus forcing them to make allocation of waste bi-product a win/win situation for all involved (loggers, mills, secondary); rather than taking the simple root of exporting raw logs for easy profits.

IMO the government is responsible for seeing that we get value from our natural resources. It is the governments job to regulate the bi-product allocation methods used by industry by coming up with a standard so that the secondary industry has the kind of feedstock certainty that it can go to the bank with. A strong secondary industry in turn over time will enhance the viability of the primary industry. As the government is the owner of the crown resource it is up to the government to ensure use of those resources are maximized for the benefit of all industry and people in the province of BC. This is not happening and this is a huge part of the problem.

I always cite the example of the beehive burners? Why this is still allowed to happen is a question that puzzles me. Is it because the forest companies would rather burn the hog fuel than give it away or use it themselves? If so then this is an area for potential future regulation.

IMO a lot of the problems all boil down to how we allocate the sunk costs beyond each split off point and whom's interests the formula's are devised to benefit.

This example cited by "socredible" is one of many and is not going to change until several other things change.
The ministry of forests has heard this type of frustration many times and does nothing to actually help facilitate better resource utilisation. I know because I have tried many times to access various wood types which were wasted by the majors.
No matter what common sense dictates or greater good that is intended, big corporations do not wish to assist in the development of other processing companies.
It is the government's mandate which includes this utilisation of our resources for the public's best interests--not the corporations which are wanting and successfully monopolise the resource play.
If you have any doubts about ministry of forests intentions about resource utilisation requirements then look at the infamous "take or pay policy". If you have any doubts about how far corporations will take advantage of this "take the best and leave the rest" look at what is being left behind--and look quick before its burnt.
Just try to get a corporation to cooperate in the post harvest salvage of this supposed "waste"--which is as defined by the corporation. Merchantability and utilization standards only oblige the corporation to pay stumpage OR waste billing--but it does not oblige the recovery of this timber. It is easily defended as "uneconomical waste" if no one is allowed to prove otherwise, and therfore much resistance to this salvage occurrs. There is something wrong with peoples heads when; if you burn this waste it isn't counted on a company's AAC, but if you salvage it--it does. What kind of a "green plan" is this?

To add to what the above issue involves towards the relevance to log exports.
When the processing companies are gone so too are the options to utilize our forest resources. It is a selfperpetuating reality that the less options exist that the less chance for maintaining economical harvest and manufacturing also exists. The less options--more waste--whether it is merchantable timber or not.
Perhaps big corporations or log exporters do not have the will or ability to utilize the forest profile--but it must be made mandatory that post harvest salvage be actually ensured whenever possible.
Concurrent salvage is preferable and the ministry of forests could auction these sorts as a test. If successfull at recovering the basic costs of loading and hauling then a salvage tenure should be put in place to sustain these innovative enterprises. The primary tenure holder would have had its chance to properly utilize the forest profile--and failing its performances would therefore lose this portion to those who could utilize it. I believe it takes something like this to cut through the crap--actually provide real opportunity that can sustain new innovations which improve utilization.
More logging jobs, more diversity of local manufacturing, more employment and less waste and negative environmental effects.
This has got to be a concept worth exploring.

Eagle, and Woodchipper, those are three great posts.

One time, back when Claude Richmond was Forests Minister, when he was still a "Socred", (in name, anyway ~ doubt if there's very many 'real' Social Crediters around any more ~ I might be the last!), there was a mini-Commission of Enquiry constituted concerning opportunities for smaller operators in the forest industry.

I've always had a somewhat jaundiced view of these kinds of things ~ my impression is that the Commissioners, (there was only one in this case, a Kamloops lawyer, I believe, if I recall correctly), have already been TOLD what to put in their final report. And the call for 'public' input is just 'window-dressing' to make people feel the powers-that-be really ARE listening.

Any way, a few of us who were then involved in small scale lumber manufacturing happened to get together one day and talked about this chance to have our say. My opinion was expressed, the one I've related above; but the others felt it would be worthwhile to at least make an attempt to inform the Commissioner what we felt should change. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, as the saying goes.

So they convinced me I should send in a Brief, as each of them planned to do.

Our operations were all somewhat different from one another, so there was no real united front proposed, since each party had his own "axe to grind" with accessing public, or in some cases, major-owned private land timber held in Tree Farm Licences, but being 'wasted' in manners similar to those previously related.

So I sat down, in that pre-computer era, and composed a Brief on my 1905 vintage Underwood typewriter, and mailed it off.

And by and by I received a form letter acknowledgement from the Commissioner that it had been received, and its contents would be considered. Along with a very nice handwritten note from him in which he thanked me, and complemented me on my thoroughness by remarking that mine was one of the "...best written submissions I've yet read."

Well, I thought to myself on receiving that, maybe somebody IS listening. Maybe some of the changes I felt were needed, (none of which would've done ANY harm to the position of major TFL holders, or their then (heavily) 'unionized' employees), might be seriously considered, and even acted upon.

I awaited the final report with eager anticipation. But when received? Well, guess what? My original opinion was completely justified! Not ONE issue raised, (which would have applied to many more than just my operation), had been addressed. A Report like that could have been, and probably was, completely written BEFORE any small operator was even heard from. And the 'waste' goes on!

While I'm on a roll here, perhaps you might find interesting another example of abject Corporate stupidity at the major player level.

Operating under a proclaimed part of the "War Measures Act" the Federal government still imposes a restriction on log exports from late 19th and early 20th century Crown granted private timber lands in BC.

The Act, I believe, was written during the early years of the Second World War when there was a growing manpower shortage in both BC's woods and mills, and lumber for the war effort was badly needed. And a section of it addressed that problem.

Some American lumber companies had substantial logging operations on southern Vancouver Island, on these early day Crown granted private timberlands, and were able to 'export' logs from them to their mills in Washington State, virtually un-restricted pre-war. This had to be changed when we entered the war, and found ourselves increasingly short of sawlogs for our own mills.

The Act provided for a 'surplus test' ~ if the timber wasn't needed in a BC mill it could still be exported. But if it was needed, (and at that time it was), the BC mill could 'block' the export, and the logs would have to be marketed in BC.

I believe the application of all the proclaimed provisions of the Act were rescinded after the war ended, only to have the log 'surplus test' provisions re-proclaimed in the Diefenbaker years.

(The Act itself was re-proclaimed briefly in larger measure by Trudeau during the FLQ bombings in Quebec ~ it gives the Federal government absolute dictatorial powers to deal with any real or supposed 'crisis'.)

In any case, its log export restriction remains, an obvious irritant to log exporters who run the risk of being 'blocked' and unable to take advantage of higher log prices they might get from foreign buyers. Or so it would seem.

An 'unwritten' code has long prevailed in the Coastal industry however. And a mill without tenure, or adequate tenure, who moves to 'block' an export sale runs the risk of being 'blacklisted' in accessing its future log needs, so to speak, by those Companies engaged in log exports. Mills, mid-sized and smaller coastal mills, know this and are usually reluctant to 'block' unless absolutely necessary.

The former Field Sawmills in Courtenay was a mid-sized mill without any forest tenures. During the mid-eighties it specialized in cutting small cypress (yellow cedar) logs into Japanese lumber dimensions. Generally, there was plenty of this type of wood for sale on the open market ~ not many mills cut it unless it was over 14" or so in diameter.

Crown Zellerbach had lots of it. And a mill at Port Kells in the lower mainland under contract to custom cut the larger logs it developed. While many of the smaller logs, but still larger than a run-of-the mill Field Sawmills log, were often exported as "Japanese piling".

At one point the log supply, normally plentiful, got a little tight for Fields. And they moved to 'block' a CZ log export sale, hoping to be able to get this wood for their mill instead. Whether they did get it or not, I don't recall. But regardless, it was enough to cause CZ to make sure they wouldn't get any more of it.
Not from them.

Shortly after this happened CZ fell a large setting of nearly pure yellow cedar on the slopes of Mount Washington, near Courtenay. They were going to export this as "Japanese piling" too. But when the Japanese log buyers looked it over, they found it unsuited to their specifications. And wouldn't buy it.

Compared to the 'pulp' cypress that was Fields normal open market fare, these logs would've been pure treasure. Not large, but slowly grown, fine grained, with lots of clear, and unusually straight grained. Ideal for the kind of post and beam construction that's left exposed in Japan, for the homeowner to flaunt the 'expensiveness' of his structure to his neighbours in a culture where 'face' is so important.

Fields would've snapped it up in a minute, had it been available to them. But after their little 'block' of CZ's previous export sale? Unh-uh. No way. They trucked that beautiful, prime, old-growth wood to a smaller Courtenay area mill and had them saw it into railway ties. For their logging railway at Nanaimo Lakes.

The smaller mill, which CZ imagined would just square up the logs into 6x8 or 7x9 ties, felt this would be too wasteful, and started taking off the side lumber instead of just putting it all into the slab-pile. They dried it, planed it, and retailed it. And, being honest, applied what they received from its sale against what they were charging CZ to cut the ties. It reduced the cost of manufacturing each tie to around 5 cents apiece! That's how nice a product they were recovering out of perceived 'waste'!

Now at the time this was going on, shortly before CZ was bought out by Fletcher Challenge, CZ had made a foray into 'big box' retailing of building supplies. They had built several "HomeTown" stores, in major market areas. Vancouver, its suburbs, and the like. And one day the manager of their "HomeTown" division came over to tour their Elk Falls sawmill facilities at Campbell River, and the Courtenay logging operations.

CZ's forester was requisitioned to be his 'tour guide'. This forester had a keen interest in showcasing BC woods and he'd been buying, for his own residence, some of the yellow cedar tongue and groove panelling CZ's erstwhile 'tie mill' was making. So he included a stop at the small mill on the 'tour'.

The "HomeTown" guy's eyes practically bulged out of his head when he saw the quality inherent in that product. "I could sell millions of feet of this right off the floor of our stores", he proclaimed, "I could name my price, any price, and customers would pay it, just like that, for that kind of quality! Where did you EVER get wood like this? It's NEVER available!"

"Crown Zellerbach, " came the answer. No wonder they're not around any longer!

I hate to agree with the pesimism in having change actually happen from government--but after many many attempts with trying to change things, I have accomplished very little.
Time will tell, but it isn't likely that the current roundtable process will produce anything new either.
From my experience, the "window dressing" which the former post refers to is the norm and not the exception. After countless meetings with government--and no apparent signs of movement--an industry buddy of mine called this; "the government square root formula".Government has the answer and needs to draw from the public/stakeholder the appropriate excerpts to align with their predetermined decisions/objectives.
It is always the second and third row back from the political mouthpiece which does this wizardly craft--the same which do the speech writing and question period briefing notes. Have you ever heard a fullsome honest clear answer in question period? These wizards are buzy devils that keep everything in tow despite whomever is elected to take the crap for what they do. Somehow they can intercept or run a muck anything which is advanced towards change or accountability. The real problem is that they seem to thrive on the large corporations agenda and therefore seldom is there a decison made against the interests of a major corporation, or for the benefit of the little guy. If a new well intentioned and naieve minister is appointed and wants to be a free thinking advocate for changes which the minions do not approve--say goodbye--as leaks concerning the ministers expense accounts will fly from the parliment buildings forthwith. Strange what actually controls the checks and balances.

Woodchipper, yours above is one of the best written and most factual posts I have ever read on Opinion250 since I became aware of its existence. You have not only "hit the nail squarely on the head", but driven it home with flawless accuracy.

This is EXACTLY what happens, both Federally and Provincially, as anyone who takes the time to watch the televised proceedings in either Parliament could attest.

There is seldom, if ever, any straight answers given on important matters of POLICY, when that policy is all too often NOT one in the overall public interest.

We could all talk endlessly about the various perversions we've personally witnessed, like some of the ones related previously.

We could debate whether we're further ahead to do as "dogs" and "exMayor" and the BC Chamber want to do; or to ban log export completely, as others have passionately advocated; or have something somewhere in between.

We could talk about whether 'value-adding' makes sense if it can't recover its costs plus an additional profit, but only provides an excuse to 'employ' someone so we can rest easy 'morally' before paying him an income. And so on and so forth.

But what we are really doing is trying to address various 'problems' in isolation in the 'micro-economy' ~ the level of our interaction as Firms or individuals in the forest industry with one another on a daily basis.

While we completely overlook what is happening in the 'macro-economy' ~ how all that relates to how EVERYONE in the whole Province or country are interacting, and the effects on the medium through which they are interacting ~ MONEY.

At "our" micro-economic level, business decisions are made using the conventions of double-entry cost accountancy. It does a pretty good job of it. But at a higher level, as to how what goes on the individual set of books of each Company relates to what goes on in the set of books of EVERY OTHER COMPANY, AND THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE, there is, at present, NO comprehensive, accurate way to relate the two.

We have the "accountants" at one level, and the "economists" at the other. And they DON'T speak the same language!

To me, this is where the fundamental, basic, larger problem lies. Within the confines of two-dimensional individualized cost accountancy, there is presently NO way for the accountant to measure the signfigance of the very real "third dimension" ~ MONEY ITSELF.

If we fail to understand and address this problem first, NO other solution ~ not open-door raw log exports, nor complete bans on them, not 'value-added', nor anything else, will ever allow our Province and its citizens to enjoy the full potential of access to the physical abundance we've been blessed with.