Sorry, You will never convince me that shipping raw reasources of any kind out of the Province is a good idea. Why would be ship a log out only to buy the value added product back from someone else? If Canadian producers cannot compete due to labour costs than there should be a higher import taxes on the end product to level the playing field.

Log exports are in a fact, a business...so what else would we expect those involved in the exportation of raw logs to say?
Sounds much like it was written by a politician,and it would be hard to get any out of work forestry based worker with a family, (or not) who is watching his life slide down the crapper, to agree with this kind logic and rhetoric.

OK lets say I am a multimillion dollar forest company operating in BC.
This year due to the low Canadian dollar and what I think is an excessive demand from my mill employees for a 5% wage increase, along with lumber tariffs, I am going to shut my mill down and ship my logs to the mills I just bought in the USA. Look at all the money I will save and the mega profits I will realize.
Who cares about those greedy employees that are out of work in BC. They should be thankful they had a job for as long as they did. I don't really care cause WOW look at my new bank balance.

This goof is trying to lead us to believe that PRIVATE land owners are just ordinary people like the rest of us.
In fact there are may of these corporations in BC that OWN land here and are PRIVATE land owners.

With a quick look at the argument, you can not blame people for thinking that the argument is a reasonable one.

In mind, the fallacy in the argument is this:

All those people who are employed to basically take care of the forests for purposes of maintaining a fibre supply are being paid for primarily by those who add value to the trees being planted and tended, harvested and transported to a secondary manufacturing facility.

If a larger percentage of trees were to be shipped out of province, the activity of selling the raw product would increase the cost of that product and thus the price which would have to be demanded by that product.

We have to remember that the tree is a commodity. The province and the country can .

oops..... computer decided to post before I wanted it to .... :-)

So ... the tree is a commodity and the province and the country can determine the price they wish to place on tht commodity based on the income it will produce for the province by way of tax. When value is added to the timber, the final value of that log becomes much higher than the raw log value. The added value generates jobs, which in turn generates taxes far beyond stumpage fees.

BTW, why stop at log exports. Why don't we get "guest workers" in here, pay them less, get them to ship the rest of the money out of the country and back home.

Surely, if we can ship secondary manufacturing jobs out of the country, we can go that one step further and let the world totally rape and pillage our resources.

So, Rod .... wish to respond?

Damn owl...never mind running for the mayor's job...go for Premier!
:-)

"In B.C. there are more than two woods jobs for every sawmill job."

Interesting statement. If that is the total number of woods jobs divided by the total sawmill jobs, one has to remember that the woods jobs bring in logs that are used for more than just sawmilling. On the secondary manufacturing front there are pulp jobs, wood panel jobs, a few wood pellet jobs, miscellaneous wood products such as utility pole, logs for log buildings, etc.

So, what is the figure for woods jobs for total secondary manufacturing jobs which are dependent on those logs coming out of the forests?

Anydfreeze .... while I may like to write ... I do not like to speak ... no "gift of the gab" ..... I'd have to find a puppet ....

;-)

Money...money...money...these discussions are always about the same thing and rarely does anyone bring up any other issue... talk about an incredibly uncreative and narrow minded community!

Oh, and by the way... I was once involved in the forest products industry myself and got out of it of my own accord because I came to see it for what it is: the rape of planet Earth in order to worship money. So much evidence it is killing our world and yet the posters here are still obsessed only with making money.

Humans are pathetic and deserve every bad thing that happens to us. It's called Karma by some, the Bible says,"you shall reap what you have sown."

Owl: "BTW, why stop at log exports. Why don't we get "guest workers" in here, pay them less, get them to ship the rest of the money out of the country and back home."

The Chinese are doing it in Africa: They buy and lease large tracts of land, bring in Chinese farm labourers to work the new Chinese government owned farms (no work for the Africans!), grow food and export it to China to feed the ever growing multitudes!

In the meantime the Africans are standing around starving and without jobs!

Perhaps the Chinese could buy up defunct Canadian pulpmills and sawmills, fly in the temporary workers to live in camps, pay them 50 cents a day and have a good time doing it?

Darwin called it survival of the fittest!

Excellent letter- it appears most of the poster's cann't see the forest through the trees. Some of the points being made are:

1. If the domestic cost of logs is less than the cost of harvesting (accounting for all costs) no one in their right mind will log. This is the current situation is most area's.

2. On the Coast their is a huge under cut on Crown land more than is being exported off Private Lands.

3. Without a competive log market BC mills will become uncompetive (as is the case on the Coast.)

4. All Private Land owners are asking is for fair market value and access. Most of us would prefer to sell local but aren't while to subzidize union's or inefficient mills. In the States (at least Washington State- most woodlands and mills have been separted for years and most companies but their logs out to bid).

BC needs to join the rest of the global forestry world and make positive change not roll back the clock to the 1970's (USW 10 point plan). If we chose to ignore the rest of the world and how they are changing their forestry business we will pay the cost.

"the Bible says,"you shall reap what you have sown."

There you go Kevin .... we plant trees and the Bible tells us we must reap them. We cannot simply allow them to grow and die ... we are just following the Word.

Kevin, you need a few lesson in how to properly interpret the Bible ....

;-)

Interpret the Bible? I did. In the Bible it says skin is very elastic. It said Moses tied his ass to a tree and walked forty miles. So there!

Ok Kevin. Here is the thing, if you want to spend a huge amount of money to purchase private land and then give the trees to local mills go nuts. But here in the real world where we all want whats best for ourselves and our families we dont do that. Again, you are free to do it. Dont be bound by money, fight the power. Save the earth. Insert additional useless phrases here.

Ive said it before and Ill say it again. If unions hadnt held all these mills hostage for so many years all the sawmills and pulpmills would have been updated on a regular basis so that productivity would increase. As a result shipping of raw logs would not be economical because there would be a market here. Ask any millright or machinist that works in one of these mills and he will tell you all they do, and have ever done, is bandaid the problems in these mills. No improvements are made. Why, because a company has only so much money to spend on daily operations and capital investments and when all the money is being spend on daily operations due to the union demands there is nothing left to invest in the future. The unions should have fought for reinvestment combined with better wages for the last 2 decades (instead of being focused 100% on higher wages and benefits), then the forest industry would not be in this position. Way to go unions.

How can heavily taxed, highly unionized countries elsewhere in the world, mill wood, make pulp and pay good wages with lots of vacation. These places also invest heavily in R&D and recover a lot more from their waste before throwing it back into the environment.
How can Germany be doing well with only manufacturing and no resources.
The World Bank did a study hoping to make unions look bad but to their surprise they found:
-better trained employees
-way less costly turnover of employees
-safer workplaces

This report from the conservative World Bank, based on more than a thousand studies, also found countries with an organized work force fare better in the following areas:
-lower unemployment
-lower inflation
-higher productivity
-speedier adjustments to economic shock
-where good relations exist, countries tend to experience lower earning inequalities, and fewer and shorter strikes.

In large manufacturing wages present a very small piece of the economic pie. But they are the easiest to see and control. If the wages aren't sustainable the business won't last.

I like this social democracy we call Canada. As we start to slip into a reflection of our neighbours to the south I beg all the right wing, who spout rhetoric but have no reference, if you want to be filthy rich while people starve in the streets and crime is rampant please apply for a green card and move to the USA.

Ok Kevin. Here is the thing, if you want to spend a huge amount of money to purchase private land and then give the trees to local mills go nuts. But here in the real world where we all want whats best for ourselves and our families we dont do that. Again, you are free to do it. Dont be bound by money, fight the power. Save the earth. Insert additional useless phrases here.

Ive said it before and Ill say it again. If unions hadnt held all these mills hostage for so many years all the sawmills and pulpmills would have been updated on a regular basis so that productivity would increase. As a result shipping of raw logs would not be economical because there would be a market here. Ask any millright or machinist that works in one of these mills and he will tell you all they do, and have ever done, is bandaid the problems in these mills. No improvements are made. Why, because a company has only so much money to spend on daily operations and capital investments and when all the money is being spend on daily operations due to the union demands there is nothing left to invest in the future. The unions should have fought for reinvestment combined with better wages for the last 2 decades (instead of being focused 100% on higher wages and benefits), then the forest industry would not be in this position. Way to go unions.

OK, so if we pay crap wages the shareholders will give up profit for R&D. Is that why they have all those high tech sawmills in the southern states. I'm afraid not.

Yamchargers you don't really expect anyone here in the central interior believes one word you have to say about unions.
This province was built by the unions and is now falling apart because of corporate greed. Yes Yam corporate greed.
You try to make us think these forest companies didn't make any money here in BC because of selfish unions. Thanks to the unions of this province you have a computer at your disposal to write your incredible bunk.

Kevin1006
What exactly do you do for a living?

The article completely misses the point that it is the split off value created by secondary manufacturing of waste or bi-product that gives the full value to the tree harvested. To equate the value of the tree simply to the saw milling is a disingenuous argument that cuts off the life cycle of the commodity before its full value is realized.

These people need to look at not just the value of a 2x4, but also the value of the sawdust, wood chips, hog fuel, and trim blocks to the other related industries that also pay taxes and employ people such as the pulp mill industry, go-gen, wood pallets, bio-fuel, finger joiners ect.

Is it any coincidence that all the secondary manufacturing has closed down on the coast from pulp mills to finger joining, to pallet plants and the list goes on with secondary closures that make it uneconomical to re-open the saw mills because they can no longer split their overhead costs through allocation of costs to other industries looking for feedstock.

The only reason the mills in the interior are still open is not because they can get cheep logs, or because they have x-amount of efficiencies, but rather because they can sell their bi-products (mostly wood chips) to the secondary industries that in most cases cover their wages (Union) and overhead thereby subsidizing the ability to sell 2x4 at a loss.

You simply can not have a log export business and say it has no effect on the vast secondary industry in BC that enables and facilitates the saw milling industry and by extension the raw log market in future years.

All I see with these land owner (so-called) log exporters is that they are the 5th column agents of the American lumber lobby that provides the arguments to the Americans to put tariffs on our finished products... all so that the log exporters can enjoy the freedom to profit themselves from our resources at the expense of their own nations industrial interests.

I blame the BC liberals for facilitating the log export business model and the arguments they use to have tariffs put on our softwood products.

IMO the only answer is to have the crown take over all log markets as a crown agency with local crown run log yards where log harvesters can contract from and sell into, and mills can buy their feedstock out of the crown log yards.
The crown log yards could have a better handle on what crown areas should be logged and how they should be logged... allocating beetle kill areas with efficiency.
The logging industry could become more free enterprise with opportunities to do business directly with the crown rather then being forced into blackmail contracts with monopoly forest companies.
The secondary industry would have feedstock assurances to make investments and grow their presence in the the province.


Most importantly the BC forest industry could get away from the argument that our log market is not an open market, yet still protect our forest health as well as the need to tie local resources to local mills.

"I blame the BC liberals for facilitating the log export business model and the arguments they use to have tariffs put on our softwood products."

How about spreading the blame around a bit more! Raw logs have been exported from B.C. for decades, including during the NDP ruled decade. It's not a B.C. Liberal business model at all. The duties on Canadian softwood lumber are determined by the agreement that Mr. Harper signed recently with the Americans.

Change the B.C. government - the softwood lumber agreement will still be the same.

Interesting comments.

It’s good to get some discussion going. It’s a complex issue.

It’s no coincidence that BC has some of the lowest log prices in the world ( = the only reason to export) as well as the world’s highest log processing costs in many, but not all, of it’s mills. Nor is it a coincidence that so much BC wood is being left unharvested in the bush after logging is completed these days.

I’m a small forest owner and I hire local loggers, truckers and other services including planters to get my logs to various markets, some of which are local, and some of which are overseas. Responsible forest management is expensive. Without the higher prices I can get when I export I would not be able to log at all.

For the most part, BC’s forest products are globally traded commodities. Consumers expect best quality at the lowest price and producers must compete for market share if they want to be in that business.

Competitive mills in BC and overseas can and do afford to pay competitive prices for logs.

Swedish pulp and papermakers can afford to pay CAN $100 per cubic metre of pulp logs and remain profitable, whilst Coastal BC pulpmills are struggling to make a go of it paying just $43.

Mills in Washington State will pay $75/m3 for Alder logs when BC mills are only offering $55

When BC mills offer log prices that are below international log prices and lower than the cost of getting fibre out of the woods, nobody gets any work or revenue out of the resource at any level, whether in the woods or mills, or value-adding.

BC’s over 20,000 forest owners have invested many decades in growing their timber on their own private property.

I won’t profess to tell BC how it should treat logs from public land where 90% of the annual BC timber harvest comes from, but just like when any one of us sells private property such as a car or a house or whatever, private forest owners deserve fair value for their own property (their logs) when they sell them. We don’t want subsidies or special treatment, just fair value for our assets when we sell.

For private forest owners, logs are the final, finished product and the only chance to recoup some revenue after decades of investment and risk taking.

Artificially low log prices are bad news for private forest management, and the many thousands of workers and families who rely on it.

Pope & talbot paid there share holders most of the half billion dollars that they recieved from the softwood rebates.Maria Pope CfO and her father CEO had over 50% of the shares.Both are no longer with the company and no debts where paid .This is a foreign company that fought for opening of canadas woods. Who profited?Lets export our private wood and bend over the stump.We love to help our southern brothers and long as it helps them.I would like to see every sawmill in Canada shut down for a month.Elimnate the over supply and see how long the U.S. could last with 3rd world log suppies that are being imported as we speak.Numbers can be manipulated to say what are needed.Canfor said ft.St James was a money loser.Mr Emerson former head of Canfor used Ft St james as a example in the soft wood battles.The sawmill people of Pope & talbot came in and listen to the employees spent money in the right areas hired compented mill staff and when it closed was in the top 10% of all mills.Explain to me why we should export logs when you have a high tech mill 48 people to produce 1.4 million of lumber a day and it is not running.

The only reason it appears to be a COMPLEX issue at all Mr Bealing , is because those of you that stand to make all the money in these situations make it appear to be COMPLEX. It's a simple issue really and it's all about corporate greed, nothing more , nothing less. Screw the workers that broke their backs, making these corporations rich.
Hopefully the rest of the sheep will wake up soon and smell the bacon.

Invisibleman

We export logs because we the people of BC allow it. Civil disobedience can help stop it.

It sure can.

Lostfaith - if you really want to "screw the workers" , banning log exports would be a quick way to do it.

The lions share (over 90%) of revenue from log sales goes to loggers, forest workers, truckers etc.

Forest owners are forced to continue logging during poor markets in order to salvage bug killed or blow down timber, and to generate revenue to pay property taxes and management costs such as fire protection.

Domestic BC mills are currently either closed, curtailed, or oversupplied with logs.

Current prices offered by many BC mills are insufficient to cover the cost of getting many species and grades of logs out of the forest.

Meanwhile, some overseas mills are still buying some logs, providing much needed employment to British Columbians in the woods, and tax revenue to all levels of government.

Private forest management is a positive landuse, generating many, many benefits for British Columbians.

90% of BC's wood comes from public land.

Further restricting private land log markets can only harm BC's forest dependent workers, families and communities.

Lostfaith - if you really want to "screw the workers" , banning log exports would be a quick way to do it.

The lions share (over 90%) of revenue from log sales goes to loggers, forest workers, truckers etc.

Forest owners are forced to continue logging during poor markets in order to salvage bug killed or blow down timber, and to generate revenue to pay property taxes and management costs such as fire protection.

Domestic BC mills are currently either closed, curtailed, or oversupplied with logs.

Current prices offered by many BC mills are insufficient to cover the cost of getting many species and grades of logs out of the forest.

Meanwhile, some overseas mills are still buying some logs, providing much needed employment to British Columbians in the woods, and tax revenue to all levels of government.

Private forest management is a positive landuse, generating many, many benefits for British Columbians.

90% of BC's wood comes from public land.

Further restricting private land log markets can only harm BC's forest dependent workers, families and communities.

I would have to agree to Rod- there is a huge difference between how pubic lands and private lands (mostly on southern vancovuer island) are managed. Perhaps this may be the wrong forum to discuss these differences. But a little in sight on the differences between the two cultures cann't hurt. Crown land is run more or less as a social program based on various government policies with little or no business sense. Private Land is run as a business. Yes I do work for an US company and over the last 6 years I have learn alot about running a forestry operation as a business. Exporting logs to get fair market value and sorting logs in many ways to maximize their value is one of several of acheive this goal. I how look at a stand totally different when I worked for the government. There is nothing wrong with managing a forestry operation as a business as long as the company has strong stewardship principals.

You are ignoring the fact that the forest resource in Canada are public forests with many stakeholders from the forest health itself, to the communities that would benefit from resource extraction from that forest. That is not as you say a social program, but rather a form of resource allocation based on the best interests of the ownership group. The business aspect of the resource extraction is no different on public land than it is on private land other then obligations as to how the value will be extracted and allocated.

Rod claims 90% of the value of the log goes into the workers that harvest the resource. This is a very misleading assumption that is based on the log producing no further value once it is first harvested and re-sold. This assumption is completely ignorant of the potential for horizontal integration of a forest industry that uses waste product of no value from one enterprise to fuel the feedstock for further economic value in another enterprise and thus turning that original log sale into less than 5% of the real economic activity that that raw log itself generates in a local value added horizontally integrated industry... so really the value of jobs in the bush are toothpicks when it comes to the forest industry in its full integration as a whole.

The reason some mills can't pay more for the logs is because they do not have sufficient horizontal integration with the value added potential of the log to transform their waste into value. That lack of horizontal integration is the American model in places and it can also be found on Vancouver Island among other backward places where they can not compete in an open market... because they are costing full value of the log for single primary industry resource consumption... rather then spreading the cost out over far more enterprise value and thus enabling a higher value for the original resource input.

Private forest management is short sighted in that the only value that matters is the one for the raw log itself and not the potential from the log for the greater community.

IMO the Crown should be the only one that can buy raw logs from private or public lands in BC with preference given to private land owners. The Crown agency should be non profit passing all revenue minus operating expenses onto its bidding side for the raw logs. Any primary or secondary company wishing to source feedstock for its mills could then buy its feedstock in a regulated supply and demand driven bidding process from the Crown agency for feedstock in its allowable district. The Crown agency protects against bankster speculation of resource feedstock value (protecting the manufacturing business model from futures fake money speculation), thereby setting a true industry standard of value and at the same time provides efficiency in forest management to prioritize harvesting as well as regulate forest practices by the private contractors in the harvesting business.

Market value for a public resource should be its true supply and demand market value... and speculation should be for those that allow corporate capitalism to regulate their forest policy.

If a mill can pay $100 per cubic meter of raw log, then let them come to BC and set up a plant with cheap reliable electricity and out bid the other mills for this resource, so that they can contribute the whole of the BC industry here in BC paying BC union wage rates and following BC safety standards. If they need to be subsidized with lower taxes, cheep labor, lax safety and environmental standards... enabled with poached raw logs, then they are people we should not be doing business with in the first place.

Rod Bealing wrote:
"For private forest owners, logs are the final, finished product and the only chance to recoup some revenue after decades of investment and risk taking."

The words "risk taking" have a meaning to me and that meaning does not include a guaranteed profit. If the notion that after investments have been made there ought to be a profit, then the words "risk taking" should not be used. The source of risks are many and, with something like trees which take many decades to mature, that risk is much greater since the general business environment changes considerably over time, including government regulations.

I am not understanding why a private and a public land owner should be handled differently when it comes to selling a product which is an extractable asset on that land.

The US, for instance, imposes a duty on lumber from Canada, but not on logs as far as I understand. That is done to protect its own lumber industry.

I would think that it is because of that move, that they are artificially increasing the price of lumber which then results in the US being able to pay more for the feedstock.

By selling the feedstock to the US mills, we are perpetuating the cycle of our mills not being able to compete on a level playing field with the USA. Why would the USA remove their import duties on lumber, if they can get access to logs that allows their mills to keep producing?

Land ownership should not come into the equation. The land is not being exported, it is the goods extracted from the land.

"There is nothing wrong with managing a forestry operation as a business as long as the company has strong stewardship principals."

Thank you for bringing in the notion of stewardship. As you may know, there are some relatively strict standards for receiving a "green stamp" certification for Sustainable Forest Management such as CSA, FSC, etc.

These are standards which have been developed to meet the demands of the consumers of the final products such as lumber and paper products. Local processing of fibre extracted from the forests is a key component of these sustainable forest management principles.

For instance, under the FSC "BC Small Operators Standard" we have the following words:

5.2 Forest management and marketing operations should encourage the
optimal use and local processing of the forest's diversity of products.

Local processing
5.2.1 The manager makes available for purchase a diversity of forest products from the management unit, in a manner appropriate to respond to the needs of local processors, at prevailing market rates, or at prices that cover the manager's opportunity costs.

http://www.fsccanada.org/BritishColumbia.htm

Note the use of the term "local processing". When IKEA buys products from a company for its products they insist on seeing a stamp which assures them of a chain of custody showing that the product has met that standard, not only form an ecological sustainability point of view, but also a local community sustainability point of view. Moving logs from one community to the next does not typically meet those requirements. Moving logs from one country to another, would most definitely not meet those requirements.

We are living in a complex society. Open access to our resources is what many businesses want on both sides of the border. That is great if it is in the long term interest of the company, the country, and the local community.

However, I cannot see a small community such as Mackenzie being too interested in setting up a business plan which would mean the permanant closure of mills that have grown the community to the size it is over many decades to save only the woodland jobs.

I think the saying is short term pain for long term gain. I believe that to be applicable in this case.

As to private versus public forested land ownership, I can see that people might think that this might be a different case, especially if the amount of land in the province in private hands is low.

In New Brunswick it is about 50/50 I believe. That is a significant number and a significant portion of their secondary forest product manufacturing industry which would be lost if all the private timber was exported out of province. I would not want that to happen to any community. These are still well paying jobs, not just McJobs. We need to keep those jobs and grow more like them.

I’m not proposing that crown and private forest land logs should be treated the same.

Far from it.

There are major differences. The crown land timber belongs to the public. Private land timber belongs to the land owner, just like the farmer owns his cows or potatoes.


Invisibleman – how many jobs in the woods were generated in supplying the logs consumed by those 48 mill workers producing 1.4 million bf daily? - I would estimate at 5,000m3 of logs per day the logging (10 sides?) and trucking work (120 loads?) alone would easily employ twice as many workers in the woods?


Eagleone – When a BC mill acquires a log that would be worth $90 in an open, international log market from a private forest owner for half its true value and then processes that log into lumber worth just $69, and fully utilizes the entire log, what has that mill accomplished? - “Value-subtracting”, perhaps?

It’s very misleading to suggest that low log prices are the result of a failure to fully utilize logs. In most cases there is full utilization of the log and its bark when it gets into a mill in BC – between lumber, pulp chips and hog fuel there is very little waste. Where there is a strong business case for other types of products such as remanufacturing lumber, finger jointing offcuts, or such like, those businesses thrive here too.


Owl – There are never any guarantees, but without a reasonable expectation of profit, investment capital will not flow and there is no private investment. Investors generally believe that “risk deserves reward”, or the money goes somewhere else.

Owl – It’s wrong to look only at the US export log market. For BC, much of the export log market is in Japan, Korea and China.

Owl – The need for distinction between public land and private land is driven by a widely held concept normally referred to as “private property rights”. The alternative is normally broadly referred to as “communism”, and look at how well that political experiment turned out. A jurisdiction’s recognition and protection of private property rights is one of the most significant factors for potential investors consider before building new mills or investing in upgrades. Investment is essential in order to bet value out of logs.


Owl - New Brunswick, and every other province in Canada except BC does not restrict private land log exports, and is part of an Eastern Canada region that has many competitive mills, to the extent that there is a vibrant two-way flow of logs to and from the US and Eastern Canada is a significant net IMPORTER of logs from the US. It’s the higher log prices that drive mills there to maximize the value of the fibre – when mills can acquire cheap logs they just don’t bother.

Perhaps it is noteworthy for a better understanding: things cannot change in the management of B.C.’s public forests as long you have a former Ministry of Forests and Range District Manager, Regional Manager and, now, Deputy Minister who stated under oath: “I don’t know the logistics of a logging show”

That s great that it makes that may jobs in the bush.So tell me how many u.s. mills can produce that much wood with that few men.Where is the effiency it is not south of the border it is in our back yard.We waste our wood by long hauling wet logs that a tax system is paying for.Where is the logic.The only people making money are fuel companies and a few ties who know how to play the game.Maybe the natives have the right idea with there land claims.People who work and live in these small towns harvest the forest and respect it.Do they in the cities or other countries?

Coastal mills in Washington state are quite similiar to the interior mills- modern, efficient and well run. However the is a huge difference between BC coastal mills and the BC interior and Washington State- BC Coastal mills are the less productive and highest coast in the world. Most newer mills in Washington state pay around $17 US a hour with few benifits (payroll loading), a BC coastal mill wages start at $23 cdn or more a hour and go up to $45 hour with high payroll loading. The new mills in the Us operate with the 1/3 or less the staff of the BC mills.
Another post stated that the forests belong to the people. In Canada 94% of the forests are Crown and yes they do belong to the people, however 4% are Private and are owned by the Private owner and do not belong to the people. IN the US 73% are Private and 20 odd percent are public.

Lastly I find the comment by hanmark out of line- I worked with Doug (Deputy Minister) in the 80's and know he has a lot of operational experience.

I get the impression from many folks that exporting raw logs is some kind of “religious” sin. Does OPEC export raw oil? Yes.

Are they committing a sin? Perhaps better quality oil products are produced when a raw product is traded vs. a finished product. The buyer (country) can produce its own gas, diesel, and lubricants, etc to their own specifications and quality standards. Who wants to buy gas refined in Iran? I don't. They are so incompetent they do not even refine most of their own gasoline.

"there are two woods jobs for every sawmill job"

Mr. Bealing, this comment might be close to accurate if a sawmill job was the only MILL JOB to be created when the forest is logged. RECOVERY is the term used for the maximum value extracted from a log. After a log is processed at a sawmill there are: aprox. 100 jobs at the planerMILL, hundreds of jobs at the pulpMILL, aprox. 100 jobs at the re-man MILL, aprox. 100 jobs at the M.D.F. MILL.

Suppliers, contractors & office staff could add to the total by another 100 jobs.

thestraightgoods -

My numbers are conservative.

A typical, modern, globally competitive sawmill will consume up to 1.2 million m3 of logs with a crew of approx 120 people working three shifts.

The woods operation necessary to supply the SAWlog volume required would need approx 430 people.

I haven't accounted for the extra woods jobs that would be necessary to meet the needs of pulpmills and MDF mills if there were any, but obviously it would mean an even greater number of jobs in the woods.

MDF and remanufacturing? - How many MDF plants are there in BC? What would you remanufacture those 2x4's and 2x6's into where you could make a profit?, and for what market? ...and where would you do it in order to be competitive?

To Dogs May 22: duly noted. I neglected to put Ass. in front of Deputy Minister.

Posted by: Nessy on May 22 2008 11:31 PM
I get the impression from many folks that exporting raw logs is some kind of “religious” sin. Does OPEC export raw oil? Yes.

Are they committing a sin? Perhaps better quality oil products are produced when a raw product is traded vs. a finished product. The buyer (country) can produce its own gas, diesel, and lubricants, etc to their own specifications and quality standards. Who wants to buy gas refined in Iran? I don't. They are so incompetent they do not even refine most of their own gasoline.

Yes it is a sin Nessy, a sin against the people of this country that are losing their jobs due to corporate greed.
Oil has nothing to do with log exports.

Rod Bealing

I happen to be employed in a sawmill of comparative size and shift configeration of which you speak.
These numbers are conservative:
Approx. 120 jobs in the sawmill (3 shifts)
Annual consumption approx. 1 million M3 of logs
# of contractors required approx. 3-4
# of employees per each contractor - approx. 25
# of months worked by loggers approx. 5 months (in the north)
# of months worked by sawmiller's during 'NORMAL' times - approx. 11 months
# of jobs needed to reforest - approx. 75-100 for 2 months/per year
My point Mr. Bealing is that when a log is cut in the bush and not processed from the sawmill to market the jobs in the sawmill/planermill, pulpmills and reman plants are circumvented and the real VALUE of the forests of BC are not realized.
It would be nice if you calculated the 430 woods jobs on a full time basis (but you chose not to), as most mill jobs are of a full time equilvalent during 'NORMAL' times.
There is no need to calculate for further woods jobs required for the pulpmills/reman plants, etc......as I believe the 430 woods jobs are already part of the process given our company sells sawdust, chips, hog fuel and trim blocks.
In conclusion, I believe if we restrict the flow of logs they would have no other option but to buy our lumber, therefore creating more demand = increasing the price, thus allowing the lumber companies to pay more for your domestic logs.

thestraightgoods -

Ahh....the "stop selling them our logs so they are forced to buy our lumber theory"

It's been tried for decades. It doesn't work. Log exports from BC are restricted already (that's my point) ......the results are there for all to see. All we get is low log prices, reduced forest management revenues and poor fibre utilization.

Northern Interior BC mills are globally competitive but they are closing or curtailed due to poor lumber markets. Not log exports.

How much round timber has been exported from the Northern Interior? - the answer is not much - the economics just don't stack up.

Just reading a post/blog by local 1-80 of the USW on their web site. This exactly what is wrong with forestry in BC. The USW has no grasp of economics or a clue how things work. The want appraisal to done at the back end of the mill so that can be competive which would result in lower log prices. Both the USW and Local 8 of the pulp workers are calling for lower log prices. Log prices are already too low and few loggers are working on both the coast and the interior. What would happen if log prices dropped even futher- no logging- no fibre supply. Give me a break someone in the USW get a brain.

Rod Bealing:

I do agree with you that the economics of log exports from the North/Central Interior make it cost prohibitive.

You mention that log exports are already restricted in B.C. By "restricted" do you mean the "surplus test" & the ability of a mill to BLOCK the log exports? If so, the Doman family would have something to say on that subject.

Question: What are the Reforestation standards/obligations of private lands in B.C. ie.Timberwest,Island Timberlands.....

Answer: None, to my knowledge.

Lastly, I will take your lack of further debate on the Woods Jobs vs Mill Jobs as being in agreement with my Factual theory.

thestraightgoods-

Private land log exports amount to just 3% of the total amount of fibre available annually in BC.

For much of BC, especially the Central and Northern Interior log exports are not attractive (viable) because of the transportation distances, so mills there have a significant advantage over competing mills elsewhere when it comes to buying local logs.

The "surplus test" for private logs is just wrong for so many reasons. Many BC Crown licencees regularly use it to block private land log export permit applications and offer lower domestic log prices while their Crown timber quotas go unharvested. Public fibre is wasted. Log prices and public revenues are depressed. Opportunities are lost. Is that good public policy?

The BC Crown land timber undercut for last year was more than 11 million m3 under than the volume of available wood = over 3 times the total amount of wood exported from private lands!

I think that's a pretty big surplus, don't you?

Just goes to show how insignificant private log exports are, especially to Central & Northern Interior mills.

Private managed forest owners are required by law to reforest, and they consistently invest more money growing timber, and get higher yields per hectare by using aggressive reforestation and fertilzers than the public lands - if you need proof of that, consider for a moment the fact that the majority of the timber being harvested from private land in BC is second growth or third growth..........should be sufficient evidence that land has been reforested, wouldn't you say?

The mills vs woods discussion is just an illustration of how important it is to have a viable log market. When our group took a look at the direct numbers of people we employ on private land to get our private logs to market, it's closer to 3:1 to the amount of people employed in a modern, competitive sawmill. When the various processing facilities you describe don't pay enough to make the wood flow, no-one gets to go to work in the bush or any of mills. My point regarding sawmill jobs & woods jobs is simply that what we do on private forest land is important in it's own right, provides thousands of jobs and many benefits for society, and that BC forest policy should not be driven entirely by what's percieved to be good for the mills alone.

I'm not saying that we should export all private logs - far from it - private forest owners just want a competitive price for their logs wherever they sell. Mill jobs matter too, of course. We'd very much like to see a vibrant, competitive mill sector in BC, but not if we have to subsidize it with our own private logs.

Many private owners have a very hard time finding viable markets for much of our fibre profile at times because the domestic BC log prices are some of the lowest in the world and don't cover our production costs - and when we aren't logging, it affects thousands of jobs. When the domestic log prices are less than the cost of producing a log, no one gets to go to work. That's why we look to international log markets.

We're proud of the contribution we make, but we are also in business and we need to make money. We can't survive if we have to sell our logs for less than it costs to produce them. We deserve a fair price. If our businesses are viable, many thousands of British Columbians benefit. Low domestic log prices and export restrictions are killing the private forestry business.