🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <26734@mindlink.bc.ca> Steve_Vestergaard@mindlink.bc.ca (Steve Vestergaard) writes:
>If I was a CEO of a logging company, I'd feel compelled to maximise profits
>today.  Why worry about the long term health of the forest.  My company may
>not have access to that land, an alternative to wood may have become popular
>(electronic newspapers, brick, etc.) and I'll be long gone.  Even the current
>owners (shareholders) will most likely no longer be part of the company when
>the trees are ready to harvest.  I have an obligation to maximize profits for
>today's shareholders.
_____________
Wood as a building material remains the most cost effective.  Newsprint is
largely manufactred from inferior wood- i.e. wood not suitable as a
building material.  Investment in silviculture could minimize the
productin of inferior wood and maximize the other!

Standing timber has value even if it is 50 years to harvest.  If the stand
is 70 years old, that means it is 70 years less to harvest than a newly
replanted one.  Sure there is a component of risk, but forest products
demand is expected to increase by 50 times by 2050, while supply will
continue to fall due to the removal of working forest area.  Come to think
of it, I should be buying M&B stock myself!

>The government became the largest shareholder of Mac Blo just before awarding
>the Clayoquot decision.  Of course Mac Blo shares soared.
_____________
Who gets the profits?  Could it be the taxpayers of BC?  It seems that you
have shouted "conflict of interest!" before asking why the government
did it!  I'd shoput conflict if Mike and Moe and Glen had bought mega
shares in Mac Blo just before the decision.... 

I can't believe it-- socialists being wrongly criticised for being
pro-business while practicing socialism (state intervention in the economy)

>The people can't trust the companies to cut sustainably and we can't trust
>the government to be unbiased.  Even the universities, reliant on forest
>company money is suspect.  I'm not confident that decisions are always being
>made in the taxpayer's best interest.
_____________
One point we can agree on!  It would be in the taxpayer's best interest if
the government sold off most of the highly productive forest land in B.C.
as soon as possible (25% or so).  This would bring immediate revenue and
provide forest companies with enough security to invest in silviculture
that will show returns far in the future.  Profitable, growing forest
companies pay big taxes and provide multiplied economic activity in the
provincial economy.  In addition, this could break up the vertical
integration in forestry by providing the opportunity for individuals to
purchase forested land for investment purposes and sell timber on an open,
competitive market.

BTW, this plan has been reccommended to government several times by
Canada's leading forest economists and supported by the findings of the
governments own Royal Commision on forest resources.

-- 
Robert Froese  VE7MOQ
taganov biogeocoenose approach                  "Clearcutting is not a Crime"
taganov@unixg.ubc.ca