American Taxpaers Getting Raw Deal In Proposed Land Sale (852 hits)
Category: NewsLabels: ETS_Sociopolitical_Commentary ETS_Essays
Rating: 0.82 on 52 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-02-14 12:22:54 EST
I thought deserved to be exposed. You'll see why in a moment...
In my last post, (http://www.ubersite.com/m/83896) we were discussing the proposed sale of government National Forest land in the FY 2007 presidential budget proposal. Essentially I reported to you how the government is proposing to sell 300,000 acres of National Forest land for a proposed $380 MILLION dollars.
The conversation turned to the Black Hills tracts being proposed for sale under the budget. 14,000 of the total land sale are coming from the Black Hills in South Dakota. In case you don't know, the Black Hills is home to Mt. Rushmore, Crazy Horse Monument, and the world famous annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally.
Representing about 1.67% of the total 1.2 MILLION acres of the Black Hills National Forest, the 14,000 acre sale might seem insignificant to some, but I am about to show you the true significance of this land sale and the raw deal the American taxpayer is getting here.
A full list of the land considered for sale is posted here: http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html
The following are some calculations I've made to quantify the potential value of the 14,000 acres of forest land in the Black Hills proposed tracts.
If there were 150 trees per acre on average on the 1.2 million acres, (most forresting companies plant from 100-350 seedlings per acre), you're talking about selling the land out from under 2.1 million trees.
How much would 2.1 million trees be worth to the government?
In the Black Hills, the main growth comes from ponderosa pine.
Ponderosa Pine trees average 100' to 160' in height, with some exceeding 180'. The trees range from 2-4' in diameter, with the rate of growth depending upon altitude, soil, temperature and rainfall.
(Source:http://www.wwpa.org/ppine.htm)
Now, if we take conservative estimates of trees that are 130' tall and 3' in diameter, we can make a crude calculation of the total board feet in a forest of 2.1 million trees using the formulas from this website: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/uf/lab_exercises/calc_board_footage.htm
NOTE: There are numerous ways to estimate board feet from a log, but this is one simple and common way.
Board Feet Per Tree = 12[Area of cross section * Height / 4]
=12[7.065 * 130 / 4]
=2755.35 board feet
So our average ponderosa pine tree might contain 2755.35 usable board feet of lumber. Multiply that figure by 2.1 million and you get 5,786,235,000.
Let's again be conservative and say 5.7 BILLION board feet of lumber.
Now let's talk prices...
According to the lumber price index of 2005, which uses all the logging invoices from sawmills all over the country and is used by the government to set prices for every species, the larget price increase was coming from, you guessed it, ponderosa pine:
Differentials by Species
*Coast Index
Douglas Fir -$1.26
Hem-Fir -$1.79
Inland Index
Douglas Fir/Larch +$0.70
White Fir -$5.60
Inland Red Cedar -$68.48
Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine +$14.42******
Coast/Inland Ponderosa Pine -$28.42
Sugar Pine -$67.69
White Woods -$6.71
Source:http://www.wwpa.org/Indexes.htm
But that's just the differential of prices from the previous 24 month index. The actual price of ponderosa pine per 1000 board feet (mbf) as of December 2005 is $315-$425. (Source:http://www.inlandforest.com/log-prices.html)
Again, let's keep it conservative - taking the low end estimate - and sell our 5.7 BILLION board feet of lumber at $315/MBF.
5,700,000,000/1000 = 5.7 million MBF
5,700,000MBF * $315 = $1,795,500,000
That's $1.8 BILLION dollars in ponderosa pine for ONE HARVEST on just ONLY the tracts of land contained within the Black Hills portion of the TOTAL U.S. proposed land sale!!!
$1.8 BILLION dollars in lumber!
Compare that to the $380 MILLION the government is getting from the entire proposed sale and you can begin to see the enormity of the travesty. Keep in mind that this 14,000 acres in the Black Hills represents only 4.7% of the total 300,000 acre proposed land sale.
Who knows how much that land is REALLY worth!
User Reviews
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-15 15:44:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Kale (user info) at 2006-02-15 15:24:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
Now somewhere in the black mountain hills of Dakota
There lived a young boy named Rocky Raccoon.....
----------------------
And one day his woman ran off with another guy...
hit young Rocky in the eeyyyyeee.
Rock didn't like that. He said, "I'm 'onaa git that boy."
Submitted by Kale (user info) at 2006-02-15 15:24:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Now somewhere in the black mountain hills of Dakota
There lived a young boy named Rocky Raccoon.....
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-02-14 19:23:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Sorry bro. I was up in the garage staining some furniture I made for the old man. I still have a ton of work to do, too. I took MSN off this pc because I'm still stuck in the world of AOL dialup out here in the boonies and it likes to boot me off every ten minutes or so. It just made me wanna kick puppies and shit.
The only reason I know anything about timber is because that's what I'm doing now and I've been through all the rounds with the local log speculators. I just took a load of cherry and walnut to West Virginia this morning. So, I've had to go through all the estimating hassles lately. You have to estimate it on the stump. You have to cut the best grades and suffer some loss (around knots and other deformities). Then, you have to estimate how much actual lumber is in the logs you load. Then, you have to haggle with the speculators, pay your fuel, your help and drag your sorry ass back to the house. Don't even get me started on having to report the earnings for taxes. It's a lovely business. You want a job?
If you'd like to drop your question via email, I'll be back to cook dinner in about an hour and I'll check it then. silvrwolf.at.gmail.com - I'm getting a beer and heading back to the garage.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 17:34:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The logging lobby isn't what it once was... but I'm sure there are groups not going to sit by idle if the government were to make a bold move like that...which is highly unlikely.
Both democrats and republicans have friends and those friends always scratch each other's back.
There are some concerns over management of the property, and on this level alot of the local environmentalists are going to ignore in their fight to keep the property federal.
My personal opinion is to transfer all properties that are difficult to manage (because they are not connected with larger portions of national forests, etc.) to the prospective states to manage (but not sell).
Get the funding for the rural schools by cutting aid to fucking Egypt, Palestinians, and Israel equally.
And obviously my idea isn't going to happen in a million years, so I live in a dream world also. But I do like my dream world better than yours, and I'm sure you can say the opposite.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 17:24:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The main thing I'm looking at is, if Congress is going to stop the sale of the land, they're almost certainly going to ask for an alternative means of funding...
This could be the alternative.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 17:20:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Precisely!
Same with strip mines.
You see where I'm drawing the line here though... The socialist tendencies pertain only to government resources on government-owned land.
I'm not talking about encroaching upon private land with government ventures, that would be going too far.
And an important thing to keep in mind is this is NOT a money-making scheme in the traditional, capitalist sense, because all the proceeds are going directly into the national treasury to help fund all our social programs. So, in essence, the taxpayer is reaping the immediate benefits of well-managed resources via a conservation-minded team of National Forestry Service workers.
If any logging is to be done on National Forest land, I'd rather have those people doing the logging - people who are going to be paid the same whether they make a 3 billion or 3 thousand, whose two main missions are the service of the American people through the proper management of their publicly owned land, and the future conservation of those resources for generations to come.
Personally, I like the sound of that.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 17:05:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I understand the point you are coming from, and the only type of "socialism" I actually approve of is the use of our NATURAL resources. I can agree with you 100% on the fact that people shouldn't get rich by ...well, basically raping the nation of its natural resources.
And the government isn't in the business to make money, so I don't think they ever can. So that's the only strong disagreement I have with you on the subject. The end outcome you would like I could agree with, just making it happen is another thing.
You want to know what is worse? All the canadian-owned mines that are really putting it to the Americans. A bunch of cut down trees pales in comparison to the pollution and destruction left behind in gold mining operations. And to have a foreign company do it to us is even WORSE.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 17:00:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The difference is, this is a money-making venture, the Big Dig and other public projects are not.
You're right, Stabkill. Typically government projects are managed like shit because there is no incentive.
Road construction workers are a good example. They take about 16 months to repave a few miles of road. It's madness. I agree.
BUT, I see this as a problem with the WAY these projects are funded. Instead of a set budget, the venture I'm suggesting should be funded based on a percentage of the PROFITS, not in the traditional 'lump sum' government way.
If profits lag too much, heads roll. Jobs are lost.
It should be run just like a business, but one in which the only 'shareholders' are the American people, who reap the immediate benefits of the venture because the money is used to help fund everything from education to Social security to homeless shelters.
It's more or less exactly like what already goes on except the middle man is being cut out and the people that regulate conservation of the land to ensure it is properly preserved for future generations are the ones doing the job.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 16:51:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not going to argue with you on this one, ETS. I'll just point on over to the TSA and then over to the "big dig" contractors. Now you show me an example of the government spending WISELY.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 16:38:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 16:21:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
You need to brush up on economics...and REALITY while you are at it.
I wish I could go into all the details about the economic side of things, but it would take many paragraphs to do so. It is very complicated and there are good and bad sides to all issues.
Let me point out ONE major problems with your system.
The government would have to create an agency (or perhaps give funding to the USDA Forest Service) to manage the timber being removed. They'd have an annual budget of XX Millions/Billions to do what they have to. Every year, they will get XX Million/Billions and there is absolutely no incentive to hold on to that money they don't NEED to spend. They will certainly spend all XX Millions/Billions every single year, or they'll be PUNISHED by not getting as much the next year. THERE IS NO INCENTIVE TO SAVE MONEY.
I'd go so far as to say, if you made a program like the one you have mentioned... for one, there would instantly be job losses in the forestry industry (although, maybe not to bad as it has already been decimated by Clinton) and there would be issues with the WTO and any free trade agreements we have. We'd waste millions of taxpayer earned dollars (instead of private company-earned dollars off the marketplace) to employ folks and/or contractors. The trees would still get cut down, but now the federal government would have to pay for it. They'd make a profit, but it would pale in comparision with the profit of a private organization. And instead of having private-sector jobs, they've now turned into government-sector jobs (or contracts) which isn't nearly as good. Big government sucks.
----------------------------
Part of your argument is that a government agency would have no incentive to save money. They also have no incentive to excessively spend money either. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that, even if they did spend more than was necessary, it would be any worse than the excessive cost of hiring private contractors to do the work that's already being done.
What if you didn't give them a set budget? What if you simply based their amount of funding on a certain percentage of the previous year's profits?
That would be incentive not to over spend, would it not? Higher profits = greater funding (up to a maximum)?
I think that if you acheived the right balance of conservationists and money-minded individuals in the management of such a venture, you could create a responsible and productive department - one that would benefit the American people.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 16:37:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If you would say "Don't give X Billion" to Israel in financial aid to offset the cost of funding the rural schools, I'd be all for that.
I'm sure there are a few countries (that hate us, too) that could do without our "help".
But it does sound like the federal forests should certainly be tossed to the state to manage...at a minimum.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 16:31:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
By the way, you need to do better fact-checking. For one:
---
On Friday, the Forest Service identified 304,000 acres that may be sold. But the government would only need to sell between 175,000 and 200,000 acres to fund the program, Jiron said.
---
So your numbers are slightly off.
And when you add up the cost of timber, you neglect to take into account the cost of actually removing it.
And I'm not so concerned about the forest land in question as much, since many of these tracts are separated and in places that are not easily managed because of it. We should get the best price we can for them, rather than sell them at some ridiculously low price.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 16:23:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I am all for saving those forests, by the way. I am 100% against having the government in control of cutting them down.
Firefly +2's this and claims to be a libertarian? Good god.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 16:21:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You need to brush up on economics...and REALITY while you are at it.
I wish I could go into all the details about the economic side of things, but it would take many paragraphs to do so. It is very complicated and there are good and bad sides to all issues.
Let me point out ONE major problems with your system.
The government would have to create an agency (or perhaps give funding to the USDA Forest Service) to manage the timber being removed. They'd have an annual budget of XX Millions/Billions to do what they have to. Every year, they will get XX Million/Billions and there is absolutely no incentive to hold on to that money they don't NEED to spend. They will certainly spend all XX Millions/Billions every single year, or they'll be PUNISHED by not getting as much the next year. THERE IS NO INCENTIVE TO SAVE MONEY.
I'd go so far as to say, if you made a program like the one you have mentioned... for one, there would instantly be job losses in the forestry industry (although, maybe not to bad as it has already been decimated by Clinton) and there would be issues with the WTO and any free trade agreements we have. We'd waste millions of taxpayer earned dollars (instead of private company-earned dollars off the marketplace) to employ folks and/or contractors. The trees would still get cut down, but now the federal government would have to pay for it. They'd make a profit, but it would pale in comparision with the profit of a private organization. And instead of having private-sector jobs, they've now turned into government-sector jobs (or contracts) which isn't nearly as good. Big government sucks.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-02-14 15:58:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 15:57:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey Silvrwolf...
Get on MSN, please. I need to ask you something.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 15:35:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 15:05:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 14:59:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
"OUR Profits" refers to the fact that if the government is wasting money, it's the taxpayers who pay for it in the end, so if you really think about it, creating a department of the Forestry Service to manage the lumbering ventures of the government, the profits of which will go straight toward paying national debts, is no more 'socialist' than what's going on now...you're just cutting out the middle man in the process.
This would serve a dual purpose of increasing government revenues from these lands, and it would also ensure that regulations regarding conservation were being adhered to PRECISELY BECAUSE the government wouldn't be bound to produce for any stockholders who are only concerned about bottom line profits.
Anything the government made off these ventures could be considered icing on the cake, so to speak.
There is a lot of good that could be done with that money.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
That is EXACTLY what socialism is. And if you believe that profits will go to "the people" you are smoking crack cocaine.
The government, especially under republicans, will never go to such a system. You are living in a dream world that is stocked heavily with crack cocaine.
-----------------------------
First of all, under that definition, we are already a socialist nation in the sense that the government DOES control the economy every time the adjust federal interest rates.
Second, the means of producing and distributing goods would not be owned collectively by the government under this proposal. Only the production would be controlled by government. The distribution would still rely on retail stores and would be subject to the same competitive market as the logging companies. I'm not talking about price fixing here, I'm talking about cutting out the middle man so that the American taxpayer can reap more of the benefits of the natural resources owned by his government.
I don't care what you call it - socialism, Marxism, communism, or supercalifragilisticexpialodociousism - it still makes more sense than selling off National Forests or paying ENORMOUSLY to outsource any logging that is done.
I contend that, considering the preciousness of our natural resources, these things should be regulated by government. This might be expanded to include any mineral mining done on government property as well. It should be conducted under the direct supervision of regulating bodies and should be kept to the most rigorous of standards, both in terms of safety and conservation.
That's my stance on this issue. Just because the cold war has left us with a bad connotation of the word 'socialism' doesn't mean that some aspects of it in limited areas of government would be a bad thing for Americans.
If you're worried about slippery slopes or erosion of American values, look at the Bush NSA scandal. If you want an idea that's in the best interest of everyone, except maybe the middle man, look at creating a division of the Forrestry Service to handle all logging ventures on government land.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 15:05:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 14:59:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
"OUR Profits" refers to the fact that if the government is wasting money, it's the taxpayers who pay for it in the end, so if you really think about it, creating a department of the Forestry Service to manage the lumbering ventures of the government, the profits of which will go straight toward paying national debts, is no more 'socialist' than what's going on now...you're just cutting out the middle man in the process.
This would serve a dual purpose of increasing government revenues from these lands, and it would also ensure that regulations regarding conservation were being adhered to PRECISELY BECAUSE the government wouldn't be bound to produce for any stockholders who are only concerned about bottom line profits.
Anything the government made off these ventures could be considered icing on the cake, so to speak.
There is a lot of good that could be done with that money.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
That is EXACTLY what socialism is. And if you believe that profits will go to "the people" you are smoking crack cocaine.
The government, especially under republicans, will never go to such a system. You are living in a dream world that is stocked heavily with crack cocaine.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 14:59:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"OUR Profits" refers to the fact that if the government is wasting money, it's the taxpayers who pay for it in the end, so if you really think about it, creating a department of the Forestry Service to manage the lumbering ventures of the government, the profits of which will go straight toward paying national debts, is no more 'socialist' than what's going on now...you're just cutting out the middle man in the process.
This would serve a dual purpose of increasing government revenues from these lands, and it would also ensure that regulations regarding conservation were being adhered to PRECISELY BECAUSE the government wouldn't be bound to produce for any stockholders who are only concerned about bottom line profits.
Anything the government made off these ventures could be considered icing on the cake, so to speak.
There is a lot of good that could be done with that money.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 14:52:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And stop referring to it as "OUR" profits. You sound like fucking Fidel Castro, you wacky bastard.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 14:51:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The United States is a capitalist country from its very beginning. So, whatever you said makes no sense whatsoever.
What you are asking is for the government to turn to socialism to make a few bucks extra... and now you have some government agency in charge of cutting down the forests for timber. How many overpaid people do you think will be on that staff? Fuckin' ridiculous.
Want to learn how the government spends money? See: TSA, Military, etc.
They are not bound by the same restrictions private companies are to be competitive and profitable.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 14:48:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thank you Adam. I appreciate that.
Tell people you know about this. Spread the word.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2006-02-14 14:45:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This fucking deserves a +2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 14:38:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Silvrwolf: I appreciate the depth of your grasp on this issue.
Don't you think our government would be better served if it created a division of the Forestry Service to manage and deal with the economic development of some of our National Forests themselves over a perpetuating, indefinite span of time, instead of leaving it to the locals to rape the land and sell it to private entities, or leaving it to a CONTRACTOR, which essentially amounts to a burdon on OUR profits?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 14:30:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
PS: How is selling land to fill government coffers any less of a capitalistic venture for our government than logging the timber from said land?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 14:27:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 14:02:40 (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:41:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not talking about the government SELLING the land, I'm talking about how much the treasury would benefit from a state-run lumbering venture of its own!
Why leave the profits to the private sector? It's government land, the government should look into the benefits of developing the land itself.
That's my argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialism SUCKS. Fuck that idea 1000X over.
--------------------------
This is why blanket prejudgements are stupid...
Under the current system, the government contracts out companies to do the logging on its lands. That's what you call a MIDDLE MAN.
Why have him there at all? He's only cutting deeply into your profits if you're the federal government, and considering the government is otherwise being funded by OUR TAXES, it would then be conceivable that our taxes could be cut while at the same time our public benefits under such programs as Medicare and Social Security might actually INCREASE!
Tell me why your immediate dismissal of this plan because of your predisposed fear of 'socialism' does anyone any good.
It takes BALANCE between elements of socialism and capitalism to make a government work for everyone. Even you have to recognize that. Hell, we already have elements of socialism in our government, and without those elements, our nation would collapse because all the money would be funneled straight to the wealthiest Americans.
Look at trust-busting.
Monopolies.
Trade embargos.
Social programs.
National Parks.
No one can convincingly argue that a government could operate without having some of what might be defined as 'socialistic' measures in place. Again, it takes balance.
You don't like this idea because you think it's some kind of slippery slope to socialism. You're wrong. That's why we create legislation - to define where the line is.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 14:16:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Silvr: I think you're right. Thanks for the correction. Well spotted.
According to another site I found, most slabs are about 4" wide. One common equasion accounts for this, but it applies to logs, not the entire tree.
According to some of the reading I've done to follow up, it seems that a decent estimate of total waste from a tree is about 30%.
Granted, that is a good chunk.
Take our $1.8 BILLION minus 30%.
That's still $1.26 BILLION.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 14:02:40 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:41:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not talking about the government SELLING the land, I'm talking about how much the treasury would benefit from a state-run lumbering venture of its own!
Why leave the profits to the private sector? It's government land, the government should look into the benefits of developing the land itself.
That's my argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialism SUCKS. Fuck that idea 1000X over.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-14 13:45:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 13:38:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
I never mentioned net profits. I was just giving the raw numbers from the sale of timber. But in the reviews I've already mentioned that the $1.8 BILLION dollars is a GROSS figure. Of course development costs would have to be considered, but like someone already pointed out, trees grow back. This wouldn't just be a one time profit. The land would continue to give over the decades.
The bottom line is, the government, through responsible management, could make far more money off this land than selling it outright.
I think I have clearly proven that.
----------------------------------
The govt has never been in the business of making money. And honestly I would feel uncomfortable with it undertaking something like this.
I would be curious for the exact price per acre there. I doubt the govt is selling all th eland at the same rate, and I assume there will be open bidding so they will get a good market value for each parsel.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-02-14 13:44:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The division by 4 is there because logs are not perfect cylinders, they are truncated cones. That number merely accounts for the log shrinking in diameter as you go higher.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 13:39:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-02-14 13:35:37 (#)
Ranking: 2
Most of the calculations here are correct save for the fact that the exercise linked to doesn't account for slabbing (the outer sapwood that is unusable)
--------------------
Yes it does.
That's where the "/4" part of the equasion comes in.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 13:38:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-14 13:29:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
Well to start off with you are completely ignoring the fact that cutting down and hauling this wood is expensive, how expensive I don't know but you make no attempt at even addressing it and assume the sale of the wood would be all profit (-1).
-----------------------
I never mentioned net profits. I was just giving the raw numbers from the sale of timber. But in the reviews I've already mentioned that the $1.8 BILLION dollars is a GROSS figure. Of course development costs would have to be considered, but like someone already pointed out, trees grow back. This wouldn't just be a one time profit. The land would continue to give over the decades.
The bottom line is, the government, through responsible management, could make far more money off this land than selling it outright.
I think I have clearly proven that.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-02-14 13:35:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
snore
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-02-14 13:35:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Most of the calculations here are correct save for the fact that the exercise linked to doesn't account for slabbing (the outer sapwood that is unusable) and kerf (the sawdust produced by the blade, which is typically 1/4" of wood per cut). That cuts your number by as much as 20%. You'll lose typically an additional 15% of the rough product to culling (sawing the logs releases hidden stresses in the lumber, causing it to warp). Using the Doyle scale (the scale most log buyers purchase with), your finished numbers are overestimated by as much 40%. While the potential revenue from the adjusted numbers are still staggering, you're still explaining this on a scale of massive clear-cutting, which is exactly what we want to avoid.
If the government were to undertake a project of this size, their (oops! I mean OUR) out-of-pocket expenses in the harvest would be outrageous. They would probably contract this work out to subsidized contractors who would make three to five times what the private logger would make. That, coupled with the fact that the gov't wants their money now now now, makes the proposal of gov't timbering unfeasible.
Also, the gov't would find a way around the requirement of replacing a tree for every tree harvested that many loggers are currently subject to. I'm on your side here, but this is the U.S. gov't we're talking about. The typical "all or nothing" approach they take would more than likely happen here, too.
I'm still pissed that they're wanting to sell over 500 acres in my county alone and over 5,000 in my state. Nothing good will come of this, I'm afraid. If they were selling to private buyers, I might not be as mad, because most of the land in the proposal is unsuitable for development and therefore probably WILL be timbered by the local gov'ts. In economic terms, it would seem that the feds will make their money, then the local gov'ts will make theirs. We'll still have timbering on a huge scale, and the land will be left raped and unusable at all for at least a quarter-century.
Submitted by Maddog (user info) at 2006-02-14 13:35:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Words cannot explain how fucking uninteresting this post is.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 13:33:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I just emailed my hero, Lou Dobbs about exposing this on CNN.
***
Mr. Dobbs,
I thought you needed to hear this. You're one of the only reporters on TV I have respect for anymore.
The new presidential government budget proposal for FY 2007 includes the sale of 300,000 acres of National Forest. The details are too numerous to get into in this comment box, so I'll summarize by directing you to a few links to essays I've written on this subject the contents of which I deeply feel need to be exposed.
Please consider reporting on this disgraceful sale of National Forest on your show and not only will you be doing the American people a great service, but I will personally be forever in your debt.
Here are links to the essays I described: http://www.ubersite.com/m/83896
http://www.ubersite.com/m/83957
In the spirit of responsible journalism I know you possess, I implore you to consider helping expose this travesty to the American public.
Thank you sincerely,
***
I'm resting my hopes on Lou Dobbs.
Follow this link and tell Lou Dobbs you want to see this reported on in the mainstream media because people need to hear it.
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?9
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?9
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?9
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?9
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?9
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?9
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-14 13:29:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well to start off with you are completely ignoring the fact that cutting down and hauling this wood is expensive, how expensive I don't know but you make no attempt at even addressing it and assume the sale of the wood would be all profit (-1).
You assume that every single tree could be chopped down, this might be the case but I am sure until I mentioned this you gave no thought to current or proposed zoning laws that would affect how the land would be used (-1).
It also looks like you are taking prices for the lumber. I had always thought that lumber was finished and treated wood, not the raw trees used to make it. I might be wrong on this but your numbers here look suspect, I am to busy to check so I will give you the benefit of the doubt (-0).
"If there were 150 trees per acre on average on the 1.2 million acres, (most forresting companies plant from 100-350 seedlings per acre), you're talking about selling the land out from under 2.1 million trees." You have shown no basis for this number, but I don't have anything to back up that you are right or wrong. However I was under the impression that most trees don't live the hundred or so years they take to reach full size, but once again the benefit of the doubt (-0).
So if we assume that cutting and hauling the wood is free, and that there are zero limits on how much logging they can do, and that if they have to re-plant trees that it is free, you have a good argument. Now if you believe this is all the case, why aren't you lining up to buy this land? You could use these unimmaginable profits to fund all the god works you want to do.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-02-14 13:12:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-02-14 13:03:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I would suspect that if this sale were approved and if the intention of logging was there then the FSC would get involved. This would actually increase the cost of the lumber sold but would mean that the lumber sold would been going towards LEEDS buildings throughout the US. This is actually a good thing, obviously aside from the negative impacts on the local money situation.
Not much happens anymore in the lumber business without them getting involved.
Now if you want to talk about a REAL screwing, using your numbers the sell price per bf would be roughly 31.5 cents per board foot, now without knowing what dimensions it would be sold at I'll assume a board that is 4/4 x 12"...that will cost you or I should say cost me around $3.23 per bf.
Which translates roughly to about a 1000% increase.
Fuck, I'm getting ripped off.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 13:01:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:54:29 (#)
Ranking: 2
not to mention that that income would be renewable as opposed to contained in the one sale.
------------------------
DING DING DING DING
WE HAVE A WINNER!
TELL HIM WHAT HE'S WON, BOB!
But seriously, now you're starting to get how fucked up this is.
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:54:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
not to mention that that income would be renewable as opposed to contained in the one sale.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:51:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:47:01 (#)
Ranking: 1
No it's not governments land. It's our land. that is what the national forrests are for. Using that logic though it's in the people's interests to consider lumber operations there. the idea with the preservation of these forrests was to preserve uninhabbitted (yeah I can't spell) tracts for wildlife, recreation, and ultimately the ecology of the area.
-------------------------
Trust me, I agree completely, but if you're going to sell the land to potential developers anyway, why would you undervalue it in this way?
Why not just develop the 14,000 acres in the Black Hills with a government project and keep the rest of the land under the National Forest Service?
If fattening the government coffers is the true goal here, why do it so recklessly by selling 300,000 acres for $380 million dollars when you can develop just 14,000 acres for a gross profit of $1.8 BILLION?
It's stupid.
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:47:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
No it's not governments land. It's our land. that is what the national forrests are for. Using that logic though it's in the people's interests to consider lumber operations there. the idea with the preservation of these forrests was to preserve uninhabbitted (yeah I can't spell) tracts for wildlife, recreation, and ultimately the ecology of the area.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:44:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:38:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
ACTUALLY....
I was perusing the text of the act on your previous post. It appears to me that the Federal Government is looking to sell off the land to state and local government agencies, NOT PRIVATE ENTITIES.
False alarm.
----------------------
The "Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000" is not to be confused with the new budget proposal of the Bush administration.
The newly proposed land sales are reportedly designed to save that act from faltering for another 5 years.
They are different things.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:41:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:33:25 (#)
Ranking: -2
How many ounces of gold are pulled from mines out west and how much was paid for the land? Pennies on the dollar, I'm sure...if not fractions of a penny.
The second you "estimate" the worth of the land by what is on it makes it completely useless to those who would use it. Someone WILL buy the land if they get a healthy profit, someone will NOT buy it if their profit is reduced to some minor percentage.... Knowing that a company has to take all the risks involved with potential accidents, equipment costs, etc.
They still have to pay taxes on their earnings.
I think arguing the point in this manner is pointless. Taking a environmental-friendly stance is a million times better than a "we're getting screwed" by X company.
-------------------------
I'm not talking about the government SELLING the land, I'm talking about how much the treasury would benefit from a state-run lumbering venture of its own!
Why leave the profits to the private sector? It's government land, the government should look into the benefits of developing the land itself.
That's my argument.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:39:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
ungh! We are ruled by IDIOTS!!! How does this keep happening? Does the government truly represent the majority and this just shows that the majority of America are a bunch of flaming morons?!
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:38:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ACTUALLY....
I was perusing the text of the act on your previous post. It appears to me that the Federal Government is looking to sell off the land to state and local government agencies, NOT PRIVATE ENTITIES.
False alarm.
Submitted by Herpes (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:36:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You're an evil, anti-government man!
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:35:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
no reviews whoo!
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:33:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
How many ounces of gold are pulled from mines out west and how much was paid for the land? Pennies on the dollar, I'm sure...if not fractions of a penny.
The second you "estimate" the worth of the land by what is on it makes it completely useless to those who would use it. Someone WILL buy the land if they get a healthy profit, someone will NOT buy it if their profit is reduced to some minor percentage.... Knowing that a company has to take all the risks involved with potential accidents, equipment costs, etc.
They still have to pay taxes on their earnings.
I think arguing the point in this manner is pointless. Taking a environmental-friendly stance is a million times better than a "we're getting screwed" by X company.
Submitted by leilani (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:31:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
happy valentine's day to you too.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:25:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
That's about $27k per acre.