Bill would ban sales of Playboy, etc. on base

[kimba1]

Large tracts now belong to large companys that plant trees at the same rate that they harvest them.

this only works depending on the percent of land is being harvested

if it`s 10% than the planted trees are only 10yrs old went harvested(sounds young)

5% would be 20yr old trees

as long as they harvest less than 5% than they get a perpetual source
but I kinda doubt any business can stick with 5%

[Plane]

Large tracts now belong to large companys that plant trees at the same rate that they harvest them.

this only works depending on the percent of land is being harvested

if it`s 10% than the planted trees are only 10yrs old went harvested(sounds young)

5% would be 20yr old trees

as long as they harvest less than 5% than they get a perpetual source
but I kinda doubt any business can stick with 5%

Pulpwood trees need be no older than 8 to 15, they grow most rapidly in their early years so waiting longer is wastefull.

Timber needs to be 20 or so , but we are talking about large tracts of rural land so however many they cut ,they plant the same back.

[Stray Pooch]

There is, and there should be, a communal ownership of many fishing grounds.

Why?

Because I think that some things, and fish are among them, ought to be free to anyone.  It drives me crazy that to through a piece of bait on a hook and catch a trout I have to pay a license to my state.  It's fish.  God made them.  Nobody ought to own them.  Someone may own the PROPERTY on which they swim and I ought to get permission from the owner to catch them, but the fish themselves ought to be available.  In the case of international waters, I do not think we ought to have someone "own" those grounds.  They ought to be available to anyone with a boat, a net and the guts to go catch them.   Wise management says that the users ought to agree on some sensible rules, but nobody ought to be able to force someone to go home after they've caught half a boatload.  On national fishing grounds, yes the nation can manage it anyway it wants - and probably should for reasons you have pointed out.  But international waters ought to be free.

Property rights are great, but not everything should be owned.

Lots of things can be done in the name of the good of society: socialism, fascism, revolution, tyranny of the majority, ethnic cleansing, the "war on drugs", the "war on poverty", et cetera. So if we talk about the good of society, then we need to define what we mean. I do not deny that there is such a thing as the good of society. I happen to believe that the good of society is the protection of the rights of individuals. Society is individuals. I do not say society does not exist. I merely point out that society is a collection of individuals. The protect the rights of the individuals, and the rights of society are protected. Part of the good of society is the protection of minorities from a tyranny of the majority. The individual is the smallest of minorities. If the individual is not protected, then society is not protected. The protection of the rights of individuals is, in point of fact, the good of society.

Well stated, UP.  I guess I'll let that be the last word, since I don't think I could do much better.

[kimba1]

Timber needs to be 20 or so , but we are talking about large tracts of rural land so however many they cut ,they plant the same back.


true
but is those tracts of land large enough to produce enough timber for the method i mentioned?

[Plane]

Timber needs to be 20 or so , but we are talking about large tracts of rural land so however many they cut ,they plant the same back.


true
but is those tracts of land large enough to produce enough timber for the method i mentioned?

So far yes , but the value of the land rises some of it doesn't justify timber anymore. Faster growing plants might replace the fiber for paper but timber is destined to grow more expensive.

[fatman]

So far yes , but the value of the land rises some of it doesn't justify timber anymore. Faster growing plants might replace the fiber for paper but timber is destined to grow more expensive.


Lumber is extremely low right now, and has been for awhile.  There are huge reserves of timber on National Forest land that the enviro-whacko's have successfully kept from being logged, overall logging on Forest Service land has declined markedly since the logging heydays of the 70's and 80's, which is one of the reasons for the budget problems that the National Forest Service faces.

Lately I've been buying up a lot of lumber stock: Weyerhauser, Pope & Talbot, Plum Creek etc.  It's very low right now, but I think that it will gain as the economy improves.

If you want to see lumber prices rise rapidly, put a stop to cheap Canadian imports.  It will be interesting to see what happens if an anti-NAFTA candidate gets into the Oval Office, as far as the softwood lumber market goes.

[fatman]

Because I think that some things, and fish are among them, ought to be free to anyone.  It drives me crazy that to through a piece of bait on a hook and catch a trout I have to pay a license to my state.  It's fish.  God made them.  Nobody ought to own them.  Someone may own the PROPERTY on which they swim and I ought to get permission from the owner to catch them, but the fish themselves ought to be available.  In the case of international waters, I do not think we ought to have someone "own" those grounds.  They ought to be available to anyone with a boat, a net and the guts to go catch them.   Wise management says that the users ought to agree on some sensible rules, but nobody ought to be able to force someone to go home after they've caught half a boatload.  On national fishing grounds, yes the nation can manage it anyway it wants - and probably should for reasons you have pointed out.  But international waters ought to be free.

While I can see what you're saying here Pooch, I should add that these resources, held in common, should also be managed.  The fee (for your fishing license, for a commercial fisherman's license, etc.) is ostensibly to pay for that management.  It doesn't always work that way, but that's the justification, and in my mind, that's fair.  Personally, I see it as cost effective:  I can plop down $45 for a combination license here, that lets me fish in salt and freshwater, and harvest shellfish.  Take that $45, add another $150 for bait, gas, tackle, etc, and I can go out three weekends in the summer, catch 8 coho salmon averaging 10lbs apiece.  That's 80 pounds of fish that sells for upwards of $9 a pound in the grocery store, for a total cost of $720.  That (to me) is well worth the price of the license that pays to sustain the fishery.

I understand also what Prince is saying, regarding the long term vs. short term dividends for the user/harvester of the resource.  But to me, that's an idealized outlook.  Several species have been pushed to the brink of non sustainability through commercial harvesting.  The best advice and argument that I can offer as a refutation to your scenario Prince, is to read the book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.  In the book, he articulately demonstrates that throughout human history, several human societies have doomed themselves through short sighted thinking, from the Anasazi in the American SW to the Norse colonists on Greenland.

A third issue regarding fish stock management, is that several species are migratory.  Salmon, for example, migrate throughout the Pacific, especially the north Pacific, before returning to their home stream to spawn.  In effect, you have to have several branches of management:  from spawn until the fish returns to the ocean (this would be the management of the home stream) the migration and life cycle in the open ocean (and all nations who are able to harvest, this leads to potentially numerous sub management branches) and the return of the fish to the home stream for the spawn.  Any management style that refuses to take any or all of these factors into consideration is doomed to fail.  With numerous species holding at 10% or less of former stocks, this is an issue of global importance to the consumer, the harvester, and the manager.