2 ms·

> ... given that it is preferable to ship lumber instead of timber There are also regulatory reasons for this one. As I understand it, as a general rule, you c

> ... given that it is preferable to ship lumber instead of timber There are also regulatory reasons for this one. As I understand it, as a general rule, you cannot legally export raw timbers harvested from federal and state lands in the US. [1] There are also trade problems when wood products come from federal lands because of potential subsidies. (You want to get a Canadian to talk your ear off, just bring up softwood in the context of US trade.) [2] Raw timbers and cants also have pest concerns that kiln-dried lumber doesn't. [1] https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr208.pdf https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr208.pdf [2] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42789.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42789.pdf

Nasrudith 8y ago
Interesting. Given that I heard about those in third world contexts I thought those raw lumber regulations were intended as a slight slow-down to excessive exploitation - that you have to set up at least a lumber mill and process everything in-situ to at least give a stable direct or peripheral income to inhabitants instead of a locust like clear cut and ship out the wood approach. The previous even if it left them deforested would give enough to live on at least short term. Lumber mill jobs require some basic numeracy and literacy or trade training as opposed to just "any strong man" and would be a more sustained task. The two together imply that the locals would reap some benefits during the operation through at very least selling services - even if they leave after they work through the forests it would be less likely to cause a humanitarian crisis and/or insurrection. Even a sociopathic imperialist leader would be annoyed that they have to keep wasting resources cleaning up after timber barons instead of scheming after things of far more value.

2 ms·

> ... given that it is preferable to ship lumber instead of timber There are also regulatory reasons for this one. As I understand it, as a general rule, you c

by oasisbob 8y ago

Nasrudith 8y ago
Interesting. Given that I heard about those in third world contexts I thought those raw lumber regulations were intended as a slight slow-down to excessive exploitation - that you have to set up at least a lumber mill and process everything in-situ to at least give a stable direct or peripheral income to inhabitants instead of a locust like clear cut and ship out the wood approach. The previous even if it left them deforested would give enough to live on at least short term. Lumber mill jobs require some basic numeracy and literacy or trade training as opposed to just "any strong man" and would be a more sustained task. The two together imply that the locals would reap some benefits during the operation through at very least selling services - even if they leave after they work through the forests it would be less likely to cause a humanitarian crisis and/or insurrection. Even a sociopathic imperialist leader would be annoyed that they have to keep wasting resources cleaning up after timber barons instead of scheming after things of far more value.