On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:06:27 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
IIRC, the way it went was that the US first made a claim that the stumpage
fees were artificially low because they were based on a cost basis that, as
you say, "paid expenses." In other words, no real-estate amortization costs,
no insurance costs, no profit on the capital represented by the land's
principal value.

Since the Canadian government didn't pay anything for the land, or the
air above it, or the water that flows across it, or the sunshine that falls
upon it, there are no real estate amortization costs. There are no insurance
costs because governments self-insure, and can only be sued if they
*permit* themselves to be sued. Governments aren't supposed to be
profit making operations so no need to make a profit either.

Note that all this applies to US government owned timber lands too.
If the US government *chooses* to charge more than the costs of
administering the sales, it is profiteering. If the US government
*chooses* to refuse to allow timber sales, it is perpetuating the
causes of the wild fires that recently swept through California, ie it
is causing an unconscionable build up of fuel, promoting a tree
density that fosters disease, and virtually guaranteeing catastrophic
fires.

Ideally, the governments of both nations would allow the unowned
resources of both their nations to be taken up into private hands
(homesteaded) so ordinary market forces could work.

Gary