http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...01/wl_canada_a
fp/us_canada_lumber&e=5

Excerpt:

"The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) review panel rejected
claims by Washington that its lumber producers had suffered damage as a
result of Canadian imports.

The panel ordered the US International Trade Commission to reverse its
determination on the lumber imports, which resulted in the laying of 19
percent countervailing duties on Canadian wood, within 10 days."

Excerpt:

"The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) review panel rejected
claims by Washington that its lumber producers had suffered damage as a
result of Canadian imports.

The panel ordered the US International Trade Commission to reverse its
determination on the lumber imports, which resulted in the laying of 19
percent countervailing duties on Canadian wood, within 10 days."

Two things,
1. the news reports here indicate its a 27% duty and
2. The US can appeal, dragging this out (it seems) interminally..

Its already been going on 2 years..it seems they'll just keep it up til they
get the result they want, meanwhile, the extra overhead is passed on to who
?
The US consumer..

"Rudy" wrote in message
news:vKcZc.290948$gE.150665@pd7tw3no...

Two things,
1. the news reports here indicate its a 27% duty and
2. The US can appeal, dragging this out (it seems) interminally..

Its already been going on 2 years..it seems they'll just keep it up til
they
get the result they want,

Cooperation with the ICBM may do it for bush, I think!

"f/256" wrote in message
news

"Rudy" wrote in message
news:vKcZc.290948$gE.150665@pd7tw3no...

Two things,
1. the news reports here indicate its a 27% duty and
2. The US can appeal, dragging this out (it seems) interminally..

Its already been going on 2 years..it seems they'll just keep it up til
they
get the result they want,

Cooperation with the ICBM may do it for bush, I think!

Huh?

Cooperation with the ICBM may do it for bush, I think!

Or slowing down the flow of Canadian oil and gas into the US.

Two things,
1. the news reports here indicate its a 27% duty and
2. The US can appeal, dragging this out (it seems) interminally..

Its already been going on 2 years..it seems they'll just keep it up til they
get the result they want, meanwhile, the extra overhead is passed on to who
?
The US consumer..

And the Canadian millworkers also suffer too. This all sucks. The
NAFTA panel has told the US Govt to stop fighting the rulings.

Today's Globe and Mail Report on Business reports that the WTO has
"given Canada the go-ahead to slap trade sanctions on the U.S., which
could amount to billions of dollars if Washington hands the more than
$2.7-billion (U.S.) in softwood levies collected from Canadian timber
over to American forest companies."

Tell you what. US will export some environmentalists, if you'll take 'em
duty free, and nobody will harvest wood within ten years....


"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
tone.ca...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...01/wl_canada_a
fp/us_canada_lumber&e=5

Excerpt:

"The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) review panel rejected
claims by Washington that its lumber producers had suffered damage as a
result of Canadian imports.

The panel ordered the US International Trade Commission to reverse its
determination on the lumber imports, which resulted in the laying of 19
percent countervailing duties on Canadian wood, within 10 days."

"George" george@least wrote in message
...
Tell you what. US will export some environmentalists, if you'll take 'em
duty free, and nobody will harvest wood within ten years....


"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
tone.ca...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...01/wl_canada_a
fp/us_canada_lumber&e=5

Excerpt:

"The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) review panel rejected
claims by Washington that its lumber producers had suffered damage as a
result of Canadian imports.

The panel ordered the US International Trade Commission to reverse its
determination on the lumber imports, which resulted in the laying of 19
percent countervailing duties on Canadian wood, within 10 days."

A common debating tactic with both conservatives and liberals in the United
States is to assume that the most radical positions of the opposite side
represent the views of every opponent. For example, "those loony tree
huggers want to ban all logging." In fact the vast majority of
conservationists call for RESPONSIBLE cutting and reforestration rather than
the clearcutting that was the industry norm a few years ago. Even the
lumber industry has bought into that for its own long-term good. In fact,
shipping a few conservationists to Canada would be a benefit for its
industry and a loss to ours.

Bob

In article , Bob Schmall
wrote:

In fact,
shipping a few conservationists to Canada would be a benefit for its
industry and a loss to ours.

We've got enough up here, tenjewberrymush.

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message

huggers want to ban all logging." In fact the vast majority of
conservationists call for RESPONSIBLE cutting and reforestration rather
than
the clearcutting that was the industry norm a few years ago. Even the
lumber industry has bought into that for its own long-term good.

You're right. However, the problem with many current "reforestation" efforts
is the same problem with tomatoes in the grocery store ... product is
genetically designed for the benefit of the corporation, not the consumer.

Then again, a tasteless red biomass with soft seeds is marginally better in
a salad than nothing for those who never experienced the difference .... and
add a corollary for a tubafour while you're at it.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message

huggers want to ban all logging." In fact the vast majority of
conservationists call for RESPONSIBLE cutting and reforestration rather
than
the clearcutting that was the industry norm a few years ago. Even the
lumber industry has bought into that for its own long-term good.

You're right. However, the problem with many current "reforestation"
efforts
is the same problem with tomatoes in the grocery store ... product is
genetically designed for the benefit of the corporation, not the consumer.

And force-grown. It's still better than a depressing bald spot in what once
was a forest.

Then again, a tasteless red biomass with soft seeds is marginally better
in
a salad than nothing for those who never experienced the difference ....
and
add a corollary for a tubafour while you're at it.

Su
Corollary: never include reforested wood in your salad.

Are you saying you don't like square tomatoes that ship well? You oughta see
the hardwood peaches we get up here in Wisconsin.

No, you shouldn't

Bob

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message

And force-grown. It's still better than a depressing bald spot in what
once
was a forest.

I got a kick out of the clear-cut
practice/subterfuge/token-to-the-environmentalist (however you want to view
it) in Southern Arkansas where the land is flatter ... they leave strips
along the roads so you can't see the clear-cut and, as you're driving
through, you'd swear there wasn't a logging company for miles.

Probably what the suits tritely refer to as a "win-win" ... but, of course,
they win more.

Along those same lines, I am looking for some "heirloom" tomato seeds for
next year ... anyone know of a good source for old stock, genetically
unaltered, tomato?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

C'mon, as a cheesehead you should know better. You _can't_ grow seedling
conifers under mature, and if you thin them enough to get light to the
ground, the big ones blow over. That's why they're clear-cut. Fire used
to take care of the problem by clearing areas - to the ground - which it
sweetened with ashes enough for new growth. Anyone with sense can see that
the only difference between that and clear-cutting, then spreading lime to
sweeten the acid soil, is that you get to use the wood.

I'm next door, and we're harvesting at touch less than half the rate of
growth, and then only because of private landowners. The state and national
forests are harvested at around a third and slowing, because of agitation
for roadless initiatives and wilderness set-asides, not to mention my
favorite, the "wild and scenic rivers " initiative which would have locked
up a bit over twenty on my place. Public hearings were held 400 miles away,
by a group of government officials and environmentalists. Landowners were
allowed up to three minutes to address this unbiased group, even though they
were the ones who would bear the taking. Fortunately the initiator was
defeated in his downstate district, though not over a measure which was
popular among all those who would not have been affected.

Oh yes, the construction lumber mill up the road, which sawed softwood equal
in every way to the Canadian, went under recently because it couldn't get a
guaranteed supply.

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...
A common debating tactic with both conservatives and liberals in the
United
States is to assume that the most radical positions of the opposite side
represent the views of every opponent. For example, "those loony tree
huggers want to ban all logging." In fact the vast majority of
conservationists call for RESPONSIBLE cutting and reforestration rather
than
the clearcutting that was the industry norm a few years ago. Even the
lumber industry has bought into that for its own long-term good. In fact,
shipping a few conservationists to Canada would be a benefit for its
industry and a loss to ours.

tomatoes-www.seedsavers.org or www.tomatofest.com . I think there's a retail
place for southwest seeds as well...

Amen!

Schroeder


"George" george@least wrote in message
...
C'mon, as a cheesehead you should know better. You _can't_ grow seedling
conifers under mature, and if you thin them enough to get light to the
ground, the big ones blow over. That's why they're clear-cut. Fire used
to take care of the problem by clearing areas - to the ground - which it
sweetened with ashes enough for new growth. Anyone with sense can see
that
the only difference between that and clear-cutting, then spreading lime to
sweeten the acid soil, is that you get to use the wood.

I'm next door, and we're harvesting at touch less than half the rate of
growth, and then only because of private landowners. The state and
national
forests are harvested at around a third and slowing, because of agitation
for roadless initiatives and wilderness set-asides, not to mention my
favorite, the "wild and scenic rivers " initiative which would have locked
up a bit over twenty on my place. Public hearings were held 400 miles
away,
by a group of government officials and environmentalists. Landowners were
allowed up to three minutes to address this unbiased group, even though
they
were the ones who would bear the taking. Fortunately the initiator was
defeated in his downstate district, though not over a measure which was
popular among all those who would not have been affected.

Oh yes, the construction lumber mill up the road, which sawed softwood
equal
in every way to the Canadian, went under recently because it couldn't get
a
guaranteed supply.

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...
A common debating tactic with both conservatives and liberals in the
United
States is to assume that the most radical positions of the opposite side
represent the views of every opponent. For example, "those loony tree
huggers want to ban all logging." In fact the vast majority of
conservationists call for RESPONSIBLE cutting and reforestration rather
than
the clearcutting that was the industry norm a few years ago. Even the
lumber industry has bought into that for its own long-term good. In
fact,
shipping a few conservationists to Canada would be a benefit for its
industry and a loss to ours.

Gotta love it! From lumber to tomato seeds.

"John" wrote in message
...
Gotta love it! From lumber to tomato seeds.

It could easily segue into global warming. Oh, wait...

Bob