78-10-A3
- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1978
| << Previous Broadcast | Next Broadcast >> |
Lumber[edit]
Transcript[edit]I'm sure I won't surprise you by saying that lumber prices, which are about 15 per cent of all construction, are a major factor in the high cost of building. Some contractors find it almost impossible to give a reasonable estimate on a project because of the uncertainty of lumber prices. Can all of this be laid at the door of the lumber industry--or is there something to be done that is beyond its power? Columnist John Chamberlain recently gathered together some information having to do with lumber forests which points to an attainable solution. Once again, it is a simple matter of using common sense. The problem is, of course, the high cost of new homes. Our private forest industry at present plants more trees than it cuts. No longer does the industry denude the forest land and then move on. But that industry only owns 16 per cent of the nation's standing softwood. States own about 12 per cent, but the federal government owns 52 per cent. So, as Chamberlain points out, the U.S. Department of Agriculture could be the key to lower housing costs. Right now the Forest service (a unit of the Agriculture Department) sells about 12-and-a-half billion board feet of lumber annually to the saw mills. The forest industry, from its much smaller holdings, sells almost 16-and-a-half billion and another 14-and-a-half comes from non-industrial sources. All this indicates that Uncle Sam's 52 per cent offers the best chance of increased supply. Now I'm sure all of us want conservation of trees in our national forests. No one would suggest wholesale cutting to meet commercial demand. But what John Chamberlain has discovered is that the federal Government is allowing lumber to go to waste each year when it could increase the supply by six billion board feet. Trees aren't like minerals which stay where they are until someone removes them from the earth. Trees grow up, they may get sick, they grow old and die. This apparently is not recognized by some environmental extremists who confuse conservation with preservation. Dead trees are pure waste and are harmful to the forest. Take the example of Lassen National forest in California. This preserve allows a cut of 150 million board feet a year. It could raise that to 268 million board feet if the timber cutters were allowed to harvest only the over mature and dying trees. Lassen would be a better national forest and one much safer from the threat of forest fire if the additional cutting were done. As it is, it's choked with rotting wood. Chamberlain points out that this additional cutting in Lassen National Forest alone would also provide an increase of 1200 jobs in California. And it would lower the price of lumber. So what's the federal government waiting for? This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
Details[edit]
| |||||||||||
Added Notes[edit] |
