TIMBER PROBLEM.

Hokitika Guardian, 2 October 1923, Page 4

TIMBER PROBLEM.

THE SAWMILLERS' VIEWPOINT. In the course of a reply to criticism appearing in the press. .Mr Arthur Seed Secretary of the Dominion Federated Saumillers’ Association -ays:—ft is very essential in any discussion that the points at issue should be clearly defined; and it is perhaps more essential that there should he presented a ease to discuss. In the present instance. not only have the points at issue been wilfully blurred, but. there is absolutely no definite case presented. Facts bearing on “conservation'', “liquidation.’' and ‘'timber exportation.” have either been tiansposed or not .Dared. In the first place the sawj miller: have not attacked the Forest. i Service, as has been stated, oil the I question of restriction of exportation ■ heeau-e they are aware that the SerI vice has in authority in the matter: and in the second place the Forest Service has never been opposed to unrestricted exportation. So far as the saw millers are aware, the Director has never made the statement attributed to him that “if the s«\tmillers get unrestricted export, they will destroy our forests in 30 or ill years. - ’ This is either a wilful mis-statement by some irresponsible person, or it is the result of ignorance. As showing that, the matter of unrosf iir led ex; Dilation is not of such farreaching importance as the I'ress articles would lead tile public to suppose. it may he pointed out Hint, during the whole period when control < I (xp.i.'i! Im npeiated. the saw millers have never expelled the ipmntiiy permitted. except in the ease ol Inw-griulc kauri; and if there had been no restriction there would not have been any greater export,a lion. 'file article which ap| eared in "The Dross'’ on the (fill. inst.. and in other papers, purporting to defend ••conservation." was cunningly staged so as to enlist the support of the public for the Forest. Service as against the timber industry. That support was sought by means of false pretences. The Forest Service has taken up an untenable position in its antagonistic al-

titude towards sawmilleis: and it sought to cover the weakness of that position by throwing up a “smoke screen.” It may serve to “bulldoze” the public, but the sawmillers have been over the ground too often—they know what's behind the screen and they have got the correct range. The terms “conservationists" and “liquidationists" are pure camouflage. To plaster the term “conservationists’’ over the Forest Service is like putting up a Red Cross over an ammunition dump.

That's the kind of tactics the saw millers are up against. Dealing with the question of timhei exportation, quite apart from the question of the Service’s attack on the sawmilling industry, it is only fair ir. point out that a large majority of those millers who are now seeking some relaxation of restrictions, acquired their timber holdings and opened up their trade connexions . during ike period when the Government was actively encouraging the exportation of timber. Ear from indicating that, any restrictions might be expected, special concessions were given to saw millets on account of timber exported. Even so late as November 22nd. 1017, timber for exportation, other than white pine, was varied on the Huruuui-Blufl’ section and on the Wellington-Napier-Xcw ’Plymouth section of the New Zealand railways at special rates ranging from 8d to Is Id per 100 feet less than timber for Now Zealand markets. On the \Yestlaud section a special drying shed was provided by the Government, and specially low rates were provided for hauling exploi t timber to ships’ side. These indueemenst were held out to the millers by the present Government, so as to encourage the exportation of timber. In. the ligkt of the above, are the sawmillers. then, so much to blame if, after having opened-up outside markets, they seek to at least be permitted to export the quantity which was agreed upon between the Minister in charge of the timber regulations and the sawmillers? The sawmillers do not

Manic the Government for having so acted in the pa.-t; but they do resent the inundation that, in seeking to follow the Government policy, they have been the cause of *'a clash between persona! and national ends." The clash, if any, is between the Government policies of yesterday and to-day. On the question of “conservation.” it. has recently been ' pointed out that the methods pursued by the Forest Service in flooding the market with timber areas, and of forcing the continued cutting of such areas clearly indicates that its chief function is that of liquidator. Too often lias the sawmiller been held up as “the ruthless exploiter of our forest wealth.” You cannot make omelettes without break- j ing eggs; neither can you have homes I without felling trees. j Respecting any "chronic friction be- ' tween the Forest Service and the sawmillers”—that rests with the Service. It is the Service that has taken the ' offensive; and, meantime, the sawmillors are purely on the defensive, and comparatively passive at that. “Oh,' "Woodman, spare the sawmiller.” !