Analysis reveals timber growing offers better financial returns and labor employment compared to grazing, suggesting a need for land management improvements.
The question has been raised of the relative "social values" of timberland in the Southwest for stock raising or timber growing. Timber growing shows marked superiority, whether measured by gross financial returns or by volume of labor employment. Eventually, the logical course will be to merge private cut-over lands with the national forests, but by leaving their lands in reasonably productive condition owners can realize nearly full grazing returns, while also building up future timber values. Cutting to a minimum usable diameter limit actually lowers the net profit of the operation. Since destructive exploitation is of doubtful benefit to the owner and detrimental to the public interest, the public is warranted in demanding that it be stopped.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
G. A. Pearson (1935) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: