MNR & the debate regarding Stumpage Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:08:28 -0500
From: joel@whitemoose.ca
To: Bill.Thornton@mnr.gov.on.ca
Cc: TheriaultJoel@Hotmail.com
Subject: Fwd: RE: Fwd: (Text Ommitted: Name of court case deleted)
Bill,
I Just wanted to make sure you had read this case and didn't know whether or not
you had access to it... Also, have you had a chance to read through the
documents that I suggested in the last email? Please feel free to send over
any questions you have regarding the proposal.
Thanks,
Joel Theriault
P.S. If you still don't think that you can change the stumpage rate system (in
the vicinity of remote tourism lakes) after reading this court case, please
direct me to the next tier of MNR command. thanks...
>From: joel@whitemoose.ca
>To: Doug@noto.net, Todd@noto.net
>CC: TheriaultJoel@hotmail.com
>Subject: Fwd: (Text Ommitted: Name of court case deleted)
>Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:01:52 -0500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:01:07 -0400
From: joel@whitemoose.ca
To: bill.thornton@mnr.gov.on.ca
Cc: doug@noto.net, graham.campbell@ndm.gov.on.ca, Todd@noto.net, madforest@nrtco.net (Madawaska Forestry Co.)
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Stumpage matrix internet site
Bill...hope all goes well for you...
Just one thing i've been thinking about..you had mentioned that lumber may be
mixed from inside and outside the delineated areas and that this in itself,
would be cause for abandoning the idea...However, this did not seem to force
the MNR to abandon the idea of reducing stumpage rates for blowdown areas,
fires, or insect areas...
Q- Is the wood thats loaded onto trucks from blowdown areas less valuable or is it simply more expensive to harvest?
I understand that some of the trees may have internal fractures, but i would
imagine that forestry companies would be inclined to cut off these sections of
wood, or leave the tree completely if it had no commercial value...So basically
what i'm getting at is that the government is compensating forestry companies
for additional work they must invest to harvest the merchantable timber in blow
down areas, yet the US Department of Commerce isn't upset about this seemingly
subsidized forestry practice? Why not?
It is possible that the overall cost to produce the wood is roughly equal when factors such as reduced stumpage rates
meet factors such as additional expenditures to harvest... In the situation
I'm referring to regarding tourism areas, forestry companies do not have the
option to alter their forestry practices significantly (though it would help
insure long term employment diversity) because they are not compensated for the
additional work they must invest to protect tourism values... In the situation
at hand, the price to produce the timber would once again (like the blowdown
situation) be roughly equal to the price in non-tourism areas when factors such
as reduced stumpage rates are offset by additional cost of production...
Thus, I cannot find a meaningful difference between the two situations, or a reason why
the US Department of Commerce would object to the situation...The only differnce
that i can possibly see is that sections of the forest would be harvested to
better protect the longterm employment opportunities for forestry and tourism,
thus contributing to increased diversification of employment...
Please inform me what you would feel to be a viable option to correct the
problem facing the remote tourism industry and the forestry industry of
Ontario...The issue is hightening as much of the remaining merchantable timber
is now located in the vicinity of these remote tourism areas...
Thanks,
Joel Theriault
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:38:28 -0400
From: joel@whitemoose.ca
To: bill.thornton@mnr.gov.on.ca
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Stumpage matrix internet site
Thank you for your time in reading the proposal and giving me valuable
feedback...Really appreciated to get some inside viewpoints on the matter
regarding some of the possible practical problems...However, given the
seriousness of the situation, I was wondering if you had any avenues that could
be followed or any proposals that might fix the situation...Your response seems
well thought out and I'm hoping for a well thought out solution to the
problem...I would say that the point of the proposal is to get thinkers like
yourself out of the box and so, I would ask, What route would you think the MNR
may think to be viable to offset additional costs that forestry companies incur
while harvesting in the vicinity of tourism lakes?
I appreciate and anticipate your response...
Joel Theriault
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting bill.thornton@mnr.gov.on.ca:
Mr. Theriault:
I have now read your proposal, and I do not believe that your proposal to
reduce stumpage fees in the vicinity of remote tourism lakes is viable, nor
do I support it.
The proposal would be very costly to administer, requiring special
dilineation of these areas, special tracking of the wood to mills, the
application of special rates to this wood when weighed at a mill and special
monitoring to ensure wood from "inside" these special areas was not mixed
with wood from "outside" these special areas.
Likewise the proposal would certainly raise policy questions as to why a
similar reduction in stumpage rates is not offerred to the many other cases
where someone could argue that they have unique operating conditions - eg.
difficult access, steep terrain, operating near areas of concern, and so on.
We do reduce stumpage rates where timber has been damaged by insects, fire,
wind, etc. because the value of the timber itself has been reduced. To
reduce stumpage for healthy timber makes no sense, and raises the issue of
subsidy - which is something we do not support as per our arguments with the
US Department of Commerce in the softwood lumber trade case.
Bill Thornton
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:27:38 -0400
From: joel@whitemoose.ca
To: Bill.Thornton@mnr.gov.on.ca
Subject: Fwd: RE: RE: Stumpage matrix internet site
Just checking to see if you had a chance to read through the proposal and send
me some feedback. If your not the individual i should be talking to...my
appologies..please direct me to the correct individual..
Thanks,
Joel Theriault
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Forwarded message from joel@whitemoose.ca -----
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:56:55 -0400
From: joel@whitemoose.ca
Reply-To: joel@whitemoose.ca
Subject: RE: RE: Stumpage matrix internet site
To: Bill.Thornton@mnr.gov.on.ca
I know your busy but i was wondering if you had a chance to read through the
paper and give me some critical feed back...Things seem so clear in my mind,
but an outside opinion would be great to clarify any weaknesses of the
proposal. Also, i'm under the impression it should get your approval
first...Thanks in advance for the feedback.
Joel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Joel Theriault <theriaultjoel@hotmail.com>:
Bill,
I'm sorry but you have misread or misinterpreted my message. I thought it
was very clear that stumpage fees were to be reduced in the vicinity in the
vicinity of tourism areas, specifically remote tourism areas, to alleviate
additional costs of harvest incurred by "ANY" forestry company that harvests
in these areas. I made reference to Decicon because they are the BEST
company for the job and made reference why they are the best. Ask Domtar to
explain why they use Decicon for certification purposes. Please re-read (as
opposed to scanning) my message as I believe, from what was stated in your
letter, that you have completely missed the points. Then, please inform me
how we are going to reduce stumpage rates in the vicinity of tourism areas.
Thanks,
Joel Theriault
WhiteMoose.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:16:57 +0000
From: Joel Theriault <theriaultjoel@hotmail.com>
To: Joel@WhiteMoose.ca
Subject: Matrix-gov-information sent out
Keep this doc...
From: Joel Theriault [mailto:theriaultjoel@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday,September 23, 2004 5:57 PM
To: bill.thornton@mnr.gov.on.ca
Subject: FW: RE: Stumpage matrix internet site
Attention Bill...Please read over the following document and advise me as
to
what you feel the avenue is to take regarding the issue.
Thanks,
Joel Theriault
Joel@WhiteMoose.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joel Theriault" <theriaultjoel@hotmail.com>
To: dan.stelmach@mnr.gov.on.ca
CC: TheriaultJoel@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Stumpage matrix internet site
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:41:13 +0000
I don't see a phone number, fax number, or email address to contact Mr.
Bill Thornton. As this is of importance to many people, and the Canadian
postal service works at a snails rate, could you get me some alternate
contact method? Thanks...
And Yes I would love a response from yourself, Mr. Bill Thornton, Mr. Rob
Galloway, Mr. David Ramsey, the MNR in general, the provincial government,
and Forest Stewardship Council. It was requested by Philippe that he relay
the information to industry such as Domtar and Tembec, but I would also
love a response from these corporations, and the forestry association as a
whole.
I also think that under the current situation, this would be a very
advisable template for the “MNR” to follow given the following reasons.
1) There is a valid reason to start a class action lawsuit against the MNR
for their forest management practices.
2) Based on previous case law, this class action lawsuit would most likely
be successful.
3) The MNR has been made aware of an alternate template for forest
management, which would eliminate the previously mentioned reason and as
such, eliminate both personal and agency liability.
4) If a class action suit is needed, and this template (or one of a very
similar nature) is not adopted, the lack of adoption will no doubt be used
as a tool for judges to assess damages.
5) Its environmentally sound...
6) It is consistent with MNR guidelines and regulations.
Now, not meaning to scare, offend, upset, bother anyone, I feel that my
position regarding a class action lawsuit has been stated being that I do
not desire to go to court on this issue. However, if the MNR refuses to
work with me and others to solve this problem, there will be no
alternative. I look forward to and anticipate response regarding this
template. Please forward this to the appropriate people.
Thanks again,
Joel Theriault
President- Legal Outfitters Association
CEO WhiteMoose.ca
Joel@whitemoose.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dan.stelmach@mnr.gov.on.ca
To: theriaultjoel@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Stumpage matrix internet site
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:00:13 -0400
Hello Joel:
Please forward a hard copy of this information through the mail to Mr.
Thornton's attention. Please make it clear in your letter whether or not
you are requesting a response.
His address is:
Mr. Bill Thornton
Director
Industry Relations Branch
Ministry of Natural Resources
Roberta Bondar Place
70 Foster Drive, Suite 400
Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 6V5
Thanks
Dan Stelmach
Tenure and Measurement Coordinator
Northeast Regional Office
(705) 235-1166
(705) 235-1246
dan.stelmach@mnr.gov.on.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Theriault [mailto:theriaultjoel@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 9:03 PM
To: dan.stelmach@mnr.gov.on.ca
Subject: RE: Stumpage matrix internet site
Could you forward the following information to the attention of Bill
Thornton as i didn't recieve an email address for him....thanks...This is
in relation to crown stumpage matrix in the vicinity of remote tourism
areas...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Joel:
After our telephone conversation of a few days ago and after thinking
about
it for awhile, I thought I should suggest that you should direct your
inquiry to Mr. Bill Thornton. Bill is the Director of Industry
Relations
Branch. The authority to approve the monthly stumpage rates is
delegated
to
Bill.
I suggest you write a letter to his attention ensuring you fully state
your
case.
Bill's address is:
Mr. Bill Thornton
Director
Industry Relations Branch
Ministry of Natural Resources
Roberta Bondar Place
70 Foster Drive, Suite 400
Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 6V5
Thanks
Dan Stelmach
Tenure and Measurement Coordinator
Northeast Regional Office
( (705) 235-1166
(705) 235-1246
dan.stelmach@mnr.gov.on.ca
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dan.stelmach@mnr.gov.on.ca
To: theriaultjoel@hotmail.com
Subject: Stumpage matrix internet site
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:59:44 -0400
Hello Joel:
As discussed, here is the link to the stumpage site. You can access
the
renewal rates for the species grouping by forest management unit and
the
futures rates as well from this site.
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/mnr/forests/businessweb/stumpage/home.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inbox