CORRESPONDENCE

Grey River Argus, 21 October 1936, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE

TIMBER ROYALTY ASSESSMENT. (To the Editor.) Sir,—The new Government have accomplished much since they took control. but there is one very essential thing they can yet do to give real assistance with their building schemes, and that is to reduce the timber royalty". They could reduce royalty by at. least fid per 100 ft., without, any loss at all, by- doing away" with the Forestry" Department, which in effect, is only a parasite feeding upon the country’s natural revenue. The Department can be proved to be 100 per cent, overlapping, and consequently its existence is not justified. In the first place, it. is the Government that is the real conservator of forests,’ and in the ”“cond place the forests are Crown Lands. The Crown is timber owners, with a Crown Lands Department already controlling a large portion of the timber areas. Then what reason is there for another department to control another portion of Crown timbers on an entirely different system, and one that has increased royalty very considerably" without any benefit to the Government?

To prove mv case, I will describe the procedure that the Forestry Department follows, so that the public can see for themselves. Its effect on small sawmillers who are the best employers in tne industry, and on the country’s royalty revenue. Before a miller can cut these timbers, the Department sends out a gang of men who peg off the area, and then cut parallel lines ten chains apart right through the area. The leader of the gang goes along the lines estimating tho timber in each tree to a distance of half a chain each side of the line. The average is. then taken, from this estimate, for the area between the lines. This tally is taken by men, in the majority of cases, who have had no sawmilling experience, and consequently have no practical knowledge of sawn measurement., and of country that might prove to be quite inaccessible. Yet this Department accepts these tallies as correct and final. “P.N’s.” are assessed for the amount and put on demand for payment. What happens in actual practice when the timber is milled out is that many millers find they have been grossly overcharged, and wrongly charged as the result of timber being tallied that is on inaccessible country and because no one can see inside of a tree to find whether it is faulty or not In one or two cases that have been brought under my notice. millers have got twice the quantity off the areas, as that was tallied and charged up to them. This is good evidence that the tree-tallying system is most unreliable and unjust, and that, the practice is out of all reason in every respect because of the unnecessary cost it involves.

From the fact that tallies vary to at least 30 per cent, either way at this day —a difference of 60 per cent. — is enough in itself to condemn the system outright. If a miller finds his sawn tally to be short of what he has

had to pay for, he approaches the Department about, it, they tell him he has wasted it in the slabs. .1 might say I have yet to find the miller who is so made as to pay to have the, trees felled, hauled, loaded on trucks and carried bv the locomotive to the mill to be wasted in the slabs. 'flint argument won’t hold water, but it is invariably the answer from the Forestry Department.

I have milled over 30,0(10,000 feet of timber in New Zealand myself, and 1 can definitely- say- the practice of tree tallying is most unreliable and unfair, because so much depends on what cannot lie seen, or what cannot possibly lie accurately measured, and on the man himself. I have cut out areas and seen others cut out properly, both in bush and mill, and found the forestry tally to range from 50 per eent and under and 50 per cent, and over the sawn measurement. The onlytally that can be absolutely correct. In nine eases out of ten, however, the sawn measurement falls short of the Forestry tally from 10 per cent, to 30 per cent. ' There is another aspect here that I would like to refer to. and that is the attitude and the judgment of a Forestry tally- man. As so much depends on judgment with these individuals, and as attitude can very- easily- influence that judgment, even quite unconsciously, the practice is open to inaccuracies. lam not suggesting corruption is practised by any means, but what is to stop it if the tally depends entirely’ on one? The Department can cheek up on the miller’s books it is true, but what is to prevent the miller making his entry to suit his ease? If a tallyman had a dislike to a sawmiller, he might overestimate. If the Department found a tally to be below the miller’s sawn tally, the man concerned would be hauled over the coals for that, which might influence him to tally hard.

The whole system is truly a farce. In view of the fact tnat the tallies vary so much, the sawmiller does not know what the royalty is going to cost him. This is most unsatisfactory, when there is only a small margin of profit to work on for those cutting State forest areas. The small sawmiller who has suffered loss through an over charge of royalty, is further penalised by having to pay his royalty in advance. As most of the big mill owners bought their timber areas years ago for 20/- per acre, and such like, it is very hard for the small sawmiller who is paying 2/3 royalty, to compete with those whose royalty cost is practieallv nil.

What is to prevent the Crown Lands Department. taking charge of State forests and arranging matters like this for instance: When an area is to be milled, a ranger could be sent out to peg off the block and then keep an eye on it by a periodical inspection to see that it is cut out properly. This method is all that is necessary for the complete protection of the areas being milled, and one ranger could control and look over vast areas on a systematic basis. As to royalty, as ninetenths of the timber sawn goes over the Government railways, the royalty should be charged with the freight, which would be automatically collected and cheeked up by the Department

that is already keeping a check on tallies. As for timber sold locally or otherwise, and not transported byrail. the cutting license would permit, provide and protect the royalty in this ease. As to Hie cutting of private areas, the license would prohibit the rutting of private areas for the period set aside for the cutting of State forests. At the end of each month the Lands Department would have all the necessary data cheeked up by- the Railway Department as regards the tally and the royalty and both items would be ready to collect. The ranger, in his capacity would have his monthlyreport. and till the necessary data of the timber and bush side of the question, and in this way the sawn measurement would be the basis for till records, which is the true and only correct tally for timber. Therefore, without further evidence, it can be seen by anyone that the Forestry Department is fully 100 per cent, overlapping,, anil consequently is eating up at least 33 per cent, of the State royalty revenue. Why- tally- timber twice, when once should suffice? Why collect money through two sources, when one could do it at no greater cost? Why send a gang of men to a bush for weeks, months and years, to cut tracks for positively’ no beneficial purpose at all, but very- definitely- at a huge cost to be put on timber. Why- not remove this cost and put the saving into Government houses and to the benefits of those who are to live in them?

There are no better judges than private timber owners on this question. Everybody knows he will look out for No. i. by adopting the safest and surest plan, and what does he say? Tn ten eases out of ten he will cut his lines, show you the area, see that you cut it out properly, and take your sawn measurement. Why? Because it is lhe only reliable tally—because it is Ihe tally the Railway go by, and the tally the parties go by; and their cheek is his cheek on the miller’s tally.—l am. etc. MEMORABILIA.