one of the stated objectives of this blog is to look at how the ownership of timberland (a term used specifically to describe

commercial forestland) is shifting as industry disposes of it's landholdings. as the process timberland shoes continues, some timberland merely

changes ownership (remaining timberland) and some shifts totally out of the commercial timberland boots sale realm timberland shoes into a "protected" state where

timber products are no longer produced. in most cases, though, the land does continue as timberland but perhaps with less

emphasis on timber production. but who are the new owners? timos, as we have discussed; "small" private landowners of

family forests, as discussed earlier; ngos, to be discussed at a future time; and, finally, the government (federal, state and

local).

should our governments own any forestland at all? should we stop government from pulling land out of the private sector and

adding more to the continuously increasing amount of public ownership? should we sell all of the national forests to the

private sector? if you timberland boots answered "yes, yes, yes", then you are a pure capitalist! the flip side would be to continue buying by

government - buy everything available through outright purchase or by exercising the governments right of eminent domain.

private land ownership should be eliminated because the government can do a better job of forest management than the

private sector can. is that a good idea? if men timberland boots you answered "yes", then you are a pure communist and you can point to russia to

show how forestland should be managed.