There has been significant recent conversation about Canadian tariffs on many products, more specifically timber. This matters to Mississippi because timber is one of our state's most important agricultural and economic commodities. Over 80% of the timber in Mississippi is privately owned.
In 2003, Senator Thad Cochran warned: “Canada subsidizes its lumber mills by subsidizing the cost of stumpage price for pine timber, and those mills are dumping lumber in our domestic market.”
The issue remains the same today.
Most of the timber in Canada is owned by their government. The various provinces set the price at the stump. Most are significantly lower than the price paid here to private landowners.
The United States sets a countervailing tariff on Canadian timber. The additional charge varies by species from 14.52% to 16.15%. This is how much the U.S. Department of Commerce says is the difference in the Canadian provinces giving a lower stumpage cost compared to our private Mississippi sales.
There are other factors such as hauling distances, but generally the cost of delivering a 2-by-4 to a Mississippi dealer is cheaper for Canadian timber than if we harvested it right here.
When I was Secretary of State, I joined Shuqualak Lumber Company and other Mississippi timber mill operators in contesting the “dumping” of Canadian timber.
Our 16th Section land, all of which the proceeds goes to public schools, owns hundreds of thousands of acres of timber.
This issue continues today to be challenged in various courts. The United States imposed an additional 10% tariff beginning on October 14, 2025, citing the need to protect our domestic timber industry and national security.
Mississippi produces about $600 million of timber every year. The downward pressure Mississippi timber prices varies but is estimated to be between $30 million and $50 million per year.
That is why Senator Cochran was right. And we need to support a final resolution by President Trump which provides us a fair ability to compete with this valuable Mississippi commodity.
Delbert Hosemann authored this letter to the editor. He is the Lieutenant Governor of Mississippi.
16 comments:
I've had businesses in Canada want to buy my products but the tariffs Canada imposes made any transactions a losing proposition.
Canada is a good example of the socialist state toward which the U.S. is hurtling.
America needs to turn to Lamar Adams as a source for US timber given the Canadian tarrifs
Who owns the local sawmills? I recall reading years ago that Canadian interests own controlling interests in our sawmills and manipulate market prices.
Having lived in Michigan for 28 years American leaders are finally waking up and learning countries are taking advantage of us. Canada doesn’t allow the sell of many American goods and tariffs us to death on most that are allowed
They’re not a friend. Unions in Midwest have claimed this since NAFTA gutted our manufacturing. Finally it’s roaring back
Desperate to be seen as still relevant, Donkeycrat Delbert puts out a press release highlighting something Cochran said 23 years ago with a side plug about an anti-dumping position he took as SOS.
Somebody, please, take Delbert over to the Mind Center and get him checked out.
I once knew a guy that owned over 175% of the timber in MS
The federal government owns well over a million acres of timber in Mississippi. That includes 1,200,000 acres in the the six national forests, plus land held by the Corps of Engineers, Park Service, USFWS, etc. Unlike Canada, though, federal timber sales are not used to produce a commodity for profit, but are used as a tool for forest management.
I once knew a guy that owned over 175% of the timber in MS
What a feat that must have been.
Tariffs on Canadian timber may help Mississippi landowners but they hurt home builders and new home buyers because the lumber required to build houses costs more that it would otherwise. Milton Friedman always said that if foreign countries want to subsidize our American consumers, we should be happy.
Exercise care in discussions of "timber" and "lumber". 30% of domestic residential framing is done with Canadian coniferous lumber. Douglas Fir is the expensive gold standard from the Northwest and Canada no longer avaible for framing. Other coniferous Northwest species that grow faster are used. Virtually no Southern Yellow Pine (SYP) is used for framing houses for 75 years +/-. MS timber is comprised of SYP and Hardwoods for cabinetry and furniture. SYP is often pressure treated for posts, fences, decks and the like or for pulp wood.
I framed houses and condos with Douglas Fir 50 years ago: it was strong, straight and long lasting. 2X framing lumber now is soft, weak and less stable.
It's one thing to have consumers be able to by an equal product for a cheaper price, but completely another thing to let a foreign country supplant an entire industry. Self sufficiency for portions of sectors of the economy shouldn't be given up for total dependency on other countries. This is actually a much bigger discussion than timber as we have seen with oil, semiconductors, steel and ship building just to name a few...
Our brick home was built in 1960 and framed with heart of pine lumber. I just increased our homeowner's insurance coverage to give me some peace of mind that we can rebuild a house of comparable quality if something destroys it. At least, I hope it will bring peace of mind.
Timber growers in the U.S. have long suffered from deflated prices due to massive imports of Canadian timber. It enriches Canada and kills domestic timber markets.
@11:05
Milton Friedman never once looked out for a non college educated union member. Although he protected the elite. So the fact he said this proves nothing. Selling out the working class is what he was a part of.
2:34
You may disagree with Milton Friedman but you shouldn't misstate his philosophy. This from AI"
Milton Friedman spoke and wrote repeatedly about tariffs, and one of his central arguments was that tariffs ultimately hurt ordinary working people as consumers, even when they help a specific group of workers in a protected industry.
One of his most famous lines came from a 1978 speech at Kansas State University:
"We call a tariff a protective measure. It does protect ... It protects the consumer against low prices."
Friedman's reasoning was:
• A tariff raises the price of imported goods.
• Domestic producers facing less competition can also charge higher prices.
• Working families then pay more for everyday products, reducing their real purchasing power.
In a 1970 column later archived by the Hoover Institution, Friedman argued that import restrictions "raise prices to customers and waste our resources," and that consumers are effectively forced to subsidize protected producers.
P.S. You don't have to refer to me as @11:05 since I don't hide behind the "Anonymous" label but comment under my name.
Post a Comment