Assessment of Stumpage Payment Methods Used by State and County Timber Sale Programs in the United States

As a part of a timber sale, sellers generally specify when and how the buyer will pay for the timber. A mail questionnaire was used to evaluate how state agencies within the United States and county timber sale programs within the Lake States collect payment for stumpage sold through their timber sa...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of forestry 2017-11, Vol.115 (6), p.513-521
Hauptverfasser: Reep, Nicholas D, Blinn, Charles R, Kilgore, Michael A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 521
container_issue 6
container_start_page 513
container_title Journal of forestry
container_volume 115
creator Reep, Nicholas D
Blinn, Charles R
Kilgore, Michael A
description As a part of a timber sale, sellers generally specify when and how the buyer will pay for the timber. A mail questionnaire was used to evaluate how state agencies within the United States and county timber sale programs within the Lake States collect payment for stumpage sold through their timber sale programs. Of particular importance were the perceptions of timber sale program administrators about the advantages and disadvantages of the two most common stumpage payment methods: scale (also called pay-as-cut) and lump sum (also called sold-on-appraised-volume). Timber sale programs with relatively little timber sale activity have a tendency to use a single stumpage payment method, whereas programs with robust timber sale activity were more likely to use both methods. Program administrators perceive greater differences in the administrative and financial aspects of the two stumpage payment methods and few differences with respect to their ecological effects.
doi_str_mv 10.5849/JOF-20l6-100R2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1967048077</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1967048077</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_19670480773</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNi0trwkAURodSwVTdur7Q9bR3JjGPZRGlCEXxsZaRXDWSzNi5k0X-vUH6A7r64HznCDFV-DHLk-JztV5KjXUqFeJWv4hIFXEu4yxJX0WEqLVUGtVQvDHfEDFP4yQS1RczMTdkA7gz7ELb3M2FYGO6J_uhcHUlw4GphFPXCyYQGFvC3LU2dLCvmhN52Jm6j7y7eNMwVBbCleBgq9Bnz4bHYnA2NdPkb0fifbnYz7_l3bvfljgcb671tr-OqkgzTHLMsvh_1gNDaE3D</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1967048077</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessment of Stumpage Payment Methods Used by State and County Timber Sale Programs in the United States</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Reep, Nicholas D ; Blinn, Charles R ; Kilgore, Michael A</creator><creatorcontrib>Reep, Nicholas D ; Blinn, Charles R ; Kilgore, Michael A</creatorcontrib><description>As a part of a timber sale, sellers generally specify when and how the buyer will pay for the timber. A mail questionnaire was used to evaluate how state agencies within the United States and county timber sale programs within the Lake States collect payment for stumpage sold through their timber sale programs. Of particular importance were the perceptions of timber sale program administrators about the advantages and disadvantages of the two most common stumpage payment methods: scale (also called pay-as-cut) and lump sum (also called sold-on-appraised-volume). Timber sale programs with relatively little timber sale activity have a tendency to use a single stumpage payment method, whereas programs with robust timber sale activity were more likely to use both methods. Program administrators perceive greater differences in the administrative and financial aspects of the two stumpage payment methods and few differences with respect to their ecological effects.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-1201</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-3746</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5849/JOF-20l6-100R2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bethesda: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Costs ; Ecological effects ; Efficiency ; Forests ; Harvest ; Lump sum ; Methods ; Prices ; Sales ; Timber ; Timber industry ; Timberlands</subject><ispartof>Journal of forestry, 2017-11, Vol.115 (6), p.513-521</ispartof><rights>Copyright Society of American Foresters Nov 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Reep, Nicholas D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blinn, Charles R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kilgore, Michael A</creatorcontrib><title>Assessment of Stumpage Payment Methods Used by State and County Timber Sale Programs in the United States</title><title>Journal of forestry</title><description>As a part of a timber sale, sellers generally specify when and how the buyer will pay for the timber. A mail questionnaire was used to evaluate how state agencies within the United States and county timber sale programs within the Lake States collect payment for stumpage sold through their timber sale programs. Of particular importance were the perceptions of timber sale program administrators about the advantages and disadvantages of the two most common stumpage payment methods: scale (also called pay-as-cut) and lump sum (also called sold-on-appraised-volume). Timber sale programs with relatively little timber sale activity have a tendency to use a single stumpage payment method, whereas programs with robust timber sale activity were more likely to use both methods. Program administrators perceive greater differences in the administrative and financial aspects of the two stumpage payment methods and few differences with respect to their ecological effects.</description><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Ecological effects</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Harvest</subject><subject>Lump sum</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Prices</subject><subject>Sales</subject><subject>Timber</subject><subject>Timber industry</subject><subject>Timberlands</subject><issn>0022-1201</issn><issn>1938-3746</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNi0trwkAURodSwVTdur7Q9bR3JjGPZRGlCEXxsZaRXDWSzNi5k0X-vUH6A7r64HznCDFV-DHLk-JztV5KjXUqFeJWv4hIFXEu4yxJX0WEqLVUGtVQvDHfEDFP4yQS1RczMTdkA7gz7ELb3M2FYGO6J_uhcHUlw4GphFPXCyYQGFvC3LU2dLCvmhN52Jm6j7y7eNMwVBbCleBgq9Bnz4bHYnA2NdPkb0fifbnYz7_l3bvfljgcb671tr-OqkgzTHLMsvh_1gNDaE3D</recordid><startdate>20171101</startdate><enddate>20171101</enddate><creator>Reep, Nicholas D</creator><creator>Blinn, Charles R</creator><creator>Kilgore, Michael A</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>U9A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171101</creationdate><title>Assessment of Stumpage Payment Methods Used by State and County Timber Sale Programs in the United States</title><author>Reep, Nicholas D ; Blinn, Charles R ; Kilgore, Michael A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_19670480773</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Ecological effects</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Harvest</topic><topic>Lump sum</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Prices</topic><topic>Sales</topic><topic>Timber</topic><topic>Timber industry</topic><topic>Timberlands</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Reep, Nicholas D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blinn, Charles R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kilgore, Michael A</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career &amp; Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of forestry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Reep, Nicholas D</au><au>Blinn, Charles R</au><au>Kilgore, Michael A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessment of Stumpage Payment Methods Used by State and County Timber Sale Programs in the United States</atitle><jtitle>Journal of forestry</jtitle><date>2017-11-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>115</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>513</spage><epage>521</epage><pages>513-521</pages><issn>0022-1201</issn><eissn>1938-3746</eissn><abstract>As a part of a timber sale, sellers generally specify when and how the buyer will pay for the timber. A mail questionnaire was used to evaluate how state agencies within the United States and county timber sale programs within the Lake States collect payment for stumpage sold through their timber sale programs. Of particular importance were the perceptions of timber sale program administrators about the advantages and disadvantages of the two most common stumpage payment methods: scale (also called pay-as-cut) and lump sum (also called sold-on-appraised-volume). Timber sale programs with relatively little timber sale activity have a tendency to use a single stumpage payment method, whereas programs with robust timber sale activity were more likely to use both methods. Program administrators perceive greater differences in the administrative and financial aspects of the two stumpage payment methods and few differences with respect to their ecological effects.</abstract><cop>Bethesda</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.5849/JOF-20l6-100R2</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-1201
ispartof Journal of forestry, 2017-11, Vol.115 (6), p.513-521
issn 0022-1201
1938-3746
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1967048077
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)
subjects Costs
Ecological effects
Efficiency
Forests
Harvest
Lump sum
Methods
Prices
Sales
Timber
Timber industry
Timberlands
title Assessment of Stumpage Payment Methods Used by State and County Timber Sale Programs in the United States
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T10%3A22%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment%20of%20Stumpage%20Payment%20Methods%20Used%20by%20State%20and%20County%20Timber%20Sale%20Programs%20in%20the%20United%20States&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20forestry&rft.au=Reep,%20Nicholas%20D&rft.date=2017-11-01&rft.volume=115&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=513&rft.epage=521&rft.pages=513-521&rft.issn=0022-1201&rft.eissn=1938-3746&rft_id=info:doi/10.5849/JOF-20l6-100R2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E1967048077%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1967048077&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true