While new rules from the Maine Forest Service aimed at ending liquidation harvesting are well-intentioned and may put a dent in the problem, they are weakened by attempting to appease everyone.

It is notable that 10 exemptions to the rules come before a listing of the rules themselves in the draft document now being circulated by the forest service. This means emphasizes who would not be subject to the rules, rather than focusing on a practice often called cut-and-run logging that strips tens of thousands of acres of trees annually.

After many contentious hearing and meetings, lawmakers two years ago defined liquidation harvesting as “the purchase of timberland followed by a harvest that removes most or all commercial value in standing timber without regard for long-term management principles and the subsequent sale or attempted re-sale of the harvested land within five years.” After Gov. John Baldacci promised to ban the practice during his campaign, momentum built to go beyond simply defining the problem. The result was the creation, by the Department of Conservation, of a large group of basically anyone interested in forestry. With the group’s input, the rules are now being shared with the public.

The rules are significant in that, for the first time, they establish standards for acceptable harvests. They also give landowners options on how they will meet the requirements. They can either harvest less than 40 percent of the volume of trees at the time a parcel is purchased or they can develop a detailed timber harvest plan in consultation with a licensed forester. A third option is to appeal to the forest service for permission to sell heavily harvested land by demonstrating economic hardship, although the requirements for approving such requests is not spelled out in the proposed rules.

These core rules are a substantial step forward, but they are weakened by allowing 10 ways to get around them. Landowners don’t have to follow the rules, for example, if they own less than 100 acres or where the parcel is conveyed due to inheritance or to a government entity exercising the power of eminent domain.

The Legislature’s Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee will have a chance to weigh in on the rules before they are slated to become effective next year. At the very least, the committee should ask that the rules’ effectiveness be reviewed within five years.

The Forest Service is also right to suggest that curbing liquidation harvesting also be attempted through financial incentives. More emphasis should be placed on changing tax and land development policies. For example, better local zoning and tax incentives could encourage development in concentrated areas rather than gobbling up forest land.

A real solution might not keep everyone happy, but it would stop a troubling practice.