This article measures welfare and distributive effects of public market interventions in forestry. These interventions represent both the demand (Jones Act shipping restrictions and minimum wage restrictions) and supply (state forest practice acts, forest incentives payments, taxes and public land management) sides of the market. The authors evaluate how well these programs promote the three standard economic justifications for market intervention: market failure, distributive justice, and stabilization. Their results indicate that, with the single exception of Timber Mart South (a government-sponsored price-reporting service), all market interventions fail to accomplish their efficiency and distributive objectives. Furthermore, the authors find that targeted regulatory programs (such as State Forest Practice Acts) have small impacts when compared to effects of taxation and public ownership.