Wednesday, December 05, 2007

TPZ Dilemma

Unanswered questions I have regarding the whole TPZ thing. (I have my opinions on these but can't yet prove that they're true.)

1. Who takes better care of the environment, Industrial Timber Companies or smaller landowners?

2. Would the new rules proposed by the Healthy Humboldt coalition create a situation where Industrial Timber Companies are more likely to buy up timberlands and deforest them?

3. Where are the added incentives here to sustainably manage timber? I see a lot of sticks but no carrots.

4. Currently, the designation of "Industrial" or "Non-industrial" is based solely on the landowner. I have seen nothing proposed to indicate that that will change. So if Maxxam/Pacific Lumber sells 160 acre parcels (for $5 mil.) to non-industrial TPZ owners then the land is no longer "Industrial TPZ" and the new owner can proceed accordingly. How is this fixing the situation to prevent Maxxam/PLs reorganization plan?

I want non-industrial TPZ owners (and residents) to be able to support themselves through sustainable forestry. That includes new owners that can only afford land that doesn't already have a structure on it. The price for a THP continues to rise while the value of the wood does not. In fact it has dropped. A high price on logging equals more trees logged to pay for the logging plan itself. I think what we need to do is create a situation where the cost of logging plan preparation is reduced in return for less trees cut.

Search the Web at