Sunday, July 27, 2008

PL Subsidiary Resisting Reorganization- Continues to File Old-Growth Logging Plans

After the Maxxam corporation executed a hostile takeover of Pacific Lumber in the early 1980's, Maxxam CEO Charles Hurwitz split the company into several smaller companies. Pacific Lumber (PL aka Palco) owns the town and sawmills. Scotia Pacific (Scopac) owns the land, writes logging plans and sells logs to PL. Now they're in bankruptcy court and the Judge in the case has ruled that the company will be taken over by Mendocino Redwood Company (MRC). MRC already has a highly creative name for the old PL- "Humboldt Redwood Company". PL says they are for the reorganization plan.

Now, on the eve of Mendocino Redwood Company taking control, Scopac is not cooperating. They say that MRC shouldn't be allowed to move forward with the reorganization while the Noteholders appeal on the Judges ruling is considered by an appeals court. (Sorry if this is hard to follow, can't give background on everything today.) The Noteholders, and Scopac apparently, are hoping that the appeals court will issue a stay in the case, halting the reorganization process.

More Terrible Logging Plans
Meanwhile, Scopac is continuing to file terrible logging plans. Notably two in Bear River where the company is proposing to clear-cut hundreds of acres of Douglas Fir and Tanoaks. These forests contain numerous remnant, or "residual", oldgrowth trees. These trees are up to 300 years old according to Scopac foresters.

Another logging plan in the heavily clearcut and now flood-prone Elk River was approved three days ago. It proposes clearcutting over 100 acres of second growth Redwood. Some of these trees are 90 years old according to Scopac. After seeing the forest first hand, this blogger estimates that some of the trees are 100 years old or more. One of the patches to be clear-cut is the site of a childrens archery range and contains numerous targets, a snack stand and picnic tables. It's a sign of the times when the company is so desperate that they are logging their own recreational areas. Or maybe, as the forester who wrote the plan said, it was just what a computer model told them to do. Either way, shame on you.

MRC says they will change clearcut logging plans and old-growth logging plans into something a little more acceptable. Will MRC take the reigns at PL before these plans are logged? And if they do will they actually halt the logging? Or will forest defenders have to take to the tree's to protect our forests from plunder? Stay tuned...

Technical info:
New Bear River Logging Plan #'s
1-08-105 "Holy Oak" and 1-08-114 "Brushy Monument"


At 7/28/2008 05:06:00 AM, Blogger Stephen said...

MRC is screwing Humboldt County royally and you guys are for it! You don't care about Humboldt workers, never have, never will, all you care about is parading yourselves in the news with utterly ecologically inconsequential acts of "saving" old growth. If you were ever serious about saving old growth you would have helped Bear River's Heartlands Project buy out Palco a long time ago, 1996, when there were lot's more old growth that Bear River's timber management plan would have protected forever as sacred ground.

Now you go for the rich family's new acquisition of Humboldt redwoods, most which will find their way to Ukiah's mill as MRC tries to capture the redwood property they seek to create a commercial redwood monopoly in the world. Meanwhile they cut a 100 more jobs and you want them here. Why? So you can say you've "saved" a few token old growth trees? BS is what I say. Next time a PL goes under you might want to help the people who actually can accomplish something instead 20 years of grandstanding in trees with old growth falling at alarming rates all through those 20 years.

At 7/28/2008 12:06:00 PM, Blogger John Doe #86 said...

You are making things up again stephen. I've never said I was for MRC and I wasn't here until after 1996.

At 7/30/2008 03:57:00 AM, Blogger Stephen said...

Sorry, I make blanket statements about "you guys" because I honestly can't tell one batch of you guys from another. You all share the same m.o. and ideology, do the same thing, tree-sit, for the same reasons. And seems to me Sparky and I did do some outreach after 1996 to the whole enviro community, Wayne too, we all three showed up at Headwaters rallies, only to be ignored, Julia Butterfly refused to help the Tribe, giving me the line that ndns just had "move beyond past hurts" and Sparky a form letter after he hit on her for a date I think :)

Anyway, I'm in a new place these days social change-wise. Got the Call and gotta follow it because I found out who and what God is. Pretty amazing stuff if your into spiritual reality underlying our material world. I got gnosis of God finally after 29 years of moving up Jacob's Ladder bit by bit with spiritual visions and revelations coming to me over the years. NCJ did a story on one of my bigger visions that took me to Israel.

"Climax" is "ladder in Greek. If you want to know about Climax Christianity, the highest form of Christianity on earth, the one that makes everything Jesus say crystal clear, even the hard texts like in the Gospel of Thomas I can tell you something things that will save your life forever.

At 7/30/2008 06:38:00 AM, Anonymous Bolithio said...

oh god...

A few things:

A 300y old DF tree is not merchantable. At least not in coastal California. In fact from what I understand that is a very old tree for coastal DF - and could be a bit over estimated. Either way - if is likely to remain on the landscape.

MRC will likely carry about any approved THPs. Why wouldn't they? I think it would be a waste of money and resources not to. Thats too bad about the park - however I think the Co. is not worried about shame at this point.

With everything you have learned - would you rather have a MAXXAM controlled Scopac - or MRC in control?

I realize that this a lesser of two evils in your eyes...but still...

At 7/30/2008 09:16:00 AM, Blogger John Doe #86 said...

If 300 year old Douglas Fir are not merchantable why did PL cut so many in the Mattole? Some might have a lot of decay but not all. The "brushy monument" plan calls for clearcutting. If a section of the tree is to rotten they will just leave it on the ground to burn, even if it;s most of the tree.

If MRC is serious about doing better than PL and resolving long standing conflicts will alter or discontinue the plans that are cause for conflict, such as those that call for old-growth logging and even aged management (i.e. clear-cutting).

I'm very glad Maxxam is gone but that doesn't mean I'm just going to stop forest defense activities. It's the on-the ground impact of logging that counts, regardless of the owner of a logging company. It really doesn't matter who'sbehind the clear-cutting of old-growth, residual or not.

MRC has a good chance to show that they are different.

Steven: Thanks for clarifying.

At 7/30/2008 09:16:00 AM, Blogger John Doe #86 said...

Stephen, that is.

At 7/30/2008 06:57:00 PM, Blogger John Doe #86 said...

I'm retracting the following comment, "It really doesn't matter who's behind the clear-cutting of old-growth, residual or not."

It does matter, but my point is that if clear-cutting and old-growth logging is still ocurring then the attack is not over from an ecological perspective.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Search the Web at