Thursday, May 27, 2010

"Timber Wars" - Over or What?

Seems like not much has happened on the front lines for years now. Started long before the newspapers pronounced the timber wars over , tree sitters came down (for photo ops), and talking head enviros started saying "old-growth logging is no longer the issue". Sure, there's been some tree-sits, but if you were here before the mid 2000's you know what I'm talking about.

Contrary to the rosy picture painted by the print media and the new Humboldt Redwood Company (who took over PL), everything is not cool between forest defenders and HRC. They still clear-cut, using names like "rehab" and "variable retention" to describe their "non-traditional" clear-cuts. They will also cut down trees that are 200 years old with no qualms. Wasn't alive on the year 1800? Fuck it. That leaves the Mattole and other areas vulnerable to attempts at the same b.s. that PL was doing before the bankruptcy. Clear-cut and herbicide hardwoods cuz you can't sell 'em and cut down big old conifer trees cuz you can.

Simpson hid in the shadow of PL, cutting their available Old-growth Redwood as fast as possible while the tree huggers of the era were intently focused on their competition. Then Simpson changed their name to Green Diamond. Now they and SPI continue clear-cutting with near impunity, calling 45 year old stands ripe for harvest. Bring on the fourth growth. Most people don't know that second growth is now uncommon on the 430,000 acre Green Diamond empire.

As far as I see it, the timber wars are not over, it's pretty much just a one sided fight with minimal resistance.


At 7/24/2011 08:23:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So under 200 year old trees are too old to be cut and under 45 year old trees are too young to be cut. I suppose you have and age class that is just right, or is it only OK to cut when it's replanted with pot? Do tell Goldilocks.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Search the Web at