Headwaters Forest Video Available

D. Braun dbraun at u.washington.edu
Fri Sep 5 19:09:06 EST 1997




On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Don Staples wrote:

> catherine yronwode wrote:
> > 
> 
> > Those issues, Mark, are
> > 
> > 1) How shall we engage in sustainable and responsible logging in the
> > face of pressure from a corporate raider such as Charles Hurwitz?  and
> > 
> > 2) How much virgin redwood forest land in Humboldt County can be set
> > aside as a wilderness preserve and at what cost to the public?
> > 
> 
> Indeed those are the issues.  And the answer to the questions raised by
> these issues depend on who you are: in the private secter, an eco-freak,
> or federal.  

These are two important issues; however, an answer can be reached by
the facts alone, not by your imposed messenger classification. Below, you
exhibit scant understanding of the underlying facts, and instead
feel free to label those you disagree with as "eco-freaks", in an attempt
to strengthen your weak arguments. So be it. What happens to the
fact-based solution then depends on who gets to make the decision---in our
imperfect democracy, us, in competition with powerful fictitious "persons"
such as Maxxam.

> 
> 1)  To this date, you and EF!'s have failed to make any connection to
> the Headwaters and to a corporate raider.  You talk alot about it, but

?! Maxxam, headed by Hurwitz, bought the holdings of Pacific Lumber, of
which Headwaters is part, using questionable finances (junkbonds?-- maybe
someone could fill in those facts).  What is undisputed is that Hurwitz'
activities (whether it was this particular sale, or another, I'm not sure
about) led to the failure of a S&L, costing the taxpayers several
billion $. What is also undisputed is the change in business practices by
Pacific Lumber after sale to Maxxam---these include rapid
liquidation of old-growth, the breaking of CA state and federal laws in
the process, and even court orders.  If Hurwitz isn't a corporate raider,
law-breaker, rip-off artist, and generally not-nice person than no one is. 

> it seems immaterial since it is still in PRIVATE ownership.  that
> ownership is headed by an individual who you declare a coorporate raider
> in order to demean his ownership, and somehow clear the field for 

No, its simply a fact.  One can debate whether corporate raiding is good
or bad; however, Hurwitz also caused the collapse of an S&L due to his 
"raiding", costing us all billions of $. The Feds are still looking in to
it, I believe, but don't hold your breath---- Hurwitz was sighted at a
demo fund raiser, after the S&L failure, and after the Headwaters fight
was well under way.  Where is the Repub-led fund-raising witch-hunt when
you need it?

> "takeover" by some unknow entity other than yourself, that can afford
> the price.
> 

Yea sure.  IMHO, the feds should simply sieze Pacific Lumber's(Maxxam's) 
property and add the pristine acreage to Redwoods National
Park, to pay us all back for the bailout (robbery of our tax $) to fix the
S&L he busted. Sounds fair to me. The second-growth holdings could be
managed for timber, under National Forest ownership, keeping some
timber-dependent jobs around, and returning some cash to the treasury.

BTW, timber-dependent jobs have NOT declined significantly in CA or the
PNW due to creating Federal Wilderness or National Parks;
rather, the significant factors have been mechanization,  
modernization, and old-growth liquidation; i.e., progress as industry
defines it. In addition, much of the overall job growth in CA, OR, and WA
is partly dependent on the environmental quality represented by pristine
areas. Many industries move here because the environmental quality
attracts top workers.  This fact is typically left out of timber jobs
analysis in connection to preservation vs. logging, but does not make
it go away. The Wildernesss Society has published some eye-opening reports
on these subjects, based on easily obtained data (which is extensively
referenced). Go read them.  

If you want to go back a mere 150 years, there is the outright fraud used
under the Homestead Act by the budding timber barrons in the area to
ammass vast acreages of valuable timber. Oh, and CA also had a bounty
on murdered Natives for awhile. More historical facts.

> 2) Headwaters may be virgin, don't know, but, it has been in  private

So, do you believe that we can grow 300 ft. tall, 15 ft. diameter trees in
100 years?

> ownership for over 100 years.  If you want to set the Headwaters aside
> fro a wilderness preserve, please feel free to purchase this private
> tract, and do with it as you will.  That way, it wont cost the public
> anything.

Letting Hurwitz keep it is costing us plenty; buying Headwaters would rob
us twice, three times if you count the fraud which took it from the public
domain, four times if you include the aboriginal owners.

Another little-known fact--most of the redwoods acreage that has been
preserved has been bought with private donations. And: Reagan, as governor
of CA in the 60's, demonized supporters of a redwoods preservation as
"commies", and did everything he could to prevent preservation, and speed
unimpeded logging. Bastard.

		Dave Braun
 
(snip web page address). Your post implies that going to your web page is
a waste of time.




More information about the Ag-forst mailing list