Headwaters Forest Video Available

Don Staples dstaples at livingston.net
Sat Sep 6 08:49:57 EST 1997

D. Braun wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Don Staples wrote:

> >
> > 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.

I still fail to see conviction of a crime, I see a business that you
dont like, doing business in a way you dont like.  Stick to the truth
rather that the ecofreaks half truths.  Even your last statement
indicates your devious methods "IF" covers a lot factual
> > 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?

Hurwitz may have caused the collapse of an S&L, again no convictions or
serious federal actions against him.  It could also have been caused by
business through out the organization unrelated to his leadership.  And,
apparently, you have now politicized the whole thing with your
demo/repub commentary.
> > "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.

Ah, good communist thought there, sieze the sucker, for the better good
of the people, to hell with private ownership.  To hell with due process
in that the man, or the company, has not been convicted, just charged.  
> 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.

HUH?  What does any of that have to do with the Headwaters?
> > 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?

No, I as a forester, and unlike you, don't comment on somethings
conditions without actually evaluating the site.  I cannot tell you if
there are residual groves of the big timber scattered among second
growth or if there is 3000 acres of the big trees.  It remains not my
position to try and tell any one on how to manage there property,
private property particularly. 
> > 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.

Private land, lack of convictions, charges withou facts.  And now we
have the Amerind question on Headwaters, hell, bring in aliens, they may
have landed their ships there sometime in the past.
> 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.

ah, politics again. 
> (snip web page address). Your post implies that going to your web page is
> a waste of time.

You need to stop taking this shit so seriously, the whole net is not
made to your taste, or preferences, the tongue in cheek "ego stoke" is
exactly that, an ego check to see how many folks go to the post.

Lighten up.

Ego Stroke:  http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list