Headwaters Forest Video Available (fwd)
dbraun at u.washington.edu
Sun Sep 7 17:16:54 EST 1997
This is a repost, as I am interested in what Staples has to say.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 12:10:36 -0700
From: "D. Braun" <dbraun at u.washington.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment, alt.org.sierra-club, sci.environment,
Subject: Re: Headwaters Forest Video Available
On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, Don Staples wrote:
> 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
Point out the "Eco-freak half-truths". I didn't post any. If you persist
in such allegations, one can assume you advocate propaganda, which you
accuse others of. This is a tad hypocritical, no?. Not very
BTW, I support a stable, profitable timber industry in the PNW. I do not
support needless destruction of the relatively little remaining
unprotected private and public primary forest (part of which meets the
definition of old-growth). The two can co-exist. Recent economic trends
support this conclusion.
The need to preserve these areas is scientifically supported, if retaining
ecosystem stability, biological diversity, carbon storage, and yet to be
discovered scientific knowledge are societal goals, to name a few. The
first two are explicitly stated as goals in state forest practice regs.
and state comstitutions (WA, at any rate), as well as in federal laws such
as the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, an National Forest
Managment Act. Carbon storage, which is several orders
of magnitude greater in unmanged vs. managed moist coniferous forest,
would be a specific management goal if the feds took global warming
seriously. Retaining pristine areas for scientific knowledge has long been
a state and federal policy; e.g., the federal system of Research Natural
Areas, and similar designations for state lands(at least in WA).
> > > 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.
I would say being investigated for costing the taxpayers billions is a
"serious federal action". We are not talking about threatening letters
from whatever burg you hail from asking for unpaid parking ticket
> > > "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.
Further down in the post, you accuse me of "politicising" the issue. Well,
the issue has been political for a long time. And now I am a "communist"?
Really. A simple solution, upholding the principle of equity --- you cost
us a billion, we get your Headwaters forest--- has nothing to do with
"communism". I am being serious about just such a resolution; I have not
been the first to suggest it, either. Under our present "democratic"
government, one's assets are siezed if one owes private or public parties
lot's of $ that one is unwilling or unable to pay. Do you disagree
with that? Why is this "communist"? I am not suggesting Hurwitz be denied
due process, as may happen in a totalitarian state, whether communist,
authoritarian, fascist, etc. I would like to see some ernest legal
action by the feds.
So, you want him to get away with his "little" rip-off?
> > 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?
Plenty. Study some U.S. history, and get back to me.
> > > 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
Hmm. So, you only believe the conditions of a particular forest are as
they are if you have actually visited it? The fact that Maxxam owns
several tracts of old-growth redwood is not in dispute by anyone---
except you, I guess. BTW, I am a scientist and forester myself-- not that
my qualifications add to the facts of this issue--- as you believe your's
> 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.
However, the public does have the right to contest potentially damaging
timber sales on private or public land. You can excercise this right if
> > > 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
I'll agree to the first two. No, no "charges without facts". Now a second
statement putting you in the propagandist's column.
> have the Amerind question on Headwaters, hell, bring in aliens, they may
> have landed their ships there sometime in the past.
"And now we have the Amerind question..."--- not a new question. Aliens?
Really? Better tell the X-Files.
> > 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.
Its always been politicised, the old-growth issue that is. It is the
scientists' job to flesh out the facts, and its the politicians' job, with
citizens input, to decide on solutions. Politicians are free to ignore
scientific evidence. What hat have you be wearing in this thread?
> > (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.
But I do take "this shit" seriously. There are several serious
issues here which I have taken a keen interest in and learned about. If
you believe that I should take your advice on anything,
your tongue fell out of your cheek long ago.
> Lighten up.
snip of website address.
More information about the Ag-forst