Headwaters Forest Video Available

Don Staples dstaples at livingston.net
Mon Sep 8 10:27:58 EST 1997


D. Braun wrote:
> 
> Staples bandies about the terms: communists, EcoFreaks, and PRC(Peoples
> Republic of California), as if that adds anything to the factual basis of
> the discussion. This alone sends up the warning flag that we have an
> angry guy, who cares little for calm rational argument, but who enjoys
> lightweight name calling. Then, he repeatedly brings in his qualifications
> as a forester.  You can't have it both ways--- what loses out is Staple's
> scientific integrity. This is my last response to Staple's "arguments".

Nope, not angry.  You read your own emotions into posts, not mine.  The
whole part of being a forester is based on the fact that to argue the
timber, site, or management requires observation of the site.  I though
I made that clear.
> 
>
> > So the effort is to propagandize the trial, and hope to gain access to
> > the jury through the media.  Keen thinking.
> 
> ??! No, this fact was posted in response to your claim that Hurwitz hasn't
> done anything wrong.

My claim that Hurwitz has not been convicted, justed charged.  The
referenced web site offering a $25,000 reward for information to his
arrest and conviction, combined with the statement "Join the Posse" 
indicates that your bunch (I'll leave out ecofreak, seems to irratate
you) doesn't have the wherewithall for a conviction, still fising.

> 
> Propaganda? Not from me.  Maxxam extended roads into Marbled Murrelet and
> Northern Spotted Owl habitat (for miles---it was no accident) without
> doing the proper surveys, or designating set-asides required by the
> Endangered Species Act. A judge intervened, and he was limited to salvage
> logging dead trees; this order was violated, and a judge intervened again,
> and work was stopped, at least temporarily. These events---examples of
> breaking the law---occurred, although I may have a few facts muddled, as
> I haven't rechecked since I read about these events in the newspaper.
> Now, suppose one could argue that Hurwitz is not responsible for the
> day to day operations of his company; I believe he is responsible for
> patterns of law breaking conduct.  There is that Hurwitz webpage that can
> be checked out, as well as other sources for those so inclined.
> 
> I never stated he was a criminal, as you allege. That may yet be
> his status in regards to the final outcome of the S&L
> investigation. Propaganda strike three, for you. In my last post on the
> thread, I did say: "If Hurwitz isn't a corporate raider, law-breaker,
> rip-off artist, and generally not-nice person, than no one is."  Well, I
> may have went too far; if he has kids, he probably loves them. Mostly not
> nice person?


You never stated he was a criminal? yet you say "law breaker".  Normally
a law breaker needs to be convicted to be a law breaker, other wise,
what is his crime?

> 
> At about this point, I lost interest in talking to Staples.
> I am reposting my last, lengthy reply, which has gone unanswered by
> Staples for several days. I do have some additional comments below.

Thanks, saves band width.
> 
>
> I guess you don't read any of the scientific literature on forest
> management or forest ecology.  Is this because it would be a waste of time
> for you, because you haven't personally seen all those scientists' study
> sites?
> 

Yep, I do.  But still hold commentary until observed.  I have not, and
will never, commented on the validity of the management on the
Headwaters, the nature of the stand, or the violation of environmental
law in the PRC (which, by the way, I use part of their requirments in my
sales contracts).  My whole conversation is based on private ownership
of land.


> > private.  The call of "virgin" timber is a debate I would not get into,
> 
> Why not? The Society of American Foresters issued their interim definition
> more than 10 years ago. The Wilderness Society used it to show that the
> USFS was exagerating the acreage of old-growth in the PNW by about 100%
> The argument that old-growth can't be defined (as well as, curiously, we
> will never run out) are arguments with lots of holes, put forward by those
> interests that wish to log the last of the publically owned old-growth in
> the U.S. I would think that you indeed have a position on the old growth
> issue, as shown by your comments.

I do have a position on the old growth on public land.  Keep it under
long term management for timber production.  Long term could be 500
years.  I personally have been involved with long term management of old
growth stands where management ages ran from 125 to 500 years.  Long
term mangement allows for diversity in use.  If there is indeed 5 or 10
percent of the original virgin timber left in the Continental US, manage
it for the long run.  And logging is part of management.
> 
>  
> 
> They would be miserable little trees, which would die off soon enough, as
> grasslands don't have enough precipitation to support forests--- that's
> why they are grasslands.

Oh?  There was a state park in Ohio that drew the ire of the ecofreaks
for wanting to log the "virgin" timber of the land.  As it turned out,
the land had been planted some 50 - 60 years ago as a private tract and
then  had been transfered to the state as a gift from the family of the
original owner. The term "virgin timber" is weak.  Old growth is better,
but old growth can be managed timber. 

 Old-Growth in the PNW has a structural definition
> (SAF); it occurs on a subset of what primary forest (never logged) there
> is here.  Primary forest would include never-logged forest that has
> burned or blown down recently, as well as forest that has gone through
> succession subject to more small scale disturbances, such as individual or
> small group tree fall, suppression, or root-rot mortality. Primary forest
> does not include clear-cuts; on the other hand, old-growth could
> theoretically re-grown on clear cuts, or develop in primary forest after
> sufficient time from a stand replacing natural disturbance.

> Clear?

Yep, sounds like management is acceptable to all of the definitions
offered.  What also is clear is that your agenda doesn't include
management, just preservation.  The difference you would only accept
"natural causes" while I accept logging. 
.
> 
> > > Once again, for those interested in the history of Charles Hurwitz,
> > > there is a page that details his corporate history -- and offers a
> > > reward for information leading to his conviction. The URL is
> > > http://www.jailhurwitz.com
> >
> > Ah, a return to the vigilantism of the old west!  Circle the wagons,
> > Hurwitz, the savages are surrounding you!
> 
> ?! Dissemination of factual information for the purpose of an equitable
> settlement to the Maxxam/Headwaters saga is vigilantism? Sounds like
> democracy, and application of the rule of law to me.

Factual information?  A picture of Hurwitz with a set of cell bars
superemposed over it?  Join the Possie comment beneath?  Propaganda.
> 
>         Dave Braun
> 
>         I won't be back.

So?

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



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list