save the trees! - headwaters forest pic

Joseph Zorzin redoak at
Wed Nov 18 04:30:00 EST 1998

Larry Harrell wrote:
> Don Baccus <dhogaza at> wrote in article
> <3651d3fc.0 at>...
> > In article <72qad2$3eu$1 at>,
> > Tim Martin <tmartin at> wrote:
> >
> > >Is this forest privately owned or on public land?
> >
> > Privately owned.  This is the second time the state's declined to
> > renew their license, the first time things were resolved, supposedly,
> > but the company apparently just ignored the terms.  I don't have the
> > specific list of violations in front of me, but they included things
> > like operating heavy equipment in streams and other precluded activities.
> >
> > The CA forestry dept (or whatever they call the governmental agency
> > in charge down there) said that the decision to not renew was only
> > taken after a stream of warnings which were apparently ignored by the
> > company.
> > --
> Many, many times what happens is that a timber company does not monitor
> their contractors. CDF doesn't do much monitoring either and the logger is
> free to cut corners to help his bottom line. The same thing happens with
> USFS sales. The bid winner usually has lower paid personnel or rock bottom
> contractors. Lumber companies like Sierra Pacific Industries can write
> their own tickets for loggers and monitor them only when the USFS shuts
> down the log hauling. These types of contractor regularly have un-monitored
> newbies running equipment that can permanently damage parts of our forests.

So, from what you say, it seems only reasonable that some
"eco-terrorists" go out and monitor the jobs themselves, seeing that
those with the RESPONSIBILITY don't do it. This overcomes the absurd
objection based on PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, at least on the "moral

> The problems in both cases are that our government doesn't do enough
> monitoring with qualified people. There is a revolving door for Harvest
> Inspectors in the USFS and CDF just doesn't have enough people to visit
> each work site regularly. I'm sure that other states and BLM are in the
> same boat.

In my state of Mass. where there is no national forest land, I and some
others are pushing hard so that ALL logging is overseen by a qualified
Licensed Forester, who will have FULL RESPONSIBILITY. If they screw up,
they lose their license.

Part of the problem is that foresters who actually step foot in the
woods are considered the "low lifes" of the profession. We've got to
turn this perception around, so that the foresters who DON'T step foot
in the woods become the low life foresters.

No doubt there is also some conspiracy here where not enough manpower is
available to oversee logging. Maybe the loggers don't want it, and they
TELL their favorite corrupt politicians.

> Only when logging is strictly scrutinized during and after harvest, should
> it be allowed to continue. Follow the rules or shut em down. I could go to
> nearly any USFS timber sale and find non-compliances and breachable
> offenses in the timber sale contract.

The head honchos of the state and the USFS should be crucified over
this. No &^%$# excuses should be tolerated. They ARE responsible.

> A bitter ex-USFS Harvest Inspector can be a VERY dangerous person to the
> USFS' timber programs. My experience is available, for a price, for
> eco-groups wanting hard evidence against the USFS. I know the timber sale
> contract through and through and have first hand experience in applying EA
> rules and guidelines.

And while the government claims it has to cut costs, by not having
enough inspectors, it can continue to build unneeded weapons systems by
the billions of dollars worth in the home territories of important

> --
>        Larry Harrell Fotoware
> Making software out of Fotos for over five years now
> New!  Downloadable demo available at
> Check out my web site at

Joe Zorzin, Professional Mud Forester
z-mail, list server, for the Massachusetts forestry revolution of '98
read about it at

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list