Posted on 01/28/2007 1:26:37 PM PST by calcowgirl
Fate of a 200,000-acre swath owned by Pacific Lumber is in doubt
SACRAMENTO — The Schwarzenegger administration on Friday sided firmly with environmentalists in a potential legal battle with Pacific Lumber Company over a huge swath of ancient redwoods in Humboldt County that could be jeopardized by the company's financial troubles.
The fate of a 200,000-acre swath of redwoods owned by Pacific Lumber was thrown into doubt last week when the company filed for bankruptcy in Texas. In 1999, the state and federal governments spent $480 million combined to buy 7,400 acres of the company's redwoods, now part of Headwaters Forest Reserve, and establish a "habitat conservation" plan to protect endangered species on 200,000 acres of the company's land.
Environmentalists and Democrats worry that the company will try to escape from that 50-year deal during bankruptcy proceedings — a maneuver that would boost the timber company's value. On Friday, the Schwarzenegger administration weighed in, declaring that the state will use every possible means to protect the redwoods.
The governor's stance ensures that Pacific Lumber will face a tough legal battle if it tries to extricate itself from the redwoods agreement.
"We intend to be dogged and unyielding in our efforts to protect California's interests and hold (Pacific Lumber) to all of its obligations," Mike Chrisman, secretary of the state Resources Agency, wrote in a letter to the Democratic leader of the state Senate, Don Perata of Oakland.
Pacific Lumber spokeswoman Andrea Arnot said the company to date has not asked the bankruptcy court for any changes to the Headwaters agreement, which she called the "most stringent environmental standards" ever placed on timber harvesting.
When asked whether the company might seek such alterations to the deal at some point during bankruptcy proceedings, Arnot said, "You're asking me to speculate how a legal proceeding will go. I can't speculate."
Environmentalists appreciated Schwarzenegger's help in what could be a protracted legal battle. "Taxpayers made a significant investment in these environmental protections," the Sierra Club's Paul Mason said, "so it's very welcome to see the state will be taking all possible steps to ensure those commitments are honored."
Schwarzenegger's opposition isn't the only obstacle the logging company would face if it tries to nullify the redwoods agreement. The deal's requirements were attached to the deeds of Pacific Lumber's land to ensure that new owners would be bound to the same rules if Pacific Lumber ceased to exist, said former state Senator Byron Sher, D-Palo Alto.
In filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Pacific Lumber blamed what it called overly strict state water regulations — rules separate from those contained in the redwoods agreement — for unfairly squeezing logging profits. That led some observers to wonder whether the company will try to get out of the deal it had signed.
The 200,000 acres of Humboldt County forests at issue is roughly seven times the size of San Francisco.
Uhh, environmentalists do a lot of stupid things, but based on the information here, I'm not against them in this case. The redwoods are a national treasure, one of the most beautiful places in the world, and protecting them seems to be a perfectly sensible thing to do.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever driven the full length of 101 from Ukiah to the Oregon border?
I believe that California and the federal government should share in the cost. I hate taxes, but if there is anything worth paying for, it's these magnificent forests. When walking among these trees, it's the closest thing to heaven that you can imagine.
And I'm sorry, but guess what..YOU are going to help pay to save these magnificent forests. And I am not an environmentalist freak. I am a staunch conservative, and I am right on this issue. I win and you lose.
How much of the Redwoods have you seen? If the stretch in Humboldt County were really 5 percent of the original, the people of Kansas City would have been up to their asses in redwoods.
And I'm sorry, but guess what..YOU are going to help pay to save these magnificent forests. And I am not an environmentalist freak. I am a staunch conservative, and I am right on this issue. I win and you lose.
________________________________________________________
Wow. You are one scary individual. Your mindset is what gives support to totalitarian regimes. Heil Arnold eh comrade?
I spend much of my time along the Eel River, near Ferndale on one side, and Lolita on the other. I have been to Kansas City. When are they going to bulldoze it and do it right? It seems like a good candidate for renewal, or maybe just abandonment.
Ja. Alle wir sollten unseren Führer, Arnold befolgen. Dann alle erhalten wir entlang. Danke.
What about the fact that Pacific Lumber agreed to the plan as part of a $480 million deal. This is contract law.
Isn't that the area with lots of redwoods? ;-) That might be why they call it the Redwood Highway, huh? It's been a few years, but I've driven the leg between Arcata and Ukiah. I haven't driven the portion north of there.
Hmmm. Now, what does that remind me of? Oh yeah: " We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton
That belief is more communist than conservative.
The tract everyone’s been fighting over for 20-old years is a fairly small amount.
The biggest reason that there’s been so much fighting over it is because it’s the closest virgin forest to Eureka which desperately needs the tourism dollars to survive.
Your position defies your conclusion.
So why can't they harvest trees that are blown down?? Why do we have to let burned forests rot.
There is such a thing as Forest Management which the Enviroterrorists will not allow.
Pray for W and Our Troops
How do you know this is not second growth forest? Seems this is another Spotted Owl boondoggle to protect habitat. If the lieyers want to make laws that strangle mills than they should be ready to pony up when mills file bankruptcy.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Unlike thick forests that you see almost everywhere else in the country, redwood stands are fairly sparse of undergrowth: you basically only have redwoods, ferns, clovers and moss. The redwoods are too oppressive for much anything else to survive.
When a tree comes down, its bio mass is re-introduced to the soil and fertilizes the trees around it….the ferns, clovers and moss can’t do that.
Do you have any idea how many centuries it takes for a Redwood to biomass? Good grief there is more from falling leaves in second growth than ever come from the wood out of the tree.
Do you know the number one cause of deforestation worldwide?
Pray for W and Our Troops
I just did read through some statistics from the Forest Service.
http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc241.pdf
The inventory of Redwoods has steadily grown since 1970. There are estimated to be 121 million redwoods in the country, all in the west, covering approx 921,000 acres. That number is up from about 95 million in 1970. The ownership (in acres) is as follows:
- National Forest............. 11,000
- Other Public Lands....... 259,000
- Non Industrial Private... 269,000
- Forest Industry............. 394,000
One might ask, what is the ideal redwood-per-capita ratio? Will the "conservationists" only be happy when *all* of the redwoods are "protected"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.