Defending Redwood Harvests

Defending Redwood Harvests

Concerning “More on the Redwood Boycott” in your May issue (EBN

Vol. 6, No. 5), I would like to address several inconsistencies in Mr. Platt’s observations.

The Pacific Lumber Company has been in continuous operation on the same contiguous timberland in Humboldt County, California for the last 128 years. Although ownership of the company has changed over the years several times, the “business” of the company has not.

We harvest quality timber and we produce quality lumber. We also maintain quality stewardship of some of the most productive timberland anywhere, plant seven trees for every one harvested, and have a well-stocked timber inventory that is a matter of record. We have harvested far less old-growth timber under the current ownership (since 1985) than at any other comparable period in our history.

In regards to his observations regarding lumber grades, suffice it to say that quality lumber comes from quality forest management operations. If Greenpeace is setting lower standards for building materials, I suggest that the marketplace will decide what is acceptable. However, it is a well-established fact that the market demands quality, seeks it out, and yes, pays for it.

Relevant to independent certification of our logging practices, I believe it is extremely important for Mr. Platt to know that the existing regulation and supervision of timber harvesting in the State of California is unparalleled anywhere else on the globe. It may be of some interest also that our land is zoned “TPZ” by the State of California. That means as a “timber production zone”—that is our mandate. No other use is allowed. Some recognition of this would be a healthy start for the “environmental community.”

I also challenge Mr. Platt’s statement that he and his coalition “aren’t boycotting Pacific Lumber Company.” It would appear to me that his entire campaign regarding old-growth lumber is aimed solely at us. After 10 years of negotiation, the Headwaters Forest is saved. Mr. Platt and his coalition have moved the goal posts once again with their 60,000-acre diatribe and are trying to derail this agreement. Their insatiable appetite for private property and their seeming ignorance of the rights inherent in it are appalling.

What about all the old-growth lumber that is produced from other tree species: cedar, pine, fir, oak, and the like? What effort is evident to address these much larger concerns relative to the various rates of harvest?

Given that 1996 estimated consumption of softwood lumber in North America is somewhere in the 50 billion foot range, total California Redwood Association industry shipments of 650 million feet seem to pale by comparison. Especially so when old growth is only a small percentage of them.

I suggest that Mr. Platt will find that the consumer already knows “about the link between old-growth logging and premium lumber goods.” The consumer is the market, and the market has established that quality products command a premium. This is true of all species of lumber and generally applies to everything that is bought and sold. It is called capitalism.

William S. Riegel

Vice-President, Sales/Marketing

The Pacific Lumber Company

Scotia, California