… relatively speaking.
Of all the position statements filed by politicos in the Pacific Lumber bankruptcy — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and now Rep. Mike Thompson — Thompson’s, submitted on Friday, comes closest to actually taking a position on the case.
As with all political communications, you have to read between the lines. Thompson lists five principles he believes should guide the reorganization of the bankrupt company. The first three are boilerplate. Like those who came before him, Thompson believes that any new Pacific Lumber Co. should keep the mill open, maintain the company’s forests as working timberland and abide by the terms imposed on the company as part of the 1999 federal/state buyout of the Headwaters Forest.
But in the last two points to Corpus Christi Federal Bankruptcy Judge Richard S. Schmidt, Thompson goes far beyond what his predecessors had to say:
4) Ensure that the timberlands and mill are owned and operated by an entity(ies) with a proven track record utilizing sustainable management of California’s redwood forests and with full knowledge and experience in the operation of a mill;
5) Limit or restrict the reliance on the expenditure of additional public funds for any plan that is finally adopted.
On the surface, this is milquetoast. But Point No. 4, with its implied emphasis on the word “sustainable,” is an obvious dig at Maxxam and probably a tilt toward a rival Pacific Lumber Co. aspirant, the Mendocino Redwood Company. But it’s Point No. 5 where Thompson seals the deal. Fact is, Maxxam’s principal reorganization plan is the only one on the table that would require a vast infusion of public funds. (Maxxam’s “alternative” plan — its real plan — wouldn’t, though Hurwitz would likely try to hold the “Ancient Forests” hostage until such time as the government coughed up some serious scooty.)
So take #4 and #5 together, and you get a subtle but pronounced tilt away from Maxxam — something no other politician has done as obviously. Why doesn’t Thompson just out and say it, then, you wonder? Well, as the great Norman Wilson noted in a similar context, “You don’t dance on Clay Davis’ grave until you know the motherfucker is dead.”
Download the Thompson letter (.pdf).
This article appears in Backstage Pass.

Maxxam isn’t dead, it’s fattened on the riches of Pacific Lumber.
Too bad politicians waited for the carcass before squeezing out a safe letter.
Norman Wilson is my hero, incidently.
That figures!
I know, I know — big shocker.
A tad off subject..but can anyone tell me why/how it is that most all of Scotia’s commercial buildings are up for sale (listed on MLS)..even the PALCO main office?
Whoa, that’s a really good question. Let me get back to you on that.
Palco’s front mill, mill “A” I believe, is pretty much empty, aside from motorhomes and vehicles being stored inside. I wonder if they have a permit for that?
Is this the future for these buildings, public storage? The outsourcing of timber milling work takes away our local jobs. Will MRC even need these buildings?
I also heard that Richard “Dick” Bettis was canned. Can anyone confirm that?
I hope that the current THP’s that we are protecting will be saved by MRC, not to say the MRC plan is the best plan on the table. Both Fern Gully and Nanning Creek contain some amazing Old Growth, so close to civilization.
We are protecting some of the last Old Growth stands left in Palco’s “inventory”.
Fern Gully should be annexed to Freshwater Park. Nanning Creek needs to be a part of the Avenue of the Giants.
Will MRC, if they gain control over the company, choose to log Old Growth in currently approved THP’s, containing prime Marbled Murrelet habitat? Do they, or will they, have to refile the THP’s?
No matter what happens, there will always be forests and greenspace to protect. We choose to stand(and treesit) together in solidarity until our forests are protected as they should be!
Estelle called out Roger and the BoS to also send a letter. It was written up in the Reporter but I guess Hank missed it. Maybe he is not on their media list?
I love that word:milquetoast. Glad to see it in use on this post.
MRC’s Option A from their site states:
Option A
Wildlife Habitat Old Growth
MRC will not harvest old growth as defined below:
Terrestrial – Un-entered stands of more than 20 acres.
– Stands of 5 acres or more with an average of 6 old growth
trees per acre or more (old growth trees defined as trees over 250
years old and 48 inches d.b.h. or larger) .
– Individual residual old growth trees with significant wildlife
value (eg. large limbs, cavities, nesting platforms, limited available
structures).
I have to ask:
-Can the MRC log “entered” stands containing old-growth?
(Most TPZ’s have been entered, in fact, I’d like to see an unentered stand that is not a park or refuge)
-Can the MRC log old growth stands less than 20 acres?
(Most of the old growth stands left in TPZs are very small residual groves)
-Can the MRC log stands of old-growth that are more than five acres containing 5 or less old growth trees per acre?
(An acre is a very small piece of land, how many old growth trees can you fit in an acre? To achieve this requirement, 30 OG trees would have to exist on 5 acres. Furthurmore, residual Old growth trees and groves are extremely rare on TPZs, and the chance of finding 6 or more OG trees on one acre is extremly low).
-Who determines the “significant wildlife value” of residual old growth trees? (Besides wildlife surveyors, who else but the MRC?)
Our old growth may be safer if MRC takes over, but they better get up, walk, and clump together in a central location. Saftey in numbers, right?