Saving the Trees and the Logging Industry

Saving the Trees and the Logging Industry Ancient redwoods grow on land that is owned by Pacific Lumber Company, which was a reputable, responsible lumber company for decades until it changed hands in the 1980's (Green, 2003). Texan financier Charles Hurwitz purchased the company and, to pay off his debts, ordered the acceleration of logging in the Headwaters Forest, an area along the Northern California coast of over 6,000 pristine acres of ancient redwoods. These trees are some of the oldest in existence and are the home of many endangered species.

Environmental activists from around the country and many loggers became outraged over the rate of deforestation. According to David Galitz, Pacific Lumber Co.'s manager of public affairs, the company aims to protect the land. "The trees are a crop, and they keep coming back," he stated.

"If you want to meet a group of environmentalists, come within the Pacific Lumber Company...I think we practice more environmental protection methods and have more concern for the environment than the Greg Kings of the world (Newton, 1990)." The article questions Galitz's words, arguing that a logging company does not have the right to speak for the trees. When the Pacific Lumber Co. was taken over, conservative logging practices were replaced by more aggressive strategies, attracting attention from environmental groups and the media.

As a result, researchers are looking for a way to save the trees and save the industry. Many activists have protested in the area since Hurwitz's takeover, demanding that the trees be preserved. They have had some success but continue to press the issue today. There is no doubt in my mind that the trees need immediate protection.

According to the article, if we wait for some rosy future when we will have responsible business practices and an enlightened people and dedicated public agencies, we will no longer have the redwoods. On the other hand, logging is necessary to build our houses and supply us with wood practices. Taking both sides of the story into consideration is important when determining if the trees and the industry can be saved.

The ecological value of the old growth Sequoia forests stands against their present economic value of more than $100,000 for each mature Sequoia tree. Timber buyers pay this money for high-grade Sequoia lumber and wood products. Pacific Lumber Company justifies selling these trees by arguing that harvesting Sequoia trees assumes that the Sequoias will replace themselves, through the process of plant succession, in the future. That theory has not yet been scientifically proven, so activists argue that the company must do more to save the trees.

After researching recent events involving Pacific Lumber Company, it seems that the company has taken many measures to save the trees. The company has set aside half of its private property for the protection of endangered species. However, activists are demanding more stringent environmental protections for the redwoods, which are located on private property that is owned by Pacific Lumber Co. Company representatives argue that 97% of old growth trees in California are owned and protected by the federal and state government.

Therefore, they say that many of the activists are pursuing their cause for no reason. Research reveals that the lumber company has devastated Humboldt's hillsides by increased logging in the area. In addition, the bare slopes have caused erosion and landslides, resulting in serious flooding due to clogged-up creeks and rivers. This demonstrates the need for reduced and improved logging practices. However, if the company is forced to drastically cut back its logging, the company will be in great financial danger, which will ultimately hurt the local economy, as well.

In 1999, the Pacific Lumber Company made a historic agreement with state and federal government to sell the largest old-growth redwood grove left in private ownership, the Headwaters Forest. As part of that agreement, Pacific Lumber will manage the rest of its commercial forestlands under a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which provides the most protective environmental standards ever applied to any large, privately owned commercial forestlands. This agreement provides protection for wildlife, streams, land, and the trees.

This is an excellent solution to the problem of saving both the trees and the industry. However, the lumber company should continue to make efforts to grow more trees and protect existing ones. In this case, I would agree that harming the environment is also a moral wrong. Prior to Hurwitz's takeover, Pacific Lumber Co. operated as conservative, responsible company. Hurwitz changed the logging procedures simply to increase profits, knowing that he was also endangering the environment.

Harming the environment was, in this case, an intentional act so it is also, in my opinion, as moral wrong. No matter what side of the issue we are looking at, this is undoubtedly a moral issue.

Green (2003) asks: "Can the corporate leaders of the 21st century decide that they want to be leaders of how we can make the world a better place? Can you conceive of making Pacific Lumber into a model timber company practicing truly sustained yield? Can there be a way a company like MAXXAM can live in harmony with the Earth?" Pacific Lumber Company's moral responsibility has increased in recent years as it has become charged with the responsibility of protecting both the trees and the activists.