Dana objected to the photo of the Little Bull clearcut that accompanied my article, claiming that MRC needed to "finish up" this and 103 other logging plans that the company bought from LP along with the property, and that clearcuts are "no longer a part of MRC forestry." I don't understand why this supposedly forest-friendly company couldn't bring itself to withdraw or amend the worst of these LP plans (the majority contained areas of 100% clearcut), other than former president Sandy Dean's determination to extract 40,000,000 board feet of timber per year from the company's severely cutover forestlands.
Dana may not realize that throughout 1998 and into 1999, MRC also filed plans of its own containing 100% clearcuts. At that point, the company stopped using the "c.c. word," since it had become a serious public relations liability. MRC continued to file plans containing "seed tree removal" and "shelterwood removal" (two and three stage clearcuts that target the largest trees), and began making creative use of silviculture methods like "alternative prescription," "group selection," "rehabilitation," and "variable retention" that are often virtual clearcuts. These methods may leave more trees standing per acre than conventional clearcuts, but MRC has compensated by entering and cutting on 75% more acres per year.
"Ima" objects to my criticism of MRC's practice of "high-grading" (cutting the largest trees), but (s)he didn't respond to my claim that the company is concentrating its logging in watersheds like the Albion with the highest percentages of large trees. (S)he says that MRC's "Option A" long term ownership-wide plan calls for retention of the largest, oldest trees, but the problem with all "Option As" is that they contain no verifying data to keep companies honest. MRC chose not to write a Sustained Yield Plan, which would require much more disclosure and public involvement.
"Ima" states that MRC is "in a transition to use of only selective logging," but doesn't mention that the company is giving itself 50 years to accomplish this feat (if it ever does so; by then the Fishers will likely have bailed and moved their money to more profitable investments). "Ima" also claims that MRC is leaving more trees in place near streams than required by state Forest Practice Rules. This may be true, but these same rules have facilitated the decimation of corporate timberlands over the past several decades, and the company's gestures probably amount to "too late, too little."
Logging practices and MRC's use of toxic chemicals are addressed in both Dana's and "Ima's" letters. Nearly everyone acknowledges that the timberlands MRC bought from Louisiana Pacific in 1998 had been harshly overcut by LP and prior owners. Nature is still attempting to heal the clearcuts left by these eco-rapists in the way she knows best, slowly via plant successions. After a clearcut, grasses and shrubs take root in the raw earth. Next in line (if there is any good soil left and it hasn't been baked to death by too much sunlight) are small and medium sized trees, notably tan oaks. Finally, redwoods and Douglas firs will grow and eventually come back into balance with the rest of the ecosystem.
This scenario is best biologically, but it is too slow for bottom line corporations like MRC. Instead, industrial foresters clearcut the tan oaks and zap them with herbicides, then plant cash crops of baby conifersÑpractices the state obligingly labels "rehabilitation." "Ima" justifies this fast track approach because it may take a century less than "passive recovery." In its zeal, MRC often clearcuts whatever redwoods and Doug firs may be mixed in with the tan oaks, raising questions about its proclaimed commitment to "uneven-age" (good) forestry.
Dana also apologizes for "rehabilitation" and for "variable retention" (another logging method that is often tantamount to clearcutting), implies that MRC has drastically reduced its use of herbicides, and suggests that I made untruthful statements about Garlon (MRC's former herbicide of choice) in my article. In fact, I merely referred to an agreement that the company made as a condition for certificationÑto reduce its use of herbicides by 60% over five years. As it turns out, what the company is actually doing is switching from Garlon to Arsenal, another carcinogenic herbicide, which some believe to be even more harmful than Garlon.
One of the main concerns that I expressed in my article is the havoc that industrial forestry has wreaked on wildlife, driving many creatures to the brink of extinction. Dana does not mention endangered species in her letter, but "Ima" does.
(S)he begins by saying that I appear to hold MRC solely responsible for the disappearance of Coho salmon from Elk Creek (which I don't), then lists several "natural" explanations for the Coho's plight: ocean conditions, predation by marine mammals, and atmospheric changes. Get real, "Ima"! Prior to the onslaught of industrial forestry, our creeks and rivers were teeming with Coho. It's the logging.
"Ima" then moves on to spotted owls and marbled murrelets. (S)he points out that owl surveys are required as part of all THP applications, and claims that MRC's forests have "significant" and healthy populations of spotted owls. "Ima" says that MRC has detected more murrelet sites than I was aware of when I wrote my article (four), and claims to be working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect them.
What I called MRC on in my article is the company's failure to disclose data on endangered species in its logging plans, as required by state regulations. MRC lost a lawsuit on this issue and had to withdraw three plans, yet the company continues its practice of withholding information from the public. It is in the interest of MRC and other timber corporations to suppress data on endangered species. If there appear to be no Coho salmon, spotted owls or murrelets left, the companies are no longer constrained by having to protect their habitats.
Dana begins her letter with an appreciation of us at the Mendocino Environmental Center, and with the hope that all well-intentioned people can work together on solutions to environmental and social justice problems. I know Dana and respect her as a sincere, caring person. Our differences are really matters of degree. She feels that MRC is practicing significantly better forestry than other large timber companies and should be encouraged to continue changing in positive ways. I agree that MRC is doing somewhat better than LP before them and other industrial timberland owners around them, but believe the company's practices leave much to be desired.
This brings us back to the subject of certification. Like Dana, the individuals who certified MRC are sincerely concerned over the health of the forests and the well-being of the creatures that inhabit them. They believe that the company has moved significantly in positive directions and should be rewarded for agreeing to continue doing so. I don't. I believe that the Forest Stewardship Council should set higher standards and stick to them. With the Fishers' economic bottom line influencing the standards, I am doubtful of MRC's ability to nurture their forestlands back to real health, and fearful that endangered species cannot survive.
I talked with Dana on the phone recently, and we agree on one possibility for improving forest stewardship certification: instituting a "transitional" status similar to that provided by the organic food movement. Without permitting clearcutting, logging old growth or destroying endangered species habitat, such a provision could help bridge the gap between present performance and promises for the future.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 2001
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited