Humboldt judge orders halt to Pacific Lumber timber cuts

SF gate ^ | 8-30-2002 | Don thompson

[seventhson]

Your sarcastic comments WERE hard to decipher at first,probobly because they actually had some truth buried within. I'm all for private property rights,but in SOME CASES private property owners cannot be trusted to manage their lands.At what point do others need to step in and call a spade a spade? For example,when the forest practices of private property owners affects others,such as when your favorite fishing spots are so degraded by logging operations that you can't even fish there,when landslides start taking people's houses out-The laws might permit them to do these things,but at what point do others affected say enough is enough.I work in the woods,and in the course of doing so,have seen the way private owners treat their land sometimes.To say private owners could manage their lands better is true,to say they do manage their lands well is not always true.Don't start spouting about PPR's,alot of loggers will tell you the privates abuse their lands very often.

[Dog Gone]

Yes, in some cases, the owners can't. When what they do with their property has a detrimental affect on other property, it's proper to question their actions.

You can't divert a stream on your property so that it intentionally floods my house.

The problem is when adjoining property owners, or even those who don't own property in the area, decide that a private property owner isn't doing what they want with property they don't own. No neighbor has the right to view a tree on my property, unless I have sold them that right.

I recently bought a piece of property that the owner had abused. The price reflected that. And I've restored it with more sweat than dollars. The free market takes care of these things.

I have no doubt that the people at Pacific Lumber understand that they have to keep a supply of trees growing at all times in order to remain in business. Why do we assume that they have less intelligence than the smallest farmer?

I don't. It's insulting, and it is a violation of their property rights.

[seventhson]

There's been some serious questions about the long term plans and motivations of Charles Hurwitz,the way he aquired the company,and his increasing the cut so quickly.We are talking a serious corporate scoundrel here.If he really plans for PL to be around for 50 more years,who knows.

[Dog Gone]

It wasn't until this thread that I'd heard of this CEO. Sounds like he's a jerk.

On the other hand, shaking up the existing corporate structure, even if it costs jobs, is not a crime. It bites to be an innocent victim of that, but businesses do need to evolve to cope with changing conditions. I understand both sides of that argument.

[seventhson]

Yeah,somebody told me earlier that junk bonds are not a crime.Micheal Milken is not a criminal,and Clinton did'nt inhale either.

[Dog Gone]

Well, junk bonds aren't a crime, are they?

[seventhson]

No they are not a crime,but I don't see them as being too ethical a way to aquisition companys either.I'm for the small guy over huge corporations.Call me crazy.

[Syncro]

I believe he may be a retired Judge from Sonoma County.

I remember one named Golden here a few years when I used to hang around the courts...