Home
> Uncategorized > Protesters target Green Diamond
Protesters target Green Diamond
A logging/development scheme by Green Diamond in south Eureka has gained the attention of protesters.
The so-called McKay tract falls in the Ryan Creek watershed, home to a major coho producing stream in the Humboldt Bay area.
Some 7,000 homes are scheduled for the area, and would be built after clear-cutting old-growth and second growth redwoods, according to EF! Humboldt. The same group found spotted owls in the McKay tract this summer.
The public is invited to check out the area by following directions on the EF! Humboldt website.
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
 | Anonymous on A Performance Review for Phil… |
| i can T stop thinkin… on BLIND ITEM | |
| Anonymous on Hank Larrabee – Humboldt Count… |
| Anonymous on Hank Larrabee – Humboldt Count… |
 | Anum08 on Another “Golden rule… |
 | Adobe crack on Another “Golden rule… |
 | Hassan001 on Another “Golden rule… |
Top Posts & Pages
The Humboldt Herald 
If the Forester-Gill project goes through, the McKay thing will be hard to make happen… too big a juxtaposition, one eco-friendly development down the road from a biz-as-usual clearcut.
Rose was right. LP, PL, and Evergreen Pulp down, Green Diamond and SPI to go.
Green Diamond is a worthy target.
Rose is always right. Hurts don’t it David
Why is that? Are they the next largest timber employer or something?
Why is Green Diamond a worthy target?
Because they’re the biggest landowner in the county and are getting ready to liquidate a bunch of their land.
What? A huge Corp. has used up their resources and decided to liquidate their land with it’s habitat and wildness to the highest bidder? Here, in California? I’m shocked Shocked!
Me, too, Ed. Shocked.
I’m not shocked in the same way as is Rose
Ed, you’re shocked because its certainly not what their promotional literature says they will do. Its a shock, goes against what you’ve been told they are all about.
Rose is shocked to learn there are still lands that haven’t already been clearcut and subdivided. Its shocking that a well managed efficient company has left some trees behind.
Oh, no. I am SHOCKED to see Green Diamond next on the lost. NOBODY could have seen that coming. Positively nobody.
:) LIST :) next on the LIST.
Give Green Diamond a pass! Clear-cuts are ok as long as you’re not PL! Landslides for locals! Clear-cuts for Cutten! Silt for south Eureka!
Yes H! Elk R. is already irreparably impaired, what could happen? Jimmie?
So are we trusting Earth First that there is old growth? Because I didn’t see any news sources claiming this via Heraldo’s links. The only claim I saw was from Earth First, in which case, I have to call shenanigans on this entire post.
Shenanigans! 90-year-old trees are not old growth.
No one said 90-year-old trees are old growth, though they may begin to have old-growth characteristics by then.
But good job figuring out how to follow links. What a major step for you.
How do you feel about clearcuts/
The only reputable source for information about the trees you’ve referenced did not mention anything about old growth, only 90-year-old trees. I’m merely emphasizing the fact that this entire article is bogus, unless you accept Earth First’s word as gospel.
I can’t wait until they agree to direct news reporters and a few independent experts to these supposed trees. They’re going to do that, right? This isn’t just another dog and pony show is it? Good. Let’s get independent verification.
How do you feel about clearcuts?
Naturally I don’t like clearcuts. Do you have a non-Earth First source claiming they’re clearcutting? And is this activity illegal?
When I said they’d be going after 2nd and 3rd growth, I remember those who said it would never happen, uh uh, they were JUST there to protect OLD GROWTH. That was ALL, and that was a short time ago.
Truth is, Earth First is old news, abandoned by the backers who used them, poor old Shunka was having to beg for money to buy socks to keep their feet warm in the cold tree-sits. The few that are left yearn for the glory days of national news coverage, not realizing what propelled that.
Rose is an ally of Earth First! Totally in their corner.
Clear-cutting is legal, but as you indicate, naturally repugnant.
Is it Earth First who is responsible for buying, closing, and then leaving to rot the special and nostalgic (to many locals) Hartsook Inn and its redwood cabins by the river? or some other org?
Save the Redwoods League is Hartsook. Earth First climbs trees and puts on a publicity show.
I hope our local journalists bother enough to ask to see the old growth and bring a forester or two along for verification.
Oh, but if the land ends up being destined for subdivisions, umm, yeah, clearcutting makes sense. We’re not Ewoks. Well, those of us who are not members of Earth First are not Ewoks.
Silly anonymous, Ewoks don’t exist.
I don’t think our area can support another housing area- who would throw money at that right now?
Spoken like a true property owner who wants his property values to remain high.
After they clear-cut it, but before they burn or bulldoze the stumps, I hope those reporters come back out and count the tree rings for themselves.
A few years back, PL put on a little dog-and-pony show for reporters out on Rainbow Ridge. Included in this, they spray-painted the supposed ages of some of the large Doug Firs that they were planning to cut. I’m sure that the reporters were reassured by the professional foresters who informed them that although these were very thick-trunked trees, that they were just fast-growing second growth specimens of 50-80 years of age.
Then, after the trees were actually cut, I was among a number of observers who went back to check out those stumps, and the aftermath of the clearcuts in general. One stump, marked “80 yrs” had more than 250 rings. Another one, marked “60 yrs” had at least 175 rings. All of the ages of the marked stumps had been underestimated to some degree or another, not one had been overestimated.
Of course the reporters who tagged along on the original outing with the PL flacks weren’t invited back to confirm the ages of the trees that were cut down, one had to “trespass” to learn the truth.
I agree that it will be interesting to see what kind of residual old growth stands may exist out there in the Mackay tract. I don’t know whether there is any or not. But I wouldn’t assume that the Earth First! folks are lying or exaggerating, or that timber companies / real estate developers are necessarily telling the truth.
If you’re dubious about the Earth First! claims, why not take them up on their suggestion of going out to have a look for yourself. If you contact them through their website, you might be able to get someone to guide you right to the groves or individual trees that they are claiming to be old growth. You can judge for yourself, and if you mark the base of the tree below about 4 feet height, you could even come back later, in the event that the trees are actually cut down, and count the rings yourself.
Timber/ Real Estate companies might be mistaken, or exaggerate or mislead or outright lie, and Earth First!ers might be mistaken, or exaggerate, or mislead or outright lie, but stumps – stumps always tell the cold, hard truth.
11:47 But who in their right mind would invest in such a project? The homes we have aren’t selling- I can’t see anyone wanting to overbuild and be stuck with all that.
Thank you think4yourself. Finally, a first hand report from an anonymous person. I know I can trust you because you are anonymous.
No one needs to invest in such a project. Developers spend their own money and take their own risks. If no one buys homes, the developers get hurt. Cry me a river.
But here’s a funny thing. Developers do a boatload of market research first. How many subdivisions in Humboldt County have been built, only to become ghost towns for lack of buyers? That’s the disconnect between developers and anti-development activists. There is a need for housing. People want to buy houses. If the prices are too high, the sell slowly and the prices come down and people win in the end. I get tired of the endless Chicken Little scenarios that never pan out. The ‘No one will buy these homes’ argument is bogus to the core.
Thanks for undercutting your own incessant commentary.
Perhaps you’ll take the hike and report back, not that we can believe anything you say.
12:11 Developers are investors. Big or small, they don’t want to build (like what has happened to Stockton) where there are not enough buyers, and I don’t mean 100 homes, I am talking about 7,000, as mentioned here. I am betting there won’t be any developers right now who want to take on such a financial risk. Humboldt County can’t support 7,000 new homes, cheap or not.
I’m expressing opinion, not stating fact. Anonymous ideas are great. Anonymous lies suck.
Ahh, well, much ado about nothing then.
P.S. The Chicken Little Scenario panned out, 34% drop in state real estate sales. Whether you feel sorry for the developers and investors or not, you are affected as well. Cry me a river? I’m don’t think you know you are part of it all.
it’s about the fish and other critters, not the age of the trees. See the NEC article posted on Rare Earth News Nov. 2008. The most recent post is about SPI’s plans to convert massive acreage in the Sierras to residential. This is a trend across the Pacific NW.
http://rare-earth-news.blogspot.com
The McKay tracts are in the Ryan Creek water shed just above where the creek enters Ryan Slough. Fisheries biologists recognize Ryan Creek and Ryan Slough—which flow into Freshwater Slough—as the remaining coho overwintering habitat in the Humboldt Bay area.
Green Diamond’s road system has been the subject of much restoration work to improve culverts and reduce sediment, all for the improvement of fish habitat. This work has been successful, with more than 220 adult coho observed in 2002 and nearly 5,000 coho smolts estimated in spring 2004.
Conversion of the Ryan Creek forest to housing development could threaten this Coho population with ongoing erosion and impacts from residents, including leaching of garden and other chemicals used around homes.
Ryan Creek also supports steelhead and coastal cutthroat trout. The watershed supports at least four northern spotted owl nest sites, as well as peregrine falcons, osprey, and other sensitive birds. These and other species are known to leave areas impacted by development.
That was never a Chicken Little scenario. All reasonable pointers indicated dire circumstances.
Chicken Little scenarios are doom and gloom forecasts by activists who have a vested interest in painting the worst picture in order to further their own agendas.
And we know that building homes there means the watershed will be destroyed… how? Because we assume the worst of Green Diamond, that they can’t build homes in a watershed. Uh huh. That perspective is laughable.
Sorry, but I’ll hold back until there is factual information to based opinions on, not claims by Earth First.
Right, because massive logging combined with heavy development is great for fish and spotted owls. Surely you can dig up a few links on that.
Somehow I doubt Green Diamond would build the homes. In any case, building homes and roads and planting lawns and having cats and dogs and garbage and fences will not be too beneficial for the wildlife.
Exactly. But to sell the land for residential purposes — think of the money!
Okay, 12:11 / 12:23, so as anonymous commenters, now I can only make statements of opinion, I can’t relate a personal anecdote without you automatically assuming it’s a lie?
Look, if you want to assume I’m lying, since I can’t prove to you that I’m telling the truth, well… I can live with that. I know what happened, and I think the anecdote was relevant to the discussion, and it helped to illustrate my overall point, which was that claims about whether or not there are old growth trees in the MacKay tract should be verified one way or the other. Too bad you used you cynical dismissal of the Rainbow Ridge anecdote as cover to ignore the substance of my comments.
A healthy levey of skepticism is great, whether we’re dealing with fellow anonymous bloggers, timber and real estate outfits, or environmental activists. But straight-up cynicism of the sort that you expressed is just kind of sad.
By the way, in case you didn’t notice, the upshot of my post was that folks should go take a look for themselves, and reporters should follow-up on and verify claims. Do you disagree with either of those points?
Today, yes. Tomorrow, no. HSU alone plans for an increase of 5,000 FTE students in the next 30 years. That translates into a much higher number of actual new students, more than 7,000 to be sure. Factor in all the other people who move here, retire here, or stay here after graduating, and you’ve got a lot of growth.
That’s why Caltrans has bigger plans for the 101 corridor around the bay, plans that everyone decries as ridiculous because they can’t see a couple decades down the line. And that’s why the general plan looks to Cutten for major growth.
Per your own example, real estate pundits balked at the economic analysis foretelling a housing collapse. Today activists balk at population analysis. If you actually succeed in burying our collective heads in the sand, we’ll be screwed in 30 years as we desperately try to play catch up. In that scenario, it’s nature that gets screwed the most because you’ll get whiplash watching the development permits getting rubber stamped in order to catch up with demand. What you’re pushing is ultimately far more harmful for the environment.
And don’t forget, homes =/ houses. People live in all sorts of dwellings.
Yes, reporters should verify claims. No, average folks should not go look for themselves if they would be trespassing on private property. I don’t advocate breaking the law. Is the public afforded legal access to this land?
Journalists should represent us, and we should hold their feet to the fire when they fail us.
If the Times-Standard runs a story that merely reports (regurgitates) Earth First’s publicity, it has failed us. It should obtain legal permission and then verify the claim, and call Earth First out if the claim is not true.
Green Diamond is a highly respected, science based steward of the land. They are a target of EF! because EF! consists of criminals and no-growthers.
Green Diamond has always done things legally and by the book. I guess Earrth First ran out of targets so now they have to go after the responsible companies or become irrelevant.
“Green Diamond is a highly respected, science based steward of the land.”
Yeah right! Green Diamond plans to turn 2000 acres of TPZ land into rural residential land for an astounding 7000 houses doubling the size of Eureka. Some stewardship. They are long term habitat liquidators for short term profit. Chris Crawford is all agog at that kind of stewardship. Take a bow Chris! Or just bow down.
And drop your pants and spread your cheeks for a sawdust inspection.
Anony.miss (11:34)
The owners of Heartwood Institutebought it a few years back from the from the save the redwoods folks and will be developing it. The Save the Redwoods folks saved it from the previous owners “need” to cut the forest behind it to keep up payments. Can’t blame this closure on the EFers.
I used to hike a few miles for my morning coffee there in the late 80’s. It will take a few years, but hopefully it will reopen as a publicly accessible little Heartwood.
Real stewardship should imply sustainability, remember “timber, America’s renewable resource”? Doesn’t anyone care that this State looses 40,000 acres of timberland per year? 1.5 million acres lost to development in the US per year? This according to the Land Trust of Santa Cruz.
Interesting. You mean there’s another way to save trees besides camping in them?
You seem terribly uninformed about what the general plan has in store for Cutten. 7,000 people are going out there whether it’s on Green Diamond’s trees or someone else’s trees. You may be trading one developer for another developer who is far worse. You don’t even know how they plan to site those homes. What’s the density? If it’s high density, you could easily save the watershed and preserve a lot of trees. Oh, but whinging in ignorance is so much more fun!
7,000 houses are bad for salmon, no matter how you “site” them.
Technically, in an absolutist view, yes. But no, you can site 7,000 homes and retain a healthy watershed and not hurt a single salmon. It’s possible, if you work with people instead of fight them with ideological blindness.
Yes, a little kumbaya and suddenly roads and cats and clear-cuts will be good for the fish.
“…you can site 7,000 homes and retain a healthy watershed and not hurt a single salmon.”
By “siting” the development in Texas, right?
Looks like we’ll need to put up roadblocks on Highway 101 once we reach maximum polulation. Can’t let anyone new into the county (or Eureka proper) if we can’t house them. It’s certainly eco-evil to plan housing for the future and has too much opposition from the anti whatever folks. Fine by me- I’ll retire in a couple of years and have my house and rentals. With the anti whatever folks out there my property values are going to do nothing but soar. Thanks and keep up the good work.
I thought we were over the Maximum population in 1975. The new arrivals needs to sign in and then be removed to camps.
Take a look at Humboldt’s general plan. The people are coming and they’re already planned for.
We’re growing alright. Humboldt County ranks 50 out of 58, or .37% between July 2006 – July 2007.
Again, Heraldo can only see today. All planning decisions must be mysterious to you.
Build it and they will come? A little abra cadabra and maybe Arkley will get his 2%.
HSU alone represents a statistical minimum of 5,000 new bodies in 30 years, more likely 7,000 to 12,000 new bodies, and they won’t all fit in Arcata. How many new houses have been built in McKinleyville? It’s something like an average of several hundred every year for the past 10 or 15 years. The county has planned for more than 7,000 new bodies in Cutten alone. Eureka is planning for it as well.
Are you saying population forecasts are wrong? That city and county planners are wrong? You’re good with rhetoric, but short on details that explain why everyone, not just Arkley, are wrong, and you are right.
No new housing, no corporate stores, no cell towers, no long term planning for the harbor. It’s a nice fantasy to keep things forever the way they are now. Let’s see how all of this is viewed in twenty and thirty years.
Heraldo, you may want to consider the history of the rezoning of the McKay Tract, and who intiated the plans to take the land out of TPZ and put the forest into (developable) land inventory.
According to the “Eureka Community Plan,” it states, ” The county will initiate rezoning.” It seems that no matter who owns the land (GD or any other lumber company) that the county planners and supervisors (who approve community development plans) are the ones who initiated a plan that continues to support massive clear-cutting to create land inventory.
Well, duh, 3:49. Heraldo, et al. have lit their torches for a good witch hunt, completely ignoring the Eureka Community Plan and the county General Plan. They’ve got their alarming catch phrase, “Clear cut!” as if cheap antics will change long-established and supported city and county plans.
confusing…no one wants to move here or everybody wants to move here? Which is the fear?
The county has a long history of supporting clear-cutting, but that doesn’t make it any more acceptable.
Some like their logs vertical, some like ’em horizontal. The City of Eureka’s land was clearcut so the city could be built. Where most all of us live, there use to be a forest.
In private, anti-development folks fear the people projected to move here, but in public talk up present conditions and ignore or pretend that people won’t be moving here in significant numbers.
You see this in opposition to such things as the overpass on 101, claiming in public it’s not needed, but the private fear is it would open greater development of Freshwater.
A great many issues can be tracked back to growth fears, whether it’s trucks or trains or ships or the more obvious, home building. The more industry and the better transport to and from the county we have, the more people we attract. Basically, the plan is to slow everything as much as possible for as long as possible, but unfortunately that plan doesn’t include any significant attempt to acquire and preserve critical lands. See, it’s not really a “plan,” but an opposition mindset.
Count on a lot of sound and fury over McKay, then seeing it get developed and people going home disheartened, then doing the same thing the next day. It’s terribly ineffective advocacy for the environment.
You see Heraldo here blowing a trumpet for Earth First, while virtually ignoring that the root issue is city and county planning. Blame a developer for following publicly agreed upon plans? Huh? If you want to create change, get involved in the decision making process, and if you’re going to cast blame (never an effective tool), be sure as hell you’re blaming the right parties.
the county and the cities have a responsibility to zone enough land to accommodate their “fair share” of the state’s growth.
Click to access ab_1233_final_dt.pdf
Click to access hsg_strategies_riverside050307.pdf
you can blame developers, green diamond, or santa clause, but the state needs more homes and that means development. unless of course you would rather close the borders and ban procreation.
Making note of something is not trumpeting.
As you see it, yes.
Unless of course you are a herald
Definitions of herald on the Web:
announce: foreshadow or presage
(formal) a person who announces important news; “the chieftain had a herald who announced his arrival with a trumpet”
acclaim: praise vociferously; “The critics hailed the young pianist as a new Rubinstein”
hail: greet enthusiastically or joyfully
harbinger: something that precedes and indicates the approach of something or someone
I don’t know if Heraldo is blowing the horn for Humboldt Earth First!. But we all need to putting the earth first. Modeling for growth, in this way, is short sighted. There is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that environmental impacts are anticipated when TPZs are rezoned for development. Green Diamond’s 7000 acre conversion is only part of the trend. Sierra Pacific Industries have been converting their holdings – 7000 acres in Sierra county and 8000 acres in Lassen county – with plans to convert 30,000 acres in five northern California counties for development. The state government has urged the reversal of some TPZ conversions.
Local governments have the power and duty to protect timberlands.
The loss of forest lands to a protracted annual growth rate of .37% is just a bobble headed forced march over the climate change precipice. There is not enough resources on this earth to sustain the rate of our present consumption.
That is my progressive no growth spiel – for now. Or is that my conservative no growth spiel?
Oh well, … somebody will probably straighten me out.
What’s the reason timber companies are rezoning their forests for development? They’re in the business of harvesting timber.
Have environmental regulations become too burdensome?
Half the McKay tract has been logged in the last 20 years.
If it werent for EF! , Maxxam would have logged it all. Kudos to the old guard, to the early 90s and Redwood Summer. Without EF! the concept of sustainable harvest would still be a ‘enviro’ thing instead of policy and solid management practice.
Kudos to No Compromise, we needed it.
Where does the 7000 home figure come from? Is there any credible source for the claim that development of this property would require clear-cutting old growth? Is there any credible source for the claim that spotted owls are nesting in this tract?
No. It’s activist fear mongering.
Follow the link above. Spotted owls were videoed there this summer.
I did follow the link above; it ended at the EF site with “page not found.” I should also state that I do not consider Earth First! a credible source. Perhaps I should have asked whether there is any confirmation of the EF! claims.
Why are so called “timber” companies selling off their timber lands to sub divide in the first place. It makes no sense to sell off your assets if you are in business to produce lumber. Let’s face it, they are in business to make money for their owners, and when the land becomes more valuable as a commodity than the lumber and they can find a way to get it rezoned, why not “cut and run” and then sell the land. A slam dunk for the corporation. Who gives a shit where the lumber comes from in 100 years. Some of you pro growth at any cost advocates need to take YOUR blinders off once in a while and think about the consequences of your actions for future generations. Corporations will leave nothing for your children’s children.
Huh. Well, this photo was taken from their site. They also had video, but if you’re inclined to disbelieve everything they say it doesn’t matter.
And Heraldo, what proof do you have that those owls are on the McKay tract? Mmm hmm, thought so. Fear monger.
(That video could have been shot lots of places. Consider the source. Sheesh.)
You’re free to believe and deny whatever you like.
I believe you’re a fear monger who supports lies when it suits your own personal agenda.
And what proof do you have that the photo is a “lie?”
The logging industry has a long history of maximizing short term profits for owners and stock investors while leaving behind devastated ecosystems and abandoned employees. One hundred years ago large logging/milling operations would clearcut entire states in the mid west. When they ran out of logs they would burn down their mills and offices for the insurance money.
Operative term, dred, is YEARS AGO.
Things have changed/improved. Clear cuts are now very very small compared to the fearsome image planted in most people’s minds. Sustainable forestry is front and center. Streams are taken into account.
There is a point where protection becomes the industry killer, at which point, the timber companies are left with selling off their lands.
Have we reached that point? And, what will the enviros do with the brave new world they have created? Live in plastic skyscapers (infill being desirable now).
One “little” clear-cut here and one “little” clear-cut there and pretty soon you have massive tracts of clear-cuts. The effects on the ground and the industry are the same.
So I take it then there there is no independent confirmation as to any of the EF! claims.
Anonymous 9:29 on December 3 says:
“…, you can site 7,000 homes and retain a healthy watershed and not hurt a single salmon.”
Really? Give some examples please.
Talk about unfounded claims – this one takes the prize!
And this, by Anonymous 12:38 am on Dec. 3:
“Chicken Little scenarios are doom and gloom forecasts by activists who have a vested interest in painting the worst picture in order to further their own agendas.”
This must be referring to the CPR’s gloom and doom forecasts about how we will all be rounded up and forced to live in lcity apartments.
Sure.
Make that city apartments.
Questions: Who has a vested interest in development to the max?
What is the vested interest of people who try to protect public trust resources? If we save the salmon, who wins?
The premise that “growth must go somewhere, so it might as well be in the middle of a redwood forest,” is a bad place to start for community planning.
The city of Eureka has actually lost population, closed two schools, and the bayshore mall is loosing tenants, yet the county plans continue to move forward with the creation of new school districts and fire districts for the McKay forest. We should be planning to revitalize those urban areas rather than clearcutting for development. The politicians have a vested interest in “working with the system” in keeping the status quo and are currently seeking millions of dollars for sewage service for the McKay.
Other counties are able to work with a general plan that values what remains of their forests. Areas such as Marin County simply “do not allow” growth in its forestlands, according to their planning director. Adjusting to concerns for global warming, they adjusted their general plan and placed a higher value on their forestlands. They did not buy-into the “it was planned for long ago so was must continue” concept and adjusted, as Humboldt can, to recognize that our forests are too valuable to our planets’ future to continue business as usual.
Clear cutting is not a sustainable forestry practice. If half of the McKay tract has been logged in the last 20 years, 20 years x 175 acres per clear cut per year equals half of the McKay tract. At what point has protection become an industry killer? Under present protections the entire tract can be cut every forty years. Logging companies are California’s largest TPZ land holders. Their forest poverty has them complaining about how protection is keeping state forests from supplying the shortfall of logs at their super efficient mills.
Correct. It jives with our existing beliefs, so we accept it without question. It’s all part of the spin machine.
I could care less if any of it was true or not.
Green Diamond donates to Brian Baird, Norm Dicks, Gordon Smith, and Mike Thompson. All of these politicians voted for the economic bailout and are therefore dirt in my book. This goes for all the companies that support them as well.
The reason the timber companies have this love affair with politicians are all of the past and present hidden subsidies granted to the timber companies through the actions of the US Forest Service. Taxpayers have been subsidizing the supposedly honest business culture of Northern California logging for decades and it has come to a boiling point only recently. The timber companies can act like they care about the environment and sustainability as much as they want, I won’t believe it until I see it.
The bubble has burst and Canada runs the forest resource extraction industry now. Citizens need to understand that the forest can do more for us than supply lumber and salvage firewood. There is no reason to continue clear-cutting based on some lumberjack cultural value formula that have been obsolete for years.
What do we need 7,000 new homes for anyway? More property for the banks?
“Correct. It jives with our existing beliefs, so we accept it without question. It’s all part of the spin machine.”
Yes 11:23. As in –
“If we build it, they will come”
“People who want clean air, clean water, and viable fisheries are special interests.”
“Developers who want to remove forests to build houses are only in it for the good of the community”
It’s actually quite easy to access public information regarding .CDF’s approved timber harvest plans(THP’s).
Here you can see Green Diamond’s THP’s, along with Sierra Pacific Industries(SPI) who is clearcutting the last remanants of stable forest throughout the state; and Fruit Grower’s Supply, who is clearcutting multiple one thousand and two thousand acre THP’s of pines east of Shasta to make pine fruit boxes.
Desertification of Nor-Cal will be a reality in our near future.
Drink up, everyone.
You may download the files which include maps, roads, harvest prescriptions, etc. for each THP# here. For those of you like Rose with her head in the sand, you may want to check out google earth to view the checkerboard clearcuts across the entire state. Sometimes you have to get out and hike your surroundings to see what is going on with our forests. The scenic strip along the highway IS to pull the wool over the eyes of tourists and fat locals who blog about things they have little or no direct experience with.
You’d have to be an idiot or a selfish capitalist to ignore the facts, and usually the two go hand in hand.
Here is Green Diamond’s proposed 2008 THPs. The THP # can be further researched to discover that most “prescriptions” for Green Diamond’s sustainable forestry is a majority of clearcutting or “even aged anagement”(greenwashed term, same meaning). Go ahead smarty pants, check it out:
1-07-076-HUM 258 Acres
Bear Creek
1-07-195-HUM 82 acres
Bear Creek
1-08-071-HUM 142 acres
Big Creek
1-08-133-DEL 109 acres
Dominie Creek
1-08-134-DEL 138 acres
Upper West Fork Hunter Creek
North of Teds Ridge
1-08-139-HUM 92 acres
Panther Creek
1-08-140-HUM 105 acres
Toss-up Creek
Long Prairie Creek
1-08-141-HUM 114 acres
Stevens Creek
1-08-145-HUM 51 acres
Lower Jacoby Creek
1-08-147-HUM 83 acres
Roaring Gulch
1-08-150-HUM 88 acres
Middle Roach Creek
1-08-152-HUM 161 acres
Canyon Creek
1-08-153-HUM 66 acres
Lower Jacoby Creek
1-08-155-HUM 64 acres
Ryan Slough
1-08-157-HUM 93 acres
McDonald Creek
1-08-158-HUM 120 acres
Pitcher Creek
1-08-161-HUM 128 acres
Bear Creek
Surpur Creek
Ah Pah Creek
1-08-163-HUM 70 acres
Maple Creek
1-08-165-HUM 179 acres
Middle Salmon Creek
1-08-167-HUM 48 acres
Bulwinkle Creek
1-08-172-MEN 125 acres
Hardy Creek
Cottaneva Creek
1-08-173-HUM 131 acres
Maple Creek
1-08-174-DEL 125 acres
Lower Turwar Creek
Hoppaw Creek
1-08-177-HUM 105 acres
Denman Creek
___________________________________________________
2677 Total Acres filed for destruction 2008.
Is your local stream or tributary in a plan?
Do you like drinking diesel and herbicides? Is there a “rehab” prescription in a plan upstream from you?
If you want to compare Marin County to Humboldt County then let’s do that.
Marin 2006 population = 248,742 Humboldt = 128,330 housing units = 107,986
I hate computers:(.
THP Listings:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/ResourceManagement/THPStatusUpload/THPStatusTable.html
North Coast THP Files:
ftp://thp.fire.ca.gov/THPLibrary/North_Coast_Region/THPs2008/
I’d rather be hiking:)
oops
housing for Humboldt = 58,556
Marin sq miles = 519.8 Humboldt = 3,572
People per sq mile Marin = 475.6 Humboldt = 35.4
So maybe that is why they don’t want to expand urban areas into the remaining forests.
Green Diamond’s proposed timber harvest plan for 2008 is 2677 acres. That is 4.18 square miles. It would be interesting to know the total board ft. capacity of their mills. I read that 15 million board ft. is not enough timber for a two week run at a typical small log mill. What is the driving force behind one company clearcutting 4.18 in one year? Is it based on the board ft. capacity of their mills? How would that be sustainable?
So phart, is saying that since Marin has degraded its forests over the past years, Humboldt should now do the same. How about Humboldt learning from Marin’s past mistakes and not repeating them?
Even with depleted forestland, Marin is planning to add housing now without clearing more forestlands. So it shouldn’t be difficult for Humboldt to do the same. And I’ll bet Marin is planning to add housing for a lot more population growth than in Humboldt.
Figures don’t lie but phart liars can sure figure. Humboldt has much more rainfall and steep, unstable, eroding lands than Marin.
And there’s actually more housing now per person in Humboldt than in Marin.
people per housing unit: Marin 2.3
Humboldt 2.19
Of course Humboldt wants to be nothing like Marin. Marin is well known for being a hell hole, a depressed economy, low education level, and dilapidated housing. Its unattractive to tourists and no one wants to live there. Just the opposite of Eureka.
Hey, Muskrat – is Dumpster Muffin coming?
Err, excuse me, will she be showering, I mean, gracing us with her presence?
Of course, Marin’s annual rainfall is 52 inches while Humboldt’s ranges between 40 and 100 inches depending on the region (Eureka’s being about 38 inches).
Humboldt has 3,572 square miles of land and Marin has 520 square miles. If you honestly want to compare two counties of vastly different sizes, with Humboldt spanning many different micro-climates, I would say Marin’s rainfall is comparable, unless your aim is to claim Humboldt has more rainfall due to outliers. But then, that’s not a very fair comparison, is it?
Humboldt County has had a stable population for over 15 years, numbering a little over 100,000. There are no new jobs which is about the only thing that would drive population growth of any size. Retirees are moving here but their numbers are offset by younger people moving away to find jobs. More students at HSU will create a demand for new houses? Dream on. Most of the mills are operating at about half of their capacity or are shut down or closed forever, (Evergreen Pulp), so 7000 new homes is a pipe dream. You can’t even buy a fence board right now to build a perimeter around those 7000 dream homes. We have a much lower average income than other counties, so how are locals going to afford a brand new house. Pipe Dreams. I just don’t get it. Someone enlighten me.
How do you explain the steady growth, home building, in McKinleyville over the past 20 years? Are all those people imaginary? 7,000 homes is easy, very easy. Not 7,000 houses. 7,000 homes. There’s a monumental difference.
What? When is a house not a home? Is the divorce rate that high in McKinleyville?
“Not 7,000 houses. 7,000 homes. There’s a monumental difference.”
Sure 8:52. That’s the spin you need.
Makes urbanization of our forests and agriculture land seem $$o much more akin to family values.
What’s spin about pointing out that 7,000 homes could mean apartments, condos, and a range of other things besides just houses? You’re simply ignoring reality.
Wow, so you’ve never lived in anything except a house? Glad you’ve always been upper middle class or upper class to enjoy such a life. Your smug attitude is not appreciated Richie Rich.
You totally miss the point. Lots of structures can be a home, silly.
Yeah, preferrably infill structures, stack ’em up like cordwood, eh, heraldo? Will there be a height/story limit? 5 floors? 25?
Where are the plans for 25 story buildings, rose? Is this another romantic fantasy?
How do YOU define infill, heraldo?
You merely repeated what I wrote.
No, your comment was full and ASSumptions. But what a surprise, eh?
…shakin’ my head…. geez.
shakin’ it like Sarah Palin, gee wiz, youbetcha.
So – How do YOU define infill, heraldo?
You’re the one who claimed 25 stories. Surely there’s a basis and you didn’t just pull it out of your wig.
I’m asking – How do YOU define infill, heraldo? YOU.
One story? Five? Twenty Five?
Infill is defined by stories? Is that from the rose book of development?
I’m asking again – How do YOU define infill, heraldo? If it isn’t stories, atre you going to dig down?
A Lexus and a big parking lot. I want to fit in!
I repeat – How do YOU define infill, heraldo?
High rises by house owners with Lexuses, Miss Thang.
You aren’t answering the question. How do YOU define infill, heraldo?
You’re the one fantasizing about infill equating to 25 story high rises. Answer your own half-brained question.
You are the one who likes the infill plan. Have you not thought it through?
How do YOU define infill, heraldo? By definition it has to include high rises.
ever heard of Robert Thomas Malthus Rose? You would do well to google him before engaging in discussions about population and natural resources.
Ed, I am asking – How do YOU define infill?
Density – like your thick skull.
There ya go. Now – how dense? How many stories? How close together?
As long as there’s enough room for my Lexus, who cares?
C’mon now. You’re all over this. You know the answer. There’s NO reason to keep this a secret. How do YOU define infill, heraldo?
Rose, you made your point the first time: For whatever reason, Heraldo doesn’t seem to want to give a fixed definition for what the term “infill” means to him or her.
So, point made. But now you’re just being repetitive and annoying. This is the behavior of a pest or gadfly, rather than the watchdog you aspire to be. Knock it off. Please.
It seems to me that the question of “how many stories” is kind of tangential at best. “Infill” housing in San Francisco might be 25 stories high, but my guess is in Humbolt County we’re generally talking about 2 or 3 stories at most.
To me, a common sense definition of the concept of “infill” is the idea of “filling in” gaps in existing residential communities utilizing vacant lots and by replacing housing that has fallen into disrepair, converting some former commercial or industrial spaces to housing, allowing more “mother-in-law” units to be built, and so on. Mostly just good common-sense stuff that isn’t real confidential.
The advantage to this kind of development, as I’m sure you know, is that it is by definition located where there is already existing water, sewer, transportation and other infrastructure.
Of course that advantage comes with caveats, too – it means you are adding to the use of that existing infrastructure. In some cases increasing the use of already-overstretched infrastructure can be a problem, such as a sewage system that is already pushing it’s limits. But at the same time, the increased use of (and support of) the infrastructure can actually be beneficial to the community, such as when increasing transit ridership can allow expanded service, and with more riders paying fares, the mostly full buses require less public subsidy than mostly empty ones.
By the way, I don’t think infill is the solution to all our housing needs (heck, I’m not even sure *my* definition of infill is anything like what the Planning folks have in mind when they refer to infill).
But it seems to me that the idea of increasing housing stock through infill seems like a pretty innocuous concept. Of course I don’t think that ALL new housing should be required to be infill, and as far as I can tell, I don’t think anyone is asking for that, despite some scaremongering to the contrary. For my part, I love living in a rural setting (which is still only about 10 miles to town) and its important to me to have some space where I can grow some of my own food and operate my small business.
Unlike some of our urban and suburban-minded lefties, I think we’d all be better off if a somewhat higher percentage of our population was willing to move out into some of the depopulated agricultural lands of our county, to increase local food self-sufficiency and help to restore landscapes that have been roughed up pretty bad by logging and ranching for the past hundred years or so.
So, by no means am I an advocate of urban or suburban living (infill or otherwise) as the only way to allow increased housing. But let’s face it, most people would rather live in a fairly dense setting with lots of services and amenties available. So, for those folks, new infill-type housing seems like a pretty good option to me, if they want to buy a brand-new home rather than an existing structure.
If we don’t make those infill options available to home buyers, some folks who would really rather live in a denser setting, will insteadend up “settling for” a new suburban home that they don’t really want, needlessly taking away space from our shrinking farm and timber lands that could otherwise be productive both for wildlife as well as humans.
So, if infill housing is something that folks are willing to buy (or rent) and they prefer that denser urban setting to a suburban “bedroom community” option, then what’s so terrible about infill? After all, no one is forcing anyone to decide to live in a new home built in an infill setting, it’s just making another option available so that we don’t sprawl out in endless suburban subdivisions just because people lack other options.
Well, that’s a pretty good answer, although it ultimately will mean high-rises. I’d say SOME people want the infill life. Maybe more and more of the aging boomers will. But others will finally be able to afford a piece of country property, with room for horses and the like.
Nice that you can answer the question but heraldo can’t. Too bad we don’t know who you are either – a voice of reason.
I don’t see how it “ultimately will mean high-rises.”
Really? In Humboldt? Can you explain how that will come to pass?
While you’re at it, perhaps you could define “high-rises.” Does that involve a certain number of stories, or what? The buildings that I know of that were referred to as high-rises where in the range of 20 stories or more.
I don’t see how it “ultimately will mean high-rises.”
Really? In Humboldt? Can you explain how that will come to pass?
While you’re at it, perhaps you could define “high-rises.” Does that involve a certain number of stories, or what? The buildings that I know of that were referred to as high-rises were in the range of, say, 25 stories or more. That seems pretty unlikely for Humboldt.
[Although… you did use the word “ultimately,” which I suppose COULD mean a thousand years from now!]
Oops, premature publication at 12:29…
…how embarassing…
;)
Problem is the sewer lines aren’t big enough to support much infill so they won’t be utilizing too much of that existing infrastructure, it will be new sewers next to the old ones, or bigger ones.
Don’t worry. According to the Times-Standard there is no problem, with anything. Traffic, over-saturation of retail. The Thursday issue claims there will be no traffic problems. Or, problems of any kind. Great. we can all go home now. Wow that was close.
I’m sure more sitters are on their way, as long as there are trees to defend.
If Dumpster comes up, I’m sure we’ll all hear about it :)
Rose, I’m still waiting to hear how infill will “ultimately mean high rises.”
I noticed that when others don’t answer your questions, you assume that means that they can’t answer or are hiding the truth about what their answer would be.
Should we apply the same standard to you? Should we assume you are incapable of answering or that you are just being manipulative by floating straw man arguments?
If not, please do explain how infill in Eureka will “ultimately lead to high rises.” Oh, and please define what you mean by high-rises.
Hold on, Sheesh, I haven’t been sitting at the computer all day…
I don’t see anything complicated here, infill means a. filling in the empty lots and fields, keeping new construction within certain boundaries, say City boundaries… ultimately, as the population grows, you have no choice but to go up, San Francisco represents infill. Multi-story buildings represent infill. Seas of concrete represent infill. Parking garages represent infill. Houses that share walls or are so close together you can barely edge your way between them, that’s infill.
That’s how I define it. In Japan where there is limited space, it happens faster than it will here where we still have vast areas to expand into. Unless by decree we are all forced into city living, with all the crap that comes with that.
Now, here, if you are talking about 30 units per acre, you can spread ’em out over the 6 acres, or you could build up, and ensure some green area around your ‘development.’ (But note that in subdivisions around here where little neighborhood parks were part of hte plan, neighbors object because the parks attract riff-raff, same reason the City of Eureka didn’t want a Park in Old Town, despite Harry Adorni’s express wishes.
But what I am asking here is – since this is one of ‘heraldo’s” major issues, jumping up and down about development and getting all upset about timber companies bowing out of the business and selling off their lands – oh horrors! to people who might want to live in the country setting… since infill is part of the anti Hum CPR agenda – I’m asking “heraldo” what infill means to him/her/she/it.
It’s not a tough question. And it isn’t at all suggesting that he can’t answer or is hiding the truth. What is there to hide? Or does his/her/its/their opinion reveal who they are?
I guess that might be what you mean.
And, hey, Muskrat, if she does come up, I hope you have improved the sanitation facilities and disposal methods – maybe we need an EIR for trees-sitters, since it is a long term occupation of the land, and there are no toilet facilities. You can’t have her pouring it on the people below.
Rose, they don’t like you talking about high-rise buildings because it’s a great example of infill that coincidentally happens to be very, very unpopular in Humboldt. If people know infill means stacking floors, they won’t want it.
Rose just wants some breathin’ room, you know, like in all of those endless “30 units per acre” developments in southern California. God’s Country. Brings a tear to my eye every time I drive through it.
I’m not the one pushing 30 units per acre. I’m not a fan of infill.
I’m a fan of infill as I defined it above.
I’m not at all a fan of high-rises.
Of course there’s no reason that infill has to include high-rises.
The whole notion that infill in Humboldt County is going to consist of high-rises is just plain silly.
Maybe you folks really believe that, but to me it just looks like you’re jousting with a straw man.
Infill in much of California and meant filling in the farm land between towns with housing tracts. Eventually there is no farm land, no rural, no forests, reservoirs where creeks use to be, shopping centers at what used to be country cross roads. Just drive around what used to be rural land around Santa Rosa, or the miles of 5 acre ranchettes next to 300 ‘house’ sub divisions. Come on folks, this is intuitively obvious to most of us except Rose. Thirty years ago I would drive the back roads from Santa Rosa to the north end of the Napa valley and see maybe 10 cars, a lot of cattle, and great oak trees on rolling hills. now it house after house perched on top of every hill, few trees, and cars everywhere. Personally, I find the new views depersonalized and the traffic intense. Do some of you think this is the way to go? I just don’t get it. Why don’t you move there instead of trying to force your way of living on the rest of us. We live here because we love this place we call “home”. To us, this is the good life, even though primitive by your questionable standards. Just move to Mckinleyville if you don’t already live there, where the great infilling is now in full swing. That’s what you want isn’t it?
Well, Monitor, now I am puzzled, because Infill is what the PC/activist crowd is pushing. And if you’re not gonna allow growth in the outer areas, but only in the cities and towns, where the beloved services are available, that’s gonna mean going UP, apartment buildings, condos at first. then those’ll get torn down for ever taller buildings.
Unless everyone does decide to move elsewhere because they can’t afford to live here. (No jobs, and all.)
It’s just odd trying to juxtapose that stance with activist approval of Foerster-Gill. Should Arkley and Green Diamond hire Foerster-Gill if they want smooth sailing?
I love living in a rural setting (which is still only about 10 miles to town) and its important to me to have some space where I can grow some of my own food and operate my small business.
Unlike some of our urban and suburban-minded lefties, I think we’d all be better off if a somewhat higher percentage of our population was willing to move out into some of the depopulated agricultural lands of our county, to increase local food self-sufficiency and help to restore landscapes that have been roughed up pretty bad by logging and ranching for the past hundred years or so.
So, by no means am I an advocate of urban or suburban living (infill or otherwise) as the only way to allow increased housing. But let’s face it, most people would rather live in a fairly dense setting with lots of services and amenties available. So, for those folks, new infill-type housing seems like a pretty good option to me, if they want to buy a brand-new home rather than an existing structure.
I can agree with you on that, Sheesh. 5 or 10 acre minimums? Room for a garden? Some livestock? Horses?
Cool.
That’s because you pull bullshit out of your ass and try to make it match the real world.
What are you talking about?
The relentless push to add more housing, whether by building up in the cities or building out in ever-expanding suburbs (or both, as is the reality in most parts of the country) is only necessary in the situation of constantly expanding population growth.
If our culture can learn to stabilize its population, the land use issues – and most environmental problems for that matter – wouldn’t be nearly as vexing.
Population is always the pink elephant in the room. It’s a sacred cow.
Population – by another name, heraldo, is your family. Your kids. Your sisters. Your brothers. Your parents. Now you may wanna kill ’em off. Most of us don’t.
You’re a zealot, and willfully ignorant.
Hardly.
Heraldo calling someone else a zealot. That’s funny. Two fanatics having a spat. Time for popcorn.
Of course achieving a stable population size doesn’t require killing your family or anyone else. It’s about voluntarily having fewer kids in the ensuing generations.
Like China. Yay.
Shall we kill the girl or the boy babies?
Here are some answers to questions raised above:
Q: Is Green Diamond really clearcutting in the McKay Tract?
A: Yes, according to the Timber Harvest Plans approved by the Department of Forestry (now called CALFIRE). The THPs are available online for our region. And yes of course it’s legal–most of Green Diamond’s THPs are clearcut.
Q: Are there really 4 pairs of nesting spotted owls in the areas proposed for or already clearcut by Green Diamond in the McKay Tract?
A: Yes, according to the California Natural Diversity Database. And yes it’s also legal to clearcu where there are nesting spotted owls, if you have an Incidental Take Permit (which Green Diamond does). It shouldn’t be legal, but it is.
Perhaps now you crazy bloggers would like to claim that both state agencies are in collusion with Earth First and it’s all just unsubstantiated claims?
Infill means development in areas already served by public infrastructure: municipal water, sewer, schools, roads, electricity.
In McKinleyville, there are quite a few fields remaining that are now completely surrounded by town–these are areas to be infilled.
The McKay Tract is not infill. The density and number of stories you build has nothing to do with it being considered infill.
The idea that achieving population growth would require killing babies is a bizarre point of view. Of course no one is suggesting forced abortions or coercive one-child policies like China adopted. I’m talking about voluntary family planning, and overall cultural change that supports smaller families. I’m suggesting that individuals and families voluntarily reduce their family size in order to allow human civilization to flourish and not outgrow our habitat.
So quit the ridiculous scaremongering, Rose. You’ve taken a simple statement that land use is related to population growth, and extrapolated it out into absurd scenarios of family slaughters and totalitarian takeovers. The only way to stabilize population is killing your family or friends, or adopting totalitarian reproductive policies? Get a grip.
Anyway, what’s your proposed alternative, continued rapid population growth between now and whenever we run out of land and resources? But I thought you were against high-rises and people being forced to live in dense settings!? If population continues to grow unchecked, eventually everything will be infill, because everything will be filled in. After all there’s only so much room on the planet, and so far as we know this is the only planet around with the built-in life support system.
You can try to pretend that population growth has nothing to do with land being converted from timber and agricultural uses to subdivisions, but of course that would just be sticking you head in the sand. Oh wait, that’s actually the most common approach to population growth, so at least you’re not alone!
No need. You’ve provided no evidence that there is old growth there, and you failed to link to any data to support your other claims.
Rose, it is even more apparent that you are a closet fecalpheliac.
Hey NAN – all I did was cite some numbers for Marin & Humboldt Counties. I did not make any judgements about those numbers, you decided that for me apparently. Silly talk.
In fill, out fill, up fill, it all implies a need for a lot more housing here. I just don’t see it. Humboldt’s population has remained fairly stable for years. The developers will probably be marketing these new abodes to out of towners as much as locals. Since we don’t have many jobs these days, the out of towners will be retirees. Nothing particularly negative in that except we need young people with growing families more. We need companies that produce good paying jobs right now, far more than new housing. Housing is putting the cart before the horse. That is why I was hoping for a stronger industrial component to the Balloon tract project. We have pretty much reached the tipping point with retail square footage that can be supported by our population. It is time to do some real urban planning, not some developer’s idea of how to make money. Their planning only goes as far as their project and how much they are forced by the government to consider the surrounding infrastructure. Think about it.
This document is part of Green Diamond’s timber harvest plan for the McKay 09 THP. Read it if you can.
Green Diamonds description of the forest.
Key line from the section on logging Unit B- “The original 1905 clearcut left some scattered residual trees that were submerchantable, difficult to log or of low value.”
The only way to really know for yourself what is out there is to go there. Unit B is more of a hike but well worth it.
No one has said they’re cutting old growth trees, except maybe activists.
Yeah, you know Green Diamond likes to leave the biggest trees for the forest. Why cut the tightest-grained, highest quality redwood when you can leave it for the owls?
It’s all a real hoot——-until the chain saws start. Of course Green Diamond will cut the high quality timber first. Each of those 7000 new houses needs a high quality redwood deck. It will be a decks with a clear view for those Sunday afternoon BBQs.
I repeat, despite your insinuations and snide comments, no one has said they’re cutting old growth trees. So until you have actual evidence, how about laying off the BS?
No one has said they’re cutting old-growth trees yet? Residuals means trees that were part of the original forest before logging. See above link to Green Diamonds description of the forest.
What actual evidence would you accept as fact? Would you believe your own eyes if you were standing there watching them cut one down? Maybe we will have some footage of that before the year is out. Of course, that could be fabricated too just like the moon landing footage.
An admission by Green Diamond to cutting old growth, or an independently verified account of such, would be nice. Gee, I ask for so much. Why don’t I just trust your word?
Why don’t you hike it, anonymous? I’ll take you. Let’s go!
If GD is marking OG trees, doesn’t that mean they intend to fall them? Or are the blue stripes there to make the trees look pretty? Maybe festive?
Happy Easter!