OLD GROWTH LOGGING: Mendocino Redwoods policy
When it comes to cutting trees, the Mendocino Redwood Company (M(e)RC) says it doesn’t log Old Growth.
There’s been much debate on how to define Old Growth by logging companies and the state agencies that regulate them.
When the Campaign for Old Growth sought to outlaw cutting California’s ancient trees, they targeted trees alive when California became a state in 1850. That seemed reasonable.
So it’s interesting to see M(e)RC’s more stringent definition:
1. Any redwood tree, 48″ dbh [diameter at breast height] and larger, established prior to 1800.
2. Any Douglas-fir tree, 36″ dbh and larger, established prior to 1800.
3. Any tree established prior to 1800 (conifer or hardwood), regardless of diameter size, with a preponderance of species-specific old growth characteristics
4. In addition to the above, MRC retains any tree (conifer or hardwood), established prior to 1800, that cannot be replaced in size or ecological function within 80-130 years, regardless of diameter or presence of old growth characteristics. Generally, this fourth “trigger” is applicable to areas of exceptionally low site, for example-pygmy forest, pygmy transition soil, serpentine soils, site five and shallow rocky outcroppings.
See the M(e)RC Old Growth Policy.
Humboldt County history would be very different if Maxxam had adopted such a policy. But then again, if liquidation is your agenda, there’s no room for such wisdom.
It will be interesting to see exactly how much Old Growth is left on Palco land, and how that number compares with M(e)RC’s inventory.
M(e)RC says they’ve only violated the policy twice in ten years. We wonder if there’s any third party confirmation of that claim.
Representatives of M(e)RC say there is no guarantee of the lighter-touch logging plans outlined at their recent “town hall” meetings held in Fortuna and Eureka, and that the company’s ten year record in Mendocino County speaks for itself. Unfortunately, a guarantee of good things seems unlikely from any potential new owners.
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
| 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… |
| Anonymous on Mattole Free State coins |
Top Posts & Pages
The Humboldt Herald 
…After sitting through their presentation, I asked them what their policy was on old growth. Sandy Dean did most of the talking, along with Steve Wills, MRC forester Mike, and the Marathon suit and tie guy. Sandy repeated verbatim what is stated on the MRC site, that they have a OG policy down to every tree. I asked him later if that means that they down every tree, and that the policy was vague. I stated that Option A (MRC’s stated plan for the FSC certification)allows the removal of Old Growth trees in un-entered stands, Old Growth groves less than 20 acres in size, groves containing less than 6 OG trees p/acre or 30 per 20 acres, or trees that are not displaying OG characteristics. Sandy restated that their policy is what it says on the MRC site. I asked him again, more directly, “Will MRC log OG trees in Humboldt county?” He was “stumped” and moved on to the next question…
…The meeting ended and the environmentalists gathered around the suits for a more direct Q and A session.
Sandy clarified what he could not clarify in the public Q and A session in regards to MRC’s Old Growth policy. Sandy stated that they do not cut OG trees, and that to his knowledge, only two OG trees have been removed from Mendo’s forests(hmm, I wonder why he couldn’t say this earlier in front of the audience). Sandy also stated that MRC’s Old Growth policy supersedes Option A and that any trees that display OG characteristics(48″ diameter or greater, pockets of ferns and canopy ecosystems, etc, etc) are considered OG and that the only reasons that they could be removed from their lands is (1) Safety (2) Road Construction (3) Accidentally. Sandy went on to say that the two OG trees that were accidentally cut, to his knowledge, are still in the woods and their policy is to leave OG trees that were accidentally fallen where they lie, in the woods…
More at http://humboldtforestdefense.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-reorganization-concernsmrcs.html
hahaha, M(e)RC! That’s amusing.
I’m still digesting the rest.
I wouldn’t say we circled around them, more like a conversation between a few people. One of my main concerns is that they will make an exception to the rule and log OG in logging plans prepared by PL.
What about the acronym Mendorc?
I reckon that should be MendoRC
I once cut down an old growth tree. No reason for it…..but I liked it
I guess that was the reason then wasn’t it?
Spottedowl doesn’t think about why it does things, it just gets enjoyment out of destruction like all psychopaths.
Oh sweet sweet tree huggers – what exactly is the justification for being such rampant protectionists? Surely you must acknowledge that there is and always will be a demand for wood products, (or would you rather have more petroleum-based and non-biodegradable plastic) and contrary to your incessant excuse-making, it will not be fulfilled from forest thinning and small diameter logs. Thus, is it moral to send the demand for large-diameter logs from ‘old’ trees to other countries whose environmental standards are extremely lax or non-existent?
MeReCo?
MenRedCommie?
I’m all for wood products. My issue is not with logging it’s with how logging is done.
The majority of our forest lands here in Humboldt are covered with small diameter trees. Selective thinning is what can increase the average diameter. If we selectively log then the remaining trees will grow much larger in the future. It’s an investment that most large companies like Green Diamond don’t seem to want to make. They prefer clearcutting and fast rotations which will only result in more small diameter trees.
It’s all in the details, John Doe. The black or white, all or nothing rhetoric is designed to divide us and get some to work against their own best interests. They do it because it works.
I agree with the last two commenters, but add that the economic “pencil” is skewed to push private companies(and individuals) to maximize near term income. Waiting 60 years for a tree to be harvested isn’t consistent with the relative economic returns of manufacturing, services, and retail. Wherever permitted, investment money is moved to anticipated higher returns very quickly by owners/borrowers.
At this time only publically owned resources have a possibility of not being subject to “maximun utilization” or “unlocking of value” strategies. Of course, political pressures and corruption limit sustainable resource management in the public sector too. Also, NGOs like land trusts, conservation easements, and Nature Conservancy offer the best chance to have sustainable wood products, allbeit with little “growth”.
No thoughtful environmentally concerned person wants all forests held as parks or wilderness, fiber production is a viable renewable material for human life support. But growth of fiber production at the rate of human population growth isn’t sustainable.
What about hemp? Humboldt is world famous for it. Couldn’t the local growers donate their waste products to ease the burden on our local forests. Just a thought…
PS. The Nature Conservancy is hyped up on greenwash. Organizations that claim they are eco-groovey, while promoting herbicide usage at the same time, do not deserve that type of stutus.