Lumber Firm Vows to Stop Clear-Cutting
Louisiana-Pacific Corp. announced Wednesday that it will phase out most clear-cutting of California timber by the year 1994 in deference to public opinion about the environment.
“The vote on Prop. 130 in the last state election was close enough to tell us there’s genuine interest and concern in California about how trees are grown, harvested and converted into products,” said Harry A. Merlo, chairman and president of the Portland, Ore.-based firm.
Proposition 130, a voter initiative known as Forests Forever, would have fundamentally changed the California timber business, increasing the influence of environmental and public interest advocates. The initiative--one of three affecting forestry practices on November’s statewide ballot--lost by a 53% to 47% vote. The others were more decisively defeated.
In clear-cutting, loggers cut down all standing timber in one area. Besides being unsightly, environmentalists say, it bares the soil to erosion and damage and can destroy older forests. Environmentalists prefer such methods as selective cutting, in which individual trees are felled while much of the forest is left intact.
The Louisiana-Pacific announcement comes as draft proposals from a joint industry-environmentalist task force for timber-cutting reform are circulating in the Northern California timber country. The proposals for state legislation are seen by both sides as a way to avoid further costly and volatile voter initiatives.
The company’s action is “certainly a step in the right direction,” said Gail Lucas, forest issues representative for the Sierra Club and a member of the task force.
“We’re happy to see them join with us in that commitment,” added David Galitz, spokesman for Pacific Lumber Co., the Scotia, Calif.-based firm that renounced most clear-cutting on its lands two years ago but remains a target of environmental demonstrators.
“Less than 10% of our total harvest last year was by the clear-cut method,” Galitz said, “and that was only in areas where there was infestation or rot.”
Other timber companies--including Georgia-Pacific Corp. and Simpson Redwood Co.--said Wednesday that they did not plan to follow suit.
“Clear-cutting is something that can be done properly, and we’re committed to doing it properly,” said Dave Kaney, general manager of Simpson, based in Arcata, Calif.
In any event, some environmental critics said Louisiana-Pacific’s announcement rang hollow.
“That’s easy for them to say because they very seldom use clear-cutting,” said Betty Ball, coordinator of the Mendocino Environmental Center. “They basically rely on shelterwood removal--a two- or three-stage clear-cut--which ends up the same.”
Barry Lacter, spokesman for Louisiana-Pacific, countered that shelterwood cutting done correctly is very different from clear-cutting. Loggers remove half or more of the largest trees in one harvest, then allow smaller trees to grow for another five to 30 years before a second harvest, leaving the forest better able to adapt, he said.
Lacter said last year clear-cutting was used for 15% to 20% of the trees harvested in California by Louisiana-Pacific, while shelterwood cutting was employed for 60% of the harvest.
