hant EDITORIAL

Redwood Porks-Pro qnd Con

Pro:

Stuart Udall, in a recent talk before an urban group, asked if anyone had ever done anything for conservation. A voice in the back of the room answered, ool once shot a woodpecker."

The redwood industry has done much better than this, as readers of our columns know full well. In addition to the eight thousand acres of prime riverflat and scenic timber the industry is still reserving for the state, they have recently come up with a recreation plan for their lands rvhich would make them available to the public.

Let's look at what this means:

(1) It will keep the timber and land on the tax rolls.

(2) The land will continue productive and thus contribute its rotating crops to the gross national product.

(3) Roads for access will be privately maintained.

(4) Safer and more pleasant conditions for the recreationist will prevail.

(5) You will be able to hunt, pick berries, rock. hound, bring in your dog, ride horseback and get free campfire wood-all prohibited in government parks.

(6) No charge for use vs. a charge in government parks.

(7) Competition with commercial hotels, motels and resorts as government parks do ?-of course not. This plan will help them.

(B) Game management can be much better controlled for wildlife preservation.

(9) And don't forget this-there is no cost to the tax,Wyer.In fact, the private owners are paying taxes for the privilege of maintaining their land for your benefit.

There are many other advantages too lengthy to list here.

If you love the redwoods as we do you will do all in your power to back the industry's Redwood Industry Recreation Areas (RIRA) plan.

Con:

There are many plans before various agencies to increase the acquisition of redwood timberlands. If all of them went through, an estimated one-third of all redwood timber by volume, as well as the production potential of the land, would be lost forever. National Park Service Plan #1 alone would reduce the production of redwood mills in Humboldt and Del Norte counties by 27 percent. This means that private owners who have planned their timber acquisition and production for perpetual yield would have their cycles completely disrupted and would be forced to either sell out completely or take staggering losses in readjustment.

Arcata Redwood, Miller Redwood, Georgia-Pacific, Simpson and Pacific would be wounded in various degrees from a mortal wound to 20 years in the hospital. You see, for each acre of old-growth taken out of production, you automatically reduce the capability of the mill by that much to stretch the old-growth young-growth transition of the next quarter century. Thus, you can see how badly each private owner will be w-ounded when you know how many of his acres will be acquired. Believe us, several of the above named will be dead if any one of the various plans is adopted.

But let's go further. Economic law tells us that scarcity produces higher prices. Result here is a decrease in production-thus higher prices. Higher prices mean more competition from substitute materials. Net result is that redwood would be priced out of its major markets. The whole region would sufier, and the public would be depriveJ of one of its best buildine materials.

For what? For the preservation of some virgin growth for posterity that is already more than adequately preserved by an enlightened cooperation between private owners, the Save-The-Redwoods League, and the state of California. W'e don't believe the people of California, or of the U. S. A. for that matter, can afford to stand still for this kind of rape. We suggest they get behind the owners who are giving them their all for recreation purp{rses lree, and. at the same time paying taxes, keeping thousands employed, contributing valuable merchandise to the sross national product, and giving you, Mr. Retailer, a real quality product to sell.