The Last Stand
The papers are all compiled below. Click on any of the
names in the table below to jump to the selected student's paper, or just
scroll through them. Do Not Print Papers from this page. If you
want to print one, copy it into a Word document. Printing from this page
will print all the papers and waste many trees!
Ali Dozier
Top
I thought the book was informative. I wouldn’t have imagined
the timber industry to be wrought with so much manipulation and backstabbing…ha
ha ha. No really, I thought it was awesome as an account of the world involved
in redwood harvesting.
I hate Charles Hurwitz. Maybe it’s none of my business, but he needs to check himself. The book, and I believe it to be accurate, made him out to be like The Brain…you know Pinky and The Brain "What are we gonna’ do tonight, Brain?" I can imagine him standing wide armed at the edge of "his" property with his two demon spawn, his arms held open wide, not in appreciation for the land and all it has to offer us, but in glory of how much money he was going to come upon in the next few years, contemplating his dominance over the people of Scotia, the Murphys, and most importantly of the land. What a turd.
My favorite player in all of this was Bill Bertain. He never gave up. For a guy who was not necessarily a woodsman, he showed a lot of compassion for the woods, for the woods as a sustainable resource. I have to admire him because he put a lot on the line to make a difference, to curtail Hurwitz’s outrageous activities. But he did it in a way that made sense to the rules.
I think activists are great people. I have a lot of respect for people who go out on a limb, literally, to change events in our world. I think sometimes, though, it helps to have a distinct understanding of the social world around us too. We can’t expect to save all the forests if we’re in trees. It takes the Bertains too to make it happen.
And that’s all I have to say, thanks for listening, bye.
Amy Robertson
Top
Where is the balance between economic stability and the
environment? It seems PL had worked out a solid balance before the
takeover. In the Murphy philosophy, the sustainable yield and selective
cut maintained jobs over the long term and kept ecosystems as healthy as
they can be when used for industry.
Unfortunately, any industry involvement disturbs the environment. The forging of roads alone imposes major destruction to an area. Logging roads lead to more forest fires than any other human influence. In addition, the abandoned roads often get washed out by rains and clog waterways with debris. Furthermore, the felling of trees destroys under-story plants and the removal of those trees causes even more destruction of the under-story. Therefore, timber harvesting always has environmental costs.
Then the question becomes, can the environmental movement be industry friendly. This can be looked at two ways. First one can see that getting rid of the timber industry is nearly impossible. People want wood and wood products. Hence, the market demands timber harvest. With that in mind, the logical conclusion is that one should find where labor interests overlap with environmental interests and build a movement based on these common interests. This is the best path to success for either movement. The larger and broader in philosophy your contingency is the better your community support will be and therefore the more likely you are to win your fight. The other side of the coin is the Earth First! no compromise philosophy. The idea of no compromise leaves no room for timber jobs. It requires zero cut. This in turn alienates a huge part of the population, both timber workers, those sympathetic to them, and capitalists. Furthermore, it neglects the compassion for people’s way of life and what that means to them. It essentially pretends they do not matter. Hence, it is obvious why this philosophy would upset the labor movement.
Therefore, environmentalism is often in opposition
to the labor movement but it doesn’t have to be. In fact when the
two sides consider each other positive solutions are developed and both
jobs and ecosystems survive.
Andrew Marr Top
No Paper Submitted
Anna Constance Top
The further into the class we get the more cynical, overwhelmed, and hopeless I feel. The complexities of the predicament humans are currently facing involving our general culture of over consumption, overproduction, and environmental and social degradation is mind-boggling. Furthermore, the complexity increases as ethics, politics, and morals are brought into the picture. David Harris illustrates this in his book The Last Stand.
I have vaguely known about Charles Hurwitz, The Maxxam Corporation, and the struggle over Headwaters for a couple of years and it was good to get a more in-depth picture of the situation; however, I found the book to be incredibly depressing and it left me with a sinking feeling in my chest.
I was not surprised to read of the underhanded actions Hurwitz took, or the consequences they had. I was, however, surprised to see that he was portrayed as having little to no idea about how he was affecting Humboldt County. I was appalled and disappointed, but not surprised, that Hurwitz’s, Campbell’s and Elams’ motivation was driven by money, greed and fame. I was also incredibly disappointed in the attitudes of the "activists" (I am uncomfortable generalizing and using terms such as activists, timber people and the like because I recognize that people are all different and this kind of generalizing is one thing that has gotten people in such a mess with each other; however, for the sake of simplicity I am going to use such terms). All too often I see self-identified activists possessing an air of "we understand the problem and know the solution; therefore, we are going to explain your oppression to you and save the day." A lot more could have potentially been done if the "activists" had initiated peaceful dialogue with the "timber people". However, is it even possible to expect anything positive to arise out of a discussion between two groups that have made initial judgments about each other based on physical appearance and pre-conceived notions? I was sickened by the demonization of both groups, but mainly of the "activists". So much hatred and violence erupted, that was unnecessary. I was also sickened by the attack on Judi and Darryl, and the callous remarks of the "timber people" afterward. It was a complete and utter mess.
This was a disheartening, disastrous, sad, and desperate story. The worst part is that it is true. So many people suffered from Hurwitz’s take over and he may not have even realized it. Groups of people who could have been working together were attacking each other, and everyone lost except Hurwitz.
I want to work toward a world that is worth living in,
but I don’t think that it can exist without a complete shift in the dominate
ideology that Westerners and people in power currently accept and follow,
and I don’t know if people are really willing to stop and really consider
how we can make a world like that exist. When a person or group of
people is a real threat to the power structure they get blown up, so what
are we going to do?
Ben Shryock
Top
I found in both novels that we have read so far that
the tone and style of the authors seems to reflect greatly on the times
of which they wrote. Annie Dillard, as many students have critically
pointed out, wrote with a much slower pace and a more unhurried style,
perhaps to give insight into the pace of life in early stages of technology.
David Harris on the other hand, appropriately writes with tone of a man
on the brink of a subversive corporate takeover. The Last Stand,
reminds me of a Tom Clancy novel, filled with mystery, intrigue, and plenty
of action, which keeps the pages turning, but also makes me feel the intensity
of the fast paced world of corporate business.
Both books left me with a good sense of the world they were trying to portray, two worlds that through the course of only one hundred years have become vastly different-two worlds that through technological advances share only the minutest of similarities. People on the coast of California, only one hundred years ago, could have never imagined the metropolises that are spreading up and down the costal region. All this change in the span of one human life, an absolutely unprecedented phenomenon, where now in only thirty minutes, one man can alter perhaps five hundred or a thousand years of growth.
I find it amazing that two books, concerning similar subjects,
can be written in such a way that they will convey more than what can be
stated in words alone. Those that found points of displeasure with
The Living, surely have nothing to complain about when analyzing David
Harris’ work, at least not on the same grounds. I found all aspects
that were lacking in our first novel readily available in its successor-
dialog, foreshadowing, action, and detailed descriptions.
Beth Belanger Top
Overall, The Last Stand was completely appropriate in
the context of this program. The author, David Harris uncovers the
scandalous take-over of Pacific Lumber in a way that engages the reader.
If the characters of this novel do not make a person enraged at corporate
America, nothing will. The atrocities committed upon the working
class and the environment, by multi-millionaires such as Charles Hurwitz,
deserves complete punishment. However, as the last lines in the book
say "Greed works! Crime Pays! Everybody does it!" (p.358).
When these attitudes persist, it does a real injustice to the well being
of the earth and its inhabitants.
At many points in the novel, the reader feels helpless
to the powers of big business. It makes you ask yourself, what, if
anything can be done to stop corporate takeovers that swallow up good business
and natural resources. What can one person do? The answer is nothing,
at least not on an individual level. This is precisely what the bigwigs
prey on. The description of Hurwitz’s office with the picture of
"a large fish swallowing a smaller one"(p.288) was quite fitting.
Hurwitz’s takeover was possibly because he snuck up on an unsuspecting,
vulnerable and weak business. Even when the workers or the activists
organized and attempted to fight Hurwitz’s business practices, he was still
unstoppable. The long-term effects to employee benefits and the local
ecosystems will never justify one person’s extreme wealth.
The crimes committed on workers’ rights and the
environment often perpetuates when white-collar crimes go under-punished.
The actual punishments of Michael Milken, Boyd Jeffries, and Charles Hurwitz
are far from adequate. For example, Milken receives a ten-year sentence
for pleading guilty to six counts of felony, of which he serves less than
two years in a minimum-security prison (p.342). Where is the justice
here? Apparently, justice is just another commodity that the affluent
can buy. Meanwhile the poor and the environment suffer greatly, while
a few gain substantial monetary wealth. If the justice system continues
to give special privileges to the elite, the incentive to act ethically
will go right out the door.
We must protect the earth and ourselves from the
destruction that corporate greed causes. When the critical mass unites,
we can attain the powers that it will take to fight off the big fish.
Because we are constantly being preyed upon, we must instill awareness
about the actions of corporate raiders and the like. We must guard
ourselves against these figures for the betterment of today’s and future
societies.
Blake Kownacki
Top
The Last Stand portrays different groups with different
interests but never brings to surface any connections that can bridge the
opposing sides. It neglects to portray any salable solutions that
may have been provided by any of the sides.
I see the corporate interests as only concerning
themselves with accumulating wealth and capital. The high yields
of initial cash flow from the forest are the perpetuator behind destructive
clear cutting. There is an area of different interests within the
labor force that makes up the family of Pacific Lumber. However there
are two fundamental differences within the labor groups. There are
those who are labor conformists and then there are those who created a
sort of labor resistance. The labor conformists are those who willingly
went along with the new corporate demands. These corporate demands
were matched with higher paychecks; lies on planned expansion of cutting
practices, and a sizeable check reflecting their stock options. The
labor resistance was noticeably smaller in size and consisted of diehards
in the Murphy tradition of sustainable cut. Their attempts to halt
the takeover of pacific lumber and its practices were only met with brick
walls made by Hurwitz and his preparation for people such as themselves.
However both side of the labor coin wanted nothing more
then to continue seeing the community which they so prided themselves on,
continue its’ sustainability with the assurance of jobs in this so called
loggers paradise. And on the opposite end of the spectrum from the corporate
heads, were the members of environmental groups such as Earth First and
Epic. These dedicated preservers of Mother Earth worked diligently
at protecting the Redwoods, however the idea of no compromise neglects
a solution, which everyone involved, can walk away with a portion of their
demands met.
The gaps that exist in this book are ones that still
exist today. Corporations, employees, and environmentalists have
huge contradicting views with gaps in understanding that are not willing
to be crossed. It is not until these gaps are at least better defined
and understood that any kind of cohesive progress will come about.
Brian Mc Elfresh Top
No Paper Submitted
Brooke Smith
Top
A business, many communities, a couple of hippies, and
some trees where all turned up side down by one event that was masterminded
by one man. Unbelievable! The consequences of that event led
to an incredible outcome, which was driven by all the different values
that each part involved had. I found it easy to take either side
when it came to the loggers and the activists. Each had values that were
detrimental to their well being. It’s so hard to put a value on happiness.
I could put myself in either shoes. Although I probably wouldn’t
have taken to levels at which occurred. I always knew that activism
was hard-core but really never had witnessed it or seen much of the opposing
side. The book did a good job of painting that picture. I was a little
surprised on the death threats to the activists but not to Hurwtiz. I guess
that’s where I be come more on the other side. Then again Hurwitz
had both sides against him and he deserved that.
Hurwitz! I found no values or morality in
his take over. To be driven by the powerful almighty dollar is sickening
and he disgusts me. I have no sympathy toward him. I could
never put myself in his shoes and never would. Why would anyone want
his job?!! Oh wait. To make the most money as quick and easy as you can.
He didn’t give a shit about timber sales or the lumber business not to
mention the beauty of the trees. All he wanted was the money and
never took the time to way out any of the consequences. His one move
just ripped a world apart that was far from the high rises of New York
and as it all progressed his main objective never changed. Wow.
I’m not sure if that’s determination or just plain greed. To me,
his move to take over Pacific Lumber and his success made him a bad man
in my eyes.
The ending really surprised me. I was so anticipating
the triumph of the saved trees and was very sad when that didn’t happen.
It was hard to believe after all that time and all the hard work that there
was no permanent resolution. Some leeway was made but not what I was expecting.
What a downer and not the happy ending I was looking forward to.
Will there ever be a happy ending to the fight to save trees? Not
in this case.
Bubba Rush Top
No Paper Submitted
David Bell Top
The Last Stand brought a conversation Ray and myself have
had close to home. Our conversation has been based around the misconception
many loggers have about activists as well as the misunderstanding many
activists have about loggers and their communities. This is evident in
the mistrust the local of Scotia had about Earth First!, and the propaganda
which is spread on both sides of the community.
I feel it is extremely important to have a collaborative
learning process, where both sides of the logging community can come together
and voice their concerns with the management of this valuable resource.
It is true that many of the ideological differences between these communities
will not be understood, but this open line of communication is necessary
to facilitate positive change in the destructive practices that are occurring
now. Until these communities can unite and fight against a common enemy,
the greed that is prevalent in capitalism and how it effects resource management
we will both be fighting a losing battle for a common good.
I would like to take this opportunity to voice
my intent in making a discussion like this occur at Evergreen. I think
it would be a great opportunity for both the activist community and the
logging community to dialogue and learn that some of their goals are not
far apart. We were able to see some of this work come to fruition during
the WTO, environmentalists, labor activists and steel workers walking arm
in arm to fight against a destructive trade law that threatened not only
their jobs but also those of fellow workers and the environment. Libratory
education stresses this open line of communication, giving voice to all
of those concerned, even more importantly giving a voice to those who have
been silenced. I will try my best to initiate and work together with other
members of the community to have a round table discussion on some of the
important timber issues affecting communities today.
David Jacobson
Top
The Last Stand did a good job portraying California’s
old growth issues and the frustration that involved parties have gone through.
One of the most noteworthy divisions in the story was between the environmentalists
and the mill workers. They seemed to have converging interests but had
no way of reconciling their differences in order to work together. Their
lack of understanding led to their only communication being through condensed
oversimplified slogans shouted at each other during demonstrations. If
both had been able to understand each others views it seemed like they
could have prevented Hurwitz’s maximized logging and reverted back to at
least a "sustainable" cut. To me, that seems to be one of the biggest problems
with most direct action: it polarizes and segregates people’s views. EarthFirst!’s
actions create a small delay at the sacrifice any future agreement on the
subject. I would be no means suggest to stand around while the last of
the wilderness is slashed and burned but I would certainly rethink their
strategies. The toughest part seems to be to know when direct action should
be applied and in what way. Is the point of the action to get attention,
to change what people think, a time delay while something else is tried?
And how well are these things working?
Dawn Curran Top
The Last Stand, by David Harris was a good comparison between economics and the environment. It depicted how strongly the economic force of Wall Street dominates our ecological world. This is captured in the quotation, "What was for sure was that "civilization" was extinguishing all the earth’s other species in a mad rush toward oblivion, in the name of capital, growth, and "progress."’ (143) The Human society feels as though they are the only living animals on earth that deserve to make decisions. Humans do not care what is happening to the world around them, they just care about ‘progress.’ Since money is the main control over people’s actions, humans do not care what the best social outcome would be. On page 65 Harris writes, "History counted little and Wall Street was God." Since PL was made public, it caused the ‘family business’ to turn into a ‘liquidation’ business.
It is interesting to see that when a business’ goal is to liquidate all its profits, it often overworks it employees, and hires uneducated workers. Once Hurwitz bought PL they hired gypos that did not know how to log. When a company wants to earn cash fast, they often don’t care about the impact on the environment they are making. This is shown by how the gypos would not cushion the fall of the redwoods causing a mass waste leftover. The impact money has on society is also similar to that. Since all the PL workers were being paid almost double their normal salary, they just trashed all of their old appliances and bought new ones instead of fixing the old ones.
Not everyone agreed with the new way that Hurwitz was
running the company. Many of the workers did not agree, but PL was
their job so they had no other choice than to continue working for a company
that they did not agree with. The workers who were worried about
the new changes to the company wrote this song:
"‘Where are we gonna work when the trees are gone?
Will the big boss have us wash his car or maybe mow his
lawn?
I’m a man, I’m a man, I’m a lumberjack man
But I fear it ain’t for long
Where are we gonna work when the trees are gone?…"’(168)
I don’t agree with how much control an outside force,
such as the Stock Market, can have over a company. PL had such a
legacy in the Murphy family with good values. These were all taken
over by a man with no care for the company other than making a lot of money
and then running when the company folds.
I really enjoyed this book. It made a good connection
between the economics and the environment. Many of the connections
between the two were ones which I have been looking for in the class.
Debra Joie Top
No Paper Submitted
Elise Sanders Top
I think this was the best material we have read thus far
in the program. The process of how an individual takes over a corporation
was a little vague but I understand it better than before I read the novel.
I understand that it deals with the amount of shares that the individual
can posses and if that individual obtains more shares than a specified
percent than that person can determine how the corporation is run.
However, couldn’t the corporation ward off this takeover by having other
individuals within the corporation purchase more stock so that way the
individual trying to purchase said corporation wouldn’t be able to?
What and how is the percentage of minimal number of stock required to control
a corporation determined? What were some ways that the corporation
could avoid this takeover?
Is cutting down all the trees more profitable than
ensuring that you "always have trees to cut?" I suppose on a short-term
scale the assumption is that the profit of cutting trees is greater than
the opportunity cost of leaving the trees standing. However, I believe
that Mr. Murphy was correct in his belief that it was more profitable to
ensure that they "always had trees to cut" rather than cutting all the
trees at once, turning them into lumber, and selling them. Like he
said this would decrease the amount of runoff from the clear-cut areas
which would keep the salmon population viable and decrease the burden of
flooding. I suppose however, that people interested in corporate
takeovers would simply be interested in their immediate gain and also they
need to insure that they can pay off their debts to the borrowers.
So on a business level it would be much more reasonable to cut down all
the trees immediately and worry about where your going to get new trees
later than it is to worry about always having trees and making little profit.
However, from an economical viewpoint this isn’t sustainable because at
this kind of rate there wouldn’t be enough trees for future generations
to use at the level that we consume them now. Also, for an ecological
viewpoint this isn’t sustainable either because the corporations would
be consuming trees faster than they can grow back and destroying all surrounding
habitats as well.
Is there a net cost to society or a net gain to
society? I would have to say that this is a net cost to society simply
due to the unsustainable implications clear-cutting has to both the economics
and the ecology of the timber industry. Therefore, I believe Hurwitz
is an evil man and that he destroyed a good idea.
Elliott Ridgway Top
No Paper Submitted
Geoff MacIntyre Top
Numerous different forms of direct and indirect action were taken by the members of Earth First! And other environmental organizations to save the Headwater’s Forest from being clear-cut by Pacific Lumber.
Direct actions, such as protests, tree sits, and protesters chaining themselves to logging equipment are physical actions taken against Pacific Lumber on-site, in Humboldt County, amongst the very trees the activists are trying to save, and the loggers that are paid to cut them down.
Indirect Actions like lawsuits, petition signing, and letter writing campaigns do not necessarily have to happen amongst the grove of trees the activists were trying to save. They rely less on the physical intervention of logging practices by members of the environmental organization and more upon the intervention of public institutions such as courts and lawmakers.
Which type of actions were the most beneficial for the
Headwaters Forest? Earth First! activists on the ground certainly
slowed and frustrated the efforts of Pacific Lumber to cut the forests
on their lands. These actions had a twofold effect. They worked
to keep the forest intact by disrupting Pacific Lumber’s logging activities
in any way possible until indirect actions could gain momentum. Their
direct action also gained public attention to a spectacle of destructive
logging that no one but foresters and trespassing activists would otherwise
have observed.
However, these direct actions had numerous problems and
limitations. They involved confronting loggers and foresters in the
field. Loggers weren’t the enemy in this case, they were instruments
of forest destruction paid for by the owners of Pacific Lumber. When
confronted by activists and groomed by PL management, they became an active
force themselves, opposing the activism that would otherwise have helped
keep their way of life intact. Direct actions caused dangerous conflict
and enflamed passions on either side of the issue. The negative ramifications
of these outcomes are obvious, but this situation also attracted more attention
from the media and the public eye. Did these conflicts benefit the
agents of forest destruction or the activists in the end? I think
that the activists won a larger part of the battle because the forest is
now protected, but it was a nasty fight.
The indirect actions that were taken to save the Headwater’s
Forest took the form of legal action against Timber Harvest Plans (T.H.P.’s)
submitted by the Pacific Lumber Company, and the authoring and promotion
of the Forests Forever initiative, a thorough rewrite of California logging
regulations, that would ban clear cutting, require upkeep of logging roads
to prevent soil erosion, require 40 year minimum rotation for cuts, would
require a survey by the department of fish and game to enforce wildlife
protection, and would require that no more timber could be cut than is
grown in the forest in a given year. While Forest Forever initiative
failed 48 to 52, it was a profound victory because it nearly passed on
the statewide ballot.
While direct actions stirred up public opinion against
Pacific Lumber’s clear-cuts and worked to aggravate Pacific Lumbers’ plans
for clear-cutting their redwood forests, it was the decisions in the courts
that eventually protected Headwater’s Forest. It was the indirect
action of The Man Who Walks In The Woods, and Cecilia Lanman that actually
preserved the forests in a tangible way. Both means of action were
effective and necessary in their way, but I would argue that the consequences
of indirect action were much more profound and far-reaching. By challenging
every THP that she could in court, Cecilia Lanman changed the "rubber stamping"
approval process that the California Fish and Wildlife had previously used
to green-light proposed timber harvesting activities. The ramifications
of the Forests Forever initiative are less tangible, but nevertheless important.
It’s introduction and near-passage sent a message to politicians and citizens
and industry leaders alike that an age of wanton biological destruction
for profit was nearing an end, and that people may be inclined to require
more responsible utilization of our natural resources in the future.
Glenn Burkhart Top
The novel The Last Stand was a compelling story that was
hard to put down. I found the characters in the book interesting and real.
I felt as if I knew many of the mill workers, the loggers, and the activists
as well, these were people from my hometown who I could relate to very
easily. I felt like I could side with either one of them from chapter to
chapter. I know loggers and how much they depend on their jobs to provide
for their families. I also know enough about, and have a strong connection
with, the environment and forests to feel a little bit dismembered when
I see a clear cut. I once visited the redwood forest off of the Pacific
Coast Highway when I was younger and marveled at their size and beauty,
the way that they dominated the forest not even letting a strand of light
through the canopy. They seemed to me then to be untouchable. That was
in 1985, the year that Hurwitz was planning his pirate attack on Pacific
Lumber. At ten years old I hadn't even the foggiest clue as to the fate
of the forests looming in the not so distant future, but I knew that they
were something special and something to treasure. When reading the book
I felt a lot of animosity towards Hurwitz and his accomplices. I'd only
been through Humboldt County maybe twice in my lifetime and seemed to have
more understanding of the importance of PL than he. All that he and his
cronies could see there was money to be made hand over fist. How could
he not see the families and the townsfolk who depended on a quite little
existence? How could he not see that their (PL) forest practices were sufficient
for that economy and that they didn't need him to come in and leach off
of their resources? I enjoyed reading about Kelly Bettiga. I thought
that he had a lot of balls for standing up to Campbell when he worked at
PL. I can really relate to Bettiga because he was a mill worker who
didn’t agree with the new forest practices. He didn’t oppose cutting altogether
but he wanted sustainability. I find this view to be more practical
than the Earth First view of "no compromise."
Hannah Snyder Top
No Paper Submitted
Ian Kirouac Top
"Stumps and earth were strew across a hideous moonscape… leaving behind a slope that resembled the skin of a hastily plucked chicken… this had been the 200 acres targeted during the companies initial escalation." Charles Horwitz had acquired his target, Pacific Lumber, through a corporate raid and turned traders into timber men. The goal became immediate and massive liquidation of Pacific Lumbers assets, which included the largest privately owned holdings of California redwoods. The CEO and front line defense for PL was Glen Elam and through his contracting with Salomon Brothers on a commission basses for a sale, increasing their fee by millions of dollars by negotiating any increase in stock price, any options other than a sale were eliminated. Harris paints Elam as highly incompetent. The fact is he still had to have the vote of the board and the shareholders. I find it highly unlikely there were all unaware of what PL’s vote to accept the tender offer, changing the take over from hostile to friendly- negating all tools available to PL to protect the company, the employees, and the redwoods, would mean in the long run. Elam followed the easy road to profit and the stockholders followed.
The Hero’s of the story appear to be a domestic,
"terrorist" group known as Earth First! With a full resume' of civil disobedience
techniques the group manages to keep the issues in the news and capture
the publics attention. Had it not been for the efforts of this group it
is highly likely that all PL’s holding of redwoods, including the All Species
Stand and Headwater Forest, would have been harvested. I think Earth First
make a strategic error in its decision to spike trees- had such a line
not been drawn and loggers and mill workers not lost their lives through
this practice, the two groups may have realized that in the end their concerns
were very similar.
In a long list of victims: loggers, mill workers
and other PL employees should not be left out unless they were stockholders
with the ability to vote. I can’t believe anyone working at the timber
co. would have wanted the massive destruction associated with enormous
profits following the take over. It seems most if not all enjoyed the extra
hours and overtime that came with an increased cut, but they would have
gladly surrendered these in exchange for sustainability.
Jacob Wilson Top
No Paper Submitted
Keegan Murphy Top
''The Last Stand'' is certainly about an important issue. What we do with forest resources in the United States is as important as any question of our economic (not to mention moral and spiritual) life. And the case of Pacific Lumber provides a perfect study of how our economic system allows a small number of people to gain control of those resources to better themselves at the expense of large numbers of people.
Our society cannot offer a way to replace what is lost or even effectively keep others from following Hurwitz's lead. The founders of Pacific Lumber had a glimpse of the future: Go slow; keep the business in the family, weave it into the community for decades, and remember that you will live with mistakes for generations.
When Hurwitz looked at Pacific Lumber, he didn't see a family business and a company town. He saw a cheap investment and a quick profit if he could increase the company's production. After some time Hurwitz realized that it wasn't just about bond traders taking over a small company and driving it into the ground for short-term financial gain. Because Pacific Lumber was a lumber company in the Californian redwood forests, Hurwitz's plans to increase production by ending the Murphy family policy of selective cutting of the forest drew the attention of the radical environmentalist group Earth First. Whose members began jamming the trees with metal spikes or strapping themselves to the trees before the cutters arrived to sabotage Maxxam's plans.
I believe that telling the story as a novel weakened its
impact. ''Last Stand'' gives us many points of view and moves from setting
to setting without footnotes or direct quotations. While this technique
helps the reader to keep going, it often makes it impossible to understand
who's telling the story.
Kelly Cannon Top
One of the topics I found intriguing is the argument by
the employees of Pacific Lumber supporting logging and the practices of
the company. The debate between Greg King and John Campbell on page
171 struck me because of the emotions both men displayed in describing
their feelings toward the old growth stands. Greg with his adamant
beliefs of preserving something he found sacred versus John with his belief
that old growth is "nothing but dying trees, a wasted bloody resource."
The two men saw the forest in two understandable but very different lights.
It is easy to see where Greg King is coming from because of the might and
glory of the redwoods will have an impact on any person’s heart that is
into nature. However to understand John Campbell’s side takes stepping
into the world of making money and seeing the trees as a commodity to be
reaped for all it is worth. This stand is hard for a lot of people
to understand but many people want to get ahead in life by what ever measures
they can use- it’s just a different way of looking at things based on community,
culture, education and geography.
Along the same lines of looking at the forest in terms
of PL employees, the protest put on by the loggers with statements like--
"How can you replace $10-$16 hour jobs?" is a very relevant point.
Also, the rejection of THPs would "cost Humboldt residents somewhere in
the neighborhood of eighteen hundred and fifty-two jobs." What are
those people supposed to do? The loss of that many jobs would seriously
affect the community in a negative way. It’s like one logger said
to Greg King when he had his banner hanging over Hwy 101, condemning Greg
for trying to get his picture in the paper and "play god with his (the
logger’s) job." That would piss me off too! If logging were
my livelihood and I was trying to support and raise a family and some dirty
welfare receiver tried to take away my hard and honest work, I would probably
want to kill them.
** This last thought made me wonder why there wasn’t
more harm to the Earth First! People. Maybe because a lot of the
PL workers could see their point of needing to at least find sustainability.
Kelly Stoddard Top
No Paper Submitted
Kevin Long Top
I thought this was a great book for this class, with the financial aspect of the corporate take over and the ecological movement brought head to head in one of the most precious areas known.
I’d like to look at the issue regarding the loggers’ beliefs and how they were swayed by money. It’s not hard to see why a someone, or an entire town, could be so proud of working for a company like Pacific Lumber when it was run in the traditional Murphy way. They harvested sustainably, took good care of their workers, and good old PL, and the workers’ jobs, were going to be around along time. When Charlie took over, none of the workers wanted it. But when production increased, as well as paychecks, most of the workers backed out of the fight against Horowitz. I admit there were other factors involved, but these basic facts speak for themselves.
One more thing, were the efforts of earth first! counter
productive? By attacking their profession and livelihood, did they force
the loggers, who were initially against Horowitz, to side with him?
Kevin Reis Top
I found this book to be quite amazing, in that it
showed me a lot of how "the game" is played. By that statement I mean that
it was informative to me as to how Wall Street and big business really
corrupt the little guy right out of his pants.
I couldn’t believe the quickness, strategy, and
shear power of Hurwitz. If ever there was a wicked witch of the West, he
was it. I knew that corporations engulfed smaller business, but not so
fast! With little regard for those who made P.L., and made it the longest
running lumber company in the Pacific Northwest, Hurwitz simply pushed
on through it. The blindness of Elam and Campbell took me a bit off guard
as well. I would of believed that, at the least; Elam would have found
a way to save the company.
The things that came of this massive struggle
were, I suppose, bound to happen however. The movements that came about
and actions that were taken were those of families, environmentalists,
and people with true souls. To stand up against gargantuan corporations
with no face is no small task. There are few with the know-how, power,
and backbone to do it. Though many are not even heard of.
The lives sacrificed and time put into this fight
was incredible. To have so many different folks try to come together on
a common ground is marvelous, even if they don’t exactly see eye to eye.
The loggers of the area had much to fight for. Hurwitz’s plans completely
undermined the families and environment, which wasn’t thought of too much
back in the eighties. Unfortunately!
To have anyone want to stop such devilish schemes
was unheard of in a corporate run society. This struggle greatly defined
what is, and what isn’t acceptable. At least it helped to define acceptable.
To have a struggle be such an impact on the way things are run, so much
that laws are changed because of it, is tremendous and a true memorial
to all that went into it. This book opened my eyes a bit more to all that
may be wrong with the way the system runs things. I look forward to looking
more in depth to this story and those like it.
Kevin Smith Top
Three distinct groups have come to clash over environmental
issues in the United States in recent times, and The Last Stand does a
fair job of documenting the viewpoints of all three. There are the bankers
the quasi-mythical Wall Street denizens who care only to line their
own pockets. There are the "Timber People" the loggers and their
families who are dependent on the production of timber products for their
livelihood. And then there are the environmentalists of various tilts and
inclinations, all of whom share the same interest in preserving the California
old-growth for the future. Three groups come to clash over a single resource.
The bankers, towards the latter half of the book,
show their uncanny ability to manipulate public perception of environmental
issues they have the force of the media on their side, and also giant
public relations companies to ensure that their image is not tarnished.
In investigating any number of violent incidents that take place throughout
the story, both the local police and the FBI look to the bankers as the
most reliable source available of information. As events unfold, it becomes
clear who is ultimately in control of the forest.
A large part of the bankers’ success in cheating
the workers of Pacific Lumber out of their livelihood comes from the hegemonic
control they maintain over the flow of information. The environmentalists
and the lumbermen share a common enemy in the takeover artists that have
come to extract the maximum amount of timber in the minimum amount of time,
but that is not apparent. The environmentalists see the lumbermen as a
bunch of plebeian earth-rapers; the lumbermen see the hippies as a bunch
of long-haired freaks living off of their own hard work. Instead of uniting
to present a common front to the timber management, they descend instead
into a morass of name-calling, threats, and the occasional act of physical
violence. By dividing the two groups that might otherwise mount a successful
campaign for sustainable forestry, the financial interests involved in
the Pacific Lumber fiasco manage to come out relatively unscathed despite
the ramifications of their actions in the timber country.
The book ends with a quote from Doonesbury
the Milken Code. "Greed Works! Crime Pays! Everybody does it!"
Unfortunate as it is, this is still a difficult
statement to refute.
Lara Boyd Top
No Paper Submitted
Laura Garber Top
No Paper Submitted
Leif Wywadis Top
Sadness is a feeling I get every time that I read or see whole companies and communities ruined or depleted by the everlasting thirst for power. After seeing so many instances where takeovers have happened the reality that resources such as "Old Growth" forests will never return in our lifetime but the conniving, ruthless businessman will constantly be lurking. It becomes horrible to think that masses of people are being stalked just for being rational. Generations of traditions and cultures are lost along with legacies of natural resources when these takeovers occur. Is it a small possibility that we can stop this ?
For what reasons the desire to uproot whole communities and take whatever is economically rewarding is a sure sign of heartlessness. The morality to make sure everyone is satisfied with a drastic change in the way a business is ran or taken over just doesn’t compute with someone like Hurwitz. Without knowledge of who Hurwitz really was it is assumed that he really didn’t give a care what people thought about him.
Although the town in this book seems naïve it is hard to decipher if they had a choice in the matter. If the management in the PL company had complete interest in the community would there have been a chance to save and preserve the company? With the knowledge of the stock prices rising would there be any solution to who would buy? It seemed that everyone in Scotia was ignorant to the fact that Hurwitz was going to change the whole face of their little town. The problem to me was that everyone involved in the company and community failed to unite when they needed to the most.
The exploitation of natural resources from a business
point of view can be very profitable. It is almost as expendable
as the employees that are used to extract them. This reminds of when I
was a kid whenever we fought over toys or wouldn’t share than none of us
would be allowed to play with the toys. Maybe at some point self
interest can take a backseat to what is better for society as a whole.
Linda Gibson Top
I learned more from this particular reading than any others that we’ve been assigned. The stock market is amazingly complex and affects our lives substantially, and yet so many people have no idea how it works.
The idea of having to sell your corporation is initially hard to comprehend, but it makes more sense after reading the book. Going public is a choice that a company makes when they need to raise capital. It is at that point that they are enabling others to purchase a share or a majority of shares. The book was rather biased on the side of the environmentalist and this was initially evident when it portrayed the take-over company as offensive for buying the majority of shares from the Murphys’ Pacific Lumber. This, in itself, was completely ethical but the reader was steered toward sympathetic emotions from the very beginning anyway.
Because the book was slanted, I couldn’t allow myself to be convinced that everything occurred quite as it was described in the book; although I do believe that Charles Hurwitz was willing to ravage the forests and cheat the laborers out of their pensions all for the increased profit of the company. Unfortunately, I believe this is the norm for company owners and presidents rather than the exception.
I suppose the question that I have is—did the environmentalist handle the situation in the most efficient way? Is there any other way that they could have achieved what they did in less time (Hurwitz had three years to rape and pillage the forest, if he indeed he was)? Is there a better way of dealing with this basic scenario in the future?
It is important to remember that while it seems that most
radical activity is discouraged by all but the activists, without those
who are willing to go all the way for their cause, limits are not set and
changes are not made. Because of the attention and costs that activists
tend to create for the exploiter, it is potentially less rewarding for
them to exploit. I wonder if Hurwitz would have taken different steps had
he known the legal costs and the negative national attention that would
result.
Lisa Fredrickson Top
No Paper Submitted
Mary Warner Top
What a crazy book. First of all I had no idea in the world that something like this could ever happen. I know relatively little about stocks and stuff and I didn’t know that having stocks for you company virtually meant that it was for sale if someone could afford to buy all of the stocks. The fact that this company got bought up without it’s own will to do so is scary. That pretty much stinks. I thought it was cool how the author tried to explain how this is possible and I feel I learned a lot about big business and how junk bonds and stuff work so that is probably good.
So the battle between the foresters and the environmentalists got pretty hairy. I think that Harris did an excellent job showing both sides of the argument and being sympathetic to both sides although he obviously had his biases for the environment. I also thought the part about Hurwitz and his real character as a family man and stuff was good to remind everyone that nothing is black and white.
The fact that Pacific Lumber functioned so well as a company, town, community, and a culture before the take over shows that there really is a possibility of sustainable forestry. The practices implemented by the old PL were sustainable not only for the forests and the ecosystem, but also for the logging community that depended on it. In the end, it was obvious that the environmentalists and the loggers were really going for the same thing- saving the woods. To the environmentalists, that meant saving the old growth and the other trees for sustainable ecological reasons, and for the loggers that meant saving their jobs. I think the problem came when such quantities of money were added into a system filtered with poor information. Due to the fact that the loggers began to make so much more money, and a larger number of them began to make this money, greed set in. Add to the fact that incorrect information about the number of trees and the sustainability of the new harvest, many of the loggers felt that they had no reason to worry about their lack of work on the tree side, but they saw the environmentalists as taking away their jobs. Really, the environmentalists saving the trees would have in turn saved their jobs and so on and so on… it just seemed to be a confusing mess that really couldn’t have been solved because there was too much stuff going on all at the same time.
I think the only thing that could have saved it
was Hurwitz due to the fact that he had such a strong economic and political
grip on the whole situation. It obviously would have turned out better
for everyone (other than him…) if he had realized that it is ok to harvest
your trees in a way that your children will also be able to harvest them
even though it wouldn’t make as much money for you. But obviously
he wasn’t concerned about that because this wasn’t his community or hiss
way of life.
Matt Crawford Top
No Paper Submitted
Meagan Robison Top
I really enjoyed the aspect of this novel that dealt with corporate greed, environmental activism, and workers of the small lumber company, also, the controversy surrounding a small town and business and that of a big corporation. I really think this will bring a lot of possible heated discussions to the seminar.
The importance of this novel deals with three extremely heated ideas. One is the redwoods, and then capitalism, but also it deals with people and their livelihoods. I really found it interesting to see how this big corporation, namely Charles Hurwitz affected the people of Scotia.
I personally have given contributions to several environmental agencies and sometimes I really wanted to know where this money went to, but this novel showed me by looking at Earth First one way in particular that the my contributions are used for a common good.
Another thing I really enjoyed about this novel is that is a true story and I always find it easier to read novel that have subject matter that actually occurred.
The thing that struck me the most was how the three
individual groups interacted and how some overlapped. It was also
good to see how the different individuals work to support their particular
views. The mill workers at first were interested in having a job
and then once the take over occurred they were more interested in a bigger
paycheck, which I think is pretty sad because it seemed at the beginning
that they were interested in sustainable harvesting.
I admired the efforts of earth first, but I did
have some issues that bothered me, like spiking the trees. I don’t
really understand the good in that because putting anything into a tree
is harmful to it, so why would they do that? Another philosophy of
Earth First is "no compromise." Is that even possible?
Sometimes I do not think so.
Patrick Coleman Top
The book to me really opened eyes to the different groups
that were the real players in the acquisition and also the opposition of
Pacific Lumber. I remember in the late 80’s and early 90’s when a
situation similar to events that were described in the book as happening
in Scotia, CA happened right here in the area in which I live in Washington.
I could see many similarities in the people there as well here.
What happened here was the Spotted Owl controversy that led to the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan, and which essentially shut down nearly all logging on Forest Service land. The timber being logged on Forest Service land in our area was a large portion of the local economy and, as it turned out, it’s absence in the local market to be devastating to the area. Mills shut down, people lost their jobs, and the valley in which I grew up went from boom to bust in matter of a few years (a change that is still apparent today).
Also, like described in the book I went to those timber
rallies wearing a "Supported by Timber Dollars" T-shirt. Even though I
was just a child I cussed those damned owls and hoped the hippies would
go back where they came from for doing what they had done to us.
Just as the locals of the North Coast did in the book. The
sad fact is myself like many others that lived or still live in Eastern
Lewis County were too ignorant to the fact that what had happened wasn't
the owls or the hippies fault but our own for believing that everything
was going to stay the same forever and those trees are always going to
there for us to cut. The same attitude some of the loggers in the
book expressed. Now I’m glad to realize that logging will never be
what it used to be and maybe what happened here was for the best and we’ll
maybe have a little left when my kids grow up.
Ray Gleason Top
This story occurred in Humbolt county California, in the
mid 1980’s-early 1990’s.
Pacific lumber was a family owned business that included
mills, timber, town (the acreage in the town and the businesses were owned
by the company. Pacific Lumber was for its time in the forest industry
an exception to the rule of timber management. Holding sustained
yield policies strongly in place on their timberland, usually not using
clear-cutting just thinning or small openings Pacific Lumber was able to
harvest very large redwood timber over a long time span. The longevity
of the forest under original management was not perfectly sustainable but
did use a lot of effort to do as well as possible. The idea of being
extremely careful in felling a tree in a safe way (not breaking it) was
difficult and time consuming, but the amount of profit in a 200+ft tall
redwood when completely merchantable instead of demolished (from poor felling)
should have made up the difference with profit. This company is a
multi generation family owned operation with a tight nit community within
the mill and also the residential area.
All changed when a Texan investor named Charles Hurwitz
began purchasing Pacific Lumber without Pacific Lumber’s consent, but with
an ingenious planned takeover manipulating the stock market to subdue the
company to an eventual selling of its assets. The takeover was very
complicated with resistance, corruption and money making business deals.
Hurwitz forcefully entered the company and that is what started the chain
of events. The family members still in management positions were
involved at first and eventually even the crews collected signatures to
put to use in the resistance to the takeover. Some of the upper management
positions of Pacific Lumber became sympathetic with Hurwitz and worked
deals with no reference to the company only helping themselves.
The goal of Hurwitz is to make a lot of money from his
investments in a short period of time by harvesting large volumes of redwood
quickly to make maximum short-term profits.
It seems that in this trend many environmentalists became
more active to stop these large-scale harvests. "Earth First" did
a lot of organizing to stop different operations and many were successful
but not enough for these climax forests to prosper. But has been
successful in giving many people a closer look at corporate timber management.
Rebecca Leach
Top
Between overdramatic irrelevant scenes and biased character portraitures, this book told the story of the ‘war’ between Pacific Lumber’s new policy makers, PL’s faithful employees, and the ‘radical hippies’ who didn’t like the new policies.
Not knowing a thing about the stock market and how it works, I was quite surprised to learn that a huge stable company could be bought out without their consent. I don’t fully understand why the company had to sell. Why couldn’t they just say no?
I thought it was interesting the way that the author pitted the ‘environmentalists’ against ‘the ignorant mill workers.’ On page 199, is the line, "None of these yahoos knew what it meant to have to make a living." The author conveys the idea that ‘working class’ people have about ‘hippies’ as being lazy- being supported either by a rich relative or the welfare system, but never by a ‘real job.’ Environmentalism can seem like a rich folks’ sport. From my observations, living the majority of my life in Lewis County, small-town working class people tend to want to be as ‘normal’ as possible. They don’t seem to have any concept of how to live other than the ideas fed to them by the media. If Pacific Lumber says everything is happening in the best possible way, and the California Department of Forestry obviously approves of their policies (all PL’s timber harvest plans are being passed, right?) then everything is ok. Why question it? Look, we have new houses and new cars and all the latest gadgets from Wal-Mart.
This also makes me think about the parallels between the
PL workers and the management versus U.S. society in general and the government.
The ones in control justify the things they do that could be perceived
as harmful by giving immediate increases (in money, jobs, cable channels,
etc.). In this way the people see that their lives are ‘better,’
and don’t notice the outside effects of what is going on. Even if
the people know it’s not right, they can’t turn it down, or things (pay,
jobs, Stuff) will decrease. This is what happened to the people of
the town of Scotia and what is happening to a huge majority of people everywhere
else, under a more general rule.
Richard Dunn Top
The first impression The Last Stand framed was the Humboldt County timbermen’s affiliation to their land and lifestyle. Later, I was befuddled by their seemingly contradictory support of the man proclaiming the golden rule. The pinnacle of Capitalism collided with an exemplar of deliberate life, and the exploited end up facilitating the exploiter. "Charles Hurwitz’s corporation turned ancient forest into money and trash and the money left for Houston while the trash stayed in Humboldt." This foreigner was the antithesis of everything Pacific Lumber stood for. The highly touted sustainable-yield approach Murphy had instilled to provide longevity to the industry and environment was immediately repealed. Employee benefits were restructured to benefit Maxxam, while its security was vested in insider shams. Charles Hurwitz’s way of business undermined a legacy too rich to be severed. When resistance was launched, however, the populace responded with banishment and counter-demonstrations. How was such a noble breed so susceptible to malevolent authority?
"Man has no greater preoccupation more nagging than to
find the person to whom that unhappy creature may surrender the gift of
freedom." (Brothers Karamazov) We all find respite in concerns greater
than ourselves. This is why so many generations of my family have
attended church, why I skip class to watch the Yankees’ playoff game, and
why a fellow man can propel plane into a building killings his peers. Starting
with the Murphy’s, Pacific Lumber’s employees have a long history of veneration
of those in command. The trees in Humboldt County are rocks, he who
transforms these rocks into lifeblood is worshipped by those who receive
it. Believers assume almighty power in their provider. The
efficacy of the authority is actualized in the uniformity of his appeal.
When doubters cast a shadow on the almighty, his worshippers suffer insult
and vulnerability. Worse yet, they taste helpless emancipation from
his hand. Without doubt, the ruler and followers will be stronger.
Consequently, the shadow is reflected back upon those who cast it.
Through the support of their industry, the lumbermen validate themselves.
Actions to the contrary admit mistake on conditioned rights, undermining
the status quo and provoke great fears of being left alone.
Sarah Lowry Top
The last stand demonstrated the apparent unstoppableness
of those who hold power within the established financial system and the
common response that such things like corporate takeovers are inevitable.
Despite the pretense of a democratically organized financial system, power
to make decisions within corporations is not evenly shared among all people
effected by that corporation, or even among the shareholders. The
more money a person has, the more money they have access too; the less
money a person already has, the harder it will be for them to get more
money (from loans, for example). It seems that money equals the power
to make decisions and the distribution of power is certainly not equitable.
I wonder if an economist would dare to make the argument that it is right
that people with more money should have more power because they obviously
are better equipped to make good decisions than people with little money,
otherwise why would the rich be rich and the poor be poor? Hm, now
that I write it out, I realize that I hear this argument a lot. It’s
the argument people use to say there should be no welfare and no government
spending on social programs. This nasty, blind little argument is
insidious and omnipresent, both implicitly and explicitly. It governs
the way things work, and it is used as an argument to justify the way things
work.
I just read a little blurb in the Stranger about
a recently published book that talked about how the financial system is
not democratic. I no longer recall the specifics, but one of the
author’s main points was that as long as there exists a corporate mandate
to maximize returns to shareholders (i.e. get the company the most profit
possible), there will be little that can be done to introduce other values
into the decision making process. This mandate explains why things
like Hurwitz’s takeover seemed inevitable to the board of pacific lumber.
Even if there are people in a company who want to do things differently,
maybe sacrifice a little profit for a making less waste, or cutting less
old growth, they will never really have reinforcement if any one wants
to challenge them because of the mandate to maximize profits. This
is exactly why policy makers tell us that the only way to reduce pollution
is to make it unprofitable for companies to pollute. There is no
room in the system for any other modus operandi. It seems like this
point is incredibly important.
Si Bussmann Top
No Paper Submitted
Stacey Godin Top
The only way I could best describe my feelings throughout this reading was "disturbed". I have known that corporate operations involve arrogant, money driven businessmen, but to read about it and know how these people are affecting my future is disturbing. People like Charles Hurwitz need to receive education in forestry before they decide they know how and want to reduce our country’s forest land to a minimum.
I feel that Harris’ work fails to examine in any depth how to balance competing interests of corporate quests for profit, a vanishing way of life for workers and their timber-dependent communities, along with the fate of the last remnants of an old-growth redwood ecosystem.
The analysis of the EarthFirst! Organization was very interesting to me. I have always felt passionate about wildlife and have participated in a few demonstrations. Harris’ account on Darryl and Greg’s involvement in protecting Headwater was enlightening. However I feel that EarthFirst went about it a little one-sided. It seemed like they were fighting hard, yes for their beliefs, but more for pride into win over Hurwitz. I feel that education to the people who lived and worked in Sonia and surrounding area about how deforestation of this old growth forest would directly impact them and the future of their children and grandchildren. It seems that they may have lacked basic education about general forest ecology and what would happen to their land if clear cut deforestation occurred (ie. Landslides, erosion, loss of wildlife habitat).
Mostly I was curious as to the current status of the redwood forests in
Humboldt County today. I have a few friends who attend Humboldt State
and hear from them about constant battles still to this day with Pacific
Lumber and Georgia Pacific. Further research from online sources has me
to believe that the war continues and that the shots still ring loud and
clear. It seems that Headwaters Forest still remains in private ownership.
Despite Harris’ final comments, environmentalists and the timber company
plan to hash things out in court again soon.
T. J. Merrell Top
No Paper Submitted
Thomas Kolb Top
Have you ever mobbed in the woods? No. Then maybe you should read on and learn how. There isn’t much to it. Just go out in the woods and walk. Just be moving out in the woods, not going anywhere in particular, just walking around. Actually you don’t even have to just walk. Walk, run, stop, lay down, get up and slowly crawl as you examine the ground, stand and run as fast as you can, jump the logs in your way, dodge the branches, fall and get up only to keep mobbing on. There are only two things that you really should do on a mob. First you should make it long. A mob is not a twenty minute walk in the woods. A mob is rarely less than a hour and often lasts many hours. Most often you get a little lost and have to continue walking until you finally find a landmark. The other important thing for a mob, is that you walk in a portion of the woods were there is no trail and no major human constructions. This allows you to feel the woods as an animal might, not as a human does.
The benefits to a good mob are many. For me it acts as the perfect relaxer. A stressful week melts into the distance as I race through the trees, branches parting over my face, jumping ten feet down a steep embankment. But then I stop and I see a tree growing in a strange U shape and I go over to investigate and find a salamander crawling slowly over the rotting needles surrounding the base of the tree. I like to mob in all kinds of woods. When I was a kid I would mob in the second growth surrounding my house in the small town where I lived. But also I would mob in the clear cuts further out of town. This is of course a different kind of mob, one that very much experiences the effects of humans, but I think it is still a mob. The devastation by humans in a clear-cut doesn’t fall into the subconscious as a road or old building can. People create clear-cuts and yet a clear-cut doesn’t fit into our minds. It makes a kind of moonscape that can allow you to forget what it means to be human as completely as the woods.
Of course the best woods to mob in are the old ones.
Old growth mobbing is one of the most exhilarating and awesome experiences
available. I think Greg King new how to mob, and that he practiced
it keenly in the giant redwood forests of Northern California. Once
you have mobbed in the woods, really mobbed, is it possible to then turn
and cut down, or even stand by when those same woods are to be clear-cut?
I feel a certain connection to Greg King and hope that if the situations
arise and I happen upon them, as did Greg, I would be as strong and but
remember to draw this strength from the woods.
Travis Loucks Top
No Paper Submitted
Tyler Knapp
Top
Reading this book made me even more disgusted with capitalism and greed than I already was. Greed, which I believe is an inherent driving force and facet of capitalism is what drove Charles Hurwitz to plot and scheme and takeover Pacific Lumber. It’s even more frustrating that Pacific Lumber started out on a sustainable basis, but that wasn’t profitable enough, so they were taken over by Hurwitz, who made the profit go up, and more huge old trees come down, leaving clearcuts behind. It was interesting and frightening to see how the global economy, and big players on Wall Street playing around with numbers have such a big influence on so many people’s lives, and so many species and ecosystems that are so distant from Wall Street and it’s businessmen.
This book also showed how no matter what laws or regulations are in place within the system, that there will always be a way to get around them, either through loopholes, or schemes both of which Hurwitz used to manipulate his way into ownership of Pacific Lumber. So could this takeover have been prevented? Or were the circumstances not right?
David Harris’ writing seemed to put the story into a very
warlike atmosphere, with chapters called "The Takeover," and "The War."
I wonder how accurate this book is to the way things really happened, which
is of course all relative to people’s perceptions. Was it really
such a war of Hurwitz versus the timber workers, and environmentalists,
and then workers vs. environmentalists? Did the people written about
agree with the way that they were portrayed? His stereotyping
of the Earth First!ers as "hippies" and "longhairs" throughout the book
bothered me, and Harris seemed to have a definite bias against them.
He also failed to mention that one of Judy Bari’s main objectives
was to unite timber workers and environmentalists, and unionize the workers,
which heavily offsets Harris’s War portrayal. Harris seemed to focus
more on Bari and Cherney’s personal relationship rather than what they
actually did and organized around and how effective they were. He
seemed to portray them as having little effect at all, except giving PL
a bad name, and pissing people off, when in reality they stopped many THPs
and had the entire Headwaters set aside.
V.J. Gomez Top
This book has definitely been my favorite seminar reading
so far, simply because it was a compelling page-turner and taught me a
lot about how corporate worlds operate and just how they effect the "little"
guys
Charles Hurwitz, the epitome of the word "corporate",
exemplifies everything that is evil and without heart. What baffles
me time and again throughout this book is that Hurwitz never really even
cared about lumber. He didn’t really care about profit. He
didn’t even care about Humboldt, the redwoods, or the people involved with
Humboldt and the redwoods. It was, for him, all about gain for the
sake of gain, like a cancer cell infecting everything that comes across
its path. He didn’t live any kind of a truly lavish lifestyle
considering the amount of money he had. He flew coach and took cabs.
Yet for the kind of "morals" he possessed about not flaunting his money,
he seemed to be completely oblivious to the misery Humboldt County was
going through.
People almost died trying to save the forests that he
mechanically and thoughtlessly cut down. The level of hatred that
flowed through Humboldt could have been measured with a Richter scale.
Loggers despised environmentalists, and environmentalists just couldn’t
understand loggers’ ignorance. Time and again environmentalists cried
out that the loggers shouldn’t be mad at them but should instead be directing
their anger to the likes of Hurwitz, but this just never seemed to get
through to the loggers. They trusted the company entirely too much.
And in the end everything that was done to try to save the Redwoods was
almost in vain. Hurwitz went about his merry way, and although everyone
who had worked with him on the takeover went down in flames, he stayed
high and dry. He was a lying, conniving, cold, egotistical slimeball,
and nothing of what people thought mattered to him. It was all about
that next dollar, no matter at what expense it was "earned".
Although Derryl, Greg, and Judi were not able to save
the Redwoods after all, they were able to at least raise awareness about
them and delay much of the planned clearcutting. Had it not been
for them risking their lives, much of the forests would have been cut down
long before they were, without any repercussions to the company, and without
any awareness being raised about them at all. I loved the part where
the CDF wildlife biologist finally stood up and made PL look like a bunch
of dumbasses, citing that their cutting would in fact damage the fragile
ecosystems of the Redwoods.
Out of everyone in this book however, I think that the
people who made me the angriest, even more so than Hurwitz, were the workers
of Pacific Lumber. I understand that their jobs were at stake, and
I understand that they were up against some magnanimous adversaries, but
come on. For them to laugh at the Golden Rule joke that Hurwitz made
at the first company meeting post takeover was just pathetic. How
could they not see what was to come? To begin doubling and
tripling the level of cutting had to have been an indication that Hurwitz
was not all he cracked himself up to be when it came to keeping things
"pretty much the same" at PL. The workers really pissed me off.
They could have entered into the employee company buyout if they had just
gotten themselves into gear. Maybe that’s a bit excessive on my part,
but I think it would have been possible to reverse things had they just
believed in their options.
This book definitely opened my eyes as to how takeovers
work and how they affect not only the workers involved but entire communities,
and in this case ecosystems. I can’t help think to myself how content
Humboldt would probably still be today had Charles Hurwitz never been born.
Will Dezan Top
The Last Stand was the first real look I’ve gotten at processes and transactions involved in corporate schemes. I found the story’s content exciting and enjoyable to read as well as extremely informative. I thought the activities of Charles Hurwitz in taking over Pacific Lumber were fairly nauseating. The institutions that allow for that kind of transaction seem almost criminal, and at least morally corrupt. That one person could act out of so much greed and self interest, and succeed in taking over a respectable company is horrifying.
It seemed like the original PL philosophy was one that truly followed a sustainable goal, both in the ecological management of its forests and in looking out for the well being of its employees. The timber practices originally instituted by the Murphy’s truly seemed concerned not only at sustaining business, but also in support of long term forest management to leave resources for future generations. I still can’t believe it is possible for someone to purchase a company against their will and completely manipulate it to cover dept within the corporation.
I also found the environmentalist campaign by Earth First!
somewhat short sighted. Again, it seemed like people with good intentions
acting for one cause while completely ignoring the ramifications of their
actions. Most of the hostility generated towards the activists was
a result of their own unreasonable conquest to shut down an industry.
I’m all about protecting the environment and ceasing such activities as
clear cutting and strip mining, some of Earth First!’s actions seemed a
little unreasonable. While their specific efforts may have stopped immediate
destruction of forests and brought public attention to the issue at hand,
I don’t see any long-term benefit coming from their actions. More
then likely such action on their part may only have helped slow down law
and policy reform. It seems to me that the timber people of PL and
Earth First! may have had more in common then they acknowledged.
Hurwitz seemed like the ultimate problem to both long-term employment in
PL’s timber business and reasonable selective harvest of the redwoods.