88 



Mr. Campbell. Well, there is one section on that map, you see 

 the road running down there, through there 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. Can we put this up on that easel so we can refer 

 to this and the members of the subcommittee can see it and the 

 witnesses. 



Thank you very much. That is helpful. 



Now, which road are you talking about? 



Mr. Campbell. The road that runs through virgin timber. Natu- 

 rally when you are building roads in virgin timbered areas, you are 

 going to have to remove all the trees along the right-of-way. You 

 could call that clearcut because you have to t£ike all the trees off 

 the right-of-way to build the road so that area down there was not 

 as I described earlier an overstory removal. It was a small, thin, 

 clearcut running down into the property there. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. It has been charged by Mr. Stark 

 who — I wasn't here at the beginning of the hearing, but he testified 

 yesterday I assume he was here today, and he said, "Once Maxxam 

 owned Pacific Lumber, it immediately and significantly increased 

 the cutting of redwoods including virgin old-growth redwoods. 

 Maxxam's rate of cut has doubled or tripled the rate of harvest 

 under the old Pacific Lumber. 



According to Newsweek, July 27, 1993, "The Redwood Raider 

 began mowing down California's coastal redwoods." 



Now I am still quoting Mr. Stark: "However, this level of cut was 

 based on what is good for Maxxam's junk bond debt and interest 

 payments not what is good for the economic stability of California's 

 north coast. The level of cut certainly was not based on any kind 

 of sustainable yield basis. There was no consideration of the pres- 

 sures this level of cut would have on endangered species such as 

 the marbled murrelet." 



Do you agree with that charge? Are you guilty? 



Mr. Campbell. No. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. Why not? 



Mr. Campbell. Well, to start off with, we had not doubled the 

 harvest. It is almost double. It has averaged 1.9 if you go back over 

 the last 9 years; 1.9-percent increase, but what 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. Going back over the last 9 years goes back be- 

 yond the period when you took ownership; is that right? 



Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Doolittle, your time has expired. I am tr5dng 

 to give you some leeway here to wrap it up, but I would ask that 

 you do move to wrap it up and we will go another round if you like. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. 



Mr. Campbell, can you finish your answer to this question? 

 Didn't you take ownership in 1986? 



Mr. Campbell. I have been with the company 24 years. The com- 

 pany did change ownership in 1986. 



Mr. Doolittle. But the 9-year period you are referring to ex- 

 tends back beyond 1986? 



Mr. Campbell. That is correct. We actually began to increase our 

 harvest in 1985, right prior to the merger. 



Mr. Doolittle. That is the evidence of the increase, but you 

 would dispute the charge then that — it is not even quite double and 

 here it says it was double or triple the rate of harvest under the 

 old Pacific Lumber. 



