Editor’s note: The following is a letter to the editor. The opinions expressed in this letter are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of The Mendocino Voice. If you would like to submit a letter to the editor feel free to write to info@mendovoice.com.
Dear Editor:
Jackson Demonstration State Forest is at a crossroads, and so are we. For years, tribal leaders, local residents, and climate advocates have called for a new direction at JDSF: one centered on restoration, carbon storage, and true tribal co‑governance, not commercial logging on public land.
Cal Fire now has a draft Forest Management Plan that talks about “modernization” and “co‑management,” but the underlying problem hasn’t changed. The Public Resources Code still points Jackson toward “maximum sustained production of high‑quality forest products,” while trying to juggle recreation, wildlife, water and cultural values.
That legal mandate quietly tilts every plan back toward logging, no matter how many listening sessions are held. And now, as Assemblymember Chris Rogers considers legislation to delete the “mandate to log,” the state is seeking tribal endorsements of this new plan, endorsements that can and will be used to argue that the community supports business as usual.
If we are serious about forest health, climate resilience and justice for Pomo homelands, we have to change the rules, not just the rhetoric. That means no tribal or local endorsement of any plan that keeps commercial logging at its core, and a simple statutory fix that rewrites JDSF’s mission toward restoration, climate and binding tribal decision‑making power.
I urge readers to do two things: contact Assemblymember Rogers’ office to support a bill removing the logging mandate at JDSF, and publicly stand with Michael Hunter and Tribal members who refuse to endorse any plan that undermines their sovereignty and the sacred lands they protect.
Destiny Laird
Mendocino
The “logging mandate” is what keeps this 48,000 acres healthy, sustainable, accessible and manageable as our public asset. Removing all logging means adding a vast expense to a state budget that CAN NOT maintain the property otherwise. Suggesting that JDSF or other demo forests should not participate in *the science of* selective harvest fails to understand that the purpose of demonstration forests includes developing better methodologies for a renewable resource! (while notably also being inclusive of things like hiking, biking and horseback riding)
It is righteous and just to demand that the historical peoples of the area be welcomed to join and participate in the learning *and the teaching* also – but here in California we have to be realistic about our economies. People buy wood products. They can buy them from carefully and thoughtfully developed timber harvest planning in California – or, inevitably they’ll buy from ships that bring garbage wood products from overseas clear-cut forests to local big box stores.
Pick your poison, but stop being ridiculous that JDSF not harvest wood.
That’s part of The Deal. It’s a Deal. An Equation. If you take away part of the equation (i.e. No more trees to sell) then The Deal falls apart. Simple.
We get to play there, we get to be a part of the process there, the process improves methodologies for other timber operations – and in exchange, the wood helps pay for The Deal. The Deal we all reap benefits from. I appreciate that Assemblyman Rogers probably better understands this Deal than some folks. I wish we could just let him do his job rather than have to defend a pretty fantastic existing public benefit.
Well said! What a childish out of touch article.
Jake, I appreciate that you’re trying to protect public benefit and good forestry, but several parts of this “Deal” don’t match the actual numbers, law, or our current climate and justice obligations.First, on money: analyses of CAL FIRE data summarized in the report “Time to Change the Mission: Jackson Demonstration State Forest” show that logging at Jackson brought in around $8.4M per year in 2016–2020, cost about $4.1M to administer, and netted roughly $4.3M to the State. That sounds big until you remember CAL FIRE’s budget is in the billions; we’re talking on the order of a few hundredths of a percent of the department’s spending, not the difference between maintaining 48,000 acres and abandonment. CAL FIRE also notes in its own Demonstration State Forest materials that, by law, revenue from these forests has to be spent back on those forests, so this is already a policy choice to fund them through logging, not an economic inevitability.Second, on “purpose”: CAL FIRE’s description of the Demonstration State Forest system lists multiple objectives—research and demonstration for sustainable timber production, yes, but also public recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and watershed protection. The statewide Wildfire & Forest Resilience framework further frames these lands as “living laboratories” for carbon sequestration, forest health, and fire resilience, not just yield‑maximizing harvest. The issue is that the legacy statutory language for state forests still points JDSF toward “maximum sustained production of high‑quality forest products,” which quietly tilts every plan toward logging even as our statewide goals have shifted. Updating that statute is exactly how we bring the legal mission into line with the science and policy you say you support.Third, “no logging = no management” is a false choice. CAL FIRE’s own materials make it clear that management on these forests includes experimental treatments, watershed restoration, habitat work, cultural burning, and research—not just commercial harvest. In coastal redwood and mixed‑evergreen forests, state climate strategies and peer‑reviewed science highlight the huge carbon and biodiversity value of older, more complex stands, and California’s 30×30 and climate plans prioritize conserving and restoring those high‑carbon landscapes. You can have active, science‑based management aimed at restoration, climate resilience, and tribal stewardship without structuring the whole forest around maximum commodity output.Fourth, on “if not here, then garbage imports”: JDSF is 48,000 acres out of millions of commercial timber acres in California and an even smaller fraction of global wood supply. Global life‑cycle analyses published in journals like PNAS and Nature show that whether wood use is climate‑beneficial depends on what’s harvested, how often, and how long the carbon stays stored—it is not a blanket license to log every public forest as hard as possible. Even if we accept that some well‑regulated harvest is preferable to dirty imports, it doesn’t follow that this particular public forest on Pomo homelands must be legally locked into a logging‑first mandate.Finally, “The Deal” you describe was not negotiated on equal terms with Indigenous nations, and it predates our current climate and environmental justice frameworks. CAL FIRE and the State of California now explicitly recognize tribal sovereignty and the need for meaningful tribal co‑governance in resource decisions, in line with principles reflected in documents like the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the state’s own environmental justice policies. Continuing to use Pomo homelands as a timber revenue engine over the objections of Tribal leaders, when the fiscal contribution is small and there are alternative funding streams (including California Climate Investments that already fund work on Demonstration State Forests), is hard to square with basic ideas of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent and with the equity‑based policies we say we believe in.So I’m not arguing for “no management” or pretending people don’t use wood. I’m arguing that in 2026, on this particular public forest, we’re overdue to rewrite the equation: center restoration, carbon, and binding tribal decision‑making, and stop pretending that a modest logging revenue stream justifies keeping a logging‑first mandate baked into law.
You said it!
Jackson Demonstration State Forest has been sustainably managed for multiple uses for over 70 years. The forest is healthy, beautiful, accessible and is enjoyed by many people and wildlife. Until recently when ‘the state’ had Calfire stop harvesting, copitulating to the activist minority, the forest harvest revenues paid the bills for most of the demonstration forest program. This was a big selling point to the legislature back when the State Demonstration Forest program was signed into law: that it wouldn’t require perpetual general fund tax dollars to operate. So Demonstration State Forests were never intended to be parks or preserves, nor should they be. A managed forest is a healthy forest and this 48,000 acre forest isn’t going to affect the climate one bit. As far as the tribes are concerned they have ALWAYS had a voice in the management of State forests. They are and have been required to be notified of each and every project and are asked for input. This process is expanding with more tribal involvement in project development and management planning. This forests and all Demonstration State Forests should continue to be sustainably managed for multiple uses and that includes harvesting trees wood products which we all use.
Bert, I share your appreciation for JDSF as a working, multi‑use forest. Where we differ is on what the actual data, law, and current policy say that “multi‑use” and “sustainable” should look like now.On “paying the bills”: more recent analysis of CAL FIRE’s own financial data for Jackson shows a different picture than the old talking point that harvest “paid for most of the program.” The report “Time to Change the Mission: Jackson Demonstration State Forest” calculates that from 2016–2020, timber harvests at JDSF generated about $8.4 million per year, cost roughly $4.1 million to operate, and netted around $4.3 million to the State—about 0.06% of CAL FIRE’s $7 billion budget over that period. That’s not trivial, but it’s nowhere near a make‑or‑break share of funding for the department or the Demonstration State Forest system. CAL FIRE’s own Demonstration State Forest webpage also points out that by law, revenue from these forests must be reinvested back into the Demonstration State Forests, not into other needs like firefighting. So funding them through logging is a policy choice, not an absolute condition of their existence.On what they were “intended” to be: you’re right that the State Demonstration Forests were not set up as parks or preserves. But CAL FIRE itself describes them as working forests that provide research and demonstration opportunities for natural resource management, and public recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat, and watershed protection—alongside sustainable timber production. The Wildfire & Forest Resilience framework also describes them as “living laboratories” for forest health, carbon sequestration, and wildfire resilience. The tension Destiny is pointing to is that the underlying statutory language still points Jackson toward “maximum sustained production of high‑quality forest products,” which quietly keeps timber production structurally primary even as state policy has shifted toward climate resilience, carbon storage, and environmental justice.On “a managed forest is a healthy forest” and climate: no one is proposing to stop managing JDSF. CAL FIRE’s own planning documents emphasize tools like prescribed fire, cultural burning, fuel reduction, road decommissioning, and habitat restoration, not just commercial harvest. For coastal redwood and mixed‑evergreen forests, state climate strategies and peer‑reviewed science alike show that older, more structurally complex stands store far more carbon and support more resilient ecosystems than stands repeatedly cut on short rotations. That’s why California’s 30×30 and Natural and Working Lands climate plans explicitly call for conserving and restoring high‑carbon forests as part of meeting our climate targets. A 48,000‑acre, high‑carbon state forest on the North Coast may be small in global terms, but it is absolutely part of the portfolio the state is counting on for long‑term carbon storage and resilience.On tribal voice and sovereignty: being “notified of each and every project” and asked for input is the floor, not the ceiling, under today’s standards. Since AB 52, CEQA requires lead agencies to engage in government‑to‑government consultation with tribes on projects that may affect tribal cultural resources, with the goal of reaching agreement on avoidance or mitigation—not just mailing letters. The Native American Heritage Commission and CalEPA have both issued guidance making clear that this consultation is meant to be substantive and iterative. Local reporting and advocacy around JDSF have also documented long‑standing tribal concerns that their input on timber plans has not led to meaningful changes on the ground, which is exactly why so many Tribal leaders are now calling for true co‑governance and a change in the forest’s legal mission rather than more of the same process.So when people call for removing the logging mandate, they aren’t trying to turn JDSF into a “park” or pretend we don’t use wood. They’re saying that, given updated climate science, California’s own 30×30 and resilience policies, and our legal obligations around tribal consultation and environmental justice, it’s time to stop treating “maximum sustained production of high‑quality forest products” as the anchor and prioritize restoration, carbon, and binding tribal decision‑making instead.
Have lived 50 years on southern edge of JDF. Trash dumping on old logging roads and hiking trails has been problem, but also increased gunshots during day and night hours. Trespassing during tourist season often due to no signage and easy access. Caqlfire is never available, MCSO cannot respond. Need better coordination with native tribal elders as well as respect for their advisory position.
Reading this thread, what stands out to me is less a disagreement over whether JDSF should be “managed” and more a disagreement over *what* we’re managing for. Destiny’s letter is asking a hard question we rarely pose directly: in 2026, should a public forest on Pomo homelands still be legally structured around “maximum sustained production of high‑quality forest products,” or should our primary goals now be climate resilience, ecological restoration, and shared decision‑making with the Indigenous nations whose lands these are?
No one here is denying that people use wood or that California needs good forestry. The issue is proportionality and purpose. Timber revenue from JDSF is real, but it’s a small line item in the context of state budgets and CAL FIRE’s overall work. In contrast, the forest’s value for long‑term carbon storage, cold water, habitat connectivity, and cultural survival is enormous and not easily replaced. When the law quietly tilts every plan back toward commercial harvest, those other values are always negotiating from behind, no matter how many times we say “multi‑use” or “co‑management.”
I also think it’s important to separate two things: (1) the idea of active management, and (2) the idea of a logging mandate. Cultural burning, careful thinning around communities, road removal, stream restoration, and protecting older, complex stands are all active management. They align with what climate science, California’s 30×30 goals, and many tribal knowledge holders are telling us we need more of. None of that requires a statutory commitment to maximize timber production. Removing the logging mandate doesn’t turn JDSF into a museum; it simply removes the built‑in bias that keeps commercial harvest at the center of the equation.
Finally, there’s an ethical shift underway that we ignore at our own risk. The state has publicly committed to environmental justice, to meaningful tribal consultation, and to taking tribal sovereignty seriously. If Tribal leaders are saying that a framework built on historic dispossession and continued commodification of their homelands is not acceptable, we have to decide whether “the way it’s always been” is more important than the relationships we claim to be rebuilding. Updating the statute so that restoration, climate, and binding tribal decision‑making are written into the forest’s purpose is one concrete way to show that those commitments are more than talk.
You don’t have to agree with every detail of Destiny’s letter to see the core logic: when science, climate policy, and Indigenous leadership are all pointing toward a different future, hanging on to a logging‑first mandate in a public forest starts to look less like “sustainability” and more like inertia. At the very least, that’s a conversation worth having openly, before we lock in another generation of plans under rules that no longer fit the world we’re living in.
There’s a lot I can say on this topic but just a few thoughts. For the record, not all local native Americans are anti logging. Since the Mendocino war or what can be described as the “assimilate or die” era, native Americans found employment in the milling and logging industries as a means of economic survival when they had no where else to turn. Forest management became a part of Native American history. Not all of us natives so readily turn our back on the industries that supported our families all these decades. Yes, forests have been mismanaged in the past. Many companies have moved from those past practices and are doing their best to manage responsibly. Jdsf is part of exploring the most sustainable and environmentally sound ways to log. There’s a lot of reference to tribal involvement in decision making which is a good thing. There are around 20 federally recognized tribes in our area, so ultimately what tribal entity would be making the decisions in the event they were given more control over Jdsf? And would those federally recognized tribal entities make a seat at the table for those Native American individuals and non-recognized tribes that would like to provide input? Or would we be swept aside as we have in the past? Is this another scenario where tax dollars will be required to maintain the forest rather than revenue generated from the forest itself? Is this a land and power grab disguised as environmentalism? I haven’t kept up on this subject in great detail. I will have to study up some more less simply sounding like barnyard politics.
Now there is a proposed Bill (see Mendocino Voice article here: https://mendovoice.com/2026/02/bill-would-shift-focus-of-state-demonstration-forests-from-logging-to-restoration/), which makes it easier to talk specifics. AB 2494 addresses many of the concerns raised here, skilfully offering the potential to harmonize diverse interests and let most parties have their cake and eat it too. The proposed modernization of management would be more financially stable and sustainable, create new jobs, enhance fire safety, and reduce climate risk.