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:
Thank you for your coverage of the recent Mendocino County Board of Supervisors’ 3-2 vote to support the historic California Assembly Bill AB 2494 to modernize the management of the State Forest system, including Jackson Demonstration State Forest.
The article begins by incorrectly stating that “…a varied crowd of timber industry employees, foresters, and environmental advocates spoke about the pros and cons of AB 2494,” giving the impression that the groups were equally represented, when in fact, the room was filled with supporters, including tribal representatives, left unmentioned. Only four people, including business owners, a contractor and a large forestland owner, spoke against the bill, each of whom had financial interests in maintaining the status quo. None were “timber industry employees.”
The statements made and questions asked by county counsel and the UC agricultural advisor indicated they had not read the bill closely. A representative from Assemblyperson Chris Rogers’ office explained that it was still in the amendment and financial analysis process, and that he would be happy to work with them.
Answering supervisors Cline and Norvell’s concerns about possible negative impacts to logging companies, tribal and environmental advocates noted that county revenues from logging have been decreasing under current management and pointed to rising revenues from tourism and jobs in recreation and restoration. Under the bill, some logging of smaller trees would be allowed, as the by-product of restoration and research projects.
Another concern was the possible loss of research grant funding derived from a million-dollar fund fed by timber sales. However, almost all such research is connected to commercial logging, with the trees paying the salaries of the researchers. Under the new paradigm, priorities would shift to fighting climate change and reducing fire hazard by increasing forest resilience. The bill would also help protect ancestral Pomo and Yuki lands in Jackson and add traditional ecological knowledge to the management mix. Co-management with tribes is now required by State law.
Although the comments were overwhelmingly for the bill, and supervisors Williams and Haschak stated that letters from their constituents in favor far outweighed the very few against, the article did not convey this robust public support.
Many people know and love Jackson as a place to camp, hike, bike and forage under the remaining old redwoods and firs. Tan Oaks and berries provide food and habitat for wildlife. Spotted owls may roost in the big trees and coho salmon swim in the cold creeks. When Cal Fire approved the logging of ancient redwoods in Jackson’s Caspar Creek in 2020, including the massive, 200-year-old “Mama Tree,” public outrage sparked two years of protests that have halted logging until now.
AB 2494 is the best way out of this dilemma.
Naomi Wagner
Willits
I don’t have an opinion on California Assembly Bill AB 2494 one way or the other.
I would like to comment on “public outrage” and how it might influence the way the Supervisors vote. While it is often well and good to hear comments from both sides in a public meeting, it is just a sensing, a small sample of the population that happened to show up on that particular occasion. Pleasing that small crowd should not influence a vote, especially if they have strong emotional positions. Normally, most people agree that voting that represents the general public at large is rational, thought-out, and not just a temporary emotional reaction. A Supervisor should get input from several sources and conduct research on their own. Any Supervisor who is intimidated by a loud crowd, or tries to placate the loudest protestors by giving in is cowardly and should get the boot. Rock steady.
I agree fully. The same thing happened when the matter was before the Fort Bragg City Council, where the 2:3 split went the other way and a proposed letter of support did not get approved. The comments at the meeting included an organized group of people who spoke in favor of the letter of support and fewer people spoke out against. That said, the three councilmembers who did not support the letter, and it least one case, the bill itself, had received input from many community members who cannot attend long city meetings expressing opposition. That is often the case for many important issues.
Thanks for the clarification about what you witnessed. Without stating an opinion about the bill or what effect crowds have or don’t have on politicians, it seems to me that it’s usually useful to hear what people actually observed.
I think so, although you can get 25 witnesses to an event and get 25 different versions. Police at crime scenes see this all the time.
As a Supervisor I would consult with a colleague who held a like point of view most of the time with myself and cross check my ideas. That person would have a greater influence on my voting than some random advocate for a cause.
It would be really nice to see some real old Redwoods, not just baby Redwoods. Leave something for our children. Some of the so called forests are so thin, you better wear sunscreen when hiking. A forest should be cool, dark and retain moisture
Go north on 101. There’s several old growth forests in state and federal parks. Just do a Google search. The large trees you are thinking of are still there, and they will be for generations. You might be seeing second growth (“baby Redwoods”) which comes after a forest has been logged. Jackson Demonstration State Forest only has a few pockets of old growth redwoods. Put children in the car and go north to see the truly awesome forests.
I heartily agree with Naomi, amen! For those that want to support this new paradigm to restore Jackson State Forest, here’s a petition to the CA Legislature: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/help-pass-the-state-demonstration-forest-legislation-ab-2494/
While Mendocino County has nearly 400,000 acres of Redwood Forest, most of it has been cut over, leaving very little old growth. We should not have to “go north” to another county, as “Dave” advises here, to enjoy old-growth forest. Instead, we should manage our forest in a way that doesn’t cut our largest trees, but preserves them. If we hope to stave off the detrimental effects of climate collapse – fire, drought, and sea level rise we will need to change our forest practices. AB2494 is a change in the right direction and deserves our support.
Well I heartily disagree with Naomi. This bill essentially reduces timber sales to the point where the cost of maintaining the Demonstration State Forest program has to be put on the taxpayers. Currently the sustainable timber sales pay for operating the program. All of the other benefits are already being met by the program. These forestlands already protect old growth, already provide carbon sequestration and aid in climate resiliency. They already provide for research, recreation, tribal involvement, restoration, etc. This bill essentially reduces local employment, local county revenue, and increases tax burdens. With absolutely no additional benefit to society. This bill is just dumb.