Conservation at Its Very Best : Recommending yes on Prop. 130; no on 138

Of the seven environmental propositions that the California voter will face on the November ballot, not the least significant of them, by far, is Proposition 130--the forest protection bond act.

Proposition 130, with its $742 million in bonds to finance its programs, offers Californians the chance to save remnants of its old- growth forests--those still cathedrals of ancient trees that tower over leafy carpets, underbrush and seedlings--provide essential habitats for species endangered or otherwise and contribute to maintaining a quality environment. It is a vital measure of environmental significance.

Yes on 130: In addition to buying as many as 4,000 acres of ancient forest, Proposition 130 would prohibit most clear-cutting of any forest and require the timber industry to produce as many new trees each year as it cuts down. In clear-cutting, forests are stripped bare and what is left is burned.

Of the giant redwoods that once covered 2 million acres of California, about 90% are gone. More than half of those still standing are on private land, unsheltered by park boundaries. But the first sale of bonds would finance a purchase of some 3,000 magnificent acres of redwoods near the southern Humboldt County coast. In fact, all but $32 million of the remaining bonds would be used to buy other ancient forest; the rest would go for retraining timber workers who might lose their jobs when more redwoods are put off-limits.

The timber industry warns of higher lumber prices--and higher housing costs--and a loss of many jobs if 130 is approved. But its sponsors say 130 will, in fact, save many jobs and keep prices down. The arithmetic seems to bear them out. At current cutting rates, old-growth forests will not last more than two decades, at which point nearly all of the old-growth timber jobs would disappear.

Sponsors of 130 say that their call for a mandate for a sustained yield--in which a new tree grows to take the place of each tree that is felled--will mean more timber jobs in the long run.

No on 138: By the same token, we recommend a no vote on Proposition 138, sponsored by the timber industry in hopes of peeling votes away from “Forests Forever.”

Proposition 138’s contribution to solving “global warming,” for instance, would be to study the problem. Another section would call for a study of the financial impact (on the industry) of restrictions on clear-cutting. Where Proposition 130 would ban outright the export of unmilled logs from California--a practice that costs jobs--the industry proposition would simply ask Congress to do it. Clear-cutting would be banned under 130, with exceptions for Christmas tree farms and on other technical conditions. It would continue under 138, except in old-growth forests.

Proposition 138 also authorizes a bond issue, but more than one-third of the money would pay owners of relatively small stands of timber to reforest their property.

We urge a yes vote on 130 to preserve a rich gift from California’s past and a no vote on the unworthy 138.