READERS REACT: TAKING ISSUE WITH TIMES’ STANDS : Note: Many letters writers support our views; many do not. In the spirit of vigorous discussion of the issues, here is a selection of letters that disagrees with us. : Environmental Issues: PROPS. 128, 130, 138

Your editorial of Oct. 9 (“Conservation at Its Very Best”) was mislabeled. It should have read “Preservation at Its Very Worst.”

Your shallowly reasoned attempt to justify passage of Prop. 130--the Forest Protection Bond Act--might well have been written by Earth First! radicals, who you must be aware are the primary supporters of this ill-conceived intrusion into forest management on private property.

Nearly every facet of Prop. 130 is based on emotional rhetoric and conveniently ignores the fact that California now has the toughest set of timber regulations in the nation. Without passage of Prop. 130 and its counterpart, Prop. 138, private individuals and industry are required to restock their lands with new trees immediately after harvesting, along with a myriad of other environmental protection rules and regulations that are legally mandated by the California Forest Practice Act.

Prop. 130, and to a certain extent Prop. 138, would take the harvesting process out of the hands of foresters and biologists and put it in the hands of politicians and bureaucratic appointees. And, as was so blatantly glossed over in your editorial, Prop. 130 will result in a 68% reduction in harvesting and cost up to 75,000 people their jobs.

As a practicing professional forester who is intimately familiar with the ecology of the coast redwood, it is abhorrent to me the drivel that is fed to our urban population. Ironically, many of them undoubtedly read your editorial while lounging on their redwood deck chairs on their redwood decks, attached to their redwood house, all the while blithely unsuspecting the direct connection to their lifestyle.

T.W. SCHUETTE

Arcata