Saving Forests--and Timber Industry Too : Almost anything is better than another initiative campaign

The timber industry got what it wanted last November after it spent more than $10 million to defeat ballot propositions that would have restricted California’s runaway logging practices. The defeat of the so-called “Forests Forever” initiative, endorsed by The Times, and the other propositions threw the issue of timber reform into the Legislature, where the industry had insisted all along that it belonged.

Many timber companies, along with several prominent environmental groups, learned an expensive lesson last year: that the ballot box is not the best place to make forestry policy. As evidence, they worked hard this year, using input from Gov. Pete Wilson’s staff, to hammer out a most unusual consensus. The fruits of that effort, AB 860, would reform some of the state’s out-of-control timber practices and preserve irreplaceable ancient forests without strangling this important industry. In the session’s closing days, the Legislature passed this reasonable bill.

Now Gov. Wilson, who campaigned as an environmentalist, is considering vetoing AB 860. If he rejects the bill, he invites a repeat in 1992 of the kind of sweeping, expensive and inflammatory initiative campaign that occurred last year. No reasonable person wants to replay that madness, and there is no reason it needs to happen.

AB 860 is the first major piece of timber legislation in almost 20 years. It was drafted to address specific weaknesses in the state’s current forestry regulations, which have allowed some companies to log with abandon in recent years. AB 860 would impose stronger protections and mandate more meaningful conservation practices on California’s 7.1 million acres of productive, privately owned timberland. Specifically, the bill defines ancient or old-growth forests and restricts cutting in those invaluable forests. Under current law, these magnificent groves are accorded no special protection. The bill also limits the practice of clearcutting and safeguards the water in streams near where logging occurs, as well as protecting area wildlife.

Equally important, this bill weighs the necessity of conservation against the need to preserve jobs in this troubled industry. It does so by permitting the Board of Forestry to exempt companies from logging restrictions that pose undue economic hardship--and by moving California’s majestic forests toward a state of “sustained yield,” which is forestry jargon for controlling the rate of timber harvesting without killing the industry or the forests. Such a balance is the industry’s only long-term hope--and the forests’.

AB 860 is not perfect, but it just may be the best solution possible in light of the diversity and intensity of interests. Consequently, we find Wilson’s opposition to this bill puzzling. Most of his specific concerns about the bill were addressed in its amendments. The remaining points of difference can be worked out. As part of a fair compromise, the governor should sign this overdue legislation and accept its supporters’ offer to introduce urgency legislation next session to address unresolved problems. This is a far, far better alternative than a return to the overused and cumbersome initiative process.