Wilson Vetoes Forest Protection Measure, Promises New Legislation : Environment: But activists say they’ll push for a ballot initiative that would restrict timber harvesting more severely than the law rejected by the governor.

Gov. Pete Wilson followed through Friday on his threat to veto a Democratic-backed forestry protection measure and then moved quickly to dispel environmental criticism by promising to propose regulations to preserve California’s fragile timberlands.

Hoping to forestall another initiative battle over forest preservation, the Republican governor vowed that in the next few months he would bring environmentalists and logging industry officials together in an attempt to forge agreement on a new round of forestry legislation.

In the meantime, he promised to push the Board of Forestry to adopt administrative regulations that he said would preserve ancient forests, protect wildlife habitat, place new limitations on clear-cutting and require all logging plans to strike a balance between cutting and growth.

“I renew my commitment to genuine reform, and ask the Legislature to join me in restoring science and fairness as the means to achieve the balance California needs to maintain a high level of environmental protection in an economically sensible manner,” he said.

Calling the Democratic measure “flawed and inflexible,” Wilson said he felt his only choice was a veto because he believed the bill would not provide adequate environmental protection and would place “unnecessary economic hardship” on logging companies. He said the measure used a “one-size-fits-all” approach to forestry problems, when the state’s timberlands are varied and require different solutions for different regions.

The first major forestry legislation to win legislative approval in almost 20 years, the bill would have imposed new logging restrictions on 7.1 million acres of productive, privately owned timberland. It attempted to place limitations on clear-cutting, restrict harvesting in ancient forests, allow loggers to cut only what they could grow and provide protections for wildlife and watersheds.

Environmentalists, saying they were skeptical of the governor’s promises, responded to the veto by reaffirming their intention to seek voter approval of a forestry initiative in June. The initiative would restrict timber harvesting more severely than the measure vetoed by Wilson.

“Having lost this landmark attempt at legislative compromise, (we) see no alternative to an initiative. California is in desperate need of forestry reform now,” said Daniel Taylor, western regional representative of the National Audubon Society, a supporter of the vetoed legislation.

Warner Chabot, a spokesman for other backers of the timber measure, said environmentalists were not likely to back off the initiative until they had proof--rather than promises--that Wilson was going to seek controls on logging. He said administrative regulations would not only take a long time to enact but could not legally address many of the problems plaguing the forests.

“We need more than just a balance between cut and growth and a sustained production of jobs. We need to rebuild highly depleted forests,” said Stephanie Tebbutt, a spokesman for the Redwood Coast Watersheds Alliance.

Although the veto had been expected, it still produced a harsh reaction from the measure’s authors including its legislative sponsors, the Planning and Conservation League and Sierra Pacific Industries, the largest owner of private timberlands in California.

“The governor’s veto . . . is a great disappointment because he has squandered an historic opportunity to resolve the timber wars through legislation,” said Assemblyman Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto).

Said Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles): “The governor’s veto destroys a responsible compromise that would have ended the destructive practices of clear-cutting our forests and polluting our streams. It would have protected our few remaining ancient redwood forests.”

However, for markedly different reasons, some environmentalists and many of the state’s logging companies applauded the decision.

Joan Reiss, regional director of the Wilderness Society, agreed that the measure was “flawed” although she contended that many of the flaws were caused by amendments proposed by the governor’s office. She said the amendments provided loopholes that would have allowed many timber companies to sidestep the proposed restrictions.

Maureen Frisch, a spokesman for the Simpson Timber and Paper Co., said “the governor displayed a lot of courage. Intense pressure to persuade him from the veto was being leveled by the proponents of (the measure).” The California Forestry Assn. declined comment.

The veto came after a prolonged legislative battle that produced deep divisions within the industry and the environmental community and left Wilson with political scars. Wilson, who had worked hard during his election campaign to earn the trust of environmentalists, entered the timber debate hoping to mediate differences between the two sides.

The forestry protection measure was proposed in March as the Sierra Accord, a compromise agreement between Sierra Pacific Industries and several environmental organizations including the Sierra Club. Wilson did not take a position on the accord until August, when his Administration proposed 96 amendments to the legislation.

Although 80 amendments were accepted, the Administration insisted it was still not satisfied and proposed its own bill in the final week of the legislative session. At the same time, it announced that any forestry protection legislation not authored by the governor would be vetoed.

Lawmakers, insisting that the governor’s measure had been written largely by logging companies opposing the accord, approved their own bill anyway.

“Gov. Wilson’s commitment to new reform can only be viewed with great skepticism based on his past performance on this issue,” said the Wilderness Society’s Reiss.