This article seems skewed and a little naive itself. My understanding is that AB 2494 is a reorientation of the goals and mission of all the California State Forests and how they are managed by Cal Fire. This is not clear in your story and you fail to mention that Tess Albin Smith was a long time employee of Cal Fire. You also fail to mention that most of the public comments from the huge crowd was in favor of AB 2494 and the one audience voice you chose to cover is one of the most reactionary voices in Fort Bragg.
Dear Jim, you are correct that we should have disclosed Tess Albin-Smith's background as a CAL FIRE forester. She spoke about her work for CAL FIRE at the meeting. We've also characterized added a sentence characterizing the majority of public comment as pro AB 2494. At the same time, you are also correct that this article highlighted comments by an opponent of AB 2494 (while including comments from the bill's sponsor and one of the supporters on the council). Our previous article highlighted the views of supporters of AB 2494. Our commitment to readers is to provide as complete coverage of an issue as we can. We do this by following issues over time and also, by highlighting different points of view. It is true that the bill has changed and in it's current iteration timber harvesting is not restricted at all. That's not the bill that supporters think they are getting. But maybe that will change before the next hearing. Frank Hartzell has reported, and I've been told, about how hard the community worked to set up the JAG. On the coast, local control matters. Mendo Local's immediate plan is to cover the debate at the next hearing. We're open to other story ideas, as well as additional feedback from the community.
The statement that the bill in its current iteration does not restrict timber harvesting "at all" is incorrect and misleading to the public. The bill changes the antiquated law that makes the number one purpose of the Demonstration State Forests "maximum sustained production" of timber products, "while giving consideration to values relating to, among other values, recreation, watershed, and wildlife".
Here is how the new definition of management reads in the bill, in its current form:
a) Management means the handling of forest vegetation and soils within state forests, including, but not limited to, demonstration state forests, for biodiversity conservation and wildfire resilience, while supporting durable onsite carbon storage and sequestration, climate mitigation and resiliency goals, equitable forest access, wildlife and fish habitat, recreation opportunities, and compatible research efforts.
(b)Timber harvesting consistent with the definition in subdivision (a) is permissible.
Cal Fire can be held accountable if they don't comply with the new definition of management, which is why the timber industry is fighting so hard to stop this bill.
The Jackson Advisory Group will NOT go away if this bill passes. Suggesting otherwise is also misleading. Frank's fears are completely unfounded, and I'm bewildered as to where he got that idea. The bill is necessary because the JAG has demonstrated that it is an inadequate forum to implement statewide changes to an outdated legislative mandate. The Campaign to Restore Jackson State Forest tried that in 2008, when they settled a lawsuit with Cal Fire and formed the JAG, consisting of members from every JDSF-related interest group. After five years of work by the JAG, a new plan for managing JDSF was created, by consensus. The plan was then sent to the Board of Forestry, which added devastating amendments that stripped away the bulk of the consensus plan.
The Jackson Advisory Group is just that: an advisory group. It's a great way for locals to get information and provide input relating to the Forest, but it's not enough for bringing real change to our demonstration forests. Just ask those original JAG members.
I was specifically looking at the redlines that removed a key harvesting restriction — that the sale of forest productions could only occur for ecological restoration or research purposes. This has been removed in multiple places. You are right that the bill specifies that harvesting must be done in a way that is consistent with the new definition of forest management.
The change in emphasis in the definition of forest management from "maximum sustained production" is significant and has survived the redlines. Thank you for pushing for greater rigor in describing what is and what is not in the bill.
This article seems skewed and a little naive itself. My understanding is that AB 2494 is a reorientation of the goals and mission of all the California State Forests and how they are managed by Cal Fire. This is not clear in your story and you fail to mention that Tess Albin Smith was a long time employee of Cal Fire. You also fail to mention that most of the public comments from the huge crowd was in favor of AB 2494 and the one audience voice you chose to cover is one of the most reactionary voices in Fort Bragg.
Dear Jim, you are correct that we should have disclosed Tess Albin-Smith's background as a CAL FIRE forester. She spoke about her work for CAL FIRE at the meeting. We've also characterized added a sentence characterizing the majority of public comment as pro AB 2494. At the same time, you are also correct that this article highlighted comments by an opponent of AB 2494 (while including comments from the bill's sponsor and one of the supporters on the council). Our previous article highlighted the views of supporters of AB 2494. Our commitment to readers is to provide as complete coverage of an issue as we can. We do this by following issues over time and also, by highlighting different points of view. It is true that the bill has changed and in it's current iteration timber harvesting is not restricted at all. That's not the bill that supporters think they are getting. But maybe that will change before the next hearing. Frank Hartzell has reported, and I've been told, about how hard the community worked to set up the JAG. On the coast, local control matters. Mendo Local's immediate plan is to cover the debate at the next hearing. We're open to other story ideas, as well as additional feedback from the community.
Hi Elise.
The statement that the bill in its current iteration does not restrict timber harvesting "at all" is incorrect and misleading to the public. The bill changes the antiquated law that makes the number one purpose of the Demonstration State Forests "maximum sustained production" of timber products, "while giving consideration to values relating to, among other values, recreation, watershed, and wildlife".
Here is how the new definition of management reads in the bill, in its current form:
a) Management means the handling of forest vegetation and soils within state forests, including, but not limited to, demonstration state forests, for biodiversity conservation and wildfire resilience, while supporting durable onsite carbon storage and sequestration, climate mitigation and resiliency goals, equitable forest access, wildlife and fish habitat, recreation opportunities, and compatible research efforts.
(b)Timber harvesting consistent with the definition in subdivision (a) is permissible.
Cal Fire can be held accountable if they don't comply with the new definition of management, which is why the timber industry is fighting so hard to stop this bill.
The Jackson Advisory Group will NOT go away if this bill passes. Suggesting otherwise is also misleading. Frank's fears are completely unfounded, and I'm bewildered as to where he got that idea. The bill is necessary because the JAG has demonstrated that it is an inadequate forum to implement statewide changes to an outdated legislative mandate. The Campaign to Restore Jackson State Forest tried that in 2008, when they settled a lawsuit with Cal Fire and formed the JAG, consisting of members from every JDSF-related interest group. After five years of work by the JAG, a new plan for managing JDSF was created, by consensus. The plan was then sent to the Board of Forestry, which added devastating amendments that stripped away the bulk of the consensus plan.
The Jackson Advisory Group is just that: an advisory group. It's a great way for locals to get information and provide input relating to the Forest, but it's not enough for bringing real change to our demonstration forests. Just ask those original JAG members.
Hi Lynne, thank you for your note.
I was specifically looking at the redlines that removed a key harvesting restriction — that the sale of forest productions could only occur for ecological restoration or research purposes. This has been removed in multiple places. You are right that the bill specifies that harvesting must be done in a way that is consistent with the new definition of forest management.
The change in emphasis in the definition of forest management from "maximum sustained production" is significant and has survived the redlines. Thank you for pushing for greater rigor in describing what is and what is not in the bill.