The Forest Council meeting was what I call "another episode in the
education of Vince Taylor." I had thought that the Forest Council was a
progressive group, although I was concerned that David Colfax had just been
replaced by Patti Campbell -- so the Supes were Lucier and Campbell, not
exactly environmentalists. Still, I thought that the others, Henry Guntling
especially, were concerned about forests, not just logs. Oh, how wrong I
was.There were actually two resolutions that day, both introduced by
Duane Wells, who was described to me before the meeting as, "A good old
boy, with lots of buddies in the timber business." Events showed this to be
a good description.
The first resolution was ostensibly aimed at urging better coordination
between the numerous agencies that now have some responsibility for
reviewing THPs. But, the language of the resolution and especially the
Council discussion explicitly assumed that environmental protection
concerns raised by the agencies were placing a major burden on timber
owners and were a major reason that THPs were not being approved more
quickly. There was no recognition that there could be legitimate
environmental concerns or that a balanced statement would include a
recognition that the public has an interest in the effects of timber
harvests on the environment.
Most Council members chimed in with their own anecdotes. A number of
speakers, including Greg Jirak, Linda Perkins, Bill Heil, and Bernie
McDonald stressed the one-sidedness of the measure and the lack of any real
evidence in support of the assertions made in the resolution. Greg Jirak
showed me statistics he had collected showing that less than 10% of THPs
were rejected for environmental reasons. All timber industry
representatives expressed great pleasure with the resolution. The Council
made clear their sympathy for, as the resolution stated, "landowner
frustration," and they passed it unanimously.
The second resolution was the one concerning Jackson State. Greg Guisti,
the staff person, started off by informing the Council that it had received
over "100 letters, faxes, phone calls, e-mails." He had made a package of
these for the Council members, but it wasn't complete, because he said, "We
are still receiving messages even as this meeting is going on." I know that
more than 100 faxes were sent; so I suspect the actual number was closer to
150 communications. The Council members only received these when they came
into the meeting, so they obviously had had no time to read them before the
resolution item was heard.
What was so incredible to me about the Council behavior with respect to
both resolutions was the imperviousness of the members to any evidence,
concerns, or arguments presented by non-timber interests. In the case of
the second resolution, it didn't matter to them that there were factual
errors in the resolution, or that that they hadn't read the public's
comments, or that the draft management plan was at odds with CDF's own
advisory committee, or that the public as well as the timber industry had
an interest in the public forest.
At some point, Henry Guntling said that he thought it would be good to
defer action to a later time to allow for longer consideration, but Duane
Wells said action was needed now, and everyone deferred to him. Indeed,
everyone deferred to him on every point, and he made clear his interest was
in getting on the record as favoring quick resumption of logging Jackson
State. Tom Lucier made the most incredible statement, which I'd like to get
verbatim, to the effect, "We've got to do what we can to get harvesting
started in Jackson State. It has no value to the County when it's just
sitting there."
I made a detailed presentation of the errors in their resolution,
presented an alternative resolution, and started to give evidence to show
that the tourist industry was now much more important to Fort Bragg's
economy than the timber industry. At this point, Patti Campbell interrupted
me and attacked me personally, in a manner reminiscent of McCarthy. She was
fairly incoherent, but some of her early comments were, "What are your
credentials? Where do you come from? What are your interests? I just had to
fill out six pages of personal information." Then, waving a copy of the
proceedings of the conference on restoration of coastal redwood forests,
sponsored by Dharma Cloud Foundation, that I'd just given to the Council
members, she said, "You bring in all these academics." Then, searching
through the initial pages, she says, "And, published by this ... Dharma
Cloud Foundation." Then she just went off on all the people who were out of
work and couldn't feed their families and were coming to her. She took up
about fifteen minutes with her outpouring, using up so much time (after
5:00 PM), that I felt that I had to cut my presentation short.
When the discussion got back to the Council, they debated some of the
whereases, and actually took a couple from my alternative resolution that
said that Jackson State was a very valuable asset whose future was of great
importance to the future of Mendocino County and "important for its
economy, environment, and wildlife, and for the recreation, nourishment,
and education of it citizenry" (instead of only "its economy). But they
were unwilling to delay the resolution to consult any of these other
interests, nor would they change any of the "therefore be it resolveds",
which totally endorsed continued logging of Jackson State. They passed the
resolution unanimously.
Soon after I got home, I received a call from Henry Guntling, who had
found my number in the phone book and who called to "apologize" for Patti
Campbell and to some extent for the behavior of the Council generally. I
had noticed him hesitate before voting and brought this up. He said, "Oh
yes, certainly." "Why didn't you vote no?" I asked. "Because I felt we
needed to present a united front to CDF."
I am still staggered that this was the reasoning of the most progressive
member of the Council. What about presenting to CDF some of the widespread
public concerns about their bad management of a valuable public resource?
No, not as important as giving the local timber industry logs from the
public forest.