Rockpile Creek Aerial (Click to view)
California Board of Forestry
Policy and Management Committee
P.O. Box 944246
Sacramento, CA 94244 -2460
December 3, 2003
Centuries ago, decision-makers argued extensively about such things as how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. They quoted saints at one another: that was adequate research then, not constrained by reality, because no matter how many pins were held up, no dancing angels ever appeared.
Today, we can similarly launch studies at one another -- but we ARE constrained by reality, though you might not guess it from some of the discussions.
You can no doubt find a study, or many studies, that proves that timber harvesting under your rules does not cause problems for the waterbodies affected. But you cannot get the sediment and excessive temps out of those waterbodies by quoting studies at them: the vast majority of North Coast rivers and creeks are listed either for sediment or temperature or both.
And the main land use in these watersheds is forestry -- and it is done under your rules.
Rockpile Creek Aerial (Click
to view)
Beginning way back with the LSA study, followed by many other studies, including the Science Review Panel, and now more recent studies -- I'm sure you all know them -- the conclusion has been some form of a statement that the Forest Practice rules are inadequate. The Redwood Forest, ed. Noss, 2000, lists over THREE HUNDRED studies; its conclusion too is, Forest Practice rules in California are grossly inadequate to protect riparian and stream ecosystems. Can we hope for changes in those rules?