Letters to an Editor

Press Democrat
Letters to the Editor
September 7, 1998

Dear Editor,

In response to the Press Democrat article, "Session eases fears over Cazadero logging", of September 6, 1998, it should be noted that, contrary to the headline, members of the Austin Creek Alliance and of Russian River Residents Against Unsafe Logging, are not significantly reassured about current logging activities, including the Austin Creek timber harvest plans. The effort to have those THPs rejected or substantially mitigated is increasing.

Those attending urged the government representatives present to *increase* their efforts to help the public deal with THPs: both generally, and specifically respecting Austin Creek. The County was asked to send officials to THP reviews held at the California Department of Forestry; a practice not now followed although permitted under the Forest Practice Rules. Other suggestions were that the County require timber operators to post bonds covering potential damage to public properties and that the County provide staff to routinely handle timber issues. It was also suggested that legislation be introduced to extend the amount of time currently permitted for CDF review of THPs.

The speculative formation of a Russian River Watershed Council has no bearing, now, on the Austin Creek THPs or on other logging in the County. The burden of monitoring logging continues to fall on the public. Many would like to see greater intervention by the National Marines Fisheries Service and other Federal agencies: they are worried that a Watershed Council effectively led by the Resource Department and the Army Corps of Engineers, would be hamstrung and toothless.

Sincerely,
Jay Halcomb
Greg Zuckert
Russian River Residents Against Unsafe Logging

Press Democrat
Letters to the Editor
September 6, 1998

Dear Mr. Editor,

Re today's story on the Austin Creek meeting, "Session Eases Fears Over Logging": Hmph. Not mine. Progress has been made on these three plans, but it's due primarily to actions taken by, or stirred up by, well-informed, industrious citizens. The Department of Forestry (CDF) responded, both here and in Sacramento with unusual cooperation.(Don't relax, CDF, you still need to do a lot). And some landowner actions, in one aspect anyway, promise well.

I'm sorry your reporters weren't present to see the pictures, hear about the serious problems, to report how much citizens can and did accomplish. In fact, CDF returned one of the plans to the sender, with lengthy objections and queries, after the public's presentation on it.

Correction: CDF called this selective logging, "the least impactive" on visual effects, possibly meaning just one plan -- and even on that one, they now require that portions either have trees UNmarked for cutting, or shift to one of the most drastic methods yet devised. And about 75% of the other two already use, not selection, but that same awful method. That method is frequently used when a stand is already very sparse, often from repeated logging in short time spans. And THAT'S the real story here, folks -- not visual, but impacts on the land and the survival of any timber-based economy. THIS is where those "toughest rules in the nation" have brought us.

Helen Libeu