The Regulation of Private Forest Practices in California: A Case in Policy Evolution

Private forest policy tools: A national survey exploring the American public's perceptions and support

“…We posit that it is important to begin to understand the broader public's preferences for private forest policy, and that to do such, one must also examine factors that influence these preferences. Policy makers and decision makers must consider values and attitudes when formulating policy (Bourke and Luloff, 1994;Tarrant and Cordell, 2002), as well as the broader social, political, environmental, and economic context in which the policies are formed (Vaux, 1986;Salazar and Cubbage, 1990;Cubbage, 1991). By understanding the range of agreement or disagreement with particular policy tools, we can begin to understand how fair and legitimate the public considers such private forest policy options, which is a precursor to developing and implementing well-received and successful policies (Knetsch, 1995).…”

Effects of Silvicultural Management on Coast Redwood Forest Composition, Density and Structure in Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties

“…Very few of these efforts were successful due to wartime appropriations, the Great Depression, and overall lean budgets. One act that succeeded was the National Recovery Act of 1933, also referred to as the National Industrial Recovery Act (Cubbage 1995, Vaux 1986). This act was declared unconstitutional two years later, however it is mentioned since Article X, the Code of Fair Competition for Lumber Industry, was focused on the sustainable cutting of timber and preventing acts of poor forest practices (Vaux 1986).…”

“…One act that succeeded was the National Recovery Act of 1933, also referred to as the National Industrial Recovery Act (Cubbage 1995, Vaux 1986). This act was declared unconstitutional two years later, however it is mentioned since Article X, the Code of Fair Competition for Lumber Industry, was focused on the sustainable cutting of timber and preventing acts of poor forest practices (Vaux 1986). Over the next decade, the selfregulated timber industry in California willingly continued to follow the guidelines set forth by Article X.…”

“…Between 1940 and 1945, major timber producing western states enacted forest practice policies. California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho passed forest policies during similar social and political climates (Vaux 1986). The policies attempted to undermine the timber famine fear created during the first half of the 20 th century (Dicus and Delfino 2003).…”

“…Through a series of amendments from 1945 to 1963, the act required on-site inspections during logging operations, permitting and notice of operations, the creation of District Technical Advisory Committees (DTAC), set minimum/maximum standards, and provided means to enforce laws and assess penalties for non-compliance (Arvola 1962and 1970, Stanford Environmental Society 1973. The act divided the state into four districts broadly based on forest types, and the DTAC's developed district-specific rules the Board of Forestry could adopt (Vaux 1986).…”