In addition to Cleveland, we stopped in Cincinnati and Littleton to visit friends and family. After Colorado, when we had nowhere to stop until California, we put on the serious driving hats. We buckled down yesterday morning and drove non-stop (aside from quick stops for food and gas, of course) from Cheyenne, Wyo. (two hours north of Denver) to Sacramento. The 17-hour jaunt back to the Golden State was our longest day of driving.

Throughout the entire 3,200-mile-plus trip, we went through only two nerve-racking spots -- both of which involved a lot of lightning in close proximity to us. As we drove into Denver, we first had to pass through heavy rain and flashing skies; we must've driven right through the eye of the storm. Then, crossing the desolate desert state of Nevada last night, we watched the lightning in the distance light up the sky. Never had I seen so much lightning strike so often. I'm thankful, however, we didn't become a target.

Our country's too big to make a habit out of driving across it. Twice in one summer is enough for me.

-Gabe

*************************** ADVERTISEMENT *************************** YOUR AD HERE! Want to send a message to 1,300+ individuals each week? Place your ad here! This newsletter is not spam, so everyone who receives it has asked for it. For rates and other information on advertising, drop a message to ads@capenq.com. *********************************************************************

But perhaps that is the best evidence of all that the this scheme, which took six years of intense negotiations to produce, really is a valuable compromise that will benefit the environment and bring peace, however ephemeral, in the interminable timber wars that have roiled the north state.

Environmentalists are skeptical, and it's easy to see why.

The five-year regulation approved last week by the U.S. Forest Service allows the cutting of roughly 286 million board feet of timber annually in three national forests -- the Plumas, the Lassen and the Tahoe. For years, only about 126 million board feet was taken out of those areas. That means under the new plan, the level of logging will about double.

The QLG plan involves harvesting about 70,000 acres of timber a year, or a total of about 350,000 acres during the life of the project. That's about 500 square miles. It includes the cutting of extensive firebreaks across the forests and the use of a logging method known as "group selection," in which timber is extracted from thousands of parcels of up to a half-acre each.

The plan also prohibits cutting new logging roads on a half-million acres.

Environmentalists believe the sharply increased level of logging will disturb fish and wildlife habitats, and when one looks at the numbers alone it is hard to argue with them.

But there is another side to the plan.

For years, about 360 million board feet was logged in the area; it wasn't until a federal court decision in 1993 that the dramatic decline to 126 million board feet was put into effect. In other words, QLG only allows about a third of the logging that traditionally occurred there and which sustained the timber-based economies of communities like Quincy.

The plan also calls for the removal of brush and scrub timber to prevent forest fires. In effect, the plan seeks to emulate nature by thinning the forest. Whether one accepts the argument that this thinning is necessary, there is no question that the fiercest forest fires feed on timber that is overgrown and fuel-rich; prudent forest management favors periodic thinning and both state and federal officials regularly schedule controlled burns throughout California as safety measures.

Too, the QLG plan sets aside a million acres for preservation. In total, only about 11 percent of the land area in the three national forests would be affected. This is far from the Doomsday scenario painted by some environmentalists.

There is no question that the QLG is supported more by local business interests, including loggers, than by environmentalists. But that is because many in the business community see QLG as an example of local interests deciding the fate of local forests. The public forests are owned by all of us, but it is the livelihoods of the locals that are stake when these issues are decided.

When President Clinton signed the Feinstein-carried QLG bill into law last October, that argument was clear: Local control is pre-eminent.

As a community, Quincy is an unlikely symbol of the timber wars. The town is a pastoral community nestled in a stunning Sierra Nevada valley at the top of the majestic Feather River Canyon. It is one of California's most beautiful cities, far from the hubub of freeways and urban life.

But the community's most enduring image is not likely to be its physical beauty. Rather, it will be the little country library where an array of opponents sat down together and worked out their differences.

There's a lesson here for all of us.

It occurred to me that as the author of your first letter to the editor, I am probably obligated to write at least once every three years; hence the message before you.

I was amused [last Monday] by the indignant letters from Y2K doomsday believers. Until today, I had assumed that most reasonably intelligent people were able to put this issue in its proper perspective, but that is obviously not the case.

I should have written to tell you last week, but your comments on Y2K were gutsy and absolutely correct from my perspective. I forwarded that issue to a friend of mine who is the international Y2K project manager for a major oil company, and she agrees with you also. Take that, computer geeks.

Warmest regards,

Brian J. Todd

To the Editor,

I have been on the ballot ten times ranging from College Board through City Council, County Supervisor & State Assembly and I have won all except the Assembly. I was pleased to see you are concerned enough to include the article about political contributions [http://www.capenq.com/newsletter/archives/1999/aug99/0306.html]. I was defeated in the Assembly primary by a person who spent over $350,000 and continued on to spend over $600,000 to win the seat. I really cannot complain because this person put up almost all of the money with only a modicum of donations.

I believe in retrospect that the right to give whatever one wants to give is safeguarded in our constitution. Political donations can, however, be limited legally. The limitation must be applied in two ways. First, political donations should only be allowed during a specific time know as the campaign period which can be set by law. Any donations, in kind or in cash, outside of that time should be construed by law as an illegal attempt to affect the outcome of a political decision. Both the giver and the receiver are guilty if they violate the law.

The second way to limit political contribution without affecting the rights of citizens would be to require full disclosure before the end of the election. The public's right to know supercedes the right to give. It does not constrain in any manner the amount donated. Whether the amount is one cent or one million dollars, it must be disclosed before the election date in time to provide full disclosure to the public through the ordinary media procedures. Money given under the table would be an open violation. Those who complain that full disclosure would be impossible physically really do not want to disclose. Money comes in after the set time must be disclosed and returned.

The laws on political donations must be simple and not highly convoluted to be effective -- full disclosure and within a specific time limit. The consequence must be just as simple -- loss of the election.

Are you aware of the donations that are given openly to both parties during the legislative session? Check Arizona -- they do not allow legislators to receive money during the session but "the governor can accept money until the bill appears on his/her desk for a signature." If they can limit the time, why not us?

HMoore17@aol.com

Stay up-to-date on Legislative contact information. Order the newest edition of "the little red book" today! Place your secure online order through our Web site: http://www.capenq.com/order. NOW SHIPPING!

*** Legislators and U.S. Congress on CD-ROM ***

You can now have access to all the info in our print publications on CD-ROM, complete with regular updates via the Web or disk! More on the Legislative CD here: http://www.capenq.com/brochure/legcd.html. More on the Congress CD here: http://www.capenq.com/brochure/congcd.html. Legislative CD is in the final stages of development and will be available later this summer. The U.S. Congress CD is available NOW. Place your order TODAY!

*** Discounted Rate for RAND California Subscription ***

RAND California, a subscription-based service on California economic and public policy issues, has partnered with Capitol Enquiry to bring you a discounted subscription rate. More information on RAND is available here: http://ca.rand.org/about.html. To subscribe to RAND, visit this page: http://ca.rand.org/subscribe.capenq.html.

*** Committee Rosters Now Online ***

You asked for it, you got it! The current listings for both Assembly and Senate committees are now available through our Web site. Point your browser to http://www.capenq.com/gov/info.html for links to the rosters.

*** Current Legislative Roster Available on Web Site ***

Looking for the current roster of the Assembly or Senate? Head on over to http://www.capenq.com/gov/info.html for links to the current lists -- complete with district, member name, party, room and phone number.