Governor Newsom vetoes AB2494, saying it would slow the process of scientific forestry, locals fought hard to pass it
Governor Gavin Newsom’s message after vetoing Assembly Bill 2494
Gov. Gavin Newsom said he vetoed Assembly Bill 2494 because, in his view, it would slow scientific forestry in California’s demonstration forests. He wrote that the bill adds procedural steps without improving outcomes and could hinder the research‑based forest management already underway.
To the members of the California State Assembly, I am returning Assembly Bill 2494 without my signature.
This bill would significantly revise the state’s management policies for the demonstration state forest system and establish new goals, forestry techniques, research efforts, and other activities allowable on the demonstration forest.
For 80 years, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s demonstration state forests have served as a living laboratory for research, recreation, and the demonstration sustainable forest management to accelerate the pace and scale of science-based forest management to improve forest health, enhance wildlife resilience, and mitigate climate change.
Though small in size, demonstration forests produce cutting-edge strategies that inform forest management on public and private lands across California. Work that is critical to achieving our goals by narrowing the management of these forests to a limited set of public benefits. This bill risks the state’s ability to fully demonstrate the science-based practices at a time when California is racing to keep pace with a rapidly changing climate. We cannot afford to lose the flexibility needed to safeguard the forests for future generations.
For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.
Sincerely, Gavin Newsom.
Editors Note :
Many local residents will be disappointed to learn that Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed Assembly Bill 2494, a bill many in this community spent considerable effort supporting. Below, we outline our criticism of the bill and why we hope a new version can be crafted that actually moves the process forward.
- Consult forest scientists — Any replacement bill must be grounded in the best available forest science.
- Include a local element — Management cannot be centered entirely in Sacramento; local knowledge and local oversight are essential.
- Be written to make progress — As written, AB2494 would likely have generated lawsuits over nearly every harvest. The group that drafted it, the Environmental Protection Information Center, has long opposed logging, and litigation is one of the tools they use. This was not disingenuous; their goal is to stop logging.
Logging, however, remains necessary in forests compromised by past practices and in landscapes recovering from megafires. That is the scientific consensus.
Frank Hartzell has taken roughly twenty forest tours in Jackson, read thousands of pages of documents, and reviewed every version of AB2494 as it moved through the Legislature — often with bemused incredulity. It is unfortunate that the tribal mandate in AB2494 was weakened. Governor Newsom may have bristled at the fact that he had already implemented a stronger tribal mandate in Jackson, and has taken numerous actions to support Indigenous communities, which the bill’s backers did not acknowledge.
While we strongly criticized how the existing co‑management mandate was being applied, AB2494 did not improve it. The bill offered no process, and its tribal language was far weaker than mandates the Governor has already put in place elsewhere.
We hope local environmental advocates do not lose faith. The debate over Jackson Demonstration State Forest has broadened everyone’s understanding of the issues. The bill’s greatest failure was its lack of recognition of the local process — an area where neither EPIC nor Senator Mike McGuire invested meaningful effort.
Logging remains necessary by scientific measures, and it continues to power our local economy. Yes, the legacy logging era created many of today’s problems. And yes, if people stop paying attention, destructive practices could return. So keep watching, keep participating, and keep insisting on science‑based, locally informed forest management.
We subjected the bill to a barrage of questions in this article:
