Sierra National Monument Project

[rlown]

I'm trying to figure out the point to this thread? Call Congress? Counties cant really afford the cost of the Sierra NF upkeep.

[ERIC]

Think the point of the thread is simple enough to understand.

[rlown]

Ok. A big difference between saying you want to do something and doing it Govt wise. Guess I'm not seeing the threat.

[iceman]

There are a lot of what if's, could be and maybe's that are floating around on this subject. What we can only surmise is that what has happened elsewhere monument wise could and will happen here should a monument be made. If you support any particular activity that is your passion of recreation be it OHV use, hunting, hiking, climbing or prospecting, whatever that is now legal you need to get to know the who, what, why, when, and where of what's going on and make your voice heard.

There is also a lot of second guessing on forestry management. The science of it is well studied and a lot of facts support policies that the national forest is doing the best it can given the funding it has and the special interests tying their hands. Changing the lands to a monument will change the who what where when and how the lands are managed from a local control to somebody elsewhere even to an international level. Again if you want a voice in what is going on, having everything move elsewhere is not in your best interests.

We are also in a drought, thinning the forest is not some outsiders opinion it is the forestry managers opinion. A great deal of research has gone into what is best for the forest in sustainability, tree numbers suggest the forest is too heavy and at risk for a mega fire like the rim fire a few years ago, this disaster shut down the forest to ALL users, Do we want a repeat of that? In addition the science gives us data that thinning the forest will bring more waters down stream This helps everyone, not just the people and the farm industry but the wildlife that is dependent upon a healthy water habitat, from steelhead to ducks to even the precious frogs some folks are so worried about.

Access is an important issue as well. with out access it is difficult to fight fire. Under a monument status there is increased pressure to close roads and trails to "preserve" a more natural state. In addition to that to regulate this "natural state" dispersed camping and day use is also reduced. Add in another part of the proposal "wild and scenic rivers" this will reduce road crossings, trout plants and create water rights issues where we had none before.

There are significant claims as to what will happen to the local economy as well. Yes some research for differing monuments shows an initial tourism draw, and being California there will always be a growth in tourism monument or not. However long term effects are more important. Under monument status the timber industry is a total loss this cuts thousands of local jobs and revenue for the forestry management this is actually wasteful of a perfectly good renewable resource, trees do replenish themselves and the above need for thinning helps the forest, the wildlife habitat and keeps jobs for local people.

I could go on, but I have made my voice heard for now. Think on these things

[ERIC]

iceman - welcome to HST, and thank you for your civil and thoughtful response (first post no less) to what is quite obviously an emotionally charged topic.

[Alcy]

Reality check here. Is this about a National Monument or is it about a tri-county take over of national forest lands from the US Forest Service?

Yes, a grass roots national monument group attempted to present a proposal at REI and was shut down by a "STOP" movement that appears to have elements of a pre-existing agenda to transfer control of the national forests to the county level and away from the feds.

Here's a link to the "STOP"s video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3R-lSiVO18

Between 1:50 and 3:00 the people at the protest show their (already existing?) plans to take back local management of resources. This could lead to increased grazing, increased mining and increased logging all managed at the county level. As I have said previously, I'm good with tree thinning, we need it badly. As far as overall management of the forest, I trust the feds far more than the counties (especially flatland counties) to keep in check any industrial exploitation of the forest.

One other interesting reference just to point out that it really is possible for a county to take over a national forest: http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/ApacheCounty.html.

Just keeping it real here guys.

[zacjust32]

Counties cant really afford the cost of the Sierra NF upkeep.

And that is the reason it won't pass, Fresno has much bigger fish to fry.

[Alcy]

Fresno has much bigger fish to fry.

I imagine all the counties are cash strapped. The Concerned Citizens of Central California group makes it sound like Fresno is already on board. Selling timber contracts and mining leases would generate some serious revenues. And the claim is that since the county does the management of the forests, EAJA reimbursements do not apply, meaning less lawsuits from enviro groups when the forest is managed by the counties. At the federal level people say these EAJA lawsuits have shutdown logging. Gonna be interesting!

[dave54]

To add to Iceman's post:

Thinning is a term that describes a broad range of harvesting designed to reduce stocking. It is not just removing the small understory trees. Removing large size trees is also a form of thinning, removing a single species in a mixed species stand, or removing some of all sizes/species -- the objective is to reduce stocking.

Water yield is maximized, with no loss of water quality, when density is maintained at 80% normal stocking ('normal' in this context is a forestry term). The literature supporting the 80% level is quite numerous, and roughly the same value has been found in a wide spectrum of forest types and climate zones -- from the rainy Northwest to southern pines to northeast and lake states hardwoods. It is as close to a scientific fact as you can get.
Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power has extensive landholdings in the Sierra, the forested watersheds surrounding their reservoirs. They maintain their forests for water yield and quality by intensive management, including keeping the density at about the 80% normal. And make a profit in the process.

Complicating the whole debate is the reason the Forest Service was created in the first place. According to the Autobiography of Teddy Roosevelt, he removed the Forest Reserves from Interior to Agriculture, and placed under the already existing Bureau of Forestry, to facilitate rural economic development. The National Forests were supposed to be managed to benefit local communities, with local input into the management policies -- federal ownership, local control. This is similar to the recommendations of John Wesley Powell for managing water resources in the west. John Muir wrote forests needed management. The UN 1992 Montreal Accords also recommends active forest management is the best method of maintaining forests over the long term. Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore did a 180 degree about face once he learned the science of forest ecology and silviculture -- he became a staunch advocate of intensive harvesting, including clearcutting where appropriate, and wrote a book about the need for increased logging -- Trees are the Answer.

The Multiple Use Act states the National Forests are to be managed for Wood, Water, Wildlife, Forage, and Recreation equally, with no one use taking precedent over the others. No where at no time were national forests were to be managed as untouched preserves, like some sort of ecosystem museum where you can look but not touch. They were created to be managed with a management philosophy mandated by law. Some where in the process so-called 'environmental groups' threw out the science and good management to implement their misguided views.