High Sierra Topix

No need for it and decades 2 2 2 too late for that idea to be practical. YNP, Ansel Adams, John Muir Wilderness already protects the lake high country areas. A lot of the mid forests areas are not particularly scenic and in fact many in the San Joaquin River basin have had fires and look it. Hikers don't use those areas much, hunters more during limited seasons. Climbers use the roads to access the domes shown on that site's video. Lower down in those canyons are few public roads but considerable amount of water dam storage and hydro infrastructure. Is there some reason to think any of those areas are in danger from development? I doubt it. That recent nutzo bill to sell off BLM and NF properties might get traction in conservative Rockies states but has zero chance here in California. If they want to work on something useful, better to work on better funding for national forest agencies as they now exist because they have been in skeleton mode ever since Reagan.

I checked the Madera county Board of Supervisors site and found something very interesting. If you want bed-time story fodder, then go to http://www.madera-county.com/index.php/ ... n/topvideo, select "Video" for date of April 14, and in the popup choose item 11.

The main points:

They basically want to have management of the forest themselves instead of the feds, though if I interpreted correctly, they wanted the USFS to still do the actual work. Also, they wanted to do some massive tree thinning, which perhaps is not such a bad idea, but the motivational reasons also included generating more downstream water flow for valley towns. Chopping down trees to generate water flow sounds like a bad idea.

There's always going to be the radicals (of which you sound like one Alcy) pushing their own agenda by slandering others and taking extremist, no compromise views. But it all comes back to whether or not anything will actually happen with this, which has been discussed and generally agreed no. There's simply not enough need for this change so why spend the money to push legislation through when there's no political points to be gained by it. Yes, there are radicals who would like to privatize all land and suck out all the resources, but there are also others who want to regulate the land so much that no one can use it, sometimes actually hurting the environment in the process. I take no heed to the words of single agenda organizations, they are often just misinformed citizens who only care about what they want.

Yes, there are radicals who would like to privatize all land and suck out all the resources, but there are also others who want to regulate the land so much that no one can use it

Well said Zac. I was curious if there was a precedent for a county to take management control of a local US National Forest, or if this would be the first case. It wasn't clear how they would achieve taking control.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.