High Sierra Topix

rlown wrote: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.

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!

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.