Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 150 of total 150 in this topic |
Flip Flop
climber
salad bowl, california
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2015 - 12:17pm PT
|
Great idea as soon as I have my little piece.
|
|
two-shoes
Trad climber
Auberry, CA
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2015 - 12:38pm PT
|
I signed on to it!
Maybe it can be protected before congress is posed to sell it off.
|
|
this just in
climber
Justin Ross from North Fork
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2015 - 12:42pm PT
|
Personally I think this is f*#king bullsh#t. It's perfect the way it is as a National Forest. Cidiots trying to change a place they visit every now and then so it's more "safe" and "preserved". We who actually live here and spend time in these woods everyday want nothing to do with more regulations.
enables citizens to walk from urban areas to an alpine paradise. For f*#ks sake.
Edit: Ha I guess Barry wants something to do with it. You're drinking the punch?
|
|
PAUL SOUZA
Trad climber
Central Valley, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 12, 2015 - 01:24pm PT
|
I am wondering what MORE will be done to protect said area from NF to NM.
There is a class at REI this afternoon about this, but it is full. It would be interesting to hear what is being hoped for.
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2015 - 09:40pm PT
|
Copyright Sierra National Monument Project. All rights reserved
Says it all.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
Nothing creative to say
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2015 - 09:57pm PT
|
why monument? It's a recreation area. When I see monuments, I see more restrictive use by climbers. Monuments then get pushed to be Parks by senators and reps. Further adding enhancements that bring more impacts.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2015 - 10:03pm PT
|
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Monuments usually retain privileges for resource use like mining and grazing and restrict personal recreation use. Almost the entire southern sierra is park or wilderness or monument, leave a little piece of forest please!
Freakin' dumb. I'm still annoyed that part of Sequoia National Forest was turned into Sequoia National Monument. There are still cattle but now we're not allowed to snowmobile off of maintained roads. Because, you know, riding on top of snow is way worse than cows.
Arghhh
(PS. I've worked with the SNF on meadow restoration projects and I love preserving the Sierra, but this is stupid.)
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2015 - 10:12pm PT
|
A million bucks says they won't actually tell people what it means to transition from Forest to Monument, they will just throw out terms like "protect nature" and "preservation."
Do your research people.
Also, that article they linked to about the economic benefit of National Monuments is stupid because it's already a National Forest that has the same benefits and then some.
Sorry about the rants, I consider myself an environmentalist so when I see groups misinforming people in the name of the environment to accomplish their agenda it makes me mad. Reminds me of the letter I got from the Sierra Club asking for funding to stop the timber industry from harvesting Giant Sequoias (which nobody was ever trying to do)
We need to ask them to actually do the work and write an environmental impact report or risk assessment and prove that it's worth it. I've written plenty and I would bet that it's not. Although, it's ridiculously easy to make whatever conclusion you want despite the actual data.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2015 - 10:17pm PT
|
Join the group to stop the sierra national monument!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/916364548384667/
And if you're wondering, no, the federal government is not going to turn forest lands over to the states for development. The bill is a publicity stunt and totally non-functional so don't support the Monument idea out of fear of the fake bill proposed by showboats.
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2015 - 10:22pm PT
|
A "solution" searching for a problem. Unneeded restrictions to our playground, I say.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2015 - 10:25pm PT
|
You might probably wondering what you can and can't do in a monument. That is different for each one and it will be left up to people on the other side of the country, that's the scary part... There is a stipulation that what is currently allowed in an area is supposed to continue being allowed in an area once it's a monument, but they can make "adjustments" and those often favor industry and not recreational users.
When unwise "environmentalists" push restrictions with minimal payoff it only sours the public to the idea and makes it more difficult for well researched and effective regulations to go through in the future.
Ok, I'll stop now
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2015 - 01:06pm PT
|
I'm more interested in seeing the area preserved.
I don't think the area is going anywhere. Do you mean the existing recreational uses preserved? Do you mean preserving the privilege of the "let them eat cake" crowd to exclude commoners from the King's Forest? The area is a climber's paradise as currently administered. What, exactly, needs to change?
John
|
|
Roots
Mountain climber
Tustin, CA
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2015 - 04:28pm PT
|
This is a lame idea. We don't need more intrusion...Sierras are ok the way they are set up now.
|
|
Mark Not-circlehead
climber
Martinez, CA
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2015 - 04:33pm PT
|
There are a bunch of proposed Monument in the state right now. For some reason there is this big push going on, most of it quite quietly. The Sierra club is at the center of several of these proposals (Berryessa / Snow Mountain Monument).
This is BS if you ask me, and is an attempt to further regulate people (not land!), and the activities they can perform on said public lands. National Monument Status is the most restrictive of all National lands.
|
|
Grahm Doe
Sport climber
Just South Of Heaven
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2015 - 06:26pm PT
|
Living here in the area, I personally am against the idea of turning it into a National Monument. It will mean more restrictions. The way things are set up now is fine.
We have a huge area of "protected" land designated as "National Wilderness" already. It covers the whole sierra ridge down to 8,000ft and creeps way down into the river corridors.
Then we have the more recreational user friendly "National Forest" which goes from the more urban areas up towards the high country. The National Forest has plenty of restrictions and is protected and managed by them already.
There is a need for both "Wilderness" and "National Forest" and they have already been set up appropriately. I don't see how converting National Forest into a Monument is going to be a benefit. What about all the dirt roads that are used by off roaders and rock climbers to access all kinds of cool spots? What about open snowmobile access in winter? They specifically leave out any comments about motorized use on dirt roads in a Monument. Will motorized drills be banned too? Will you have to go through a permit process to put up a new climb? Will we need to start paying for camping for the privilege of being in the newly formed National Monument? I don't see the need to lock up more land with more restrictions.
Until they put forth a much clearer vision of what will and won't be allowed I don't see how it can be blindly supported.
|
|
this just in
climber
Justin Ross from North Fork
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2015 - 08:19pm PT
|
Toulumne trad, are you Vic who posts as Tuolumne Tradster?
Funny how you went from Sunnyvale to Mariposa in a day. Logging has been dead here since the 90's. My family owned a logging business and we went through losing everything due to some people's political agenda to save the forest. Each year now we watch fires consuming dead timber that isn't logged, consequently creating so much more dead timber due to poorly managed forests.
The biggest problem right now is the Pine Beetle. Drought has made the trees weak and the warmth has kept the Beetles from being dormant. Patches of orange trees litter the forest and the Beetles have already moved on to the next tree. Yet logging remains dead. This summer will be sad and scary. Save your bullshit 75% statistic for more water in Millerton.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2015 - 08:47pm PT
|
National Monument Proclamations are authorized by presidents under The Antiquities Act of 1906.
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/NPSHistory/monuments.htm
there is a long list of presidents who have created national monuments against the wishes of the states' congressional delegation, but there has never been a case where a national monument proclamation has been overturned, and the Supreme's have sided with the president on every case that reached them...
The Congress has passed bills restricting the ability of the president to proclaim NMs in various states, this is piecemeal and usually in response to some very strong local objections...
However, there are many places we go as climbers that had been added to by the eventual incorporation of NMs into Parks... and usually after the fact that an NM had been designated in the state over local objections.
there is an interesting Wiki article on it, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Monument_(United_States);
Since these proclamations are essentially bullet proof, presidents have an opportunity at the end of their term to grant them... and not having to negotiate with congress after their last term, is free from the political fall out from granting such proclamations.
I suspect this has to happen in time for the Congress to attempt to pass a bill, and for the president to veto the bill, and for the veto overturn vote to fail...
The most recent designation was for the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/10/10/president-obama-designates-san-gabriel-mountains-national-monument
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2015 - 08:48pm PT
|
Toulumne trad, are you Vic who posts as Tuolumne Tradster?
NO
Sorry to hear about your family's business Justin.
|
|
this just in
climber
Justin Ross from North Fork
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2015 - 09:05pm PT
|
Didn't think so Vic, hope you are doing good. Seems this guy might be involved in the movement.
Not meant to complain about losing the business, it happened to a ton of people around here and we moved on. I guess I am bitter towards groups like this that want to change something that so many find perfect the way it is.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2015 - 09:41pm PT
|
Sierra National Monument Project facebook page: 197 likes
Stop the Sierra National Monument facebook group: 2,187 members
It's too bad, like Ed pointed out, these numbers don't really matter if a president wants to designate a Monument...
|
|
Roots
Mountain climber
Tustin, CA
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 08:19am PT
|
...I don't Facebook. Shame that many things are done there [FB] and only there.
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 08:28am PT
|
...I don't Facebook. Shame that many things are done there [FB] and only there.
Me to......
But then again, I am against anything that gives up our free land over to a bunch of professional control freaks..... Federal ones to boot.
Just say no to the monuments.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 09:50am PT
|
...we're going to build a place that connects people and wildlife.
WTF??
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 10:39am PT
|
Ed sets forth the reason so many of us who live near the area fear any Monument proposal. We have zero clout with the current administration, but those who live thousands of miles away, and never met a monument they didn't like (unless it interferes with their lives) pretty much dictate what this administration will do. I, for one, chose to live here precisely because of its proximity to the southern Sierra west of the crest. I greatly resent the possibility of the one-size-misfits-all imposition of a quasi-religious land use scheme on an area being administered quite nicely (other than the mandated forest mismanagement, with its yearly conflagrations that add pollution to our already compromised air).
John
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 11:18am PT
|
I have had a minor working relationship with the Director of this effort, and it gave me the opportunity to have a bit of an extended conversation with her on the matter.
As I understood it, the major issue at hand is logging and "industrial" uses of the forest (undefined), which are to be eliminated.
I believe that she has the best of intentions, but I didn't get the sense that the organizational skills and explanations were present to make progress in the direction envisioned.
BTW, I support logging of the area.
|
|
rincon
climber
Coarsegold
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 11:42am PT
|
They cut down a whole bunch of huge Red Firs along the road to Clover Meadow last summer. Looked like logging to me.
I'm not at all against logging in the SNF. it's not a healthy forest now, too many trees per acre and severe drought and bark beetle infestations. Not sure why they were cutting down healthy looking hundreds of years old Red Firs though.
I don't think this Sierra National Monument thing has a chance. There's too much opposition, or there will be when all the user groups get wind of the idea. Right now it appears that the main group opposing the monument is that facebook group, but they are ideolocically bent to the right and I'd never stand with them for a second. Did anyone watch that video? I did...LOL! They link the monument plan with Obama and AGENDA 21!!!!
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
SuperDW
Sport climber
California
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 01:57pm PT
|
Hi all -
I am the director of this project. You are right - I am not a web site designer. So I did what I could with a go daddy site - very true. Primarily, I've been doing the grassroots work - which has been talking with people on a one on one basis for about a year and half. I spend a lot of my time in the area and have for the last couple of decades. It's means a lot to me to be able to camp there, and I enjoy the open rugged nature, which make it so different from the parks.
In general, I am hoping to get the forest to be managed for people and wildlife, so that the forest stays healthy and people stay happy. That's probably not as specific as you want, but feel free to ask a specific question, and I will do my best to answer.
Best regards,
Deanna
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 03:10pm PT
|
Hi Deanna, thanks for joining in!
What, specifically, is one thing that needs to be changed about how the SNF is currently managed that will be solved by it becoming a monument?
Thanks,
-Daniel
PS: I used the same template on my free site so I think it looks fine :) http://www.sekiclimbing.com/
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 04:44pm PT
|
the San Gabriel Monument has only one productive feature.
A monument to a politician's ego.
They are already putting in stop lights just past the San Gabriel dam.
So now I'll have to pack my geezer pass for my semi weekly workout bike rides. Then stop and produce the pass and a photo Id for the kid in the smokey hat just like J Tree.
Everyone else gets to pay to play.
Suckers!
Well, I guess it will cut down on traffic and drunk illegal aliens.
These crackpots are not your friends!
A fixed anchor, chalk marks, approach trails and bike tracks offend them as much as a logged tree.
If they have their way the roads into the Needles, Shuteye and every minor crag will be closed.
|
|
this just in
climber
Justin Ross from North Fork
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 04:56pm PT
|
It's means a lot to me to be able to camp there, and I enjoy the open rugged nature, which make it so different from the parks.
Then why are you trying to make it more like the parks?
In general, I am hoping to get the forest to be managed for people and wildlife, so that the forest stays healthy and people stay happy
Ken mentioned above that you want to shutdown logging. You are a couple decades late. If you truly cared about a healthy forest, you'd support the reintroduction of logging to the area. Take a drive and look at what the French Fire did. Burnt sticks for miles and miles. I've already stated above what the drought and pine beetles have done. I've lived here for thirty years and have never seen the forests look this bad. We need to log the dead out, so the healthy trees can survive.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 12:18am PT
|
Thanks for joining the conversation, Deanna. As several others have requested, I, too, want to know what your group intends to change about the area.
Thanks.
John
|
|
hossjulia
Trad climber
Carson City, NV
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 11:12am PT
|
Comments are now blocked on their FB page with many comments not 100% in favor deleted. The total lack of transparency and discourse will kill it.
Never have answered the question why with an intelligent answer. Stopping extraction? What, they plan on removing all the hydro infrastructure? Stopping logging would be a huge mistake.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 11:26am PT
|
Julia, it appears that opposition to logging, and little if nothing else, unites them. The platitudes, opacity and inability to articulate a need for change would doom the proposal in a rational world, but in our modern political world, then needs and wants of the Administration matter; nothing else does.
John
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 11:41am PT
|
eKat, since they say west and south of Yosemite, include the Kings River watershed and say that the area is over 500,000 acres on their website I think they want to turn all of the forest that is not already wilderness into a monument. The entire SNF, including the wilderness, is 1.3 million acres.
Edit: just updated my statement to exclude the widlerness
|
|
hossjulia
Trad climber
Carson City, NV
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 11:55am PT
|
I posted a link to this thread. Probably how Deanna found us. She must have blocked me for it.
Somehow I can't see any comments posted before that time, like or comment. I did not violate her posting guidelines. I just wanted to know what prompted this move. (NM status)
Maybe if I knew more I'd change my views.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 12:32pm PT
|
Here's a reason listed on that Facebook page for supposedly why a national monument will help:
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/5/1458.abstract
Compared the entire state in the 1930s to today and found less big trees.
It does not say anything specific about what Sierra Nat. Forest could do, and it is a large leap of logic to assume a Nat. Monument would help.
|
|
hossjulia
Trad climber
Carson City, NV
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 01:27pm PT
|
"It's means a lot to me to be able to camp there, and I enjoy the open rugged nature, which make it so different from the parks."
So you want to turn the area over to the park service? Makes zero sense.
I'm thinking there are ulterior motives afoot. Like a padded resume and/or bank account.
|
|
SC seagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, Moab or In What Time Zone Am I?
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 02:31pm PT
|
I'm beyond confused when I look at their FB page.
Lots of big words and "high standards for comments" I was told.
Better places to spend my time than figure out what they are up to.
Someone here can give me the Cliffs Note version when they know what's happening.
Thanks. Susan
|
|
lars johansen
Trad climber
West Marin, CA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 02:55pm PT
|
Absolutely no to SNM!
lars
|
|
kev
climber
A pile of dirt.
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 02:58pm PT
|
WTF???? Nothing needs to change up there. There is very little logging, hell very few people even go up there. And if it becomes a monument think of the ranger prescience...Ug...
Doubt this will go anywhere though.
EDIT
Geographic Wonders: Fresno Dome, Piyau Dome, Arch Rock, Globe Rock, the Niche, Shuteye Peak, Iron Lakes, Star Lakes
Not sure how Globe Rock and Arch Rock (not to be confused with Arch Rock at the 140 intance to the valley) are "Geographic Wonders"...
|
|
SC seagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, Moab or In What Time Zone Am I?
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 03:44pm PT
|
^^^^ likely just a spelling or auto correct error.
Sometimes you just have to go for the communicative intent.
Susan
|
|
kev
climber
A pile of dirt.
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 04:07pm PT
|
Yeah, my um, spelling is, a little, um, poor.
Misspellers of the world untied :)
EDIT,
But if you want some integrals solved I could be useful...
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 09:57pm PT
|
No map.
Mushy copy.
Not a good pitch.
I'm always willing to support a good pitch.
|
|
Bad Climber
climber
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2015 - 06:13am PT
|
I can't tell you how much I HATE this idea. We don't need more over-paid administrators, rangers, pavement, kiosks. They'll keep me from taking my dog, which is already true for a huge percentage of the Sierras. NO. NO. NO.
BAd
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2015 - 10:22am PT
|
Very tough crowd, Deanna.
That said, it is a great opportunity to enlist some very intelligent and active people in the local community.
Need thick skin, though.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2015 - 11:47am PT
|
I wasn't aware that ceding control to state or county officials was on the table, DMT. The issue is whether the Forest Service or the Park Service should administer the area. Those of us who currently oppose the proposal generally like the area as it is, and need to see a demonstrated need for change. Thus far, the proponents of the Monument failed to articulate such a need.
As Ken said, we are a tough crowd, because we know the area, and don't listen to platitudes lacking specificity.
And Paul articulates the concern perfectly. Just because such a monument is not currently on the President's list doesn't mean it won't be created during this administration.
John
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2015 - 11:59am PT
|
I still think handing public lands to the states is a publicity stunt and not a real threat. Maybe I'm wrong, I hope not
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2015 - 12:07pm PT
|
That is what I originally thought too, crabster. I honestly doubt it, but worse things have happened.
EDIT:
What kind of publicity would the 'Pubs expect from this?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2015 - 02:17pm PT
|
While I enjoyed the chance to get an ad for Spas of Montana, the issue at hand (viz. the proposed monument) has nothing to do with changing ownership of the relevant land. That land belongs to the federal government, regardless of whether the NPS or the Forest Service administers it. It doesn't matter which agency has jurisdiction, if the political clout is great enough, it can get transferred elsewhere (see Hetch Hetchy, history of).
The movement for transferring title from the feds to the state therefore remains a red herring relative to the National Forest vs. National Monument debate.
John
|
|
Alcy
Social climber
Central Valley, CA
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2015 - 10:30pm PT
|
Ran across this thread while looking up the SNMP. I did the insanely boring thing of listening to the Madera County Board of Supervisor's meeting from April 14th You can find this at
http://www.madera-county.com/index.php/boardmain/topvideo
Great bedtime story material. Here's the gist [EDITMY INTERPRETATION], and I was a little surprised.
 They were very much kicked into gear by the Monument proposal being made at REI.
Little regard for frogs and toad
Re-landscape the forest Get rid of 50% of the trees(during the REI protest this number was at 75% and during the BOS meeting they were throwing out a lot of numbers.
Have a logging company bid on this work. (doesn't this imply big trees being taken out since no logging company will pay to take out just small trees?)
Form a 3 county coalition to re-write the forest service contract, using Fresno, Madera and Mariposa counties as the agencies *managing* the forest.
Apparently this makes it more difficult to sue since funds for legal fees are not reimbursed.
All this re-landscaping the forest generates a bunch of water for the valley since the trees aren't drinking it.
Next step is to get the 3 counties to write an MOU to take back the forest management. Sounded like Fresno was on board, and Mariposa they were not so sure
The presenter made questionable statements (IMO) about rules in the monument regarding things like, no staying up after dark except in your own campsite, no hunting, no dispersed camping. (to my knowledge Carrizo Plains and Sequoia NM allow these activities).
One supervisor suggested that re-landscaping the forest would make animal life more abundant.
I detected a sense of urgency from them to move forward quickly.
Just wanted to share this info, maybe it's useful for someone. I know for many of you, it's about rocks, and getting to those rocks, so maybe this isn't a priority.
|
|
On-Site Flasher 69
Sport climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2015 - 01:14am PT
|
Rocks are a priority, but a healthy eco-system is most important. Tree reduction in the Sierra is the hot topic, but i don't understand how 50-75% less trees will benefit the forest ecology. Seems way too dramatic. How does the monument project tie into this?
|
|
rincon
climber
Coarsegold
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2015 - 07:57am PT
|
Alcy thanks for posting that link. So frikin funny that they think cutting trees will fill the reservoirs. Madera county...LOL.
|
|
PAUL SOUZA
Trad climber
Central Valley, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 18, 2015 - 12:30pm PT
|
The perspective of managing a "healthy" forest was quite interesting given how much water trees consume. I don't know if that would make a difference in our reservoirs or not as I haven't read through this report in it's entirety.
Here's the report: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr220/
|
|
Alcy
Social climber
Central Valley, CA
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2015 - 08:23am PT
|
Thanks for the link Paul. I do think we need forest management with the intent of maintaining a healthy forest. The report had some interesting info and a good reality check:
"All of these strategies acknowledge the influence of climate change and suggest management may fail if focused on re-creating past stand conditions using strict structural targets".
|
|
On-Site Flasher 69
Sport climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 11:15am PT
|
Bump!
For more answers!
|
|
Alcy
Social climber
Central Valley, CA
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 09:14pm PT
|
Well On-Site, I'll take a stab, but probably not quite what you were looking for.
Just a follow-up from same Concerned Citizens group giving an intro to the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors. Pretty short and sweet talk tailored to Mariposa with the intent of gaining another audience with the Board (which they did and scheduled for May 12).
Frogs and toads were not mentioned (a wise move since people in Mariposa actually do like frogs and toads). Also, the monument project was not mentioned.
Basic points:
Establish a tri-county commission with 5 members (two of them assemblymen)
Avoid EAJA lawsuits since Mariposa would be managing the USFS, and Mariposa is not federal.
Follows a 2003 Bush plan. (I have no idea if this is good or bad, but my initial reaction is to puke… LOL)
Unclear items to me (probably will get addressed at the full presentation):
How does all this re-landscaping get paid for. Mariposa doesn't have a lot of money.
What's the scope of the tri-county commission. Is it just trees, or does it cover other resource areas as well.
I have to admit, this quick talk sounded much more palatable than the Madera BOS one. And Mariposa is under a pretty big threat from bark beetles.
reference: Find the Mariposa BOS web site, and jump to the meeting minutes for Apr 21. Audio starts at 51:40.
|
|
On-Site Flasher 69
Sport climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 10:36pm PT
|
Thanks Alcy, I don't understand how this group of "concerned citizens" pertains to the monument initiative. I'm guessing they are part of the anti-monument movement?
Mariposa's bark beetle problem is looking very bad. Most of the really bad areas are on BLM and SNF lands. Nothing seems to be getting done about it.
|
|
Alcy
Social climber
Central Valley, CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 07:43am PT
|
I'm guessing they are part of the anti-monument movement?
Most definitely!
From Concerned Cititizen's own Facebook page. "We will continue our objective to bring back local control of the Sierra National Forest, thereby putting more water into our aquifer, and reducing catastrophic wildfires."
Perhaps this anti-monument crowd will just rename it to Sierra COUNTY Forest.
On a KMJ radio program with CC, the hosts were joking about having all this extra water and replacing trees in the mountains with almond trees in the valley. It's a little too close to the truth for me. And sidestepping EAJA makes it much more difficult to provide accountability on forest management.
I have no trust in flatland counties managing *our* NATIONAL forests!
|
|
this just in
climber
Justin Ross from North Fork
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 07:56am PT
|
In general, I am hoping to get the forest to be managed for people and wildlife, so that the forest stays healthy and people stay happy. That's probably not as specific as you want, but feel free to ask a specific question, and I will do my best to answer.
Best regards,
Deanna
Crickets.
|
|
Alcy
Social climber
Central Valley, CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 08:24am PT
|
counties aren't held to the NEPA Process, so maybe they could get some stuff done
Fix the process..... as tree density goes up, regulations go down.
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 08:45am PT
|
It is all about slicking.
|
|
Radish
Trad climber
SeKi, California
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 09:29am PT
|
Way back when they were doing info meetings for the Monument I went to one in Visalia. I figured it would be good to save this place that was pretty much ruled by lumber barons who had done lots of clear cuts already in the upper Kern area. You can see them when your at Dome Rock. And of course all the motor bikes flying by like bumble bees in a swarm are a concern. So, I went and as I came to the entrance I had to go through a Metal Detector. This should have been my first clue to split! Then, after I went back to my car to put my swiss army knife away , once inside, the perimeter was surrounded by Police! This was clue 2. It was a Convention Center and they were expecting quite a crowd. They had all the seats separated into left and right...pro and con. I looked over at the 'Pro' area to where I was going to sit, figured somewhere up by the front as I planned to talk if they let me. I got there early and there was only 4 chubby deadhead looking guys a couple with tie dye shirts sitting on the pro side already. I went over by them and got comfortable. I noticed the other 'Con' side filling up pretty quick. Lots of Ranchers, Lumberman, Packers, Home Owners, Rednecks and people in suits were filling up the 'Con' side and on our side it was still only us! Our side Never filled up much past the few I mentioned and the other side had like 200 folks all loud and looking at us like...you dumb f...ks. Afer they jeered at a pro speaker pretty boldly I felt really uncomfortable pretty fast and started planning my departure. To think that I was going to give a speech was way out of the question, it was getting out with my life that was on my mind! So, this subject is a Hot Button Topic! I hope that the place stays out of the timber industries hands. Leaving it up to them to decide which cuts to make is the wrong move, I don't care how nice they are! Pro or Con.........I don't know any more.
|
|
this just in
climber
Justin Ross from North Fork
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 09:41am PT
|
I love how loggers are always the evil clear cut guys. They have no say in what timber they get to cut. They bid on sales that the Forest Service mark.
Another good one is when a Sierra Club guy becomes your neighbor and tells you his thoughts about logging. Then builds a custom house with a wrap around wood deck, wood siding, and oversize wood beams. Seriously?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 09:50am PT
|
Reading the posts on this thread to date disappoints me, because I see no hope for any real dialog. The arguments have more in common with religion than management of public lands. It particularly frightens me that the people making the decision have no real accountability to those of us who use the land in question, and the law and politics provide no effective way to overrule their decision.
John
P.S.: My thoughts exactly, This Just In.
|
|
Radish
Trad climber
SeKi, California
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 10:20am PT
|
This year there are lots of trees dying from bugs and other factors more than ever in our area. Not just a few trees but lots and lots! Ponderosa pines mainly. You look up in the park and see brown and dead trees. More than I saw last year by far!! So, they are logging them out. Not the park, but the communities in the foothills like Pinehurst and Squaw valley. I'm for this for sure! Logging is not all bad.
|
|
On-Site Flasher 69
Sport climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 10:50am PT
|
We need a better managed forest, but who will do it? I will not trust this tri-county commission, but our forest service is not getting much done. I wonder what this NM initiative will have to offer?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 11:20pm PT
|
Quite to the contrary, DMT. I don't like the forest mismanagement practices dictated from Washington D.C. and the let-them-eat-cake puppet masters who control them, but I very much like how the Forest Service manages recreation, and overall, I enjoy the Sierra National Forest as is.
John
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2015 - 10:02am PT
|
JE... Me too.
|
|
The Real Mad Dog
Gym climber
Napa, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2015 - 04:28pm PT
|
I've been teaching college-level environmental science since 1994, and began environmental work some 30 years earlier. That said, I was dead set against the Sierra N.M. in the first place. Giant sequoias are protected; they never were in danger (except several on private land). The N M was created by Clinton for one purpose only: to get more environmental voters (loggers tend not to vote) so that Gore would edge out Bush. That's it. (No, I am not a Republican.)
So, California logging was diminished, the price of lumber rose, as did the price of new houses. This increased rental rates, stressing out the poor and causing some to become homeless. (But good for us who own homes, since our property values increased.)
Pinnacles National Monument is another disaster. It is only worthy of State Park status (sorry), but now is a National Park. Why? To attract more tourists! God Almighty! There already were far too many tourists (and climbers?) before 2012. Many old folks in their motor homes have little else to do than visit EVERY national park in the lower 48 states. Another bad idea created by environmental illiterates and the good leaders of Soledad and Monterey County. Perhaps we should make Yosemite Valley a World Shrine to be visited by all before they die, so they can see it in its pristine state. Sure.
The Really Mad Dog
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
Nothing creative to say
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2015 - 11:34am PT
|
Berryessa Snow Mountain apparently just got Monument Status.
Guess we'll get a parking lot and some interpretive signs, eh?
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2015 - 02:01pm PT
|
I love how loggers are always the evil clear cut guys. They have no say in what timber they get to cut. They bid on sales that the Forest Service mark. I'm not sure whether you mean that loggers don't get to pick where they clear cut, or whether they are supposed to only log marked trees. Surely, however, you cannot be claiming that loggers do not clear cut. That would be false. Clear cutting is clearly the norm. I walked through several patches in the Upper Tule area. There was a large patch on the hike in to Hermit Spire that was practically scorched earth: no trees, some stumps and lots of really flammable detritus. Loggers did that. Just one of many areas like that. We were looking at lots in Ponderosa and while back and the realtor let us know that the local logging company had been hired to "clear" a building sites on a few lots in the area, and she showed us a couple. All the nice, mature trees had been cut, without any effort to limit it to a buildable pad, and they left all the crud in a six foot tall pile in the middle of the lot. Just like elsewhere, they take the trees and leave the crap behind.
|
|
Hoots
climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2015 - 07:22am PT
|
I was hoping for clearer answers too, but now that I see that Double-Rainbow Guy is on their Board of Advisors, I am sold. Double-Rainbow for the WIN!
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2015 - 09:00am PT
|
This may have been said upthread.
National Monuments are administered by one of three agencies:
NPS, Dept. of The Interior
NFS, Dept. of Agriculture
BLM, D.I.
Which agency gets the job is decided at the time of the declaration. For quite a while now the NPS has been taking the position that they are too stressed to take on any new responsibilities. This was made clear in the recent effort to shift the administration of Giant Sequoia Nat Monument from NFS to NPS.
Anyway which agency gets the job has a big effect on how the area is to be administrated.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2015 - 11:14am PT
|
Obama and Reid, once again acting like DICTATORS. Without ANY consultation from the state reps county reps or the people, we awakened to a new natl monument the size of friggin Road Island here in NV. There was no clue this was happening- I guess that's supposed to exemplify "transparency" eh???
He was acting under the authority given to him BY CONGRESS under the Antiquities Act..
So kindly quit your tiresome, ignorant, bullsh#t-laden bitches, whines and bellyaches about dictators. You don't have a clue.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2015 - 11:25am PT
|
Yes he has the authority. But normally when a President considers using that authority they will begin by engaging with congress and the local communities and their representatives.
Just because the authority is there doesn't make it cool to jam a big change in local land management down people's throats with no discussion or even warning.
And so, yes, that is a dictatorial approach to running government.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2015 - 11:30am PT
|
Yes he has the authority. But normally when a President considers using that authority they will begin by engaging with congress and the local communities and their representatives.
Harry Reid doesn't count?!?!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2015 - 11:36am PT
|
.
Rdog
climber
the poster formerly known as Ron Anderson
Jul 11, 2015 - 11:16am PT
YOur fairly ignorant of the laws of the Antiquities act I see. I also see your all for FED govt telling you where you can go and what you can do when you get there.. Youll fit in fine when the dollar collapses- in those fema camps.
I'm arguing with an ill informed idiot. Waste of time. Good day!
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2015 - 11:37am PT
|
Ron
yer' foamin' at the mouth again.
and even consider the NV Natl Guard and militias to prevent as much as a single sign of any such dictated monument by the feds. No way in hell I would guarantee the safety of either Reid or Obama in NV this am. In many countries that would be considered a specific threat and possibly treasonous speech. The coppers would be taking you down to the station to ask you what you REALLY meant.
You and Blunty both forget that it's US owned land. The Feds are not taking it from anyone. We get a say in how it's managed through our elected representatives and public meetings; they get the final decision.
By the way, the Nevada National Guard swear their allegiance to the United States. All the way back to 1792
The First Militia Act of 1792 allowed the President to call up the militias in the event of a foreign invasion, in response to attacks by American Indians, and when required for the enforcement of federal law. Perhaps you forget Eisenhower sending the Alabama Nat'l Guard to integrate Little Rock High School. Or to the Guard to protect civil rights marchers in Selma Alabama. They were enforcing Federal Law against the wishes of state Governors.
Your "militia" has zero legal standing.
|
|
10b4me
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2015 - 11:58am PT
|
THe PEOPLE here are PISSED.
probably a very small minority of THE People, are pissed.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2015 - 06:18pm PT
|
^^^^
And most of that can be fixed simply by giving them their meds.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2015 - 06:20pm PT
|
Or waiting until they get their asses shot off by the Feds, because some crackpot with an itchy trigger finger can't control himself. Problem solved, gene pool improved.
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2015 - 06:40pm PT
|
I getting conflicting messages here on our newest national monument in the State of Nevada. First RDog is apparently a retired Federal employee who worked in Nevada managing federal land; if he's true to his career, why would he oppose this designation and, was he serving in conflict to his beliefs and morals? I note in the legislation that there will be virtually no changes whatsoever to uses on these lands; what's the big deal?
Then, where is all the outcry against designation? From my peanut research, all is good with Nevadan's because this designation will brand the Basin and bring in tourist money in perpetuity.
I am part owner of these public lands, and have been all of my life. Fact is, all of my ancestors are or were owners since before 1864. The US Federal Government retains and has never relinquished sovereign immunity to Federal reservations there since before statehood. So, anyone who refutes this is just plain wrong.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2015 - 08:07pm PT
|
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2015 - 08:15pm PT
|
"Dictating."
Yawn. The battle cry of the redneck brigade.
|
|
David Knopp
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2015 - 06:11pm PT
|
Rdog part of the national monument designation is about protecting a unique landscape which so far has gotten short changed by other designations. Forest Service? BLM? There lands in NV are nice for sure, mostly because so few people use them, but they don't protect whole ecosystems, i.e. the basin and range. most are just the mountains and creeks, not the valleys. And some of the places in the ne w Monument are incredible-Worthington MT... And railroad/garden valley are beautiful places. The way i see it there will be very few restrictions on pre existing private property( of which there is very little). And I'm sure cattle will still be allowed on the ranges there. It is a special part of the Great Basin... Ask Alvin McLane, you know him right?
|
|
this just in
climber
Justin Ross from North Fork
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2015 - 08:41pm PT
|
Haha DMT. You qouted me again almost three months later. Thanks man!
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2015 - 01:31pm PT
|
Leave it as is. National Forest.
It's fine the way it is.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2015 - 01:35pm PT
|
Leave it as is. National Forest.
It's fine the way it is.
Amen! Then again, the Mercury News tends to have a one-size-fits-all land use policy, so consider the source.
I could imagine little worse than Monument status for that marvelous area, into whose vicinity I moved intentionally. Even private development wouldn't ruin it as quickly as NPS regimentation.
John
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2015 - 01:45pm PT
|
when the National Parks system catches up with the millions of dollars of infrastructure work they have put off due to a lack of funding the US can start to think of adding more places to that agency
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
The retards around here successfully moved more land into wilderness in the White Cloud Mountains.
Anytime you feel yourself thinking that we should let our government close off more access to our public lands and turn it into wilderness or restricted use ask yourself this:
If that area, after all these years of use (and purported overuse), is still pristine enough to qualify to be put into wilderness, wouldn't that be an indication that its been managed pretty good up till now?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
^^^^^
The logic is irrefutable, except for this: You're trying to use logic where religion guides the actions.
John
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
Its national forest managed by the USDA.
What is gained by moving the management to an even-more-underfunded agency?
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
That depends on who you assume is doing the gaining? If its the pro-.gov, anti-access, tree hugging, animal anthromorphistic-types that you're talking about, well then.....There's lots to gain.
|
|
Flip Flop
climber
Earth Planet, Universe
|
|
Hey Escopeta,
Nice shot. Nice shot, man.
Feliz Año Nuevo,
El Chancleteo Zapatista con motosierra grande.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
If that area, after all these years of use (and purported overuse), is still pristine enough to qualify to be put into wilderness, wouldn't that be an indication that its been managed pretty good up till now?
Well put, and as Mr. Spock would have said, most logical.
But remember how they designated the Domelands as wilderness and closed off 90% of the old access roads after they were done logging the crap out of it?
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
^^^^^^^^ Yeah, I remember that. I had to replace my bolt cutters like, 3 times or so in one year.
The government seems to have an endless supply of padlocks. Thankfully I have a pretty respectable cache of bolt cutters.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
The entire concept of wilderness as the BLM defines it is an abomination. Whoever decided that cows and wilderness can co-exist in the same space is clearly not in touch with their faculties.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
^^^
True, but that's a separate issue. This issue is kind of close to me because I own a place in the area. In fact, I just got back from spending a week in the area. Personally, given the additional "protection" Joshua Tree received in the form of lots of new pavement, parking lots and crowds as a result of its park status, I can't say that that making that putting the area under the Park Service management would be an improvement. Either they have the funds to "preserve" the area, they pave, grade, sign the area into submission, or they lack the funds and deny access to protect it.
It's interesting in that people from outside the area seem far more interested in NPS management than those actually in the area. Having said that, the locals seem to believe that NPS management would be bad based upon some ill founded belief that logging is needed to protect the area from fire. However, that's really a wish for former times when logging was more of an employment factor in the area. They also resent what would be a new prohibition on hunting, offroading, etc., in their backyard. While I have reservations about new management, I do think the Sequoia groves in the area need additonal protection. Some of the surrounding forest has been logged right up to their perimeters, which makes them susceptible to getting knocked over by winds, erosion and other problems.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
Fat Dad, it may be a separate issue but the premise is the same. .Gov designating land to be managed in a specific way (i.e. Wilderness) is usually a farce.
Let's never confuse proper forest management with our government as they rarely go hand in hand. Good forest management does indeed involve logging and prescribed burns (within some really well defined guidelines)
But then again, that's assuming we don't want to simply let Ma Nature have her way and let the chips fall as they may. Which is fully acceptable as well.
You mentioned Josh, I distinctly remember after one of the particularly bad fire seasons how the NPS or some other collection of government functionaries decided that any/all fires on public land that weren't endangering structures where just going to be allowed to burn them selves out.
The very first fire that started in J-Tree and burned for about 6 hours they threw that right out the window and started bombing it because they knew it would burn till spring. Wasn't a building within 60 miles in every direction.
Regardless of the designation, when your piece of heaven garners the attention of the managers of public lands, you can kiss it goodbye.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Fat Dad, I think the locals' objections to monument status go far beyond logging, although that's certainly a part. The conflagrations that could be avoided by intelligent logging adversely affect our air quality, to be sure, but that's a relatively minor consideration.
It seems particularly absurd to make the area a monument when the high Sierra between the parks is already designated wilderness. We suspect that the area is, in fact, more like a real wilderness than the Parks precisely because, lacking the glamour of National Park status, they remain farther from the beaten path (well, other than the Muir Trail).
The current status of the southern Sierra outside Yosemite and Kings Canyon/Sequoia allows for varying uses based on congressional wilderness and wild and scenic river designation. That means that areas outside those two designations can be used by what the monument proponents consider the "wrong kinds of people" for for the "wrong purposes."
In effect, the monument proponents consider the area they wish to be a monument as "their" land, and since they can't convince congress to exclude the "wrong kinds of people," because those people elect representatives who get a voice in congress, they wish to impose that exclusion using their political clout with the current administration, which has no check from dissenting opinion.
Most of us who live near enough to the area to make day trips feasible are the "wrong kinds of people" in the eyes of the monument proponents. We have that independent streak that people who know what's best for everything and everybody so fully detest. We have this strange idea that National Forests belong to all the people, not just the "right kinds" of people, and we still see sharing as a virtue.
Moreover, we like our ability to use the area without getting permits months in advance. We know how to get a real wilderness experience without all the regimentation that NPS-administered areas require.
The ability to make spontaneous trips there is irrelevant to most of the monument's boosters, who live in urban areas far enough removed from the southern Sierra to require considerable planning to get there in the first place. Thus, to them, adding NPS-style restrictions is no big deal.
I think what most locals really oppose and fear in a monument designation is the removal of any remaining local influence over land use decisions. We see the monument's most likely effect as exclusion of people who have used the area wisely (i.e. have conserved), so that those with greater political clout -- because they have a lot more money -- can make it part of their growing, exclusive, playground.
My perception of the locals' feelings, and my own feelings, aren't something entirely rational. Then again, neither are the arguments of the monument's proponents.
John
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I'm not sure that the "use v. them" arguments fully capture either the proponent's or the opponent's of the proposed Sierra National Monument project, though it is useful rhetoric to use to create an political atmosphere that prevents a rational consideration of the points.
If you view the land as a "commons" then we are presented with the classical problem of how to maintain that "commons" in the best interest of both what the it provides, and for the users.
The area is already under the management of the federal government, the designation of the land dictates the management policy. In general, we as users, like the National Forest management policy because it gives us the most freedom, who doesn't like to just wander out into the forest and setup camp with no real restraints. We might have to show a "fire permit" to a rare NFS ranger... but usually we're all alone.
Logging roads into remote areas provide access, logging being one of the permitted activities (though logging-road building may still be subject to the Clinton era moratorium, I don't know if this was rescinded).
The main issue being that many of us would prefer unregulated open area to the more regulated use prescribed in Wilderness Areas.
That is, of course, paradoxical, at least in the sense that as we use areas they become less of a wilderness. Wilderness is, after all, a place where humans are not running the show. The very fact that you drive in on a logging road should tip you off to that distinction.
Roughly 14% of the area of California is designated wilderness. The total national value is 4.5%. One can make the argument that that is enough, but I'm not sure what the argument is based on. If the argument is simply that Federal control of local resources is anathema, one might pull the thread a bit on that... posted above is the claim that Federal control degrades the area, if that is so it can be shown.
Mostly, however, the chafing is due to "lost access," and usually more finely put, loss of a particular type of access, which is motor access. Motor access makes it convenient for us to travel to these places quickly and does not require the physical effort to walk into the area carrying the stuff we need for the visit's duration.
Restrictions on access are intended to reduce the human impact in an area and are generally based on an estimate of the impact of the human visits.
As the size of the population increases, the restrictions impose a large impact on our use of the land. Seeking land with relatively few restrictions becomes a way to "enjoy the wilderness" and so the opposition for changing the status of land from less to more restrictive management.
We loose a type of access and are subject to use quotas in the transition.
What do we gain in the transition?
For the most part the lands designated as "wilderness areas" are managed with the idea of preserving the "wilderness" which is defined in the Wilderness Act as:
“an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain"
and specifically:
"an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions."
The fact that an area is a "wilderness" is why we like going there in the first place. The tension of management is already apparent, the land managers (whoever they are) need to both allow access and preserve the "wilderness aspects."
Wilderness is maintained, we retain the ability to experience it.
Now this is premised on the idea that we want "wilderness" areas, but humans invariably want the deck stacked in their favor... no one wants to be some predator's meal... but in some ways, the ideal "wilderness" involves adventure in that the outcome is not predetermined, that there are risks, and that doesn't seem to be acceptable. Further, and especially in California, we want to drive to the wilderness, an exquisitely contradictory concept.
"We" may not want any of this, of course... "we" may just want to keep on doing what we were doing 40 years ago. "We" might wonder why, if the issue is over use, "we" just don't keep the "others" from using "our" place. And this leads to the classical game theory encounter...
Do these lands belong to the locals? to the citizens of California? to those of the United States? to the world? what is the nature of ownership, anyway, and what of being a steward? and does it matter at all?
We generally like the idea of "wilderness" until it affects our activities directly. Unexamined in this is the internal conflicts. The continent long ago ceased to have much real wilderness, as realized by the legislation conserving land written over 100 years ago. It seemed a wise and far sighted act.
What has happened in the intervening time to cause so many to oppose this sort of conservation?
My guess is that there are so many more of us now...
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
Thoughtful points from Ed and John as usual. In many ways, I believe does boil down to an "us vs. them" dichotomy that John referenced:
Most of us who live near enough to the area to make day trips feasible are the "wrong kinds of people" in the eyes of the monument proponents. We have that independent streak that people who know what's best for everything and everybody so fully detest. We have this strange idea that National Forests belong to all the people, not just the "right kinds" of people, and we still see sharing as a virtue.
A big part of the problem lies in the fact that there are people currently living in or at the edge of a wilderness area who view the area as their backyard. People like to do what they want to do in their backyards and generally object when an outsider tells them they can no longer do that. If someone were to tell me that I could no longer do something in my backyard in LA, I'd probably have similar objections.
However, there are already limits to what I can do. I can't dump toxic materials that will leach into a watershed. I can't make too much noise at certain times. I can't build a structure of a certain size unless I get a permit first. If I'm thinking correctly, I should not discharge a firearm. These are all reasonable restrictions. In light of that, I don't completely buy the "this is our backyard argument" as a response to some controls. When you live in a rural area, particularly when you know that it abuts Forest Service land, you have to assume there are going to be some restrictions on your use of your property. Also, despite where you live, you do not "own" the surrounding area. Despite that belief that it belongs to the people, that does not mean you can do whatever you want. You can't log it illegally. You can't hunt or fish without a permit (though I have seen yahoos shooting rifles in the parking area of a popular trail, shooting the direction of the hiking trail, which was just over the small rise they were firing at). I'm not saying that John is guilty of this in any way, but I do see locals who are ignorant of the limitations of their use of the land as a basis for their current activities and, as a result, their opposition to shifting management to the NPS.
If this were a pristine, unpopulated area, I don't believe we would be having this discussion.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2016 - 11:03pm PT
|
The Monument proposal bypasses the wilderness and wild and scenic river designation process. Much of the area proposed as a monument is already wilderness. The areas with logging, dispersed camping, etc. are largely not designated wilderness, since we have no motorized access to designated wilderness.
The monument status allows those who don't want to share to exclude miners and loggers, and also their disfavored recreational users such as hunters, off-roaders, mountain bikers, snowmobilers (all activities in which I do not engage)and car campers (an activity I prize highly). It serves no other purpose since, as Ed points out, the federal government already administers all the land in question.
I would add, however, that wilderness should mean more than pretending that the land bears no impact from human activity. It should also promote spontaneity and adventure (meaning at least some uncertainty), rather than regimented itineraries more suited for a guided tour.
The exclusionary nature of, and motivation for, monument status causes me to employ the "us" vs. "them" model. When I say the land belongs to all of us, I don't mean that the land constitutes a "common." I mean that no particular group should have an a priori right to use it to the exclusion of all others. The specific land uses require compromise and consensus. The monument designation constitutes an end run around that compromise and consensus required for equitable use of public lands. I oppose it for that reason.
John
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2016 - 11:18pm PT
|
bump
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2016 - 06:50am PT
|
As soon as it becomes a monument it will be like the valley. Only concessionaires who kiss government ass will be allowed to do business. Locals will be excluded. Marriot food service will take over. People from far away will copyright the names of places in it. They will start putting up Starbucks and big parking lots. They will have shuttle busses and miniature golfcourses. Forrest management will turn into parking tickets and speedtraps. Fishing will require an additional special daily lisence. Hunting will be prohibited. Gold panning forbidden. Prop 215 doesnt count in National Monuments so dont spark up. We will have Federal Magistrates adjudicating our "crimes." Hiking off trail will be banned. Tourists will come in droves with cameras and wearing Mickey Mouse ears. OHV access will be closed. The Rubicon will be closed to all vehicles. Mountain bikes will be prohibited on trails. USFS cabins will lose their leases so that concessionaires and government VIPs can help themselves. This is another crooked idea coming from a government that wants to regulate us for our protection. They see dollar signs and then here come the regulations, restrictions, fees, fines, assessments, backroom corporate deals like what is happening with the Awahnee. Fulk big government. They dont want to protect anything. They want CONTROL. Roll rocks down on these turds. The only way to keep them out is if it isnt worth any money to them. The only difference between government and pigs is ties and lipstick. Actually pigs smell better and do less damage. They will tear down the Strawberry Lodge and Kirkwood Inn for non ADA compliance (Scott Johnsons already trying). Californias Sierra is one of the last places left they havent put a chokehold on. I love camping up 42 mile tract in my car. That will be over. I love chillin on Saddleback. Now there will be a parking fee with ranger. It will be just like Castlerock with men like Miles Standish and Jason Rule out bullying everyone. As it stands, f*#ksticks like them are afraid to even enter the sierra forrests and I prefer to keep it that way. Big government spells big trouble for anyone who prefers to have freedom. Keep Obama out of our forrests. Theres no Starbucks here. Rednecks Unite!
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2016 - 08:18am PT
|
We have the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument in SoCal. I was opposed to it. The powers that be professed that there would be an influx of money for maintenance projects.
So far, the only thing I have seen are a few new signs.
|
|
Deanna Wulff
Sport climber
Mariposa, CA
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2017 - 01:41pm PT
|
Hi -
I am the director of the project formerly known as the Sierra National Monument Project. I've recently reviewed these posts from a couple of years back.
At the time that many of these posts occurred, there was a big misinformation campaign, and it took a lot of time to inform folks who were/are interested in learning about the threats to the Sierra National Forest. I just didn’t get to this one, and a friend recently brought it to my attention.
Someone made a comment "this is my line of work" and expressed how the project ought to be run.
In that regard, you should understand that there is quite a lot of background work required to do this. You have to do the technical and scientific research, analyze the budget, develop policy, build the grassroots campaign across a vast area, form political relationships across the state and nation, start a nonprofit organization, form a coalition, build the web site, build a map... and then, there is showing up at meetings, giving speeches, and so on. And we haven't even gotten to managing the internet. And there is so much more...and all of that done at an economic loss. (Perhaps, I should fundraise more – yes, I agree – but even that requires significant time.)
And that is why I also must work, even though, all that I mentioned above is an incredible amount of work. I'm just telling it like it is. I love the Sierra Nevada, and I'll do what I can to save it. Its beauty inspires me to keep going, and I am so grateful to the friends I’ve made along the way.
If you are interested in learning more about the area and my work to save it, please contact me at director@unitetheparks.org. I’d be happy to answer your questions.
Thank you,
Deanna
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2017 - 02:16pm PT
|
I remain confused as to what needs to be "saved". All of the things advocated for, already exist. But it seems like a re-designation will result only in restrictions in access/activities.
|
|
Ricky D
Trad climber
Sierra Westside
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2017 - 02:36pm PT
|
Having barely dodged the Aspen Fire, the French Fire and 2 smaller burns in my area, what the Sierra needs to be saved from are emotional pundits bent on saving every sapling that sprouts.
The decades of overgrowth and fire suppresion have direct correlation to the frequency and intensity of burns.
Add to this that the dense and overgrown canopies have allowed the Western Bark Beetle population to explode to the tune of 200 million dead pines.
So what exactly do you intend to save now?
|
|
Ricky D
Trad climber
Sierra Westside
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2017 - 02:59pm PT
|
This photo shows only 3 of 7 piles of dead trees prepped for burning this winter. Over 2000 20 foot pines from less than 7 acres.
Another 5000 are down and awaiting their turn once we clear this burn zone. That leaves another 2000 or so we will be cutting over the winter.
Whatever your opinion of logging...the death of so many trees requires that logging be done anyway.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2017 - 04:33pm PT
|
That seemed to be the only actual action that would be taken by this action: prohibition of logging for any reason.
I'm a volunteer on that forest, and I think we need MORE logging, and less would be a near disaster.
Why do you cover those burn piles, if they are only going to be burned? I'm not familiar with that technique.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2017 - 04:56pm PT
|
So we're talking about pretty much everything between Yosemite and Seki?
A lot depends on which Federal agency ends up managing the place. A National Monument can be run by the NPS, the USFS, or the BLM. This is normally decided when the President makes the proclamation.
Giant Sequoia Nat Monument, which includes the Needles, was managed by USFS before and still is. Not much has not changed since the designation other than commercial logging. Logging is permitted when it is deemed beneficial, but not otherwise. Open camping is allowed, many trails are open to mountain bikes. Motorized toys like dirt bikes and snowmobiles have their places, seasonal hunting is permitted, and climbing is unregulated.
I could see Trump making this Sierra Monument so, as a publicity move since there are not oil or mining interests of any significance in the area.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2017 - 07:09pm PT
|
I'll say it again, I've only seen negative impacts in the sequoia national forest since it was a made a monument (northern end, not down by the needles where Kris knows more).
Leave it as a national forest!
Around here is now a weird combo of preventing people from helping while preventing nature from helping. Just an overgrown mess with emotional rather than factual regulations.
(Ecologist and field an wildlife biologist with a dirtbike and a snowmobile speaking here. Looking at things from both ends of the spectrum)
|
|
originalpmac
Mountain climber
Timbers of Fennario
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 07:37am PT
|
Ken M, to keep them dry so they do burn when it is time to light them I assume. I do it with burn piles if it's going to rain before I burn.
|
|
Ricky D
Trad climber
Sierra Westside
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 08:16am PT
|
We cover the pyres to keep them dry until we can burn.
The plan is to get 2 or 3 soaking rains into the meadow and then wait for a 1-2 foot snowfall so we don't burn the meadow itself.
Pitch wood is shoved into the piles and if all goes well, we burn it over a couple of days.
At least that's the plan!
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
Nothing creative to say
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 10:49am PT
|
Deanna's post doesn't seem to address the concerns expressed by the recreational user base here. So my only assumption can be that her org is about excluding (managing and confining) recreation (and logging, which is needed, but not clear cutting).
I'll say it again, when recreational areas get 'upgraded' to a new status they become more restrictive and not to the betterment of the environment.
Proper funding of existing management agencies is what is required. And I don't mean 'interpretive' signs for climbing at Joshua Tree. What a friggin waste of funds. But instead, toilet facilities and trash receptacles serviced.
We don't need pet projects for GS employee's to further their careers.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 11:00am PT
|
^^^ 100% agreed.
|
|
Don Paul
Mountain climber
Denver CO
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 11:11am PT
|
^ I agree 100% with everything chainsaw wrote a few posts up. Whatever happens, don't let the NPS get involved. The land should be protected as a wilderness area, no paved roads, no visitor centers, etc. etc.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 11:29am PT
|
I generally agree with chainsaw's sentiment, though I don't believe the Giant Sequoia area really has the natural resources to draw, let alone accommodate the kind of circus like environment that plagues the Valley. As pretty as the area is, there's just not enough to do nor places to stay, nor close enough to a big population center to get the morass of people at places like Joshua Tree or the Valley, etc. The Sequoia groves are small and spread apart. Not alot space to build or expand campgrounds. What housing there is is lived in my full time locals. Having said that, it would break my heart to see the area follow in Joshua Tree's example of paving the place to "protect" it.
I disagree in part with this statement though:
The decades of overgrowth and fire suppresion have direct correlation to the frequency and intensity of burns.
Add to this that the dense and overgrown canopies have allowed the Western Bark Beetle population to explode to the tune of 200 million dead pines. The area just survived the Pier Fire, which was pretty scary. However, most of the area burned was brush covered hillsides where logging would have not have been effective to prevent against wild fires. While it is true that overgrowth and suppression have lead to some big, intense burns, what many have advocated as an alternative is to let areas burn, not log as a prophylactic.
In addition, this fire policy has NOTHING to do with the bark beetle. At least in the Giant Sequoia area, bark beetles have proliferated and killed just about every pine in the area, but that's due to climate change and four years of severe drought. We had four or five large pines on our property removed by PG & E (and many more within the surrounding community) to deal with the pine die off.
I'm for more limited, local management, but it pisses me off when folks disingenuously argue for that solely as a pretext for more logging.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 11:36am PT
|
Don, I'm not sure what you are advocating.
"all of the land should be preserved as wilderness"
Most of the land involved is already developed, with roads, residences, etc.
That which would be suitable for Wilderness designation, mostly is.
Do you advocate removing the towns of Lakeshore? Removing Vermillion Valley Resort? Muir Trail Ranch? Mono Hot Springs? The town of Shaver Lake? Highway 168?
|
|
Ricky D
Trad climber
Sierra Westside
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 11:56am PT
|
Fat Daddy, my contention is that the density of subpar saplings and trash trees contributed to the explosion of the beetles.
What protects a mature pine from beetles is the ability to create enough sap to block entry. It takes water to do that.
A mature 90 footer can draw upwards of 600 gallons of water to replenish itself. Drought aside, if that tree is fully surrounded by tens of weakling trees also drawing soil moisture, then we have a degree of resource competition that weakens all of the trees.
In the area I am working, lots that cleared this poor undergrowth are seeing a Bark Beetle die off of about 15%. Lots that are overgrown and look like most of the Sierra have kill rates exceeding 90 percent.
The assumption would be that a healthier forest would be cleared either naturally thru fire or manually via logging.
The irony behind the Eco movement's push to spare every tree has created a failure situation caused by overgrowth to the point where logging along Mammoth Pool road is running full speed in an effort to drop tens of thousands of dead pines.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 12:09pm PT
|
Ricky,
Thanks for your response. I agree with a lot of what you wrote. Here's where I see a disconnect though. I understand that saplings compete for resources like water, which has been scarce the past few years. However, you correctly point out that those are cleared either by fire or logging. However, loggers don't clear out saplings unless they need to access the larger trees that they want to log. but then how can one argue that logging is good for the forest if you're cutting down the trees that would benefit from thinning? Moreover, my experience is that many logged area I've walked through in the Upper Tule area were littered with all kinds of flammable detritus that still represent a significant fire danger. I recall that not long ago the University or Oregon or Washington got a lot of flak from the industry after publishing a paper that the trash from logging constituted an equal fire threat as an unlogged area.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 12:17pm PT
|
Here's a map of the area, now Sierra Nat. Forest, proposed to be a monument.
Here's an article from last year in the Fresno Bee
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 12:32pm PT
|
As I said above, a lot depends on which agency is tasked with managing the new monument. I suspect that the best for recreational freedom would be the USFS, which has done little harm in that regard as stewards of the Giant Sequoia Nat. Monument. For example open camping is permitted in GSNM. This is of great importance to climbers at Shuteye Ridge, Courtright Reservoir, Patterson Bluff, and many less well known but excellent spots within the boundaries of the proposed new monument.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 12:52pm PT
|
It appears that the proposal has increased in scope. The original was for something like 500,000 acres. The website now appears to list it at 1.2 MA.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 01:07pm PT
|
Ken, Can you post a link for the website you mention? The only one I find has a dead domain name.
|
|
Don Paul
Mountain climber
Denver CO
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 02:35pm PT
|
Ken I don't know the area south of Yosemite, was not advocating uprooting anyone, just saying there are better ways to protect a place than turning it over to NPS. The Forest Service gets my vote. BLM is fine too. But no mining claims - we have a lot of that in CO and they never clean up their messes.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 03:02pm PT
|
Thanks Jon.
Here's a line in the faq:
"Protected places makes economic sense. Here's why. In general, the economy in the Sierra Nevada region is driven by tourism and recreation, but the existing management style outside of our National Parks does not reflect that reality."
What a bizarre statement.
So the economic management style inside the parks reflects what reality?
The area proposed to be a monument is home to many businesses and small towns like Shaver Lake. The people who live there mostly cater to tourists, hikers, fishermen, hunters, climbers, and so on. This is an economy which benefits the local people, unlike the big corporate interests which run the economies in the National Parks.
I find this statement deeply troubling. I know, it's the site of an NGO with a mission, not government policy makers. But this is the kind of thinking that can lead to restrictions such as an "established campgrounds only" policy which will drive away a very large portion of visitors to the area and hurt local businesses, many of which have been there for generations.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 03:11pm PT
|
Ken I don't know the area south of Yosemite, was not advocating uprooting anyone, just saying there are better ways to protect a place than turning it over to NPS. The Forest Service gets my vote. BLM is fine too. But no mining claims - we have a lot of that in CO and they never clean up their messes.
Gotcha, Don. there is a lot of great terrain there, but it seems to be doing all right.
Others might correct me, but my experience of mines in the Sierra has been pretty small operations, with little damage or destruction. Also, not a lot of them.
|
|
ruppell
climber
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 04:40pm PT
|
from the FAQ of the site
We are also support the development of a non-motorized trails system
I knew it had to be tree hugging anti-fun types that would even try to "save" something so not in need of saving. The Sierra is my backyard. There's some great places to wheel and dirtbike. I've never had an issue with that and will do everything I can to keep what's left of the motorized trails open.
The Forest Service has been doing just fine shutting down secondary use roads without any help from the "grassroots" crowd.
|
|
Deanna Wulff
Sport climber
Mariposa, CA
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 04:49pm PT
|
Hey Folks -
Again lots of talking here, but no one has actually written to me with a question, and that's going to beget more misinformation.
But in regards to logging, there is no evidence it increases fire safety. They are inversely correlated...
The National Parks do very little logging and their forests are in better shape than our National Forests, by a wide margin. Our parks also have an effective controlled burn program, which is better at controlling fire and better for forest ecology, and much cheaper.
See the data shown in the link - you can download a report and read it, if you are interested in the data and science on this. Here is a summary:
Mechanical thinning is very expensive and it is rarely done in our National Parks (less than 1 percent of management). In our National Forests, it costs $565 per acre to thin versus $145 per acre for controlled burns. This article compares what is spent per acre on thinning versus controlled burns versus wildfire specifically in the Sierra Nevada - Parks v Forest Service. See Table 2, page 394. The title of the article is "Using Fire to Increase the Scale, Benefits, and Future Maintenance of Fuels Treatments" by Dr. Malcolm North, Dr. Scott Stephens, and Dr. Brandon M. Collins: https://www.fs.fed.us/.../pub.../north/psw_2013_north004.pdf
If you want to ask about access, then please ask a specific question at director@unitetheparks.org.
I realize it takes courage to write to a person directly and it's easier to write anonymously, but I highly recommend communicating with me. I've spent thousands of hours working directly in the gateway communities, and found people in-person to be thoughtful and delightful.
Regards,
Deanna
|
|
Deanna Wulff
Sport climber
Mariposa, CA
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 05:15pm PT
|
I didn't mention anything about posting to a site.
Anyone can write me an email (which they control), and any response I write in an email is there as a record. I treat everything I write as having the potential to be re-posted and reprinted thousands of times.
This is the world we live in. I do not write anonymously. I write from the heart and authentically.
People here have expressed an opinion, but no one has written to me or used their real name. I'm not sure what to make of that. But I would ask that if you do write to me, please let me know who you are and why you are writing.
Thanks.
|
|
ruppell
climber
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 05:20pm PT
|
First, Ruppell is my real name. Second, why would I take the time to right you personally when I disagree with you? I'd rather disagree with you on this here. That way others can agree or disagree and we get a consensus of whether most are like me and think this is a waste of time or most are like you and think we need to save the Sierra from whatever you think it needs saving from.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 05:29pm PT
|
Does that cost per acre factor in controlled burns that get out of hand? As they sometimes do...
|
|
Ricky D
Trad climber
Sierra Westside
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 - 05:55pm PT
|
If you really want to help the Sierra...at least on the Westside...figure out how to get the illegal Cartel Pot growers out of there and while you are at it - the Fresno Hmong keep coming up Chiquito Creek netting the streams stripping them of trout and crayfish for sale to restaurants.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2017 - 09:28am PT
|
Deanna,
So this is from the Unite the Parks web site.
We are a passionate collection of unique individuals who support preserving federal land for people and wildlife. We believe that wildlife and human life are deeply intertwined and that it is our responsibility to care for each other and for the natural world. So we're doing just that. Our primary focus area is the federal land between Yosemite and Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks. By protecting more than one million acres and three major watersheds, we hope to revitalize the forest and preserve it for future generations, while encouraging recreation, outdoor immersion and a healthy lifestyle. We are also support the development of a non-motorized trails system. Need more information? Below are specific answers to common questions and links to report for those eager to learn more. You can also contact us at director@unitetheparks.org. Thanks. It appears to be something of a mission statement but, unfortunately, other than making vague statements about "protection", it doesn't clearly state what the end result is. While there are FAQs below the statement, those consist of one sentence responses to questions about controlled burns, Pacific fishers, etc.
I'm sure there is (or should be) a clearer statement of intent, but it's not evident from your website what it is and why. How come?
|
|
rincon
climber
Coarsegold
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2017 - 10:40am PT
|
This photo shows only 3 of 7 piles of dead trees prepped for burning this winter. Over 2000 20 foot pines from less than 7 acres.
Another 5000 are down and awaiting their turn once we clear this burn zone. That leaves another 2000 or so we will be cutting over the winter.
Whatever your opinion of logging...the death of so many trees requires that logging be done anyway.
Sounds like this is private property. Can't blame the USFS for not thinning that. Or has there been a law against thinning trees on private property?
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2017 - 03:22pm PT
|
Hi Deanna, just emailed you but I'll post the short version here in case you missed it. Feel free to answer here or via email.
What specific changes is the project hoping to make to the management and regulation of the Seirra NF? I gather from the reading that stopping logging and increasing controlled burns is one goal, but what are the others?
Thanks,
-Daniel
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2017 - 03:33pm PT
|
Not to burst anyone's National Monument bubble, but the word is that Trump is coming to Utah on Monday to announce that Bears Ears and GSNM are being drastically shrunk.
If we can't even protect the land we have as National Monuments, the chances of getting another one with the current bunch in power is somewhat less than zero.
|
|
Yury
Mountain climber
T.O.
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2017 - 07:05pm PT
|
Fat Dad:
However, loggers don't clear out saplings unless they need to access the larger trees that they want to log. Actually they do.
I am not familiar with situation in California.
However at least in some areas, when a logging company owns or have a long term lease of a forest, they remove such saplings to ensure health of trees.
They "prune" their forest similar to how a gardener prunes fruit trees.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 150 of total 150 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!