Environmentalists sue to stop logging of sequoias, other trees at California national monument

AP ^ | 1/27/5 | LISA LEFF

[SmithL]

SAN FRANCISCO -- Environmentalists sued the federal government Thursday over plans to log in central California's Giant Sequoia National Monument, home to two-thirds of the world's largest trees.

The Sierra Club and four other environmental groups called the U.S. Forest Service's decision to include widespread logging in its plan for managing the 327,769-acre monument a scientifically suspect strategy meant to satisfy timber interests under the guise of wildfire prevention.

"This plan opens up huge areas to logging and specifically targets trees big enough to sell, undermining the whole purpose of the monument," said Carla Cloer of the Tule River Conservancy, one of the organizations challenging the federal plan.

The lawsuit filed Thursday in San Francisco federal court seeks to block the plan and have it vacated.

Forest Service spokesman Matt Mathes said the agency's plan to allow "thinning" of some trees in Sequoia was motivated by fire prevention goals and does not permit commercial logging.

[SmithL]

Where is U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan?

[frannie]

Clinton could not have done this , declaring it a national monument in Aprill 2003, as the article states. He was not president then, could have wished he were.

Frannie

[andrew1957]

The issue here is not "logging", but thinning fuels. Wish they had done that at Bandelier National Monument,
instead of "controlled burns". But they didn't, and the resulting "controlled burns" burned 200 homes here in Los Alamos. And the mountains west of town are still a black wasteland after almost 5 years.

[Doctor Stochastic]

One difference is that sequoias essentially don't burn. Then only reproduce when the other trees are burned out around them.

Why not sell the trees to the highest bidder and use the money to maintain the park?

[bill1952]

"President Clinton created the monument in April 2003"

Anyone have half a brain over there??

[oldenuff2no]

Interesting point in the article is that in never says that anyone is authorized to cut a Redwood tree. It talks about bigger trees, but not what kind. Other fir and pine trees grow among the Sequoia's, and these other tree are worth big $$$.
Something doesn't seem right in this issue.

[SierraWasp]

"Why not sell the trees to the highest bidder and use the money to maintain the park?"

Wull... Heck yeah! Those envirowhackjobs are always moaning and groaning about sustainability and such anyways, right?

[q_an_a]

the logging industry has done a crappy job of telling the story that there are only two -2- saw mills in America capable of cutting a tree over 40 inches. Paper and wood companies are using mills to produce products from small trees - they could not care about OLD Growth trees that are huge. If the two mills worked 24- 7 they could not handle all the wood from one state let alone from the west. Shame on the wood industry!!

This ligigation is for drama and to make business look bad. Shame on industry for not getting out the word.

[expat_panama]

The truth is available to them that wants it, but they have to actually want it.   I've watched Peter Jennings point to a stand of beautiful redwoods and sermonize that the beauty is only possible because these 'virgin' forests were left untouched.   He had to have been lying, stupid, or both because the stand was second growth-- it had interspersed logging stumps and everything for all to see.

Maybe they were "almost virgin"-- or perhaps "virgin once again".   I remember dating a girl like that. 

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!