US judge blocks Bush logging plan in protected Giant Sequoia park

AFP ^ | Tue Aug 22, 9:31 PM ET | Unknown

[Prost1]

SAN FRANCISCO, United States (AFP) - A federal judge has blocked a plan by the US government to allow commercial logging in California's Giant Sequoia National Monument, handing a victory to environmentalists who had sued to protect the ancient trees....(excerpt) California's Democratic attorney general, Bill Lockyer, who filed a lawsuit in 2005 aginst the Bush administration's plan, hailed the ruling as "a resounding victory for the Giant Sequoias, towering treasures that symbolize the magnificent beauty of California's Sierra Nevada range and inspire awe in all of us."

[Prost1]

This is a good thing, imo. I think we need to have convicts and homeless planting trees rather than living in compfortable cells or cesspools.

I like trees.

I will be deer-looking in the Sierras before long and I long to be among the trees. (John C. Fremont, Kit Carson, Brother-in-law Owens as in Owens creek and Owens Valley)

To be where the intrepid discoverers went unafraid...

Simply awe inspiring.

[Spktyr]

I guess these people prefer enormous wildfires, then...

[woofie]

Trees kill many skiers every year

[Prost1]

To the contrary. I am very familiar with the last Touloumne fire of some years back that went from Yosemite to Touloumne city. It was called a forest fire, yet it was mostly a brush fire. It did burn lots of trees.

You can travel the north (not northern) Yosemite Rd and you will see where the fire burn from the valley below up and over the road. The ridge passing from Buck Meadows to the Park is called Pilot Ridge. It is still a fire hazzard waiting to happen. The area near the Park boundaries was completely burned, but for 15 miles along the old road it is still a mess.

There is opportunity and need for forest management. But taking Redwoods for the old growth forest that are still standing is unthinkable.

Plant, grow, harvest. Manage. Cheery Ridge above the Hetch Hetchy had a fire 50 years ago or so. So foreign trees were planted in areas. Now, not a thing lives. No squirrels, no varmits, no deer, no nothing except bugs. They planted the trees so close that when they grew there was no daylight or room or anything.

If you want more examples, ask. I have plenty. I believe in management. We do not have that. I believe that the cows should not be where the deer are. The deer in zone d6 (Calif) got antrax several years ago from the cattle. Then as the herd started to replenish another outbreak hit and they have been decimated ever since. But don't expect to hear about it because of the political influence of the cattlemen.

EOM.

[Rabble]

"Trees kill many skiers every year

Trees don't kill people, people kill people!

[ChiMark]

Enviornmentalist B.S.

[ChiMark]

Please! most lumber companies do not need very old trees
The forest managemnet under Buddy Clinton was a disaster.
Hey, they could'nt even clear out dead wood kindling or
clear fire lanes! The result was enormous forest fires.
Boy, what short memories we have.

[StoneWall Brigade]

you have a good point there

[torchthemummy]

This article neither explains nor links to what it is the administration was proposing. It explains and gives a link to the Sierra Club though for balance. (/sar) Thus the article gives the impression that the administration has a plan to chop down the giant Sequoias whereas (I'm guessing) the actual proposal is for other, smaller trees that grow amongst or on the outskirts of the Sequoias.

Yes, I am just speculating and could do some digging through google or yahoo or whatnot but that would involve sifting through the high volume of liberal sites that would first be displayed. Oh what the heck......

In 2005 the Bush administration officially reversed those policies by finalizing plans to allow what amounts to commercial logging in the Monument, even inside the prized Giant Sequoia groves. The administration's plan would have allowed 7.5 million board feet of timber to be removed annually from the Monument, enough to fill 1,500 logging trucks each year. This policy would have included logging of healthy trees of any species as big as 30 inches in diameter or more. Trees that size can be as much as 300 years old.

Since when has it been unusual to make lumber etc. from trees with a diameter of up to 30 inches?

This article, along with the judge and the enviromental activists, gives the distinct impression that the administration's plan was to cut down huge Sequoias when that simply is a distortion of the truth. Sorry but as a tree lover myself you really need to post a more complete article that explains all sides instead of this one-sided bilge that gives absolutely no context.

PS: what does this title mean?:

Judge Charles Breyer, attorney general for the US District Court for Northern California

[HarmlessLovableFuzzball]

Giant Sequoias and Redwoods are a national treasure. I will have to side with the environmentalist wackos for once. (Hey even broken clocks are right sometimes..)

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

I have been all over this area. This isn't dense groves of Sequoias, its mainly your standard pine trees with Sequoias interspersed in different areas. I would say the ratio is about 80:1. I doubt they would be logging the Sequoias, just keeping the pine trees and undergrowth thinned out. Now the Mexican mafia can continue to grow their pot in peace. Lots of pot growing in this area. The irony is one of the largest Sequoias in this area is named after President Bush's dad. The big groves are north of here, in the National Park. They are well protected, and easily accessible to the public. Most of these Sequoias are deep in the forest, and I doubt more than a couple of hundred people a year ever see most of them.

The only thing this ruling does is hurt the logging industry, and stroke the egos of the do-gooders. Maybe we can start buying our lumber from our enemies, so someday they can torch our forests with rockets.

[tessalu]

I really do love trees, and I tend to love people who do.
Only God can grow a tree.

[Brit1]

Some people simply can't 'see the wood for the trees'.But then who cares somebodys going to make a few bucks out of it and thats all that matters isn't it?

[Bogtrotter52]

Good point. I read the article which was thin on detail. I seriously doubt the trees to be cut were old growth giants. But when it comes to cutting timber the tree hugger reaction is always to ban it no matter what the type,size, or reason behind it. I want to know more

[dmz]

Trees don't kill skiers, skiers kill skiers. (The trees are innocent bystanders, and the idiots run into them).

[Prost1]

Maybe I misunderstood where the logging was supposed to take place. I am all for logging if properly managed. I do not support logging Redwoods. I believe in planting Redwoods and Cedars and Pines and Oak and Douglas fir.

I have seen the strip logging and the selective. Selective works for me. Clears out the underbrush and opens the forest to varmits and game. Basically, man helping nature get back on track.

As I posted earlier, the north side of Pilot Ridge is a forest fire waiting to happen. Logging would help prevent that.