Benjamin Glatt, a friend, photographer, former NPN member, and currently interning with some political folk associated with conservation, asked me to post this. I'm posting an image of mine from the Sequoias (albeit from the National Park), to get you riled up.
Dear Fellow Photographers,
As landscape photographers we have a deep respect for natural resources. And many of the expansive areas of raw wilderness that we enjoy photographing have been established as federally protected land. Unfortunately, not all of our environmental treasures have been protected--including 50% of the world's Sequoias which are currently found in Giant Sequoia National Monument. Prior to 2000, the treasured Sequoia groves in Sequoia National Forest were managed for timber production by the U.S. Forest Service, which for decades allowed aggressive logging in the Sequoias. It was this ongoing destruction of the Sequoia forests by the Forest Service logging program that led President Clinton on April 15, 2000, to use his authority to declare that the majestic Sequoia groves and the surrounding forests of the Sequoia National Forest be designated as the Giant Sequoia National Monument. Sadly, despite President Clinton’s designation of the Giant Sequoia National Monument in 2000, the Forest Service has continued logging.
In order to rectify this environmental injustice, U.S. Representative Sam Farr has written a letter to President Obama, urging him to transfer jurisdiction of this land to the National Park Service--effectively stopping all logging and ensuring that these trees benefit from federal protection. The letter has been sent to all members of Congress for their review. They can decide whether or not they want to support it by signing on. Regardless of where you live in the U.S., it is important for everyone to call their respective member of Congress and urge them to support this letter. If there is any hope for saving this vast tract of land, it comes in the form of wide bi-partisan support. The link below will give you the phone numbers for your specific Congressman. For your convenience, I have also provided a short script and the letter that Congressman Farr wrote to President Obama.
Hello, my name is _______, and I am calling about the letter that Congressman Sam Farr has written to President Obama regarding the protection of trees in Giant Sequoia National Monument. I am urging Congressman_____ to protect these 350,000 acres of land by asking the president to transfer the Monument to the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. Please sign on to Congressman Sam Farr's letter, our forests are very important. Thank you.
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC
Dear President Obama:
We are writing to ask you to use your presidential powers to transfer jurisdiction of the Giant Sequoia National Monument to the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior.
The intent of national monuments is to protect important features of areas that have cultural importance, prehistoric prominence, and/or important scientific and ecological significance. It was pressure from citizen groups, organizations, and members of the Congress at the beginning of the 20th century, according to Gerald W. Williams, Ph.D., U.S.D.A. Forest Service in National Monuments and the Forest Service, that eventually spurred Congress to pass the Antiquities Act in 1906. This Act gave the President the power to “combat the increasing acts of vandalism and even destruction” of important cultural and natural areas around the country by designating national monuments. One of its first uses was when President Teddy Roosevelt designated the Grand Canyon a U.S. National Monument on January 11, 1908.
No national monument in the United States could more perfectly fit this definition than Giant Sequoia National Monument. It contains the unique Sequoia forest ecosystems centered around the Sequoias, the largest trees in the world, indeed, the Earth’s largest living individual organisms, which are also some of the tallest and oldest trees on Earth, and which occur naturally only in this one area of the world. Additionally, the Sequoia groves contain rare species and many sites containing historical artifacts from various eras of human occupation dating to the prehistoric. Giant Sequoia National Monument contains 50% of the world’s remaining giant Sequoias.
Prior to 2000, these 327,769 acres of Sequoia groves were called Sequoia National Forest and were managed for timber production by the U.S. Forest Service, which for decades allowed aggressive logging in the Sequoia groves that supplied four nearby lumber mills with a continuous supply of timber. The Forest Service, proud of its logging programs in the Sequoia forests, erected “educational” markers along a Sequoia grove visitor trail explaining and illustrating the different stages of timber production, from logging trees to milling them in the timber mills.
It was this destruction to the Sequoias by the Forest Service logging program that led President Clinton on April 15, 2000 to use his powers under the Antiquities Act to designate the Sequoia groves and the surrounding forest of the Sequoia National Forest as the Giant Sequoia National Monument. Clinton’s Proclamation stated “No portion of the monument shall be considered to be suited for timber production…” and “No new roads or trails will be authorized within the monument except to further the purposes of the monument.” Despite President Clinton’s designation of the Giant Sequoia National Monument in 2000, the Forest Service continued logging.
In 2004, in the premier tourist spot in the Monument known as the Trail of 100 Giants, the Forest Service closed access to the public for a year and conducted logging operations. When the site was reopened the following year, hundreds of giant trees, including 300-year-old sugar pines, and hundreds of smaller trees had been logged under Forest Service direction, destroying the natural character of this world-famous Sequoia grove. In protest, on October 13, 2006, 29 members of the House of Representatives wrote to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest Service pointing out that the logging was in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, and demanded that the Forest Service end logging operations in the Giant Sequoia National Monument.
But logging continued throughout the National Monument, including large-tree removal, falsely labeled as “hazard tree” projects. The Burton Timber Sale included construction of twelve miles of new roads, although new roads are prohibited by the Monument Proclamation.
Five citizen groups had sued the Forest Service for its illegal management plan for the Giant Sequoia National Monument, and in 2006 a federal judge ruled that the Forest Service plan was in violation of NEPA. The judge required the Forest Service to write a new plan and also halted logging on the timber sales that remained.
In September 2010, 48 members of Congress wrote to the Chief of the Forest Service and to the Supervisor of the Sequoia National Forest criticizing the new Giant Sequoia National Monument management plan just released by the Forest Service, which would allow continued and even increased logging. The new plan draft would enable the destructive Ice, Saddle, and White River Timber Sales to be completed and would implement salvage logging and “hazard tree” logging without scientific basis and without complying with the letter and protective intent of the Monument Proclamation.
The logging and road building in the Sequoia groves after they were proclaimed a national monument in 2000 bring to mind an incident told in National Monuments and the Forest Service. The author relates how in 1943 President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Jackson Hole National Monument, turning over management of this federal land from the Forest Service to the National Park Service. In retaliation, the local staff of the Forest Service ripped out the plumbing and telephone equipment before turning their office over to the Park Service. This Forest Service behavior seems all too similar to the logging which caused irreparable ecological damage in 2004 in the Trail of 100 Giants, the very spot where President Clinton signed the proclamation creating the Monument.
After more than a decade of destructive logging and road-building by the Forest Service in Giant Sequoia National Monument, and after repeated failures to produce an environmentally sound and legal management plan for the Monument or to comply with federal court orders, the Forest Service has demonstrated it has neither the intention nor the institutional ability to protect this American national ecological treasure.
Clearly, the time is long overdue for transfer of authority to the National Park Service, an agency with a 120-year record of properly managing the unique Sequoia ecosystems in Sequoia, Yosemite, and Kings Canyon National Parks, with the purpose of protecting the Sequoia forests and on behalf of the American people, not for a few local timber interests.
Therefore, we the undersigned ask you to use your presidential powers to transfer jurisdiction of the Giant Sequoia National Monument to the National Park Service immediately, in order to protect this irreplaceable national and worldwide jewel for future generations of Americans.
Sincerely,
xxxx
Posted by Bill Chambers on April 26, 2011 at 11:32 AM
Boy, this just burns my rear end! National Forest Service is such a joke when it comes to conservation. Thanks for posting this Floris!
Love the image too - I remember it well - one of my favorites of yours.
Posted by Larry Fischer on April 26, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Whoa a minute
.
What is conservation? It is "wise" use, not disuse.
Giving more land to the feds is like devaluing the dollar. If they can't manage the economy, which is not their job in the first place, how do you/we expect them to do better "managing" sequoias. Anyone can "not" use. The trick is to use and not abuse.
How many of you have heard of Agenda 21??? My home town along with 2 other Kansas towns have signed on, and all that without most of the voting members of the local governemnt even knowing about it. It is also under the concept of "sustainable development"--a big selling point for cities.
Consider that many of the "pushes" we take as good may not be so good.
If you read between the lines those in control want a giant playground for themselves. Private proptery, a bastion of our Republic to which we pledge, is under attack. And it is insinuated the middle class, including photographers, leaves a "too big" carbon footprint. According to the "agenda" the middle class eats too much meat, consumes too much fossil stuff, has too many roads and in general needs to be curtailed. Without the middle class, American fails.
The big vision is for vast areas of land unencumbered by roads, self-contained living "units" so people don't have to consume to travel, and, I'll put in here, less plastic and glass for camera bodies and lenses......
Be careful what you wish for. The educational system from K-1 to K12 is being targeted along with a lot of other innocuous-appearing efforts. You should google Maurice Strong [multi-billionaire] for some of these concepts. Not sure about George Soros.
I like the outdoors as much as anyone but power has a way and money is power.
"Those who are unaware, are unware, that they are unaware." --- so inform youself and make your own decisions, not on emotion but on bedrock concepts.
Four icons or fundamentals of the American Republic:
1) Rule of law.
2) Representative government, not a direct "democracy". [we are NOT a democracy which is rule my
3) Enumerated powers of government limited by a written constitution[the central government has about 19 powers, most of which concern interstate commerce and war. Realize 75% of our tax dollars are being spent for un-enumerated powers of government--documentation abvailable upon request. According to Federalist No. 45 the ordianary lives of citizens is, or should be, affected most by the state and local government, not the central one.]
4) Written Bills of Rights no government can abridge. [These can be changed only by Amendment voted on by the people or by a Constitutional Convention [remember how radical the last one was? Any movement in this direction could lead to something no one expected either...]
Short course in fundamental civics and the law of unintended consequences.
Larry, the land is already in the hands of the feds (as a National Monument). All this proposal does is move it from one finger (USFS) to another (NPS) - a finger that actually has a history of getting the use/abuse balance closer to what we, as photographers, nature enthusiasts, and conservations, think it should be.
Posted by Larry Fischer on April 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM
Floris,
Do some study on Agenda 21. You may arrive at different conclusion but it really scares me to see the overall scope of this power play.
My take is that eventually you, as an enthusiast, a photographer, etc. will not have a choice of visiting the protected Sequoias. Taken over time incremental changes in the name of environment and sustainability, coupled with "education" can change life as we know it.
We have seen and read about a lot of wonderful, and some not-so-wonderful, issues in America. How lucky we are to be able to travel and enjoy. I just warn that when power in centralized bad things happen to people, and sometimes to the evniroment. That's true for govenments and power capitalism. [I like the word "free enterprise" because to me it contains an element of morality and discernment not now contained in the former.]
Who is to make all these decisions? Why them? What credentials do they have? I contend the closer decisions are made to those who live in an area the better that decision is. Are there people who make their livlihood off these trees? How would you feel if the world told you you cannot do now what you have been doing for "survivial"????
The sea-saver, diver, etc. J. Cousteau once stated that 350,000 more people whould have to die each day to maintain the oceans as they were 20 years ago. Who makes those kinds of decsions?
Just be careful. I can see a cadre of "decision makers" making some bad stuff over time. Along that line read Modern Times by Paul Johnson [NYT book-of-the-year] and understand what centralized decisons can do. Perhaps a giant leap of application in the minds of some but certainly not beyond the realm of time, change, and possiblilties.
Kindest regards,
the fisch
Posted by Greg Lessard on April 26, 2011 at 10:31 PM
Fisch,
You should try educating yourself as to how our "central" government has destroyed our environment again and agin over the past decade in the name of free enterprise. I for one would rather not be allowed access to an area and know that it is still there and protected, than to trust free enterprise to preserve it. Free enterprise is the reason we no longer have sequoias in large numbers.
There are billions of trees on this continent. None of them compare to the sequoias. Some things should be preserved no matter what. In my humble opinion, it should be a crime to cut any sequoia. With billions of other trees available, this should be a no brainer. Have you ever looked at a forest service map of this country? They control practically everything. They could easily make up the loss of this land elsewhere. If they can't manage our properties responsibly, they don't deserve to manage them at all.
As for teaching students about conservation, I am an elementary school educator and I have seen that curriculum in action. It is benign unless you are invested in an environmentally destructive business. 50 years ago our country accepted lots of morally reprehensible behaviors. Many of those behaviors have been minimized through education. Destroying our environment in the name of "free enterprise" is irresponsible to say the least. Right now there are approximately 100 right whales off the coast of Cape Cod. They wouldn't be there if they hadn't been protected by international law. Should we have let the Russians finish them off? Preserve our environment before it disappears.
The ultimate point that you are missing is that the forest service has proven itself incapable of managing the sequoias with a long track record of abuse. There centralized decisions have been terrible. If you feel protecting the forest service and business' rights to destroy our planet requires overthrowing our constitution, then I suggest you rethink your priorities. Without a healthy environment all of the money in the world means nothing.
I completely agree with you Greg. Just one point of clarification (which IMO doesn't really effect your argument much) - as far as I know it's actually been a while since a Sequoia has been chopped for lumber, as the wood is terrible (too soft) for just about any use. They are very different from the Coast Redwoods in that sense (polar opposites in fact). But, logging the forests around the Sequoia groves has a an impact on their health, not to mention the aesthetics of the scenery.
Posted by Larry Fischer on April 27, 2011 at 8:41 AM
Greg,
You missed the point. The central government is the problem. The Forest Service is the government!!!!
The decision by the few who are not within the free enterprise system, are the problem. No one who can't manage resources should be in control.--government or free enterprise. I contend only that "management" is not disuse but wise use. So we perhaps somewhat agree???
However, please consider that free enterprise [as opposed to the present "power capitalism"--in my mind no different from communism but at opposite poles] limits the use of precious items over time. Why? Because when it is gone the source of income is gone. Not so with government bureaucrats--they live off of tax revenue.
The problem we face as a nation is greed. The love of money is the root of ALL evil. It affects everyone including you and me. We want some things but think other things should be limited. Rather than imposing that lack of greed upon ourselves we are content to allow those in power to do it for us.
Take your camera body, your cell phone, and all modern items and you will be surprised of the earth raping that goes into them. We are aware of the pollution associated with make glass, plastic, rare earth screens etc. but we still think photos are great. The sum total of all our wants is greater that we imagine.
So, are we willing to give up our toys? Nope.
We need therefore to be VERY observant on who makes decisions as to use or non-use and the possibility of unintended consequences.
Our country was to be the great experiment in "self-government". I fear it is not working. That is the THREAT to the Sequoias--and everything else.
Who would have thought the promise of removing hyperinflation from pre-WWII Germany would lead to catasrophe for the world?? It does seem far removed but that's what happened.
The problem with your approach is that the "central" government is controlled by a few, and their power grows. Adding to the government problem is the infiltration by "power capitalism" which accelerates the degeneration of your concept over time from within government. It is called politics. Free enterprise, as well as central governemnt, makes mistakes. The former is self limiting; the latter is not.
I do admit ingnorance on the wood quality as Floris stated. It would seem to me that true free enterprise would not spend the money for harvesting if there was not a market. Why that market would exist with poor quality wood is a mystery to me.
And, I will admit the time factor for re-generation of the replaceable resource is important. Hundreds of years to replace is different than 50 years. So it would seem more discernment is necessary for those who do make their living from these magnificent trees. Again, greed and lack of the consequence of actions.
And realize that discernment is lacking in all our lives. We are unable to fathom the ramifications of decisions and the fruits of personal and corporate greed contained in the thread of harvesting, refining, manufacturing, advertising, consumption and disposal [probably many other intermediates] of all the "stuff" we use or think we "want".
I guess it is called entropy... morally as well as natural. Greg, perhaps in edition to your teaching ethics, a moral code is also in order. Our country is in more danger of collapse from a lack of a moral code than anything to do with trees. Ah, but then we get into the concept of "who's moral code" and that is a prime example of how we've degenerated as a nation. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Larry, humans only live up to about 100 years, and of that time, they typically only spend at most 50 years working. That means, in the world of free enterprise, a purely capitalist driven CEO really only cares about making a profit for 50 years. In order to maximize profit, they should completely deplete all the resources they have available in exactly that time frame - otherwise they are missing out. So, your point here, doesn't work.
However, please consider that free enterprise [as opposed to the present "power capitalism"--in my mind no different from communism but at opposite poles] limits the use of precious items over time. Why? Because when it is gone the source of income is gone. Not so with government bureaucrats--they live off of tax revenue.
Unless tourism is more profitable over a ~50 year time frame, free enterprise is not going to drive protection of a natural resource vs. complete consumption and destruction. That is our fundamental problem with regards to environmental protection. This is why government agencies exist to keep that from happening - and no they aren't perfect, because who is in charge? More people that want money and only have a few decades left to earn and spend it.
I feel like your missing the whole point here though, what's the big deal between moving control of a block of land from one arm of the government to another? They are both government, so obviously you hate both, but at least one has proven to do a better job with regards to "wise use".
Posted by Greg Lessard on April 27, 2011 at 7:53 PM
Fisch,
Floris has succinstly stated the point:
"I feel like your missing the whole point here though, what's the big deal between moving control of a block of land from one arm of the government to another? They are both government, so obviously you hate both, but at least one has proven to do a better job with regards to "wise use". "
Many of your arguments are compelling and in some ways I agree with much of what you say. However, you are using your arguments against the sequoias, which I just don't understand. They are so venerable, that they are effectively a non-renewable resource. I trust the NPS to preserve them more than any free enterprise business.
Your arguments are essentially free capitolism vs. communism. Personally I think we need a balnce between the two. Like it or not, our country is as close to that balance as you can get. We are individually free to choose our business enterprises yet we must pay taxes for the communistic betterment of everyone. I happily pay my taxes for public roads, schools, police, fire, defense, etc. Do I get frustrated with govt. waste? Absolutely. You might believe that our National Parks are one form of waste for our tax dollars. I believe that they are one of our best investments. There will always be debate over what is valid use of our tax dollars and what isn't. This ying and yang struggle keeps us more or less balanced over time.
When our govt. gets it wrong, there are a number of ways for us to correct the problem. It doesn't always work, but we at least have the opportunity and right to try to set things straight. Petitioning President Obama to enforce preservation of the sequoias is one of these exercises.
As for our country's moral code, I have always compared us to Rome which fell because of corruption from within. I fear that our country is weakening from within. I wonder how many more generations will be able to sustain the American dream. I once had this conversation with my grandmother who lived through the depression and WWII. When I was a rookie teacher, I was concerned about my students' generation being able to stand up and make the sacrifices needed if we ever were to face another major crisis. She laughed and said that while her generation was the "greatest generation", they were forced to step up and our current generation will too if the time should come. I have since seen many students step up in many ways to show that they will be ready if called upon.
These are all interesting topics, but they only distract from the issue at hand: Protect the Sequoias!
Posted by Larry Fischer on April 28, 2011 at 3:24 PM
You guys are great -- and dedicated.
I don't like central control basically because of history.
Sequoias do need protecting but the question is how and by whom?
My main issue is what might be called "The Black Swan", not the movie but the book. It is about unexpected events.
I mentioned "unintended consequences" and that also is part of my argument.
Whenever "government", really a misonomer--it is really a bureaucracy, gains control, it is unrelenting.
Thereafter, each incremental step leads us further away from the most rare thing on the planet--liberty.
Incrementally and through steps that seem very remote, 125 million people, not trees, died unnatural deaths from 1920-1990. So says Paul Johnson in his New York Times book-of-the-year, Mondern Times.
My agrument is not about the Sequoias; it is about human abuse on a much grander scale. Well-intended movements which, give bureaucracy more power, becomes another cog in a giant wheel which few can perceive. At least that's what history shows. This wheel grows continually, is unrelenting, always seeking new cogs, and eventually loses it morality.
Consider this: Why not work outside bureaucracy and see how this block of land could be purchased by private interests who love such trees? This would be outside political control and still allow everything we cherish about the ambiance of wild things to flourish.
Too expensive? Probably, but realize those who wish to control are very wealthy. Names like George Soros and Maurice Strong come to mind.
I simply ask, where are those who are wealthy who could help towards privatizing effort for the Sequoias?
Along that line of thought, Floris et. al., I would humbly recommend some research, hard work,on your part and those of your ilk, to find such sponsors. Perhaps a life-long effort but very worthy.
It would also have the beneficial consequence of keeping power from being even more centralized. The main reason most do not want to engage at this level is because of the immense task before them. It is much easier to think we've accomplished something when the immediate goal is won--regardless of what it may have cost in "black swan" terms.
Ending with this thought on a different subject, but one that could affect trees and people. Just wait for the inflation we are about to endure. Unfortunately the trees might not seem as important as they are now compared to as keeping food on the table for the masses.
Thanks for keeping everything civil. Hard to find those who wish to bandy ideas in this age.
And yes, I realize these are big and rash statements. I really hope I am wrong on most of them because the consequences would be horrendous.
the fisch
Posted by Greg Lessard on April 28, 2011 at 9:57 PM
Privatizing the sequoias is far worse than centralizing them! Besides, we (you and I and every other U.S. citizen) already own them!
I understand what you are generally concerned about and I don't necessarily disagree with those worries, but those concerns in my opinion, don't mesh with the issue of the sequoias. They need to be protected.
I have been involved with a local preservation effort. Assembling groups with the cash to preserve these properties is the easy part. Working out the details to the satisfaction of all parties involved has proven to be nearly impossible. As the effort to preserve has been stalled, small pieces of these properties have been developed. I would rather have the government swoop in and take control at the expense of my liberty, for the benefit of preserving these dear properties. Sometimes the government is your best ally.
By the way, how many times have you seen something beautiful on private property. Have you knocked on the owner's door for permission to photograph? Did you hop the fence? When the NPS controls a property, they are obligated to do their best to protect it and keep it accessible to the public. Private entities are not obligated to do anything for you and me. We may disagree over how much protection alpine flowers at Logan Pass really need, but if it was owned by a wealthy individual or corporation there is a strong likelihood that we would not be allowed to walk on a convenient boardwalk to the Hidden Lake Overlook. Some would argue that we should not be allowed to walk there at all. Others would argue that we all own the property and should be allowed to walk wherever we want, even if that means killing all of the wildflowers with thousands of visitors each year. I think that being limited to the boardwalk is a great compromise.
I do get frustrated when I can't walk or drive where I want to, because the NPS has decided that a certain area needs to be protected. I don't like having to pay permit fees for my group tours, or even having to file for a permit, but I would happily comply with those regulations than never have access to our national treasures. Our NPS is not perfect, but I think they are an excellent example of what is right with our country. I have met many outstanding NPS employees and I have no issue with paying taxes to support them. If they should start mismanaging properties the way that the forest service does, I will call upon my elected officials to correct the problem.
Larry, I also appreciate the civil tone!
Posted by Larry Fischer on April 30, 2011 at 9:35 AM
You make excelletnt points, Greg.
I've had several run-ins with NPS. Was not good. And I've had some private land owners who were onery. And the reverse is true also--good with each.
Here is my story:
A buddy and I had camped in National Forest n Montana, accessing this area across private land [about 1/4 mile and with permission of the rancher] for at least 5 years.
The year of the confrontation we stopped at the NPS office to fill our water jugs as we had always done. We asked about one employee we have met about 2 years before while in a remote backpacking area. We told them that specific employee was monitoring fires and happened upon us during that previous visit. We had given him some soup and generally had a good chat.
They said this employee was not there; his wife just had a baby and took several days off.
Well we had our main camp set up in the same place we had always done it and low and behold, one day later, here came the employee about which we had inquired. He pulled up to our camp, got out and immediatley becam irate as to where we were camping. He did not recognize us and had not been told of our inquiry.
After a good chewing I mentioned we had camped there before. He told us we were lying. I had to restrain by buddy from physically engaging him after that remark. We told him he could ask the rancher with whom we had permission [the rancher often came to our camp for coffe when in the area and had always invited us for a departure meal at his home for the times we camped there]. When he heard the ranchers name the NPS employee's demeanor changed. Then we told him we were the ones who gave him the soup several years prior. Well, he became conciliatory and finally left.
My point: Everyone, private or NPS, comes to look on the land they manage, as theirs--their private domain. There was no reason for him to have backed down. Had we not had the prior experiences we would have been told to break camp and vacate.
We all agree that's wrong.
So, my opinion is private or bureaucratic makes no difference.
I hope the Sequoias are protected.
I hope we have discernment to see future problems with decisions made today because where there is no vision the people perish. And in my book people are still more important then trees.
Bottom line: Once power is given it NEVER recedes. Be careful when empowering a bureaucracy.
Along that line read Modern Times by Paul Johnson--800 pages--took me 3 months but what an eye-opener on many fronts. And very much better than television. New York Times Book-of-the-Year.
Just a quick note .. if you were camped in a National Forest, my guess is you visited a NFS office, not a NPS station. Given the context for this discussion, the delineation would seem to be important.
Discussion
15 repliesDear Fellow Photographers,
As landscape photographers we have a deep respect for natural resources. And many of the expansive areas of raw wilderness that we enjoy photographing have been established as federally protected land. Unfortunately, not all of our environmental treasures have been protected--including 50% of the world's Sequoias which are currently found in Giant Sequoia National Monument. Prior to 2000, the treasured Sequoia groves in Sequoia National Forest were managed for timber production by the U.S. Forest Service, which for decades allowed aggressive logging in the Sequoias. It was this ongoing destruction of the Sequoia forests by the Forest Service logging program that led President Clinton on April 15, 2000, to use his authority to declare that the majestic Sequoia groves and the surrounding forests of the Sequoia National Forest be designated as the Giant Sequoia National Monument. Sadly, despite President Clinton’s designation of the Giant Sequoia National Monument in 2000, the Forest Service has continued logging.
In order to rectify this environmental injustice, U.S. Representative Sam Farr has written a letter to President Obama, urging him to transfer jurisdiction of this land to the National Park Service--effectively stopping all logging and ensuring that these trees benefit from federal protection. The letter has been sent to all members of Congress for their review. They can decide whether or not they want to support it by signing on. Regardless of where you live in the U.S., it is important for everyone to call their respective member of Congress and urge them to support this letter. If there is any hope for saving this vast tract of land, it comes in the form of wide bi-partisan support. The link below will give you the phone numbers for your specific Congressman. For your convenience, I have also provided a short script and the letter that Congressman Farr wrote to President Obama.
Phone Numbers for your Congressman
Hello, my name is _______, and I am calling about the letter that Congressman Sam Farr has written to President Obama regarding the protection of trees in Giant Sequoia National Monument. I am urging Congressman_____ to protect these 350,000 acres of land by asking the president to transfer the Monument to the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. Please sign on to Congressman Sam Farr's letter, our forests are very important. Thank you.
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC
Dear President Obama:
We are writing to ask you to use your presidential powers to transfer jurisdiction of the Giant Sequoia National Monument to the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior.
The intent of national monuments is to protect important features of areas that have cultural importance, prehistoric prominence, and/or important scientific and ecological significance. It was pressure from citizen groups, organizations, and members of the Congress at the beginning of the 20th century, according to Gerald W. Williams, Ph.D., U.S.D.A. Forest Service in National Monuments and the Forest Service, that eventually spurred Congress to pass the Antiquities Act in 1906. This Act gave the President the power to “combat the increasing acts of vandalism and even destruction” of important cultural and natural areas around the country by designating national monuments. One of its first uses was when President Teddy Roosevelt designated the Grand Canyon a U.S. National Monument on January 11, 1908.
No national monument in the United States could more perfectly fit this definition than Giant Sequoia National Monument. It contains the unique Sequoia forest ecosystems centered around the Sequoias, the largest trees in the world, indeed, the Earth’s largest living individual organisms, which are also some of the tallest and oldest trees on Earth, and which occur naturally only in this one area of the world. Additionally, the Sequoia groves contain rare species and many sites containing historical artifacts from various eras of human occupation dating to the prehistoric. Giant Sequoia National Monument contains 50% of the world’s remaining giant Sequoias.
Prior to 2000, these 327,769 acres of Sequoia groves were called Sequoia National Forest and were managed for timber production by the U.S. Forest Service, which for decades allowed aggressive logging in the Sequoia groves that supplied four nearby lumber mills with a continuous supply of timber. The Forest Service, proud of its logging programs in the Sequoia forests, erected “educational” markers along a Sequoia grove visitor trail explaining and illustrating the different stages of timber production, from logging trees to milling them in the timber mills.
It was this destruction to the Sequoias by the Forest Service logging program that led President Clinton on April 15, 2000 to use his powers under the Antiquities Act to designate the Sequoia groves and the surrounding forest of the Sequoia National Forest as the Giant Sequoia National Monument. Clinton’s Proclamation stated “No portion of the monument shall be considered to be suited for timber production…” and “No new roads or trails will be authorized within the monument except to further the purposes of the monument.” Despite President Clinton’s designation of the Giant Sequoia National Monument in 2000, the Forest Service continued logging.
In 2004, in the premier tourist spot in the Monument known as the Trail of 100 Giants, the Forest Service closed access to the public for a year and conducted logging operations. When the site was reopened the following year, hundreds of giant trees, including 300-year-old sugar pines, and hundreds of smaller trees had been logged under Forest Service direction, destroying the natural character of this world-famous Sequoia grove. In protest, on October 13, 2006, 29 members of the House of Representatives wrote to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest Service pointing out that the logging was in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, and demanded that the Forest Service end logging operations in the Giant Sequoia National Monument.
But logging continued throughout the National Monument, including large-tree removal, falsely labeled as “hazard tree” projects. The Burton Timber Sale included construction of twelve miles of new roads, although new roads are prohibited by the Monument Proclamation.
Five citizen groups had sued the Forest Service for its illegal management plan for the Giant Sequoia National Monument, and in 2006 a federal judge ruled that the Forest Service plan was in violation of NEPA. The judge required the Forest Service to write a new plan and also halted logging on the timber sales that remained.
In September 2010, 48 members of Congress wrote to the Chief of the Forest Service and to the Supervisor of the Sequoia National Forest criticizing the new Giant Sequoia National Monument management plan just released by the Forest Service, which would allow continued and even increased logging. The new plan draft would enable the destructive Ice, Saddle, and White River Timber Sales to be completed and would implement salvage logging and “hazard tree” logging without scientific basis and without complying with the letter and protective intent of the Monument Proclamation.
The logging and road building in the Sequoia groves after they were proclaimed a national monument in 2000 bring to mind an incident told in National Monuments and the Forest Service. The author relates how in 1943 President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Jackson Hole National Monument, turning over management of this federal land from the Forest Service to the National Park Service. In retaliation, the local staff of the Forest Service ripped out the plumbing and telephone equipment before turning their office over to the Park Service. This Forest Service behavior seems all too similar to the logging which caused irreparable ecological damage in 2004 in the Trail of 100 Giants, the very spot where President Clinton signed the proclamation creating the Monument.
After more than a decade of destructive logging and road-building by the Forest Service in Giant Sequoia National Monument, and after repeated failures to produce an environmentally sound and legal management plan for the Monument or to comply with federal court orders, the Forest Service has demonstrated it has neither the intention nor the institutional ability to protect this American national ecological treasure.
Clearly, the time is long overdue for transfer of authority to the National Park Service, an agency with a 120-year record of properly managing the unique Sequoia ecosystems in Sequoia, Yosemite, and Kings Canyon National Parks, with the purpose of protecting the Sequoia forests and on behalf of the American people, not for a few local timber interests.
Therefore, we the undersigned ask you to use your presidential powers to transfer jurisdiction of the Giant Sequoia National Monument to the National Park Service immediately, in order to protect this irreplaceable national and worldwide jewel for future generations of Americans.
Sincerely,
xxxx
Love the image too - I remember it well - one of my favorites of yours.
.
What is conservation? It is "wise" use, not disuse.
Giving more land to the feds is like devaluing the dollar. If they can't manage the economy, which is not their job in the first place, how do you/we expect them to do better "managing" sequoias. Anyone can "not" use. The trick is to use and not abuse.
How many of you have heard of Agenda 21??? My home town along with 2 other Kansas towns have signed on, and all that without most of the voting members of the local governemnt even knowing about it. It is also under the concept of "sustainable development"--a big selling point for cities.
Consider that many of the "pushes" we take as good may not be so good.
If you read between the lines those in control want a giant playground for themselves. Private proptery, a bastion of our Republic to which we pledge, is under attack. And it is insinuated the middle class, including photographers, leaves a "too big" carbon footprint. According to the "agenda" the middle class eats too much meat, consumes too much fossil stuff, has too many roads and in general needs to be curtailed. Without the middle class, American fails.
The big vision is for vast areas of land unencumbered by roads, self-contained living "units" so people don't have to consume to travel, and, I'll put in here, less plastic and glass for camera bodies and lenses......
Be careful what you wish for. The educational system from K-1 to K12 is being targeted along with a lot of other innocuous-appearing efforts. You should google Maurice Strong [multi-billionaire] for some of these concepts. Not sure about George Soros.
I like the outdoors as much as anyone but power has a way and money is power.
"Those who are unaware, are unware, that they are unaware." --- so inform youself and make your own decisions, not on emotion but on bedrock concepts.
Four icons or fundamentals of the American Republic:
1) Rule of law.
2) Representative government, not a direct "democracy". [we are NOT a democracy which is rule my
3) Enumerated powers of government limited by a written constitution[the central government has about 19 powers, most of which concern interstate commerce and war. Realize 75% of our tax dollars are being spent for un-enumerated powers of government--documentation abvailable upon request. According to Federalist No. 45 the ordianary lives of citizens is, or should be, affected most by the state and local government, not the central one.]
4) Written Bills of Rights no government can abridge. [These can be changed only by Amendment voted on by the people or by a Constitutional Convention [remember how radical the last one was? Any movement in this direction could lead to something no one expected either...]
Short course in fundamental civics and the law of unintended consequences.
the fisch.
Do some study on Agenda 21. You may arrive at different conclusion but it really scares me to see the overall scope of this power play.
My take is that eventually you, as an enthusiast, a photographer, etc. will not have a choice of visiting the protected Sequoias. Taken over time incremental changes in the name of environment and sustainability, coupled with "education" can change life as we know it.
We have seen and read about a lot of wonderful, and some not-so-wonderful, issues in America. How lucky we are to be able to travel and enjoy. I just warn that when power in centralized bad things happen to people, and sometimes to the evniroment. That's true for govenments and power capitalism. [I like the word "free enterprise" because to me it contains an element of morality and discernment not now contained in the former.]
Who is to make all these decisions? Why them? What credentials do they have? I contend the closer decisions are made to those who live in an area the better that decision is. Are there people who make their livlihood off these trees? How would you feel if the world told you you cannot do now what you have been doing for "survivial"????
The sea-saver, diver, etc. J. Cousteau once stated that 350,000 more people whould have to die each day to maintain the oceans as they were 20 years ago. Who makes those kinds of decsions?
Just be careful. I can see a cadre of "decision makers" making some bad stuff over time. Along that line read Modern Times by Paul Johnson [NYT book-of-the-year] and understand what centralized decisons can do. Perhaps a giant leap of application in the minds of some but certainly not beyond the realm of time, change, and possiblilties.
Kindest regards,
the fisch
You should try educating yourself as to how our "central" government has destroyed our environment again and agin over the past decade in the name of free enterprise. I for one would rather not be allowed access to an area and know that it is still there and protected, than to trust free enterprise to preserve it. Free enterprise is the reason we no longer have sequoias in large numbers.
There are billions of trees on this continent. None of them compare to the sequoias. Some things should be preserved no matter what. In my humble opinion, it should be a crime to cut any sequoia. With billions of other trees available, this should be a no brainer. Have you ever looked at a forest service map of this country? They control practically everything. They could easily make up the loss of this land elsewhere. If they can't manage our properties responsibly, they don't deserve to manage them at all.
As for teaching students about conservation, I am an elementary school educator and I have seen that curriculum in action. It is benign unless you are invested in an environmentally destructive business. 50 years ago our country accepted lots of morally reprehensible behaviors. Many of those behaviors have been minimized through education. Destroying our environment in the name of "free enterprise" is irresponsible to say the least. Right now there are approximately 100 right whales off the coast of Cape Cod. They wouldn't be there if they hadn't been protected by international law. Should we have let the Russians finish them off? Preserve our environment before it disappears.
The ultimate point that you are missing is that the forest service has proven itself incapable of managing the sequoias with a long track record of abuse. There centralized decisions have been terrible. If you feel protecting the forest service and business' rights to destroy our planet requires overthrowing our constitution, then I suggest you rethink your priorities. Without a healthy environment all of the money in the world means nothing.
You missed the point. The central government is the problem. The Forest Service is the government!!!!
The decision by the few who are not within the free enterprise system, are the problem. No one who can't manage resources should be in control.--government or free enterprise. I contend only that "management" is not disuse but wise use. So we perhaps somewhat agree???
However, please consider that free enterprise [as opposed to the present "power capitalism"--in my mind no different from communism but at opposite poles] limits the use of precious items over time. Why? Because when it is gone the source of income is gone. Not so with government bureaucrats--they live off of tax revenue.
The problem we face as a nation is greed. The love of money is the root of ALL evil. It affects everyone including you and me. We want some things but think other things should be limited. Rather than imposing that lack of greed upon ourselves we are content to allow those in power to do it for us.
Take your camera body, your cell phone, and all modern items and you will be surprised of the earth raping that goes into them. We are aware of the pollution associated with make glass, plastic, rare earth screens etc. but we still think photos are great. The sum total of all our wants is greater that we imagine.
So, are we willing to give up our toys? Nope.
We need therefore to be VERY observant on who makes decisions as to use or non-use and the possibility of unintended consequences.
Our country was to be the great experiment in "self-government". I fear it is not working. That is the THREAT to the Sequoias--and everything else.
Who would have thought the promise of removing hyperinflation from pre-WWII Germany would lead to catasrophe for the world?? It does seem far removed but that's what happened.
The problem with your approach is that the "central" government is controlled by a few, and their power grows. Adding to the government problem is the infiltration by "power capitalism" which accelerates the degeneration of your concept over time from within government. It is called politics. Free enterprise, as well as central governemnt, makes mistakes. The former is self limiting; the latter is not.
I do admit ingnorance on the wood quality as Floris stated. It would seem to me that true free enterprise would not spend the money for harvesting if there was not a market. Why that market would exist with poor quality wood is a mystery to me.
And, I will admit the time factor for re-generation of the replaceable resource is important. Hundreds of years to replace is different than 50 years. So it would seem more discernment is necessary for those who do make their living from these magnificent trees. Again, greed and lack of the consequence of actions.
And realize that discernment is lacking in all our lives. We are unable to fathom the ramifications of decisions and the fruits of personal and corporate greed contained in the thread of harvesting, refining, manufacturing, advertising, consumption and disposal [probably many other intermediates] of all the "stuff" we use or think we "want".
I guess it is called entropy... morally as well as natural. Greg, perhaps in edition to your teaching ethics, a moral code is also in order. Our country is in more danger of collapse from a lack of a moral code than anything to do with trees. Ah, but then we get into the concept of "who's moral code" and that is a prime example of how we've degenerated as a nation. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Good "hot topic"...
the fisch
Unless tourism is more profitable over a ~50 year time frame, free enterprise is not going to drive protection of a natural resource vs. complete consumption and destruction. That is our fundamental problem with regards to environmental protection. This is why government agencies exist to keep that from happening - and no they aren't perfect, because who is in charge? More people that want money and only have a few decades left to earn and spend it.
I feel like your missing the whole point here though, what's the big deal between moving control of a block of land from one arm of the government to another? They are both government, so obviously you hate both, but at least one has proven to do a better job with regards to "wise use".
Floris has succinstly stated the point:
"I feel like your missing the whole point here though, what's the big deal between moving control of a block of land from one arm of the government to another? They are both government, so obviously you hate both, but at least one has proven to do a better job with regards to "wise use". "
Many of your arguments are compelling and in some ways I agree with much of what you say. However, you are using your arguments against the sequoias, which I just don't understand. They are so venerable, that they are effectively a non-renewable resource. I trust the NPS to preserve them more than any free enterprise business.
Your arguments are essentially free capitolism vs. communism. Personally I think we need a balnce between the two. Like it or not, our country is as close to that balance as you can get. We are individually free to choose our business enterprises yet we must pay taxes for the communistic betterment of everyone. I happily pay my taxes for public roads, schools, police, fire, defense, etc. Do I get frustrated with govt. waste? Absolutely. You might believe that our National Parks are one form of waste for our tax dollars. I believe that they are one of our best investments. There will always be debate over what is valid use of our tax dollars and what isn't. This ying and yang struggle keeps us more or less balanced over time.
When our govt. gets it wrong, there are a number of ways for us to correct the problem. It doesn't always work, but we at least have the opportunity and right to try to set things straight. Petitioning President Obama to enforce preservation of the sequoias is one of these exercises.
As for our country's moral code, I have always compared us to Rome which fell because of corruption from within. I fear that our country is weakening from within. I wonder how many more generations will be able to sustain the American dream. I once had this conversation with my grandmother who lived through the depression and WWII. When I was a rookie teacher, I was concerned about my students' generation being able to stand up and make the sacrifices needed if we ever were to face another major crisis. She laughed and said that while her generation was the "greatest generation", they were forced to step up and our current generation will too if the time should come. I have since seen many students step up in many ways to show that they will be ready if called upon.
These are all interesting topics, but they only distract from the issue at hand: Protect the Sequoias!
I don't like central control basically because of history.
Sequoias do need protecting but the question is how and by whom?
My main issue is what might be called "The Black Swan", not the movie but the book. It is about unexpected events.
I mentioned "unintended consequences" and that also is part of my argument.
Whenever "government", really a misonomer--it is really a bureaucracy, gains control, it is unrelenting.
Thereafter, each incremental step leads us further away from the most rare thing on the planet--liberty.
Incrementally and through steps that seem very remote, 125 million people, not trees, died unnatural deaths from 1920-1990. So says Paul Johnson in his New York Times book-of-the-year, Mondern Times.
My agrument is not about the Sequoias; it is about human abuse on a much grander scale. Well-intended movements which, give bureaucracy more power, becomes another cog in a giant wheel which few can perceive. At least that's what history shows. This wheel grows continually, is unrelenting, always seeking new cogs, and eventually loses it morality.
Consider this: Why not work outside bureaucracy and see how this block of land could be purchased by private interests who love such trees? This would be outside political control and still allow everything we cherish about the ambiance of wild things to flourish.
Too expensive? Probably, but realize those who wish to control are very wealthy. Names like George Soros and Maurice Strong come to mind.
I simply ask, where are those who are wealthy who could help towards privatizing effort for the Sequoias?
Along that line of thought, Floris et. al., I would humbly recommend some research, hard work,on your part and those of your ilk, to find such sponsors. Perhaps a life-long effort but very worthy.
It would also have the beneficial consequence of keeping power from being even more centralized. The main reason most do not want to engage at this level is because of the immense task before them. It is much easier to think we've accomplished something when the immediate goal is won--regardless of what it may have cost in "black swan" terms.
Ending with this thought on a different subject, but one that could affect trees and people. Just wait for the inflation we are about to endure. Unfortunately the trees might not seem as important as they are now compared to as keeping food on the table for the masses.
Thanks for keeping everything civil. Hard to find those who wish to bandy ideas in this age.
And yes, I realize these are big and rash statements. I really hope I am wrong on most of them because the consequences would be horrendous.
the fisch
I understand what you are generally concerned about and I don't necessarily disagree with those worries, but those concerns in my opinion, don't mesh with the issue of the sequoias. They need to be protected.
I have been involved with a local preservation effort. Assembling groups with the cash to preserve these properties is the easy part. Working out the details to the satisfaction of all parties involved has proven to be nearly impossible. As the effort to preserve has been stalled, small pieces of these properties have been developed. I would rather have the government swoop in and take control at the expense of my liberty, for the benefit of preserving these dear properties. Sometimes the government is your best ally.
By the way, how many times have you seen something beautiful on private property. Have you knocked on the owner's door for permission to photograph? Did you hop the fence? When the NPS controls a property, they are obligated to do their best to protect it and keep it accessible to the public. Private entities are not obligated to do anything for you and me. We may disagree over how much protection alpine flowers at Logan Pass really need, but if it was owned by a wealthy individual or corporation there is a strong likelihood that we would not be allowed to walk on a convenient boardwalk to the Hidden Lake Overlook. Some would argue that we should not be allowed to walk there at all. Others would argue that we all own the property and should be allowed to walk wherever we want, even if that means killing all of the wildflowers with thousands of visitors each year. I think that being limited to the boardwalk is a great compromise.
I do get frustrated when I can't walk or drive where I want to, because the NPS has decided that a certain area needs to be protected. I don't like having to pay permit fees for my group tours, or even having to file for a permit, but I would happily comply with those regulations than never have access to our national treasures. Our NPS is not perfect, but I think they are an excellent example of what is right with our country. I have met many outstanding NPS employees and I have no issue with paying taxes to support them. If they should start mismanaging properties the way that the forest service does, I will call upon my elected officials to correct the problem.
Larry, I also appreciate the civil tone!
I've had several run-ins with NPS. Was not good. And I've had some private land owners who were onery. And the reverse is true also--good with each.
Here is my story:
A buddy and I had camped in National Forest n Montana, accessing this area across private land [about 1/4 mile and with permission of the rancher] for at least 5 years.
The year of the confrontation we stopped at the NPS office to fill our water jugs as we had always done. We asked about one employee we have met about 2 years before while in a remote backpacking area. We told them that specific employee was monitoring fires and happened upon us during that previous visit. We had given him some soup and generally had a good chat.
They said this employee was not there; his wife just had a baby and took several days off.
Well we had our main camp set up in the same place we had always done it and low and behold, one day later, here came the employee about which we had inquired. He pulled up to our camp, got out and immediatley becam irate as to where we were camping. He did not recognize us and had not been told of our inquiry.
After a good chewing I mentioned we had camped there before. He told us we were lying. I had to restrain by buddy from physically engaging him after that remark. We told him he could ask the rancher with whom we had permission [the rancher often came to our camp for coffe when in the area and had always invited us for a departure meal at his home for the times we camped there]. When he heard the ranchers name the NPS employee's demeanor changed. Then we told him we were the ones who gave him the soup several years prior. Well, he became conciliatory and finally left.
My point: Everyone, private or NPS, comes to look on the land they manage, as theirs--their private domain. There was no reason for him to have backed down. Had we not had the prior experiences we would have been told to break camp and vacate.
We all agree that's wrong.
So, my opinion is private or bureaucratic makes no difference.
I hope the Sequoias are protected.
I hope we have discernment to see future problems with decisions made today because where there is no vision the people perish. And in my book people are still more important then trees.
Bottom line: Once power is given it NEVER recedes. Be careful when empowering a bureaucracy.
Along that line read Modern Times by Paul Johnson--800 pages--took me 3 months but what an eye-opener on many fronts. And very much better than television. New York Times Book-of-the-Year.
the fisch
Just a quick note .. if you were camped in a National Forest, my guess is you visited a NFS office, not a NPS station. Given the context for this discussion, the delineation would seem to be important.
Cheers
Carl