Logging of Giant Sequoia Monument

[SSimon]

They're at it again. There's a Bill H.R. 5760 up for review that promotes logging of the Monument. It's presented under a guise that it provides transition of this land from logging to the more protected status of a monument. This, obviously, is a load of crap. They are using this cloak as a means to try to log mature Sequoia trees. If it's any indication, the EPA and the US Fish and Wildlife Service have concerns about the Bill and the effects that logging will have on the area. Bush Sr. even declared this area off limits to logging. If you care, it's time to write some letters.............

[Godiva]

What good will it do?

Even voting doesn't help.

[skruse]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 26 2006, 10:57 AM) [snapback]292660[/snapback]</div>

What good will it do?

Even voting doesn't help.
[/b]

Logging is explicitly prohibited in the original proclamation that established Giant Sequoia National Monument. The Forest Service has tried multiple end runs under the guise of "fire reduction". Federal courts have upheld the enabling legislation every time. Supporters are now looking to transfer GSNM to the National Park Service.

The Forest Service and current administration have a mind set of "Clear cut, burn, pave it over and paint it green" - a single use extraction economy outlook. The GSNM was established for long-term sustainable protection of Sequoiadendron trees in the Sierra Nevada, not short-term gain.

Sequoiadendron are well known enough that the Bush administration will not prevail in the current proposal to extract trees.

[wstander]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jul 26 2006, 09:25 AM) [snapback]292603[/snapback]</div>

They're at it again. There's a Bill H.R. 5760 up for review that promotes logging of the Monument. It's presented under a guise that it provides transition of this land from logging to the more protected status of a monument. This, obviously, is a load of crap. They are using this cloak as a means to try to log mature Sequoia trees. If it's any indication, the EPA and the US Fish and Wildlife Service have concerns about the Bill and the effects that logging will have on the area. Bush Sr. even declared this area off limits to logging. If you care, it's time to write some letters.............
[/b]

I just checked Thomas; do you have the HR # correct? Here is what Thomas says on H.R.5760:

H.R.5760
Title: To express the sense of the Congress with respect to sports blackouts.
Sponsor: Rep Darden, George (Buddy) [GA-7] (introduced 8/4/1992) Cosponsors (21)
Related Bills: H.R.4850
Latest Major Action: 9/14/1992 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:HR05760:

Okay, a little more digging:

2. H.R.5760 : To fulfill President Clinton's commitments made as part of the designation of the Giant Sequoia National Monument by presidential proclamation to provide a transition from the timber sale program in effect before the designation to the more restrictive management anticipated for the national monument, to promote the Kings River Research Project in the Sierra National Forest, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Nunes, Devin [CA-21] (introduced 7/11/2006) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: House Agriculture; House Resources
Latest Major Action: 7/17/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5760:

[SSimon]

You sound like my sister!!!!!!! Sometimes one voice evolves into a collective voice and we prevail. Just look at the idiots that keep trying to drill the arctic for a drop of oil...if it weren't for a collective voice, the drills would be up and running. Besides, comment letters from the public cannot be rigged as easily as are our voting machines.

[skruse]

Full text of the bill is found at:

http://www.theorator.com/bills109/hr5760.html

[Marlin]

Ummm, the bill in question is simply fullfilling Clinton's proclamation.

From H.R. 5760... HR 5760
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("H.R. 5760")</div>

(a) Completion of Timber Sales Recognized in Designation Proclamation- The Secretary of Agriculture may proceed with and complete each timber sale located within the boundaries of the Giant Sequoia National Monument--

(1) that was under contract as of April 15, 2000, the date of the designation of the national monument by Presidential Proclamation No. 7295 (65 Fed. Reg. 24095); or

(2) for which a decision notice was signed after January 1, 1999, but prior to December 31, 1999. [/b]

From clinton's proclamation... Proclamation 7295 (EDIT: fixed broken link)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Proclamation 7295")</div>

Timber sales under contract as of the date of the proclamation and timber sales with a decision notice signed after January 1, 1999, but prior to December 31, 1999, may be completed consistent with the terms of the decision notice and contract.[/b]

So, you should blame Clinton. He's the one whose proclamation clearly stated that existing timber contracts may be completed. Congress is simply following through on the proclamation.

[Marlin]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Jul 26 2006, 02:11 PM) [snapback]292668[/snapback]</div>

Logging is explicitly prohibited in the original proclamation that established Giant Sequoia National Monument.[/b]

Not true. As I showed above, the proclamation explicitly authorizes the completion of existing timber sales contracts.

[SSimon]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jul 26 2006, 01:43 PM) [snapback]292689[/snapback]</div>

Ummm, the bill in question is simply fullfilling Clinton's proclamation.

From H.R. 5760... HR 5760

From clinton's proclamation... Proclamation 7295 (EDIT: fixed broken link)

So, you should blame Clinton. He's the one whose proclamation clearly stated that existing timber contracts may be completed. Congress is simply following through on the proclamation.
[/b]

The way I'm reading your post is that any "then" existing contracts for logging would be "grandfathered" in. So far as I'm aware, and as skruse mentioned, current logging is prohibited. Designation of the area as a monument was supposed to protect the area from future logging. The current Bill is trying to see fit that this protection is overturned. Some of these trees slated to be cut are over 300 years old, if you care. They can spin the Bill anyway they want but the outcome is not positive.

Defining information on monumental status of this area: When the Monument was established in 2000 on 300,000 acres of Sequoia National Forest, conservationists believed they had finally gained protection for the 34 last remaining giant-sequoia stands in the Sierra Nevadas. Indeed, the proclamation establishing the monument banned commercial logging on the Monument.

[seasidetraveler]

skruse- Hello neighbor! I thought I was the only Fresnan on priuschat!