Logging of Giant Sequoia Monument

What good will it do?

Even voting doesn't help.

 

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

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.

 

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

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:

 

Full text of the bill is found at:

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

 

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>

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

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.

 

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

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

 

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

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jul 26 2006, 03:02 PM) [snapback]292699[/snapback]</div>

Basically, what it sounds like is that there were a number of contracts that had already been signed or were in some legally binding phase of contract signing (that "decision notice" stuff). Clinton, in his proclamation, acknowledged these contracts and gave permission for them to be completed. By allowing these existing contracts to be completed, Clinton was explicitly permitting the continued logging of the areas under contract until the contracts were completed. Logging contracts are not completed in half a day, they last for months, if not years. His statement that existing contract could be completed can not be interpreted in any other way than that commercial logging would continue in the areas under contract until the completion of the contract. You just can't be much more explicit than "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."

What Clinton's proclamation did do, however, was prohibit new contracts.

H.R. 5760 is very short and explicit. It is "ratifying" the proclamation by formally permitting the pre-existing contracts to be completed, as directed by Clinton's proclamation. The Federal government is bound by contracts just like everyone else. If it doesn't allow the contracts to proceed, then it gets sued. Perhaps that's what they should have done instead of following Clinton's direction.

As for your 300 year old trees, you should note in section (b) of the bill, it states:

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

So, unless the "for safety reasons" provision is seriously abused, the 300 year old trees will be safe.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jul 26 2006, 03:35 PM) [snapback]292718[/snapback]</div>

I would be willing to bet that there are outstanding contracts. It would not surprise me if the Forest Service, or whoever, put all operations in the monument on hold until the proclamation, and all of it's ramifications, were formally and legally sorted out. Given the glacial pace at which the Federal government acts, it would not surprise me if Congress is only now getting around to dealing with it. Therefore, it may be possible that for logging to start up again after the passing of this bill, until the contracts are complete.