, February 2003
ant sequoias. All of this is based on the theory that if these trees aren’t logged, catastrophic res will destroy the Monument. Yes, it’s true—they say that they will log the forest tosave it. ey haven’t gotten the message that it’s theirlogging that has imperiled the forest.More quietly, buried deep in their environmentaldocumentation, they admit to wantingto save an objectof interest unmen-tioned in Clinton’sproclamation: thelocal sawmill. Com-mercial logging of the Monument, they write, “might makethe dierence be-tween continued op-eration and closureof the one mill available to serve the Monument.”Kent Duysen, the general man-ager of that mill, is a big fanof the Bush administration’s “Monument to Logging”plan. He told the
, “I think theForest Service is on target. My only question is, are we going far enough to hopefully prevent catastrophicre?”In other words, if the loggers and the Forest Servicekeep exaggerating the risk of re, they can keep themill open for a long time. Never mind that there’snothing stopping the Forest Service from thinning theforest near houses and businesses. ey have alwayshad free rein to protect people and property. Nevermind that in meetings with Sierra Club activists, forestocials have acknowledged that giant sequoia grovesare not at risk for catastrophic re. And forget aboutpointing out that much of last year’s re on SequoiaNational Forest burned brush, not trees.In the same
article, George Woodwell, whoserved on the science advisory panel appointed suppos-edly to guide the Forest Service in developing its plan,pointed out that the only way thescientists were allowedto provide input wasby responding toquestions from
They admit towantingto save anobject of interestunmentionedin Clinton’sproclamation:the local sawmill.
Continued on page 3