High Sierra Topix

A group wants to change Sierra National Forest into a National Monument. What are your thoughts? I'll start by saying I'm opposed. I don't see what, exactly, needs to change?

http://www.sierranationalmonument.org/

Interesting that there is nowhere on their site to contact them directly without endorsing them. There's a clear difference between the forest and parks, and I think that difference in regulation is crucial in offering separate unique services to all users. Changing the forest to a monument will essentially eliminate all the services offered by the forest service, since the only difference -correct me if I'm wrong- between a park and monument is who creates it. I don't think this movement will gain any steam judging by their lack of real info on the site.

I would be opposed also. A national forest is a huge multi use land. When something becomes a national monument or a park it becomes much less so. It basically gives the boot to everyone except hikers. It's the sort of move that creates allot of animosity in so many other groups towards hikers and general environmental groups.

I also am not in favor of this. My experience is that changing to National Monument only ends up raising fees to get in, keeping dogs off trails, restricting recreational use, no hunting, more rules, less local control and input and actually more development disguised as "visitor experience improvements". I like the current mix of national parks and forest lands that currently exist - it offers something for everyone. I hope this proposal goes nowhere.

Wandering Daisy wrote: My experience is that changing to National Monument only ends up raising fees to get in, keeping dogs off trails, restricting recreational use, no hunting, more rules, less local control and input and actually more development disguised as "visitor experience improvements".

I am dead set against this proposal for exactly these reasons. It's worth remembering Edward Abbey's references in Desert Solitaire to working as a ranger at "Arches National Money-Mint."

Since the Republicans are trying to push through legislation designed to shift more control of national parks to local entities, this should be an interesting tectonic shift.....

Evilgenius32 wrote:

Interesting that there is nowhere on their site to contact them directly without endorsing them.

Here is a group opposing the sierra national monument:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/916364548384667/

Not only unnecessary, but a bad idea. The existing matrix of public and private lands has a spectrum of allowable management activities. Private timber companies with intensive management to wilderness with almost no manipulation and everything in between. Vast extents of the Sierra Nevada forest needs vegetation management and timber harvesting. Every science based organization agrees timber harvest levels needs to increase. The Sierra Nevada National Forests are only harvesting about 5% of annual growth now, and in some areas there is more old growth now than ever existed historically (to the detriment of other seral stages important to a healthy forest). The Nature Conservancy actively manages its lands, including clearcutting where appropriate, and no one asserts they are evil greedy capitalists. National Wildlife Refuges are aggressively manipulated, to the point of terraforming. The Forest Service no longer harvests timber for the sole purpose of selling timber; since about 1990 all harvesting is designed to benefit multiple resource values. In this drought many have noted the well known practice of increasing water yield by decreasing timber density -- a practice known to the Chinese circa 2500 BC and the Middle East at least 1000 BC.

All this would end with a monument designation.

Some people are stuck with the outdated and erroneous mindset all forest management activities are evil.

no hunting

Ok, does anyone here hunt? Is no hunting really a policy in all monuments? From what I read hunting is allowed in both Carrizo Plains and Giant Sequoia National Monuments and is regulated by the state dept of fish and game. Carrizo Plains does not allow lead bullets due to preying Condors, which seems reasonable. Why do people jump to conclusions?

Please see the video put out by the "STOP" the monument crowd: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3R-lSiVO18". They advocate their pre-existing agenda (prior to the monument proposal) of tearing down 75% of the forest with the motivation of getting more water into Lake Millerton, the logic being that trees just simply drink too much of the water, so of course get rid of the trees. Interesting "discussions" on the Facebook page for the monument group can be found at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sierra-N ... 94?fref=ts

and you'll see some of the faces there are associated with the movement to build Temperance Flat Dam. I give the monument crowd credit for running an open facebook page as opposed to the STOP crowd which is invite only.

Nonetheless, I have my own concerns, primarily, will open camping be allowed in the monument and will OHV usage be allowed? The forest is huge so I would expect that both of these activities should be allowed. For example, Carrizo does allow open camping in certain regions.

Most disturbing, is the recently passed senate bill SA-838 which would allow states to sell off wilderness areas to the state for development. I for one do not want to see the Ansel Adams Wilderness sold off to the protest group that made that video.

Building off the above post and others, I'm pretty sure Sequoia NM is pretty dog and dispersed camping friendly after the change over from NF. As far as cutting trees in drought as a historic practice, that had long term negative consequences when overdone. It seems like a lot of hot air on both sides maybe not worth my time until there is some clarity, sense of direction, and real action. Can anyone list changes that actually occurred after Sequoia NM designation and changes that are proposed in the Sierra NM idea? It seems like lots of OHV use is still allowed near Sequoia NM in the southern Sierra.

Have I noticed changes needed when visiting Sierra NF? No, not really. I see a lot of complaints on HST about lack of regulation enforcement in Dinkey Lakes Wilderness. I didn't appreciate lots of loud target shooting at all hours when trying to camp near Hooper Diversion Dam (Florence area) the past two Labor Day weekends.