Sierra National Monument ?

[larsj]

I just read the disturbing news that there is a movement afoot to have Sierra NF declared a national monument! I think we all know this would be the end of a lifestyle as we know it. Any one else having any information or feelings about this? Site is: www.sierranationalmonument.org

lars

[mungeclimber]

No thank you.

[John]

WTF? Why?

[susan]

Thought of it makes me ill. So much for freedom of the hills.

[John]

Doesn't anyone else feel that the government as a landlord is more invasive than developers, miners, loggers, etc.? The Northern Yosemite sucks the big one because of regulation and I would hate to see this area get locked down regardless of the intent. If someone revealed some real threats I would be happy to listen. I go to the Sierra NF because it is unregulated.

[mungeclimber]

Agreed.

[NateD]

I found it interesting that George Whitmore is on the Advisory Board. He certainly likes Balloon Dome, judging from the summit register. Odd thing is, Balloon and some other special features of the loosely proposed area (no map?) they list on their website are already protected in the Ansel Adams Wilderness Area. 

I too would like to better understand the problems/threats in the area (besides that there's too much great rock to climb in one lifetime).

[daniel banquo merrick]

I would rather have a wilderness area than a National Monument. I think more governmental supervision would ruin the place. Does anybody know about the Northern Sierra Partnership? I think they are trying to preserve without government intervention. Anybody know if they are doing good work or not?

http://northernsierrapartnership.org

Jim Morgan, formerly of Applied Materials, works on many wilderness preservation projects through the Morgan Family Foundation which supported the Northern Sierra Partnership. I've met him and Mrs. Morgan (a former state senator)  a few times. My understanding is that they want nothing to do with preservation projects that involve government management because they do not think the government can manage.

I you want to keep the government out of it, we need to get somebody else interested.

[SuperDee]

The monument project does not limit access. That's not the goal. We're looking to set aside the area for recreation and wildlife. I use the area - I think more than anyone on these lists - so there is no way I would suggest limiting recreational uses like climbing.

And what about the forest health? We'll be lucky if have a forest left after this summer. And it's a lot more enjoyable to hike, climb and camp - if there is a natural area available. It needs better care than it's getting.
 
Anyway, if you are looking for a threat, beyond wildfire, there is one. The senate passed a bill, which allows the federal government to sell off lands, to state, county and private interests. See here (http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/29601-republican-senators-just-voted-to-sell-off-your-national-forests) Areas that are national parks and national monuments, would be not be on the chopping block, because they have a special protected status.
 
So if you want to ensure that you have access to a beautiful area - a monument would be the way - not selling off land to private interests, which is only going to work only for those interests. It's the best chance at keeping the area natural and enjoyable for the public.

[John]

Thanks for joining in, SuperDee. We all have questions about your proposal.

Climbers are way too used to being chased further and further into the backcountry to find some peace and quiet from regulation and for many of us, the Sierra National Forest is a unique setting with what I consider unique freedoms for California.

As a Monument we would need a permit to camp legally. I don't like that right off the bat. I can't get a backcountry permit almost ever since the ranger stations are never open when I go out to the proposed "Sierra National Monument". I find that I already avoid Wilderness areas for this reason. Specifically, I avoid Wilderness close enough to where rangers may be so I am less likely to be caught if I were to camp there. An example is, I would feel more comfortable camping illegally in Wilderness out around Jackass Lakes as opposed to around Courtright or Wishon.

Pinnacles was a NM before it became a National Park and is restricted up the wahoo now. What if SNM were to become a National Park, the next logical step in protection?

Even Camp 4 in Yosemite had to be protected from the protecting government on protected lands. They had to play yet another card of protection (Historical Landmark Protection) just to be left alone.

No off road vehicles, guns, hunting, and suddenly there would be law enforcement of said restrictions. I don't like law enforcement in the woods.

Why not reverse the bill that opened up the threat of development or selling off NF land? That seems to be the immediate threat.

[larsj]

I use the area - I think more than anyone on these lists

I doubt it.

lars

[susan]

Dee, I believe you and your group mean well. I appreciate your post. When you say, though, "The monument project does not limit access. That's not the goal." I can't help but think it would be the overwhelming side effect. Most solutions to problems yield new problems. We have to pursue better solutions that do not cause worse problems. Have you visited Yosemite or Pinnacles lately?

There is a world of difference between camping there and camping in Southern Yosemite. There's no comparison with so many restrictions elsewhere, the freedom enjoyed here is priceless.

Not saying there aren't tradeoffs. We find shot gun shells, broken bottles and other garbage too often, and our only answer so far has been to clean others messes somewhat routinely.

As far as forest fire is concerned, I hear ya. There would be one worthwhile tradeoff, to still have a forest. A lot of folks seem to say ah, well, fire is natural and it's a good thing in some ways, but the French Fire was a needless and devastating wreck caused by human neglect if not set on purpose it is so idiotic how it started. I don't think a Monument status would solve this issue, and there have to be other ways to address this.

I appreciate you raising awareness of the sale of SNF lands. I wonder what territories in particular are at stake on the map, and other ways and means we have to try to prevent this.

[susan]

And I haven't looked into this link yet but intend to that Dan posted. Thanks Dan.

http://northernsierrapartnership.org/

[SuperDee]

The logic behind choosing a monument status:
A monument enables us to change the policy - it comes with a proclamation, where you can state such things as "no commercial logging" and "no mining," and direct the management towards recreation and wildlife. Proclamations are about 3-5  pages long. The President or Congress signs them into law. Then, there is a plan that goes along with that. That's where the trails get established.
It's not as restrictive as wilderness - you see. You get to keep all the good stuff, but still have mountain bicycling, for example, and dispersed camping - there is no way I would suggest regulated camping - and that's not what a monument implies.
For me, the dispersed camping and the rugged roads are really enjoyable - so why change that? I don't want to change that at all. (Although we don't need a road to every last stand of trees...)
The parks to the north and south can have the more developed areas, but in the middle, we can keep it real.
So that's why I think a monument is a perfect choice.
In regards to fire management - that costs money - and logging the big trees (merchantable timber) - which is still a strategy of choice -  just makes it worse. We need effective controlled burns with light thinning. Restoration. And finally, just because a place becomes a park (and I am not suggesting that) - that doesn't mean it's ruined forever - have you been to Mineral King or Sequoia-Kings Canyon? What about Death Valley? That park is the size of Rhode Island - there are so many rough roads that you can destroy your vehicle easily. I worked there - and blew out every tire and my shocks in just two months - you just can't blow across the desert and leave a big scar on landscape. But there is plenty of adventure to be had. I think that's why I'm not so worried about access - I know plenty of spots where nature gets protected, and they are totally awesome, open and free. It just has to be done right.

For me, it's a risk to even mention the area - because what if everyone goes there? I wrote a hiking book and actually took chapters out that pointed in this direction - so maybe I could have this one spot to myself. I like the peace and quiet, but I am so concerned about the forest's health. I am willing to share. And this project is not exactly an easy win or easy in any direction - for that matter.

[mungeclimber]

there is no way I would suggest regulated camping - and that's not what a monument implies.

That is incorrect as a proposition. I'm not aware of any Monument that allows dispersed camping.

Logging roads are what created many of the ways we access recreation in the forest.

Further, wilderness designations do not go away assuming the mapped area of a monument overlaps the area of the wilderness.

Please provide examples of existing (aside from San Gabriels which are in transition) monuments that emulate this ideal version of a monument your are suggesting for SNF.