Giant Sequoia National Monument

With the general public becoming enraged about Giant Sequoia logging scenarios, here is a picture of some Bigtrees in what used to be the Sequoia National Forest. Chances are, the review will recommend keeping all groves within the Monument, adding some buffer zones and connectivity, then returning a large portion, including logging roads, skid trails, plantations and stumps, back to the National Forest.

The ‘Trumpspiracies’ abound on the Sierra Club’s Facebook fundraising content comments. They make up these elaborate and unlikely situations where the “logging companies” would come in and make wild profits off of cutting Giant Sequoias. Some think that they would be cut to burn for power. More were sure that oil wells and mining would happen once the trees were gone. One insisted that the wood could be exported, milled and made into tables, “destined for the Arabian Peninsula”. Many are comparing this National Monument review to the destruction of historical sites by radical Islam. If you’re going to oppose actual Trump era actions, maybe, just maybe, one should actually use facts?

With Sequoias being a rather sensitive issue, what shall we do, when very soon we will need to thin some of these Giant Sequoia plantations, scattered throughout the Sierra Nevada? Here’s a sample of one on the Eldorado.

8 thoughts on “Giant Sequoia National Monument”

  1. “With Sequoias being a rather sensitive issue, what shall we do, when very soon we will need to thin some of these Giant Sequoia plantations, scattered throughout the Sierra Nevada? ”

    But first Larry, not what, but how shall we determine the validity of the ” very soon,” “need to thin” claim being made here absent any supporting evidence or defensible rationale?

    Makes one wonder how such an advanced state of evolution and ecological processes we now know occurred over the countless eons prior to the advent of Homo sapiens ? (This question arising in the grip of the crises of devolution they spawned.)

    But also, who benefits from their quaint, perennial assertions of fulfilling the “need” for managerial prescriptions while donning the Creator’s mantle of “manager(s)” of the natural world?

    When validity of any questionable claim is in doubt, it is always useful to ask,
    “Qui bono?”

    (from Wiki)
    “Cui bono?” (/kwiː ˈboʊnoʊ/), literally “for whose benefit?”, is a Latin phrase which is still in use[1] as a key forensic question in legal and police investigation: finding out who has a motive for a crime. It is an adage that is used either to suggest a hidden motive or to indicate that the party responsible for something may not be who it appears at first to be.[2]

    • Remember, this plantation (and others) is purely a man-made creation, and not a ‘natural’ grove. I guess you’re saying that even plantations deserve to be a part of the “Whatever Happens” program. I really don’t know what they would do with the logs, other than burn them for power. Anyone else know of a ‘good’ use for excess sequoias?

  2. Designation of the Giant Sequoia National Monument found its impetus in mid-1980s timber sales that “required a modified clearcutting method to be used in these [Giant Sequoia] groves whereby all vegetation except the giant sequoias is removed.” The Forest Service justified this log-everything-except-the-sequoias on the grounds that doing so “would enhance regeneration of the giant sequoia by exposing the bare mineral soil which they need to germinate.”

    The Sierra Club prevailed in a lawsuit challenging the logging. The Ninth Circuit noted that “a professional forester characterized the modified clearcutting method used in the giant sequoia groves as ‘experimental, untested and certainly unproven of long-term success.'” The forester testified that each Giant Sequoia has but one mission to fulfill in its 2,000-year or more lifespan — the propagation of a single viable replacement seedling. In this forester’s view, it was presumptuous of humans to think that untested silvicultural practices that rely on ground skidding over the Sequoia’s notoriously shallow root system was essential to the Sequoia’s successful regeneration. And unwise to do so without the detailed study required by an environmental impact statement. The Ninth Circuit agreed.

    • Pretty much ancient history, in today’s world. Oddly enough, that project did produce ample amounts of Giant Sequoia reproduction. despite the heavy-handed ‘management’. Of course, that kind of project will not happen today, with the Sierra Nevada Framework still in force. The Sierra Clubbers think that Trump will just sign an executive order to release the Giant Sequoias and old growth to clearcutting. The levels of ‘derp’ have reached a fever pitch, with people creating conspiracy theories that rival chemtrails, reptilians and Rothchilds levels.

      Again, I’m thoroughly amused at how far people will go, supporting the anti-government tactics they complained about during the last Administration.


    “As to removing the dead trees, the forest service, along with the state and Tulare County, has been cutting down as many trees labeled a hazard as possible. To date, that is about 70,000 trees, or 25 million board feet. However, none of that was done as part of a timber sale, so taxpayers are paying the bill and the lumber is left for firewood or to rot in the forest.

    “The monument allows for removal of trees,” said Elliott, echoing what some of those who support the monument say, but the timber cannot be removed and it must be cut at taxpayers’ expense. And, that tree cutting is somewhat limited to only hazardous trees, such as those dead trees along roadways or in campgrounds, along utility corridors or in housing areas.

    “If I can’t sell it, I’m gong to use tax dollars to pay someone to come up and remove those trees,” he said after pointing out his budget has been severely cut this year.

    For Elliott, it is all about forest health, not the monument or timber sales.

    “My job is make these hillsides more resilient to drought, fires and climate change,” he stressed.”


Leave a Comment