Sierra Club Comments

I have seen a trend in postings from the Sierra Club, on their Facebook page. Online petitions have been popular with eco-groups but, those petitions really don’t do anything. They seem to be a way of riling up their followers, gathering personal information, and receiving donations. There is also a sizable amount of people commenting who do not side with the Sierra Club.

The particular posting I will be presenting regards the Giant Sequoia National Monument, and how the Trump Administration would affect it. The Sierra Club implies (and their public believes) that Trump would cut down the Giant Sequoia National Monument, without immediate action. With over 500 comments, there are ample examples of what people are thinking.


“So much of the redwoods and Giant Sequoias have already been cut down… the lumber trucks involved had signs which read ” Trees… America’s renewable resource”… and just exactly how to you “renew” a 2 thousand year old tree??? When a job becomes even remotely scarce, one must find a new occupation. Having cut down the redwoods,(RIP Pacific Lumber and the “Redwood Highway”) and when they’ve cut down the national forests (public lands), are “they” going to insist on the right to come onto my land and cut down my trees as well… to provide jobs for the lumber industry? The National forests and Monuments are public lands, and no one has the right to turn them over to private interests for money making purposes. When are they going to see that there is a higher calling here? The forests provide for much of the fresh air we enjoy… they take in the carbon monoxide we exhale, and they exhale the oxygen so necessary to us. They each also take up 300 gallons of water, so provide for erosion control, and I could go on forever with the benefits of trees… but there will still be short sighted detractors who are only able to see the dollar signs in this issue. If providing jobs is the object… bring back our manufacturing jobs from overseas, all you big companies… your bottom line profit will be less, but you will have brought back the jobs to the USA, and you claim that is the object…???? Investing in the big companies in order to get rich does not make the investing noble or honorable when it is condoning taking jobs off-shore to enrich the few. … at the cost of the lost jobs for our people. Love your neighbor..”

I think that statement speaks for itself. Well-meaning but, misinformed.


“Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Keep loggers out of National Giant Sequoia Forests. Forest rangers and the National Parks already do controlled burning when needed to protect forest ecosystem health. The idea that commerical logging companies can be trusted with that task is preposterous.”

I wonder if he had noticed all those dead trees inside the Monument. Another example of not knowing who is taking care of the Monument.


“No such thing as controlled logging look at the clear cut coast. Once you let them in they will take it all and say Oops. A long time ago Pacific lumber clear cut thousands of acres illegally and Department of forestry did nothing. Things have not changed.”

Yes, things have changed. Logging IS controlled in Sierra Nevada National Forests… for the last 26 years.


“Destroying over 200k acres of sequoias and leaving ONLY 90k acres is NOT “CONTROLLED LOGGING “. OUR planet needs trees to produce oxygen and just how long do you think those jobs will last?”

Someone thinks there is a HUGE chunk of pristine pure Giant Sequoia groves. Thinning forests is not destruction, folks.


“I went to sign this and put my address and what not but then I skipped over my phone number and it won’t let me sign it! Unless you give your phone number it’s not going to San. I will not give out my phone number. Is there another way to sign for this?”

There were many comments like this one.


“They are both classified under same genisus of Sequoia, It’s their enviroment that makes them different. The Redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) along N Cal coastline and then the Sequoias trees (Sequoiadendron giganteum) found in the Sierra Nevadas mountain regions are the same yet very different trees because of the chactoristics. Both trees share their unique and acceptional height and massive girth size, they share the same red wood tones.”

Someone thinks they are an authority in tree Taxonomy.


“As someone who works in timber, don’t blame it on us! Many foresters care about sustainable forestry. I hate Donald Trump just as much as anyone who cares about the environment”

Well, that is sure saying something, eh?


“The forests are being burned down by all these un-natural wild fires that are created by the powers that be to carry out agenda 21/30. It’s not a secret but most people don’t want to see it & the common mentality is if we don’t see it, or address it, it will go away. Right?”

There’s more and more loonies out there saying this stuff, and blaming “Directed Energy Weapons” for starting all the wildfires.


“There will be no more forest in America, it will be a big cacino and golf courses.”

And there’s other conspiracy theories out there, too!


“The most deushiest thing ever! Poor Trees “

People do believe that Trump would clearcut the Giant Sequoias.


“Oh yes look what tree hungers did to Oregon”

I love a well-mispelled insult!



I wonder what real violent crime victims think of this comparison. Should we let those trees be horribly burned alive, or eaten by insects, resulting in a long and slow starvation death? *smirk*


“Wth…. He truely is satin”

Soooo smoooooth!


“Drop big rocks on their heads. Something like Ewoks from Return of the Jedi all those years ago. Ewoks were “original” monkey wrenchers.”

That’s a lovely solution! Violence will fix everything!


“I think you could stand to be a bit less adversarial in your comments. Oil has nothing to do with this subject and devalues your argument. There is no reason why the land cannot be managed without giving it away to unregulated for-profit companies. That is the right answer.”

Yep, there just might be oil underneath those giant trees. Yep, gotta cut em all down to make sure! Misguided but, kinda, sorta, on the right path.


“The devil could burn it all down there because most of the state is so ungodly. Trump isn’t your problem. Godlessness and son keeps your minds and state in a state of anarchy. Poor people. I will keep praying you will find out that you all need to pray to the living God.”

Yep, because…. ummm, …. God recognizes where California’s boundaries are???!!??


“Try direct energy weapons”

Certainly, the Reptilians and Nibiru are to blame, fer sure, fer sure.


“Because of Monoculture”

Blame the old clearcuts!


“Anyone cutting a tree should be SHOT!!!!”

And another violent solution.


“The lumbar goes to China and else where, not used used in USA, great loose loose thing.the logs get shipped out of country destroys old growth forest well some one will make $$$$$ of it but it won’t be you”

Dumb, dumb!


“Its not about forest management its about trumps business buddies being allowed to buy the land and develop it”

And even another conspiracy theory. People love to say “I wouldn’t put it past him” when promoting such stuff.

This American mindset, on a world stage, is troubling. People proudly display their ignorance and stupidity to fight a non-existent issue. America doesn’t believe the truth anymore, and the Sierra Club, and others, are spreading misinformation through phony petitions.



13 thoughts on “Sierra Club Comments”

  1. Maybe it’s just me, but I sincerely hope this blog doesn’t become a place where people post 30+ comments they found on a Facebook page and then provide comment on each of the 30+ FB comments.

    I also think those comments are from people who commented on the Sierra Club FB page. Those are certainly not “Sierra Club Comments” in the sense that they are coming from the Sierra Club. Also, it’s entirely unclear and unknown how many of the 30+ comments posted here are from actually Sierra Club members, or even real people.

  2. The Sierra Club, et al., are notorious for posting photographs and misrepresenting them as “something environmentally evil.”

    Nothing new for them. Anything to get their points across, even though they are factually incorrect.

    Another thing they don’t know or choose not to acknowledge is that when they encourage their members/supporters to send out form letters to federal land managers, if the letters are identical or very similar, they only count as one comment. These folks need to come up with something original.

  3. this post is certainly not up to the usual standards of this website. seems like someone had to post something and was getting paid by the word.

  4. This post reminds me of the Penn and Teller “ban dihydrogen oxide” petition. I’m sure there is a video on youtube or elsewhere on the web.
    Back in the “Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management” era in the Forest Service, there was a Forest Supervisor (Orville Daniels?) who talked about the need to listen to the whispers and not the shouters. A District Ranger (Jill DuFour?) talked about the need to find out where the locals hang out to know more about what is going on. She determined that in her case, that was the local dump. That is where everyone met and exchanged info.
    There is a lot of shouting out there. As land managers, we need to remember to listen to the non-shouters (and, in many cases, find the useful nuggets in what the shouters are talking about) and find out where they hang out so we can learn from them and interact with them there.

    • I think it was useful for Larry to post this for two reasons:
      (1) It’s good for everyone, including the Sierra Club, to be accountable for what they say. Of course, they are not (nor are other interest groups nor politicians). Spreading fear is a tactic, but what is the ultimate effect on people and our cohesiveness as a country?

      (2) Many folks who read this website have not sat down and read public comments. In my experience, many respond to “what group x says about the project” rather than “what the project proposes.” People write very emotional vitriolic things and we must assume, mean them. I don’t think it’s good for the country to get people emotionally wound up based on mistruths. I mean some things are debatable but some are more black and white and I think being accurate is a good habit to get into.

      And Anonymous, thanks for the memories of Orville Daniels and Jill Dufour!

  5. There’s a long history of Sierra Club v. U. S. Forest Service regarding the Sequoia National Monument. (This is the Sierras after all.)

    “In the mid-1980’s, timber managers on the Sequoia National Forest decided it was time to log within the uncut groves of Giant Sequoias. Specimen redwoods were not marked for logging, but essentially all the surrounding trees, including ancient giants of other species, were marked for sale. (The Forest Service referred to this as “nonintensive management.”) Timber sale documents stated that the logging would improve chances for Giant Sequoia regeneration. But that was not the primary goal of the logging operations. Rather, logging was scheduled within the groves because it was one more place from which the Forest could attempt to meet its target for commercial timber production.” (In a FS research document authored by a Sierra Club attorney -

    In 1990, the FS settled a lawsuit by the Sierra Club against several logging projects by agreeing to change its forest plan. “The Forest Plan Settlement Agreement marked a decided turn-around in the Forest’s position on grove management.”

    According to the Sierra Club, “In 2005, the Bush administration officially reversed those policies by finalizing plans to allow what amounts to commercial logging in the Monument, even inside the prized Giant Sequoia groves. The administration’s plan would have allowed 7.5 million board feet of timber to be removed annually from the Monument, enough to fill 1,500 logging trucks each year. This policy would have included logging of healthy trees of any species as big as 30 inches in diameter or more. Trees that size can be as much as 300 years old.”

    In 2006 the Sierra Club won a district court case where the judge said, “The Forest Service’s interest in harvesting timber has trampled the applicable environmental laws…”

    Then in 2017, the Trump Administration proposed reducing the size of the Monument. It wasn’t unreasonable for Sierra Clubbers to believe that logging proposals for areas no longer protected by the Monument would soon follow. And, given the history, maybe not unreasonable to believe there is still a threat despite the Monument remaining intact.

    • In that 80’s example, the goal was to generate seedlings, from just three remaining giants. Yes, it does seem quite heavy-handed to clearcut the other trees but, they needed to burn off the fuels, as well as the duff layer, resulting in bare earth. Ready for seeds to take hold. I hear that the experiment was successful, with a nice carpet of young sequoias.

      The ORIGINAL management plan for the Monument included continued timber management, similar to the rest of the Sierra Nevada Framework Plan. That mandates thinning-from-below. Some 30 inch trees are old, decadent and taking up space. Better to have a more vigorous and long-lived pine, depending on conditions. An old white fir, loaded with mistletoe is the perfect 28″ dbh tree to take out. The benefits of thinning are even more acute in the parched and fire-prone southern Sierra Nevada.

      What would be so wrong about thinning projects outside of the sequoia groves (and their ample buffers)? It’s not like the Monument is some vast and pristine wilderness in danger of “destruction”, as the extremists love to say. Pretending that Trump could easily change the applicable rules, laws and policies is not rational, unless you are pushing for donations and corporate sponsorship.

      • I’m not seeing any substantive law that bars logging in the Monument. If the past legal problems were related to procedures, those procedures can be followed the next time. Plans can be amended. If it took public pressure to change past behavior, it makes sense to keep promoting public pressure. You seem to be claiming that opponents are making stuff up, but I think there’s enough truth here that they are guilty of no more than the hyperbole commonly associated with fundraising. In fact, you appear to be arguing for logging in the Monument. I’m not arguing that one way or the other – just that it is reasonable to believe that logging may occur and to use that threat for fundraising.

        • A lawsuit was won and set precedent for future logging projects. That is why no logging has occurred there, maybe since the McNally Fire (which I worked on). We’ve seen the reality of the past few years in the Monument, and it includes MASSIVE insect mortality, and no pathway to remedy the coming firestorms. Even the existing roads need hazard tree projects, or else just gate em up and wait til the wildfires take care of the severe public liability.

          Regarding making stuff up, that sure seems to be the pattern of the SC, especially lately. Hey it took GW Bush 4 YEARS to change diameter limits in the Sierra Nevada Framework. And you’re saying that clearcutting the Giant Sequoias under the Trump Administration is POSSIBLE??!!??

          Once again, what would be so bad about having more thinning?!?


Leave a Comment

Discover more from The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading