This is obscene. Fortunately someone is aware of it. I doubt if he'll be able to get away with it.

Seeing a Sequoia in person has always been one of my dreams. I can't imagine standing beside such a tree. The combination of cutting down these awesome trees and the cost to tax payers is a SIN. The fact that is quietly and calmly going on is a SIN. The fact that a blogger puts up a blog that Sequoia's are to be cut down at a cost of $34 million dollars and there are only two responses is a SIN. Where is the outrage? Where are the cries from the taxpayers? If this same blog went up saying that while you were sleeping, the government put into motion a plan to feed all the hungry citizens of the United States, to the tune of $34 million dollars, this blog would be attacked! By noon there would be thirty responses full of cutting remarks about losers getting no more help and hungry kids not needing an occasional treat.
Where are the outraged bloggers? The taxpayers with their cries of their hard earned money? Where the hell are you now? Bush would be impeached if this were about hunger or housing. What do you think? That it can just be replaced? That it's no big deal to stand in front of such an awesome, ancient thing?

Sherye Hanson: If Bush doesn't care about re-election, what is to stop him? He was THE number one most anti-environment Governor when in Texas also. I think he's serious and does not care what Americans think anymore.

Wise Fawn: Very true what you say. There are those here who do just as you say. I laugh at how you know them so well at this point. I don't bother anymore and just come by to visit when I am done doing the net thing. This place is a habit i am breaking myself of slowly but surely. I saw a blog by Dedalus in which he quotes Mills on wasting time without objective and it was at point it applied to me.

Bush is going down and I don't think anything will save him now, so the goal of effecting the paradigm is achieved. Republicrats have no defense of him or this administration and know it.

I hear tell a rumor that Usama is in custody and being held for an opportune moment. I do not think this will help Bush either though as the economy is in a state of collapse and everyone knows it. They could care less about Usama when the President is legalizing ILLEGAL foreigners to take our jobs. I see in AZ the Republicans have endorsed a Democrat due to his anti-Bush stance on immigration, which is a big issue there.

These trees survived every President in this nations history. Talk about legacy. He's just wrong on about every issue he gets involved in anymore. John Adams reacted to adverse opinion in a way very similar to Bush. Eventually Adams became so alienated from America he declared the liberty pole a sedition pole. Like Adams, Bush will lose re-election as he is beginning to treat Americans as his enemies.

Amen and thanks for the posts and comments. bush is a stupid fucker, and i agree, he has already lost.

wisefawn, sharing the presence of one of these beasts would bring you to tears just standing there, the two of you.

I hope that both of you are right, that he's going down. And you right, eight gates, I'd cry. Gorgeous picture, can't you see nymphs dancing around them?

Bush = Wanker.

Need I expand?

maybe you could provide us yankees with an official definition of 'wanker'?

I'm sorry top say it, but the title of this article is a lie. So now in addition to economics, politics, warfare, and journalism, you are an expert on forestry?

"including trees up to 30 inches in diameter"

Did no one read this? I have trees up to 30 inches in diameter on my street, and none of them are virgin. There is a tree in my front yard that was planted 10 years ago that is now 5+ inches in diameter. 30 inches is necessarily more than 228 years old? On what do you base "older than America itself:"?

Do you think every tree in the Sequoia National Monument is a Giant Sequoia? Is there any indication AT ALL that they are cutting Giant Sequoias? The trees in that photo are at least twice the size of those specified for cutting.

What people don't understand is that what grows *between* these trees, even up to 30 inches in diameter, can be harmful to the forest as a whole. Some species of tree simply doesn't live forever healthily. They bend, spit under their own weight, and become fire hazards. Do you want to preserve the smaller trees and risk the ones you seem to love so much? Nature's method for thinning forests is fire. Should it be left to nature? When they burn will you accept responsibility, or will you just ignorantly blame the government for not doing anything about it?

---

"Growth & Development

Coast redwoods may put on six, eight or even more feet of height in a single season whereas the giant sequoia is more likely to grow about two feet in height per year throughout its first fifty to one hundred years. On the other hand, the massive trunk of the giant sequoia continues to grow - increasing its overall volume - at a rate far surpassing that of any other tree. Growth rings one half inch in thickness are common in young giant sequoias under optimal conditions. This amounts to an increase of one inch of diameter per year. And rapid growth is likely to continue even when the trunk has become one hundred or more feet in circumference. By then the annual growth rings may have become narrower, but the overall volume of growth may be continuing at the same or an increased rate."

---

According to the quoted article, the trees in question could easily be less than 100 years old, and quite possibly less than 50. I would like to see some reliable information stating that Giant Sequoias are being cut, and in lieu of that, I would think this article should be amended in consideration of honesty.

Trees are a renewable resourse. I personally will be looking to buy furniture made from these "National landmarks".

Cut 'em GW, cut 'em. You have my vote!

Thank you BakerStreet for the informative post.

I am not at all in favor of cutting Giant Sequoia, and I don't think for a moment that is the intention of the program stated.

(circumference/pi = diameter)

Considering a tree with the circumference of 100 feet has a diameter of approximately 30 feet, I don't think trees with diameters up to 30 inches are going to qualify as "giant". The stated limits here would make the largest trees cut a bit less than 8 feet in circumference. I live in a suburban area, and my neigbor has a larger tree than this limit in his backyard.

Considering up to an inch of growth a year, a lot of these trees aren't even as old as me, much less "older than America itself". I'm hoping Wahkonta will rethink this post. It is misleading at best.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to cut the biggest ones either, BUT! If there's one that's 3,200 yrs old, then there's one 3,199 yrs old, and on down the line to 1yr old.
We're not going to cut them all, so the life line won't be broken, and they'll be renewed. Simply explained, but I think you get my point. And I got yours.
Good post.

Still waiting for proof that Bush intends to have Giant Sequoias cut, Wahkonta. I would like to know how you know

"trees older than America itself:"

is accurate, considering trees grow at a rate up to an inch in diameter a year, and the biggest trees cut are 30 inches in diameter. I am waiting to see if you are purposely misrepresenting facts, or if you are just innocently passing on false information.

Putting my two cents in again......

"It is important that you all understand that we at Sequoia ForestKeeper are not against post-fire restoration, just the cutting of large trees in the name of forest rehabilitation. Scientific studies have found that restoration is much more effective and has less of a negative impact on species if smaller trees, 15 inches in diameter and less, are taken out after a fire."
http://www.sequoiaforestkeeper.org/currentprojects.html

"These fantastic trees are great monuments of nature, but they are all most gone. Today it is illegal to cut down Sequoias because they are rare. But everyone must do their part to protect the forests and these trees so they do not become extinct."
http://library.thinkquest.org/J002415/Facts/History/history.html

"Why the Management Plan Doesn’t Work
The Social Values table of the FEIS states that 1.5 million cubic feet (7.5 million board feet) of wood products will be removed from the Monument per year in the first decade; and 4,050 acres will be logged each year. These were the only figures listed for social values, which makes one aware that the Forest Service’s only social values are measured by the number of trees cut for the saw mill.

If logging could reduce the chance of wildfire, the more than 2 Billion board feet of trees logged from Sequoia National Forest since 1965 and the hundreds of billions removed from all national forests should have made the forest fireproof.

The Monument FEIS and ROD specify logging up to 30 inch diameter trees, and larger, to prevent catastrophic fires, but the FEIS fails to analyze an alternative that would remove the brush, lower branches, and small diameter trees (up to 4 inches in diameter) which are the most flammable materials in the forest. Removing these flammable materials would protect the large trees that are the essential elements of the old forest ecosystem that must be protected. Trees that have grown to a diameter of 30 inches are over a century old, and should be preserved for their integral role in a healthy forest ecosystem.

The Forest Service’s modified Alternative 6 would allow openings called “gaps” to be created up to two acres in size, and in some instances larger, supposedly to encourage sequoia seedling regeneration. Such gaps have been created by the Forest Service in the past and are partially responsible for the catastrophic fire conditions they are now trying to counter. Previous clear-cuts have shown that the predominant vegetation that returns after a clear-cut is highly flammable brush.

The FEIS fails to protect communities by specifying defense and threat zones as 1.5 mile wide treatment areas around communities. This misapplication of the fire science, which actually only requires 200-foot wide treatment areas immediately around structures, is a fundamentally arbitrary and capricious use of the Forest Service research and a failure of the FEIS to provide a truthful analysis of the available science.

The Pacific Fisher’s declining population could eventually be forced to extinction under the current Monument management plan due to logging in their habitat. Any disturbance, particularly mechanical treatment, can cause them to flee an area and become more vulnerable to predators and poachers.

Despite the dire consequences for the ecosystem within the Monument from the construction of roads, and the fact that the Monument already contains 900 miles of road that are more than sufficient to meet any recreational needs of the public, the Forest Service plans to construct more roads within the Monument, even though the Forest Service currently has a $14 billion road maintenance backlog that they cannot fund. The maintenance strategy for new roads would be to continue to request funds to reduce the maintenance backlog and keep the road system in acceptable condition. With the entire nation in the midst of a budget crisis and the Forest Service’s budget recently cut by $7.5 million, obtaining funding for road maintenance would be difficult if not impossible. The Forest Service will not be able to maintain the areas proposed for logging or prevent them from becoming flammable brush fields.

The Forest Service has subsidized damaging logging projects with American tax dollars for the past 50 years, and now expects us to keep paying to rectify their previous mistakes. Is it fair that we, as hard working taxpayers, should have to foot the bill so that the timber companies can get richer, while we citizens struggle to pay our own rent each month? Modified Alternative 6 is the most expensive management plan, whose implementation will cost us $34,386,100. $13,994,000 of that total is for mechanical thinning of conifer trees (logging)."
http://www.sequoiaforestkeeper.org/currentprojects.html

The overt, unmistakable gist of Wahkonta's article is that Bush intends to cut Giant Sequoias. As WiseFawn says, there have been "more than 2 Billion board feet " of lumber taken from this exact forest with no harm done to the trees in question. I see nothing in this article or anything linked that implies that the Bush administration has an intention of cutting these trees.

Also, I find that "Trees that have grown to a diameter of 30 inches are over a century old," differs with the stated fact that Giant Sequoia can grow up to an inch of diameter per year. Regardless, many species of tree simply do not live to be hundreds and thousands of years old healthily. They grow old, they bend under their own weight, and split in high wind, becoming fire hazards.

Again, this is a gripe with no alternative. In the end, people would rather do nothing than log, and then when the forests burn, they would blame the government for doing nothing. I maintain that this blog article is innacurate and misleading, and that in lieu of any other suggestion, this is the right thing to do.

Letting it all burn once every twenty, or even one hundred years is not an acceptable answer to me. It wastes useful lumber and risks ancient trees that should be left to grow.