Eshoo introduces forest-protection bill Books, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Sep 26, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, has introduced a bill in Congress to protect national forests, federal lands and wildlife refuges from aggressive logging tactics.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, September 29, 2008, 8:44 AM
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2008 at 6:48 am Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Just make it illegal for fire to burn and insects to eat forests, now that we make it illegal for anyone to profit from cutting.
Posted by Makes Sense, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Sep 27, 2008 at 3:43 pm
This bill makes sense. Public lands should be managed to enhance their ecological and recreational value and protected for future generations, not trashed by logging companies. Thank you Congresswoman Eshoo.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2008 at 4:41 am Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Wise, productive use of tree crops is the last thing greenies want - the refusal to allow salvage logging demonstrates the dog-in-the-manger philosophy of the anti logging crowd. The logged over Santa Cruz hills are a delight, while the burnt over and diseased lands are no benefit to anyone.
Posted by Mike H, a resident of another community, on Oct 6, 2008 at 6:21 pm
My neighborhood is Rogers Camp, CA (Inside the monument). We own property inside this monument. We were against making a monument and we are against it becoming part of the National Park System. You don’t live here, you don’t know the economic situation in this area, and you certainly don’t care how many lives this bill will adversely affect. Clean up your own back yard and leave ours alone!
Posted by rjb, a resident of another community, on Oct 8, 2008 at 3:52 pm
If you think this protects this land from logging you should see how much logging has been done in Seqouia Kings Canyon National Park over the past few years. It has been more than in the Sequoia National monument. Look at the Grant Grove area.
Posted by Lea, a resident of another community, on Oct 24, 2008 at 10:40 am
Bill 7090 would wreak further beaucratic havoc on Sequoia National Forest. The Giant Sequoias have been protected since the early 1900's and did not need Monumnent designation. There is no way the Dept. of Interior (Nat'l Park System) could afford or manage the vast diversity of SequoiaNational Forest, road systems, trails, private properties, watershed protection, fire protection, recreationist, ecological enhancement and protection. NPS is notoriously deficient in mgt of present resources. Check out Kings-Sequoia "controlled burn mgt program". Don't look at the internet, check it out personally all of you Bay Area enthusiasts.
Posted by Lea, a resident of another community, on Oct 24, 2008 at 10:40 am
Bill 7090 would wreak further beaucratic havoc on Sequoia National Forest. The Giant Sequoias have been protected since the early 1900's and did not need Monumnent designation. There is no way the Dept. of Interior (Nat'l Park System) could afford or manage the vast diversity of SequoiaNational Forest, road systems, trails, private properties, watershed protection, fire protection, recreationist, ecological enhancement and protection. NPS is notoriously deficient in mgt of present resources. Check out Kings-Sequoia "controlled burn mgt program". Don't look at the internet, check it out personally all of you Bay Area enthusiasts.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
