No local support to shrink Sequoia
Iam grateful for The Chronicle’s coverage of political threats to California’s iconic Giant Sequoia National Monument, but I’d like to dispel a couple of misconceptions.
First, there is no groundswell of local support for the Trump administration’s threats to shrink the boundaries of this beloved national monument. Nevertheless, both Kern and Tulare counties’ supervisors considered submitting letters of support for these attacks on the monument. At the Kern County Board of Supervisors’ meeting, which I attended, the chamber was well-populated with monument supporters, and the item was pulled from the agenda. While the Tulare County supervisors voted to reduce the monument, the Porterville City Council voted to protect it.
Second, fire safety is a false issue. The conditions mentioned in Kern County’s proposed letter to the secretary of interior — dead and dying trees from many years of drought — describe just about every forested area in the Sierra and Southern California. The U.S. Forest Service carefully considered wildfire in its 2012 management plan for the monument. If anything, monument designation gives the Sequoia National Forest improved standing to secure funding for projects to reduce fire danger.
Instead of attacking the monument, local governments should support community efforts such as fire-safe councils. Our federal government should fund fuel-management activities. That is how lives and property can be saved.
Tom Kuekes of Bakersfield is a retired U.S. Forest Service district ranger who once worked on the district that includes a portion of the Giant Sequoia National Monument.