Proposed Monument Stirs Debate -
Opponents say it'll ruin their way of life and be a detriment to the health of
the forestland
June 27, 2010
By Paul Fattig pfattig@mailtribune.com
or 541-776-4496
The
Medford
Mail Tribune
P.O.
Box
1108
Medford
,
Oregon
97501
541-776-4411
Fax: 541-776-4376
http://www.mailtribune.com
To submit a Letter to the Editor: letters@mailtribune.com (200-word
limit)
Horse Creek, California - Looking south from near the crest of the Siskiyou
Mountains into the Horse Creek drainage his family has called home for 135 years,
Gary Rainey sees more than evergreen forests.
"This land is our way of life, literally
our heart and soul," he said. "Our cattle have been running (grazing)
here since 1875, same strain of cattle on the same land. We raised our food
from the garden. We raised the hay to feed the cattle. Everything we do is
about keeping this place healthy."
He pointed to a distant area far below where
Middle Creek and Horse Creek join before flowing into the
Klamath
River.
"Our bodies consume the water and
minerals that come out of these mountains -- this land is us," said
Rainey, 62, an Army veteran of the Vietnam War who lives on ranchland settled
by his great-grandfather from
Ireland.
"And it just tears your heart out that
this could be taken away," added the former logger.
He and his cousin, Steve Fisher, are
outspoken among
Siskiyou
County residents in their opposition to a proposed
600,000-acre
Siskiyou
Crest
National
Monument they fear would change their lifestyle and
degrade the land.
During a tour Wednesday of a southern portion
of the proposed area where the Klamath forest and private forestlands form a
checkerboard pattern, the cousins and others who gathered expressed their
concerns that a monument would impact private property adjacent to the federal
lands, resulting in decreased timber harvest from both, as well as reduced
mining and motorized recreational opportunities.
The bottom line, they said, is that the
region boasts a healthy environment, largely because of a local lifestyle
practiced over generations.
"This is about our livelihood,"
said Fisher, standing on a ridge about 15 air miles southeast of the southern
tip of
Oregon's
Applegate
Lake.
"This forest provides our economy,"
he said. "It's also where we go to hunt and fish. It's where we go to get
wood. It's where we go to make a living, where we raise our kids. Our ancestors
passed it down to us. We pass it on down to our kids. But we stand to lose it
all if it becomes a monument."
Proposed a year ago by the Ashland-based
Klamath-Siskiyou
Wildlands
Center,
the monument would stretch out along the Oregon-California state line. It would
link the
Cascade-Siskiyou
National Monument to the
Oregon
Caves
National Monument and the
Siskiyou Wilderness Area near Happy Camp.
Rising up to 7,000 feet above sea level along
the crest, it would dip down into the Rogue, Applegate and
Klamath
river watersheds. Proponents say the monument would include
existing federal land in the
Rogue
River-Siskiyou
National Forest,
the
Klamath
National Forest and the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management's Medford District.
Since it was first proposed last July, the
monument has been opposed by the timber industry, miners and off-road vehicle
enthusiasts on both sides of the state line. The Siskiyou County Board of
Supervisors passed a resolution 4-1 last summer opposing it, citing what it
said would be a dramatic downturn in an already struggling economy.
In
Oregon,
the Jackson County Board of Commissioners in a 2-1 vote in April joined its
counterparts in Josephine, Klamath, Douglas and
Deschutes
counties in approving an order urging the federal government to halt attempts
to place more restrictions on public lands until the county and other
stakeholders get a chance to weigh in. Specifically, the commissioners were
concerned a presidential proclamation could create a monument with little
public input.
In May, Rocky Reeser, a member of the
Multiuse Trail Coalition of Jackson County, submitted a petition to the county
commissioners signed by more than 3,000 off-road vehicle advocates opposing the
monument, as well as a proposed wilderness adjacent to
Crater Lake
National Park.
The
Siskiyou
County
residents gathered Wednesday said they support efforts to protect the
environment, but believe monumental protection would not achieve that goal
because it would decrease management such as forest thinning.
"My dad was a gyppo logger who logged a
lot of this country up here -- put a lot of the roads in -- and made
a good livelihood out of here for 50 some years," said Fisher, 60,
referring to a term used for loggers who traditionally logged land owned by
others.
During the tour, he pulled his
four-wheel-drive Ford pickup sporting a "No Monument!" bumper sticker
to the side of the logging road to point out a forest reborn.
"This was all logged a long time ago,
but the trees have come back," he said. "This is all natural
reforestation. And it's ready to be logged again."
However, like much of the local forestland,
it needs to be thinned to reduce the threat of a catastrophic fire, he said.
"This is a fire danger," he said. "What you've got here is
nothing but ladder fuel. That fire will climb right up through those
trees."
The forestland needs to be managed to reduce
fire danger and improve forest health, an activity that wouldn't happen under
monument management, he said.
Of the more than 300,000 acres of federal
land in
Siskiyou
County, about 205,000 acres already are
protected by various special designations, observed Danielle Lindler, 36, a
forester who also is the executive director of the Klamath Alliance for
Resources & Environment.
"If there is already this additional
designation that limits harvesting, what is the true objective of this
monument?" she asked. "KS Wild says they want to promote commercial
thinning, but what is going to change under monument designation that is not
occurring already?"
The county produces about eight times more
timber than is harvested, she said, citing federal and private statistics. Like
Fisher, she is concerned that monument protection would reduce management,
including commercial thinning, thus making the area ripe for large wildfires or
insect infestation.
Looking at the forest, she observed that more
variety is needed, such as open canopies.
"We are losing meadows because of
encroachment by the forest," she said. "But you would never be able
to reintroduce open canopy forest situations. Deer and elk and other wildlife
need those open areas for their ecological niche. If that happens in watershed
after watershed, that's not a biological benefit."
Former logger Tony Bishop, 54, now retired
from a telephone company and owner of a small ranch in nearby
Seiad
Valley,
agrees with the others that a monument would threaten their way of life.
"My son works in the woods and my
son-in-law works for the county road department," he said. "They are
trying to make it here. But we have exported our youth and we've exported most
of our private sector jobs here. This would further decimate the
community."
Mike
Adams, 60, a retired
carpenter who owns 164 acres abutting the national forestland, believes a
monument would have a negative impact on adjacent property owners.
"My property was logged a long time ago
and needs to be thinned," he said, adding he is concerned he won't be able
to manage his forestland if the monument is created.
"This land is unique but it doesn't
deserve the punishment of a national monument,"
Adams
said.
Rainey said families have lived in the region
in harmony with the mountains for generations.
"We would protect this land with our
lives," said Rainey, whose grandsons are the seventh generation connected
to the land.
"I don't often open up my Achilles'
heel, but I did two tours of
Vietnam,"
he added. "When I came home, this valley -- this land -- was the
only thing that brought me back to sanity."
He stopped talking to take a long look down
at the valley.
"I still come up here," he said
softly, adding, "It still helps."
Copyright 2010, The
Medford
Mail Tribune.
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100627/NEWS/6270328
2nd decade providing skillfully researched
information.
propertyrights@earthlink.net
Websites:
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org
http://propertyrightsresearch.blogspot.com
&
http://tips2ussavethem.blogspot.com
Also:
http://ourcommunitynewspaper.com
"Something is not constitutional just
because the Supreme Court says it is. It is constitutional if the Constitution
says it is." - Brett Pharo, January 2010.