Regarding the article about the proposed Sierra National Monument (Aug. 21), I would like to question several points the proponents would like us to believe are relevant in justifying the declaration of 1.3 million acres of federal land a “monument” under the Antiquities Act.
Responding to a story of several thousand words with a 200-word letter is impossible, so I’ll just list a few of the many obvious phony “justifications” these people would like us to believe.
One of their goals is to eliminate commercial logging and commercial mining in the 1.3 million acres of forest: Mining is already nonexistent and logging involves a whopping .25 of one percent of the acreage.
Grazing involves a very small percentage of the forest also, and potential harmful effects have previously been addressed. What are they really trying to achieve? Creating another national park?
All of the redwood groves on federal lands have been protected for years, another flimsy argument.
In Sierra National Monument Project Director Deanna Wulff’s case, she created a project and designated herself a “project manager” to serve her personal agenda because she found pine trees chopped down in a favorite campsite. I’m sure they were diseased and removed because they were a hazard.
Tim Young, Auberry