46 



Fontaine page 3 



harvest and roadbuilding would be prohibited. A panel of scientists would be 

 established to develop a management plan for the Preserve, in that way what is 

 presently known about the requirements of the Groves could be used and further 

 research to reveal their survival needs could identified and carried out. The known 

 effects of logging, certainly not beneficial since the Groves as we know them today 

 were established in the absence of logging, would not continue. Recovery from the 

 effects of the cutting that has already been done in the Groves and their associated 

 forest would be allowed to begin. A plan for restoration of the forest to a natural 

 condition, the condition that brought the Groves to us in the first place, would be 

 developed and implemented. 



The Giant Sequoias are a world class resource. They are the largest living things on 

 the earth. They are remnants of forests that once covered large portions of the Earth's 

 surface in the distant geologic past. We have no right to tinker with them without 

 knowing what we are doing. They belong to our descendants just as much as they 

 belong to us. 



Just for once why can't the Forest Service get out ahead of us on this? In my thirty plus 

 years of involvement in environmental issues on Sequoia National Forest, every 

 advance we have made has been over vehement opposition from the Forest Service. 

 The Golden Trout Wilderness was established by Congress in 1978. The Forest 

 Service wanted a Wilderness of less than half of the 300,000 acres in the final 

 legislation. The same year Mineral King was added to Sequoia National Park to make 

 sure that there would never be a huge destination resort and ski area there as 

 advocated by the Forest Service. Again we had to go to the Courts and Congress to 

 overrule plans by the Forest Service. Large parts of Sequoia National Forest were 

 added to the Wilderness System in 1983 in spite of Forest Service opposition. The 

 Courts told the Forest Service they had acted illegally when logging began in the 

 Giant Sequoia Groves in the 1980's. Currently there are injunctions on proceeding 

 with some of your proposed timber sales. Still other sales are under administrative 

 appeal by various organizations including the Sierra Club. Most of this strife has been 

 over logging. After listening to our complaints about roadbuilding and logging over the 

 years, the result has nearly always been the Forest Service continuing business as 

 usual. We have been forced to go to court or to Congress. Yet in spite of Forest 

 Service opposition we have accomplished most of our environmental goals for the 

 Forest. 



We are not writing this letter to berate Forest Service personnel or to take an arrogant, 

 ■^e know better than you" posture. It is rather a plea to see if we can't , for once, work 

 together for a common goal. I believe there is an institutional problem in the Forest 

 Service that leads to a reluctance to seriously consider what the general public has to 

 say. Highly trained professionals have a hard time listening to ideas contrary to what 

 they learned in their training which was heavily biased towards commodity extraction. 



If you really believe the proposed legislation is not the best way to manage the Forest 



