99 



TESTIMONY OF THE HON. WILLIAM M. THOMAS 



BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 



SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCES 



March 10, 1994 



Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I would like 

 to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the bill, H.R. 

 2153, the "Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1993". This bill 

 would create a 442, 000 -plus acre "Giant Sequoia Preserve" in the 

 Sierra and Sequoia National Forests. A large part of this newly- 

 created preserve would be located in my congressional district. 



Let me state from the outset that I am opposed to this 

 legislation, because it is unnecessary . At this time, even 

 without the "protections" afforded by this bill , the only threats 

 to the giant sequoia are entirely natural: fire, wind, insect 

 infestation and old age. The giant sequoia is currently 

 protected by Forest Service regulations, Presidential 

 Proclamation and the 1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement of the 

 Sequoia National Forest Land Management Plan. In addition, the 

 enactment of this bill would destroy more jobs in Tulare County 

 and impose a direct cost on the taxpayers . 



There is no evidence to suggest that these existing 

 protections are in any way inadequate or insufficient. The 

 Mediated Settlement Agreement prohibits not only the logging of 

 giant sequoias themselves, but also prohibits the cutting of any 

 timber within 1000 feet of a giant sequoia. 



This bill would take over 442,000 acres of land in the 

 Sierra and Sequoia National Forests and turn it into a "Giant 

 Sequoia Preserve", where no timber cutting would be allowed. 

 Grazing would be phased out in ten years, although there is no 

 indication that livestock operations have had any impact on the 

 giant sequoias. Access, either by motorized or non-motorized 

 means, would also be restricted. Current recreational uses, 

 including camping, hunting, fishing and hiking, would be 

 permitted to continue, but the limitations on access would 

 effectively close off large areas of this preserve that are 

 currently utilized by visitors. 



The question remains: why? The answer is, unfortunately, 

 not that the current structure for protecting the giant sequoia 

 is inadequate. If that were the case, this Subcommittee would be 

 presented with evidence to support that contention. The support-' 

 ers of this legislation cannot make that argument. Instead, they 

 are relying on their vision of what reality should be and their 

 desire to impose that vision on the rest of society. 



In order to understand how we got to this hearing room 

 today, we must go back to 1988 when the Land Management Plan for 

 the Sequoia National Forest was adopted. The plan was 

 immediately challenged by just about everyone: the timber 

 industry, environmental groups, the State of California, the 

 livestock industry and various recreational groups. Instead of 



