Siskiyou Crest: California's next National Monument?

 

The Siskiyou Crest is a splendid refuge, especially if you're a pacific fisher or a mountain lion. The east-west range links high-altitude habitats, providing a migratory path for animals that don't like to venture down to the lowlands. Hundreds of species, such as the Siskiyou salamander,  exist nowhere but in this ecological crossroads along the California-Oregon border.

Now a team of activists and scientists, spearheaded by the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, are pushing for federal recognition of the area as a national monument.

It may be an uphill battle: compared with such national jewels as Yellowstone, with its burbling geysers, or Glacier National Park with its roaring grizzlies, Siskiyou has garnered little attention.

Today, a group of Siskyou fans will hike into the forest, snapping shots of rare wildflowers and sweeping vistas on a nine-day, 90-mile expedition. The project's motion-detecting cameras will aim to capture shots of rare carnivores such as the elusive wolverine.

"The Siskiyou Crest is a world-class landscape -- an epicenter of biodiversity and a place deserving of federal protection," said Laurel Sutherlin, a grass-roots organizer with KS Wild and the trip's leader. But the crest is also "a little known area that few people have experienced firsthand," Sutherlin noted. 

-- Amy Littlefield

Photo: The Siskiyou Crest is home to many rare species of wildflowers. Credit: http://www.siskiyoucrest.org/; used with permission

Comments

[Happy camper]

I feel that the reasons behind this LAND GRAB are based on psuedo-science and propaganda. The families living here have been here for thousands of years and we are just temporary inhabitants? And we need to think about the wildlife that will be here after we are gone? The only reason our family will be leaving is when our homestead is stolen by KSwild. I have a suggestion for you, remove happy camp the the communities directly on the klamath river from the monument zone and this may actually be a good thing that passes. Please do not destroy the lives, histories and futures of our communities. This is far from over, we will fight this LAND GRAB to the bitter end.

[Petey]

I do not know how to open a typeKey or Type Pad account but would like to comment, especially to the person who thinks we are all temporary and people shouldn't matter. If it was your family and grandparents, perhaps you would have a different viewpoint. People are important to most of us, if not in general, at least those who we love as family and friends.
The Karuk Tribe of CA has lived here sinde 8000, they think before, so who are all us newcomers to come and say that they can't live here nad live the lifestyle that their forefathers have before them.
We who lives here are the ones who know the dangers to the forest. We knew about the little Siskiyou Salamander before all the "experts" found and decided to SAVE him.
We are the one's going out to fight the invasive weeks that reall endanger the habitat. We are the ones who take the Boy Scouts out to improve habitat for the elk. We also hope to save our home and town from the ravages of wildfire and we hope and pray that no firegighter will be injured or die in trying to protect our homes. but it happens.
Please remember this is our home. We don't come into your home and tell you whether you can do your hobby or recreation. We don't even come and tell you to keep your pets out of your backyard. Why do you want to have this power over our lives?????

[Matt Rollins]

This effort seeks to grossly expand on the already existing Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, comprised of 52,947 acres of BLM and 32,000 acres private land (designated by presidential proclamation in 2000 by President Clinton), and Oregon Caves National Monument. Joseph Vaile, leader of environmental action group KSWild and his supporters, situated in the lap of luxury Ashland, Oregon, a town with a high population of ascetic communists and "trust fund endowees", show themselves to be not only idealistic extremists, but misanthropic, sociopathic, and unAmerican as well. Through their effort to expand this area to engulf an unbelievable 600,000 acres of land rich in lumber and mineral resources in both California and Oregon, the National Monument designation will close those lands to ANY timber harvesting, mining activities, and Off Road Vehicle use.

Can this country afford to strip its citizens of the availability of these natural resources to create an enormous area off limits to all but hikers? In these economic hard times, where are Americans to turn for these natural resources? China? Can America afford to disenfranchise its citizens of the availability of jobs managing these natural resources? The starry-eyed extremists point to potential job creation by the Federal government to maintain the area, but where are the revenues to create these typically low-paying jobs going to come from with the nation running record deficits? The resources generate their own revenues to pay workers to manage them.

[John]

“that any proposal for a National Monument or portion of a National Monument in Siskiyou County must actively coordinate and seek approval of the Board of Supervisors on behalf of the citizens of Siskiyou County prior to any formal consideration for National Monument status…
“Now therefore, be it further resolved that the proposal for a National Monument north of the Klamath River in Siskiyou County, known as the Siskiyou Crest National Monument, is opposed by the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors,”

really aint gonna happen new county resolution...

[John]

ain't gonna happen, a bunch of crazy hikers...

I hope their hike goes into hunting season starting next week.

Here is a wikipedia quote on that so called biodiversity, mother nature snuffed it this area 7 years ago:

"The Biscuit Fire was a wildfire that took place in 2002 that burned nearly 500,000 acres (2,000 km²) in the Siskiyou National Forest in the states of Oregon and California. It was named after Biscuit Creek in southern Oregon.

The fire season in 2002 was an especially active one that started early with major fires in Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico, pulling resources from the Pacific Northwest. Between July 12 and July 15, a series of lightning storms occurred in California and Oregon starting hundreds of small wildfires. During this period, five such fires were started within a 20 mi (32 km) radius of each other near the state border. Due to the fires already burning in other areas, insufficient numbers of fire crews and smokejumpers were available to combat these fires and they began to burn out of control. The large Florence Fire, which had started approximately 30 mi (48 km) north of the border, eventually joined what was known as the Sour Biscuit Fire which was burning very close to the border. Once the massive Biscuit Fire was created, it could not be fully contained until December 31, 2002.

The fire destroyed 4 primary residences and 10 other structures, put 15,000 residents on evacuation notice and burned most of the 180,000 acre (728 km²) Kalmiopsis Wilderness. Despite the level of destruction, there were no deaths attributed to the fire.

Since the fire, the United States Forest Service has been trying to log most of the severely burnt area, despite ecologists' concerns about the Port Orford Cedar, which is threatened from a root fungus that is most commonly spread on car tires and shoes. This will be the largest recorded timber sale in U.S. history, and a landmark case setting the future for all fires in national forests.

In 2006, a controversial paper on the effects of post-wildfire salvage logging caused a minor controversy within the forest sciences community."

if they want to hike, they can hike the trinity alps wilderness, lava beds national monument, the mt shasta wilderness, or the pacific crest trail.

not to mention your federal law states that taxpayers are required to reimburse local siskiyou county in lost property taxes for all federal lands on county land. Last time I check the feds were running the highest deficit to GDP on record...

but who cares about that, its all about hiking and looking at pretty flowers that bloom for a little bit in summer. They are everywhere, and all over private logging lands...

[Changtana Miguni]

Jackson County, has a total of
2800 square miles X 640 acres per square mile =1.8 million acres.

Now, The Klamath/Siskiyou Wild Project wants 600,000 of those acres.
+ a 'Variety of Wilderness Groups" Want 450,000 acres Wilderness around Crater Lake + the Existing Wilderness that Peppers our Region already.
1.8 -1.05=Yikes they Want EVERYTHING!
Now I must agree with that bumper Sticker.
'It's not about Green, It's about Greed'
We of this County will be left in a 'Depressing Gulag of Unemployment'
While a few Hardy Hikers Can Frolick on Excursions in their Version of Nirvana.
They will be nothing left but a narrow corridor thru Hwy 5 for Multiple Use.
Yes I know, some of the acreage 'spills' over slightly into other counties, but they majority is in Jackson County, or Connected Directly to Us.
How absurd and Greedy.

[Lot of Water]

NO WAY! It is beautiful now let us keep it like it is. There has not been any logging on those public lands for 2 decades. The citizens made good forest planning over 20 years ago and now we are seeing the results. Growing stands of trees that can be accessed for multiple uses of recreation. Monument equals nothing but future closures to every citizen in the US. There is over 2 million acres within an hour that has some sort of federal designation that has locked these lands out of public access or management. Such as National Park, Wilderness, Proposed Wilderness, Wild and Senic, Plant buffer, Wildlife buffer, Roadless areas, Owl Corridor, Stream Buffer. on and on.
Enough is enough I like to visit my forest like it.

[Changtana Miguni]

Retraction!, Retraction!.
Today Sunday, I went for a ride and short hike on the 'infamous' Road 098.
Which at it's end, is the Start of the Bottom of the Trail of the Red Buttes Wilderness Land Mass.in the Sucker Creek Drainage. Leading up into the Higher Country.
My Letters to Newpaper Forums, Congressmen, Senators, and I believe Some Ranger Districts, Around 2006, as this was the Poster Child of neglected trails around 2005-2006 apparently embarassed somebody.
It is now Clear, and I humbly retract using disgust of it's past unhikable condition to rant in this forum.
I would rather admit my error now, than compromise truth and my integrity.
Othopedic problems that a walking stick couldn't overcome, made Chang, not happy with Wilderness Dictates.

[Applegate]

The Cascade Siskiyou National Monument is an example of what will happen if we get this new Siskiyou Crest Monument. Access cut off ! I can't ride my light weight mountain bike on the old roads in the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument , but a 1200 pound horse is ok! Talk about stupid rules! Remember the Schohiem road ? It is off limits. The Siskiyou Crest Monument Idea is all about keeping everyone out except the hikers and horeseback riders.

[Rick E]

I hope everyone will continue posting here. I also hope substantive issues will come to light, as I am undecided about this issue.

I respond well to the general notion of wilderness preservation but can be persuaded by posts like Siskiyou Citizen's -- "For the uninformed, most of the public land in the proposed Monument is already under some type of federally designated protection such as Designated Wilderness, Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Management on the federal lands is almost non-existant. This would do nothing but increase the risk to the area. KS Wild supposes this would create jobs by conducting thinnings and road decommissioning. In fact, this would only further prohibit future projects that are needed in the area to protect it from catastrphic fires."

I react very negatively to angry, undocumented, blaming posts like Siskiyou's
-- "The only thing that needs protection is the hard working Americans that live in and around this area KS Wild is proposing for a monument. .... Give us break already. Go protect something in your backyard." Comments like this just personalize, polarize, and probably cause others like me to dismiss them.

Let the arguments continue, but keep the points focused on what's best for the land and eco-systems long term, not on the self-serving opinions of temporary inhabitants -- which we all are.

Rick E

[Halle Merrill]

Great thanks to KS Wild and active proponents of this monumental endeavor.

[Changtana Miguni]

Look at the embedded video in the Klamath/Siskiyou Wild project website.
Does this area need protection? If it is so pretty as the video depicts, why in it's multiple use state.....as it is....need more protection, as a total lockup.
This area is open to multiple use, has been for decades. The trail maintainance/ clearing has been done by volunteers of the local motorbike club, In areas that are multiple use.-Accessable to all Americans Old and Young.
Now, compare this to the locked up, adjointing Wilderness Area, The Red Buttes....The trails off of Forest Service Road 098, (which is the end of Motorized access).....then walk or horse only.... in the Sucker Drainage, where they are starting their hike, is overgrown, timber of every diameter criss/crosses unhikable trails. Also, the Brush has overgrown on the trails, so severely,that you have to push your way thru, exposing yourself to ticks.Just another Radical Land lock up....trust me, I live here. Just look at the Organizations Name, K/S Wild, that explains it all.

[Miss Kitty]

The Siskiyou Crest National Monument will in fact enhance forests, non-motorized recreational opportunities, and nearby communities. It is statistically shown that such gateway communities enjoy greater prosperity than those which have destroyed their natural resources for a quick buck. The monument proposal specifically includes plans for active restoration of previously logged areas and fuels management projects that are scientifically-sound. It also includes restoration plans for streams that provide crucial salmon habitat.

The paranoid & ignorant neocons would like for you to believe that the UN & enviros are conspiring to push red-blooded Americuns off of our public lands. The reality is that a National Monument would help protect our drinking water, mitigate against climate change, and enhance our communities' abilities to move beyond the boom & bust old growth logging economic model that has already so dismally failed them.

[Siskiyou Citizen]

My Backyard,
the facts are:
1) Rough and Ready is not in Siskiyou County, not even in CA. I've spoken only about Siskiyou County mills. Rough and Ready is a demension mill, they use saw logs not peeler logs. They would like to have large logs, but they don't need oldgrowth. By the way, R&R is also FSC certified and I believe they work under the mixed credit system which means it would be very difficult for them to use old growth.
2) the Jack timber sale was a 2008 Joesephine County sale of 175 mbf (thousand board feet). It was not on the Klamath. While I didn't see the logs the primary log sold was a doug fir #4 and better for $226/mbf. Not exactly old growth prices.
If by chance you mean the Jack sale that was logged in 2005 in Scott Valley (that was proposed in 1997), it was exactly the type of thinning project that needs to be done in the Siskiyou's. It was in an oldgrowth stand but the trees were the small understory trees. KFA objected to this because in their words "an old growth tree can be 2" (in diameter) that's the problem". You can see why I fear the black helicopters (actually the helocopters are ok, it's the tie die and dreadlocks I fear). These people have no common sense. To make objection to cutting down a 2" tree is rediculous and is the exact type of objection we will get in a national monument and they are exactly the type of trees that need to be cut down to provided resources to the larger overstory trees. So yes, you are right that it was exclusively old growth but the trees were the smaller size class found in the stand. By your definition we could not thin in any old growth stand because it would be "exclusively old-growth".
3) You are right, plenty of thinnigs are being done, I never said they weren't. Mt Thin in Mt Shasta is a perfect example...but these do not come without significant opposition. A monument designation will only strengthen the opposition. And you've already stated you were opposed to the last thinning project proposed in old growth.
4)Monument designation is not needed to do thinnings but I gaurantee that it will make thinning more difficult and more expensive. How do we think after roads are decommissioned? How do we control fire without access?
5)Please site your source on the private lands sales, I truely hope I'm wrong on that account. I'll try to find the source where I read private sales would be restricted and provide it.

[In My Backyard]

Siskiyou Citizen is short on facts and long on hyperbole.
You should write for the Pioneer Press!

Facts:

-The Rough and Ready Mill still wants old-growth peelers from federal lands.
-The Jack timber sale, logged recently on the Klamath, was exclusively old-growth.
-Plenty of thinning is being done with the buy-in of enviros and communities.
-Monuments don't preclude fire management.
-Private land in the Monument could be sold to anyone, not just the Feds.

But I can't help you with your fear of Black Helicopter, the UN and creeping socialism...

[Siskiyou Citizen]

If the Forest Service were allowed to offer economically viable timber sales those "old erosive roads" that Joe F speaks of could be fixed and maintained. The reason that they are old and erosive is because the FS doesn't have the money to fix them. Making this a monument won't change that fact. The private logging roads in that same area are built and maintained to a much higher standard, including outsloping and crossing designed to withstand 100 year flood events. And just for comparison....CALTRANS build roads to withstand 50 year events.

[Siskiyou]

To think that this area is going to be actively managed to reduce fire and perform watershed restoration projects is incorrect. The politics of doing any forest improvement projects on monuments nation wide is complex to say the least and a great way to waste taxpayer dollars. The sad thing is that KS wild has been responsible for much of the non-management of government land in this area, and to think that because it’s a monument they are going to allow it is crazy. They will be filling appeals against the monument just like they do all other government projects. The notion that people are going to be working in the woods again is misleading and simply wrong. What is the difference between a monument and a Wilderness anyway? Isn’t the red buttes already a wilderness? I guess we need another 500,000 acres around it for safe measures.

[Joe F]

As a resident of the Siskiyou Crest region, I am very excited about the newly proposed monument. I am especially excited by how much publicity our area has received in just a few short months since the monument was proposed. Decommissioning old erosive logging roads is at the top of my wish list. Thank you KS Wild!

[Siskiyou Citizen]

Let's see, when was the last thinning project completed in the Giant Sequoia NM?? Hopefully I'm wrong but the proposed projects were opposed and litigatted. Some of you are right, there is nothing in the designation of a NM that would preclude such activities. The fact, however, is that it's simply another bullet in the chamber for environmental groups to use when protesting planned projects. And AGAIN, most of the land in this proposed monument is ALREADY protected. In case you haven't looked at a map, this proposed monument includes THOUSANDS of acres of private land as well as the federal lands. One account I read said that the owners of these private lands would not be allowed to sell their land to anyone but the federal govt. Lets see, in a county and state struggling to balance budgets lets take away more of the tax base and give it to the feds. Even if the feds didn't buy it the tax base would decrease because the value would immediately be lowered.

I'm curious when all of you think all this "controlled" burning is going to occur. With stricter and stricter air quality mandates there are litterally only a handful of days a year when burning is even allowed. Now throw in AB32 and lets see all the lawsuits that will get filed because of the release of all that carbon. Even if we could start to burn some of it, it will take decades, if not centuries, to get a handle on the fuels. The natural fire interval in that area is 7-15 years. There is no way the FS could ever burn 10% of that monument every year in a controlled fashion And to suggest that fire threat is industry code for lost logging opportunity is a perfect example of how uneducated some are on the subject. The timber industry does not need federal timber. The infrastructure of decades past has long since been torn down. There are only two mills in Siskiyou County and they can operate on 100% private timber. There is no one in the county that has the ability to mill old growth logs anymore. In fact many proposed federal timber sales aren't even bid on. And to ask someone to invest in a mill or other facility that would be able to take the biomass from such thinnings would be rediculous without some sort of assurance that the proposed projects wouldn't be litigated. If thinnings can't be made financially viable now, making this a monument will only make them more expensive to prepare and defend in court. The last proposed thinning project I visited in this area was a helicopter sale. It was helicopter because they new they would be sued if they proposed any sort of ground based operations (the area was already fully roaded). It was going to cost them 4x more to yard the trees then they were worth. That doesn't even count getting the material on a truck and to a mill. Here's an idea, why don't all you who want this a monument pay for all the thinning projects out or you own pockets. The rest of us will sit back and watch you go bankrupt like our govt's already have.

I spend a lot of time in the proposed monument recreating every year.....it doesn't need more protection. It's being protected to death.

[t.b.]

there has not been any logging in this area for 20 years on public lands.
i knew the red buttes wilderness before it was a wilderness , and now that it is a wilderness it has many times the human impact than it did before this proposed monument will just cause more impact by human activity

[Pyrolysis]

"Threat" of fire in the Siskiyou is industry code for "lost logging opportunity" intended solely to provoke public opposition through fear. Fire is an essential ingredient of the area's world class biological diversity. Some of its unique plant species like Baker's cypress require fire to reproduce. Fire exclusion sponsored by Smokey Bear leads to extinction. Siskiyou forests need more fire, not less. Repeated scientific investigations show that the area is not subject to disruption of historical fire regimes that lead to uncharacteristically large or severe fires, as is the case in the southwest or northern Rockies. Fuel reduction is warranted in some locations, especially near communities to protect human settlements and critical infrastructure like municipal waterworks, and I have enjoyed living-wage employment in such jobs. However, fire restoration including labor-intensive prescribed fire will support sustainable ecosystems through an era of climate change. All local plants and wildlife have adapted to it in one way or another. Go KS Wild go!

[Shane]

This is an excellent idea. Nothing in a National Monument designation would prevent restoration thinning, fuels reduction projects or other work to reduce the risk of unnatural wildfire. All of which are problems caused by BLM and Forest Service management over the last century. In fact that is an excellent way to make sure restoration and protection does happen.

National Monuments are for the people - no one gets locked out unless you plan to destroy the place. And only those types of people would object to this excellent idea. This place is a world class biological treasure worthy of every effort to protect it.

Good luck, and perhaps a little of the Hope I voted for can go toward this goal.

[In My Backyard]

I've hiked the Pacific Crest Trail through the proposed Monument, and I live adjacent to it.

And let me tell you I've seen enough Forest Service and BLM logging units to last me a lifetime.

A Monument does not preclude fire management. Nor does it keep people out of the Forest.

It would, however, protect the landscape and biodiversity from old-growth logging and additional logging road construction.

A hearty "yes please" to the Monument from this local.

[Joe]

What makes you say it would be precluded by monument? Fuels reduction happens all the time in monuments. Don't be silly.

[BT]

What must be remembered is that the attributes of this area are threatened most by wildfire. The best way to protect against wildfire is not with a federal designation of a National Monument, but by treating the excess fuels that currently exist on the ground. This would be precluded if it is designated a Naitional Monument.

[JR]

Here we go again. We're going to declare another piece of beautiful land off limits to the everbody but the environmental elite and their buddies. The wackos won't be satisified until we are all riding bicycles and living in teepees where the deer and the antelope play. And what jobs will be created? Minimum wage "green" jobs or jobs for the environmental elite? What about joe sixpack who has to make a living elsewhere because his way of life was just snuffed out by a bunch of do gooders.

[Joe]

I live in this area and I fully support a monument. These are public lands, owned by all Americans and should be enjoyed by everyone, not just private timber industry that would destroy them. I read that the monument would be managed for restoration - there would be thinning of overgrown tree plantations that would provide timber out of the monument. The two previous posts need to get a grip and realize the time has come to protect this place and actively manage it for the greatest good for the greatest number.

[Siskiyou]

The only thing that needs protection is the hard working Americans that live in and around this area KS Wild is proposing for a monument. Putting more land under protection will consequently mean larger fires and more risk to human life, not to mention the massive evaporation of natural resources. This can easily be seen throughout the west. What’s not understood by many is that most of this area is already protected. Why can’t people be happy with the wilderness areas and other set asides that exist and leave the Forest Service to manage what they can of the rest. As far as wildlife goes there are benefits to mosaic landscapes that land management offers that monuments will never mimic. Environmental protection has done enough to stifle the timber industry and these rural communities of Siskiyou County, just look at our unemployment rate. Give us break already. Go protect something in your backyard.

[Siskiyou Citizen]

The last thing we need for the Siskiyou's is another layer of govt envolvement and "protection". For the uninformed, most of the public land in the proposed Monument is already under some type of federally designated protection such as Designated Wilderness, Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Management on the federal lands is almost non-existant. This would do nothing but increase the risk to the area. KS Wild supposes this would create jobs by conducting thinnings and road decommissioning. In fact, this would only further prohibit future projects that are needed in the area to protect it from catastrphic fires. The proposed thinning proposed in the Giant Sequoia NM were opposed by environmental groups suck as KS Wild and are still fighting their way thru the court systems. All while the risk increases.

Siskiyou County is rooted in an environmentally based heritage and economy. Think about where the wood in you houses and decks come from, and where your food comes from before you proclaim how great it would be to add yet another hurdle to the regulatory nightmare that already exists.

[TD]

I'm all for it! Looks lovely.

[Joe]

The Siskiyou's are an amazing mountain range that certainly deserve protection. While they are relatively unknown, everyone who visits this corner of America is awe-struck. After eight years of unraveling environmental protections under the Bush administration, it is time to start protecting important landscapes such as this. In the face of climate change, places with high levels of biodiversity will very important places to protect as a refuge for plants and animals adapting to the changing climate.

[Rick]

I support and applaud those advocating for this new Siskiyou Crest National Monument. This is indeed "an epicenter of biodiversity." As such, it needs and deserves federal protection just as much and perhaps more than those areas of spectacular scenic beauty that have already been protected. It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and for me the Siskiyou Crest is beautiful because of its enormous bounty of biodiversity. And biodiversity supports essential ecological systems and processes, whereas nice scenery does not.