On May 18, conservation groups took a stand for a balanced future for the Sierra National Forest. The people who live near and care about our national forests deserve an explanation for why we took this action, and perhaps can then gain a better understanding of what is at stake.People too often hear about the work of conservation organizations through legal actions, which inevitably provoke conflict. But lawsuits are a last resort, something we turn to when we've exhausted all other options.Our first choice is to seek reasonable solutions that meet conservation goals and the needs of people who live and work in the woods.We support fuel reduction to keep homes and people safe. We support logging projects that are done right and follow the law. And we support the Sierra Forest Products mill owner's efforts to stay in business, create local jobs and do the critical work of thinning fuels that threaten forests and communities.What we do not support is a return to outdated, unsustainable logging practices under the false premise of fire protection.Better informationRecently, the Bush administration and the Forest Service designated federal funding to conduct a comprehensive study in the southern Sierra Nevada, including the Kings River area. The purpose was to provide land managers with better information to assess impacts on wildlife from logging projects.However, the Forest Service signed the Kings River Project decision and its logging plan before they saw the results. Since then, maps produced by the research institution in charge of the study show that logging would significantly impact sensitive forest areas. With clear disregard for the research they paid for, the Forest Service has decided to move forward with the project.We think this decision is based on a larger political agenda being dictated from special interests in Washington, D.C. And so, last week, we went to federal court to stop this administration from wasting more of our tax dollars and doing further damage to our forests in its remaining months of power.This legal challenge is not just about logging volumes and wildlife protection, but also about how we value and use public land. Good forest management can be balanced with timber interests to create solutions that support diverse uses.We have devoted a lot of time and effort to working with the Sierra Forest Products mill, the Forest Service and our representatives in Congress to find solutions to help keep the mill in business while keeping the landscape productive and vibrant.Unfortunately, to the Bush administration, big trees equal big money, even at the expense of healthy forests, abundant wildlife and safe communities.Remove small fuelsWe need fuel reduction in the southern Sierra. But the priority needs to be on removing the small fuels that feed wildfires, and preserving healthy forests. It's not necessary to take out large, fire-resistant trees that provide shade, keeping the forest floor damp and the wind down. Most fire scientists and experts agree that logging large trees can make fire conditions worse by leaving behind woody debris and opening the ground to sunlight.There is a better way to manage Sierra forests than the plan that the Bush administration has devised, and we will continue to search for collaborative solutions that balance the interests of all stakeholders.But in the immediate future, it is critical to squelch the idea that politics can trump science, and equally important to find long-term solutions for our timber mills that keep people working, comply with new scientific thinking and abide by our most basic environmental laws.Craig Thomas is executive director of Sierra Forest Legacy, a conservation coalition focused on the management of the 11 Sierra Nevada national forests.
