Listen to Audio
Regarding changing to Park

Sam Stearns, John Wallace, Les Winkler & Glenn Poshard have started this purposal because of their own beliefs that any type of logging is bad for the environment. Having been shut down by the Federal Court and with climate change clamoring in the media, they believe it is the perfect time to try another approach.

.1. Waste Management 2. Air Pollution 3. Things Are Getting Old 4. Wildlife Trouble 5. Invasive Species* 6. Climate Change 7. Water Shortages 8. Tourist Attraction: Too Much and Not Enough 9. Budget Problems 10. Energy

The National Park Service would have to be forced by Congress to take the management of the Shawnee National Forest. They do not take control of any land that is being protected by another agency. They have a standard copied from their website for those who want to read about it.

Former Activist who explains what is really being proposed. Link to this article: https://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/2023/10/29/selling-wilderness-like-a-used-buick-1998-when-everything-changed-jim-stiles-zx86/

An article written published in the Earth Island.org magazine

An example letter to any authority, business or entity that will be impacted by making the Shawnee a national park instead of national forest.

Link to website by activists pushing the change.

EarthIsland.org sues Yosemite stopping their new policy of using chain saws and fire. Decades of research have shown that the wilderness appreciated by early European settlers, as well as 19th century naturalists like John Muir, was often a highly managed landscape. Most experts involved in the debate say it is not a question of whether forest thinning should be allowed — but how much needs to be done.

As with many political movements, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact origins of proforestation. While the forestry community has faced similar challenges before, widely read journals and op-eds in major news media have given the issue nationwide publicity in recent years. Proforestation is founded on the belief that, in the face of climate change, we can maximize carbon sequestration and storage through a halt on all forest management activities. It can therefore be viewed as an extension of the age-old preservationist philosophy with a modern flair.

Proforestation advocates are pushing lawmakers to set aside public lands as unmanaged, permanent reserves. If our goal is reducing atmospheric carbon, then looking only at forest growth paints an incomplete picture. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognizes active forest management will yield the highest carbon benefits over the long term because of its ability to mitigate carbon emitting disturbance events and store carbon in harvested wood products.

When naturalists like John Muir first entered the Yosemite Valley of California in the 19th century, they marveled at the beauty of what they believed to be a pristine wilderness untouched by human hands. The truth is that the rich diversity and stunning landscapes of places like Yosemite and other natural environments in the United States were intentionally cultivated by Native Americans for thousands of years.

Chief of the Forest Service announced on June 4, 1992, that the Forest Service would reduce clearcutting by 70% from 1988 levels, and that this would reduce short-term harvest volumes by about 10%. Acres clearcut annually over the past 5 years (FY1993-FY1997) were 71% less than the FY1988 level, fulfilling the promised reduction.