Tehipite Chapter of the Sierra Club

Wilderness Bill Not What it Seems

by George Whitmore

Tehipite Chapter members need to be aware of a new bill that has been introduced in Congress, which will impact the Mineral King portion of Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park, as well as the Redwood Canyon area. This bill would designate new Wilderness areas in Mineral King and Redwood Canyon. At first glance, the bill may seem to honor former Congressman John Krebs’ leadership in the 1970s by naming the new Wilderness in the Mineral King area as the “John Krebs Wilderness.” But there is a problem. It turns out that the current proposal would dishonor John Krebs by stripping from the Mineral King area protections which it presently has. Questions have been raised as to the Sierra Club’s position.

Let’s look back in history at how and why Mineral King came to be protected.

In 1965, the U.S. Forest Service issued a prospectus calling for proposals to develop a ski complex in Mineral King. Walt Disney Productions won the competition with their proposal to build a massive development consisting of numerous ski runs cleared through the forests; hotels, gift shops, and restaurants in the valley bottom; and mountain-top restaurants located on the Sequoia National Park boundary, so diners could have a “wilderness experience” as they sipped their aperitifs. The plan included a snow avalanche management program to ensure that nature did not get the upper hand and kill too many tourists. In order to ensure a profit for Disney, the taxpayers of California were to have provided a four-lane highway into the remote area.

In 1978, under the leadership of local Congressman John Krebs, Mineral King was transferred from Sequoia National Forest to Sequoia National Park, putting the controversy to rest and providing for Mineral King to be preserved unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

Now, in 2007, a bill (H.R. 3022) has been introduced into the House of Representatives, sponsored by Democratic Congressman Jim Costa and co-sponsored by Republican Devin Nunes.

Unfortunately, the maps which accompany the bill call for exclusion from Wilderness designation of a one-mile wide swath through the center of the Mineral King valley. This has been proposed in order to make it possible to remove timber under the guise of “fuel reduction.” This land has been identified as being of Wilderness quality, and the trees are presently protected from logging. Passage of this bill into law, with the present maps accompanying it, would result in the degradation of lands which are currently protected.

There are a number of other objectionable provisions which were inserted into the bill at the insistence of various interest groups, who are either uncomfortable with the concept of Wilderness, or flat out opposed to it.

There is nothing in the bill which would add to existing protection of our natural resources, but there are many things in the bill which would degrade existing protections.

John Krebs’ excellent contributions to the protection of our natural heritage while he was in Congress would be dishonored by enactment of this bill into law.

Because the true purpose of the bill has been concealed, people who normally assume that a Wilderness designation is always a great idea have supported the bill. Only now are they discovering that there is more to this bill than they had realized. They are beginning to question why they should support the bill. And they are asking why the Sierra Club is not opposed to the bill.

***

Note: By the time the reader sees this article, the situation may be quite different than it was at the time of writing. For additional information you may email the George Whitmore at geowhit1954@comcast.net.