EDITORIAL

The Redwood Pqrk Proposol

You have been reading much in these and other pages recently about the National Park Service proposals to establish a Redwood National Park. We think it is ahout time to sum up and get down to cases.

Why, after all these years, has S'ashington just now decided to break the back of the redwood industrl' and cripple the econom'r' oI California's North Coast?

Don't the politicians know that private timber owners for more than 50 years have cooperated with conservation groupsparticuiarly the Savethe-Redwoods League and the State of Californiato preserve adequate and outstanding examples of superlative stands of old-grou'th redwood? l)on't thev know that I00.000 acres, of rvhich almost 60,000 acres is old-growth redwood, is already in the state redwood parks system? Don't they knou' that most of the majestic pure redwood forests otr alluvial flats are already preserved, and that California Redwood Association members are even no\ r rvithholding {rom logging 8,000 acres o{ particularly scenic land. on which taxes are being paid, awaiting their incorporation ir-rto the state parks system? What other major resource in the countrY has been preserved in this proportion? And what group of timber owners has cooperated to this ertent with conservationists and the state?

Don't yon think Washington bureaucrats have some inkling of the damage that would be done to the economy of the redu'ood region if their plans bear lruit ?

We suggest thel are rvell aware of these far:ts.

Now we assume that the good people oI the Save-the-Redwoods League, the Sierra Club, the rlarden clubs and other conservation groups also know these facts. They nru.s, be aware that most of the private timber areas are in tree farrns, raising a perpetual crop for future generations, and are being managed and protected under the provisions of the Cali{ornia Forest Practice Act. which was initiated and supported by the state's timber owners. They m.zrsf 'be aware that development of present parks is needed. not further aquisition. 'Ihey musl be aware that recent government pulilications have ignored the great accomplishments of redwood re{orestation. As a result we can only assume that groups supporting a Redwood National Park must be either naive cr misinformed. If the former. then apparently a handful of utopians have used half-truths to mislead their membership and the public. If the latter, it would seem that the misinformation has come from federal sources. Demonstrably the timber owner and th,e timher and sarvmill worker are doing their best to get ihe facts before the public.

The facts lead to only one cont:lusion. Either th,e utopian idealists or somebodl. back in Washington has an axe to erind. We don't krrow who it is or why. But whoevei is behind this ill-conceived scheme would do well to weigh all the facts beforc he cripples an industry that has taken practical steps to perpetuate the forest economy for the benefit oI all, while acting to protect th,e finest examples oI these magnificent giants.

This dangerous proposal will not be stopped by propaganda {rom self-interest groups-the citizens of the North Coast, the timber owlers, the lumber' fratenrity, and that portion of the public which understands the economics involved. It must, and can only be stopped on the lloor of Congress (or in committee) by u fully informed citizenry.

When the time comes we shall ring the tocsin. \\'ho will answet that alarm?