I agree, let's get the facts straight.

I've done forest consulting work within this monument and noted it's unique nature and high diversity, especially of confer trees. When the monument enlargement was denounced by timber interests, I responded by calculating the potential loss of BLM harvest volume in the two affected districts at around 5%. This is due, in part, to the low site character of much of this land.

The oft quoted 1937 O&C Act described 500 million board feet a year as a sustainable timber harvest. In the 70's and 80's, over twice this volume was harvested from O&C lands. The average annual harvest over the last 50 years has been nearly 700 million board feet. It's time to pay the piper!

So why not leave the monument as is, unlogged in the future, and allow it to sustain other important O&C resources like water and recreation?