OCR Text |
Show 319. replaced. Further, when men took any species out of a forest, they usually destroyed the whole community in the process, destroyed the watershed altogether, and so destroyed their own material and spiritual future. Muir was ready to challenge civilized men to remedy the abuses of the past and present. He assumed that scientists were interested in the Sequoia itself, and so he argued, "unless protective measures be speedily invented and applied, in a few decades at the farthest, all that will be left of Sequoia gigantea will be a few hacked and scarred monuments." He did not argue directly to the readers of Harper' s, but pointed out the role of the Sequoia forest as watershed, and concluded his essay by noting that there had been little decrease in the volume of water carried by post-glacial streams since they came into existence. By implication he was suggesting that any theory which claimed that the Sierra was drying out could only conclude that Man was responsible. When he spoke to the legislators in Sacramento, he encouraged more careful and thorough research on the actual condition of the Sierran forests, and recommended that the State consider scientific methods of forestry. "Whether our loose-jointed Government is really able or willing to do anything in the matter remains to be seen," he commented. But if Californians wanted their good life to last, they would have to take responsibility. But he had come out of his meditative excursion to the Sequoias with more than a challenge to civilization. He also |