Why we can't save giant sequoias

The truth is that some people are more interested in 'ecology'

Volume 1, Number 51 - Monday, May 22, 2023
Now twice a week — Monday and Thursday!

At left, a burn pile in Grant Grove (Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks), November 2022. — Photo by Claudia Elliott

Perspective

SOMETIMES, I’VE JUST HAD IT. I’m writing this on Sunday afternoon with an eye toward Monday morning’s deadline. And a Google News search has brought my attention to an aggravating article by George Wuerthner online at The Wildlife News. It’s not labeled opinion, but I wouldn’t call it news.

You can read about Wuerthner HERE on his LinkedIn page and many other places online. He describes himself as an ecologist, and he’s written dozens of books. He is the executive director of Public Lands Media, which is (according to the organization’s website) “a fiscally sponsored project of Earth Island Institute, a California non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.”

Public Lands Media — also according to its website — is an “independent, non-partisan source of ecological and conservation information.”

Even before I read that claim, I was disappointed in Wuerthner’s piece, published HERE, entitled: “Save Our Sequoias Act–A Stealth Attack On NEPA, ESA and Our Sequoia Groves.”

Here’s why:

H.R. 2989 — the most recent Save Our Sequoias Act — was introduced in the House of Representatives on April 28 by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and 50 cosponsors. It now has 53 cosponsors. Of those, 24 are Democrats and 29 are Republicans. I call that bipartisan.

But Wuerthner doesn’t share that fact with his readers. Instead, he begins:

New legislation, the Save Our Sequoias Act … promoted by Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy seeks to increase “fuel reductions” such as logging and prescribed burns around California’s iconic sequoia groves. 

Of course, it’s true that McCarthy is promoting the act. It’s also true that others — including Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA) — are promoting the proposed legislation.

Does the proposed legislation seek to increase fuel reduction? Yes, I think anyone who reads the bill would come to that conclusion. Does it seek to increase logging and prescribed burns? I wouldn’t use the word logging, but if Wuerthner means some trees will be cut down in areas where no trees have been cut down for decades, then the answer is yes.

I’ll discuss prescribed burns first because that’s an easier subject (haha!). The bill does call for more prescribed fire as part of a fuels reduction effort that includes reducing vegetation around the bases in giant sequoia groves. Following that work, if all goes as planned, land managers will plan burns.

Here is what Sequoia and Kings National Parks say about the purpose of those prescribed burns:

It remains a high priority to sustain frequent enough fire in these forests to produce many young sequoias and to reduce fuels, helping these groves be more resilient to the impacts of a warming climate and high-severity wildfire. (You can read more HERE).

In other words, Kevin McCarthy did not just decide on his own more than a year ago (when the first version of the SOS bill was introduced) to ask Congress to fund more prescribed burns in giant sequoia groves. Funding more burns was one of the things that giant sequoia land managers — including the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service — said was needed.

Now, logging. Deep sigh. When I think of logging, I think of people going purposefully into the woods to cut down and remove trees for some purpose, generally to provide building materials. 

But the fact is that when I was in Black Mountain Grove last year during the Forest Service Giant Sequoia Emergency Response and heard big cracks and thumps following the buzz of chainsaws, I thought we should be hollering timber!

In some quarters, logging has acquired a bad name — despite the fact that many of us live in houses built at least partly from wood. 

In the giant sequoia range of the Sierra Nevada — and elsewhere in our country — the debate over logging has raged for more than a century. There isn’t room here, and I won’t meet my deadline if I go into more depth on that subject.

Some years ago, a wonderful 40-foot-tall Colorado Blue Spruce that grew in our yard suddenly died. We paid someone to cut it down and haul it away. Were we logging? I don’t think so. 

When we lived in Oregon with a beautiful and massive Douglas Fir only about 12 feet from our bedroom window — leaning slightly towards our house — I worried all the time about it falling in the night and killing us. A block away a similar tree fell during a storm and caused major damage to a home. If we had decided to have that tree removed, would that have been logging? I don’t think so.  

And I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that the Save Our Sequoias Act promotes logging. But it would remove dead and dying trees — and living trees — that foresters determine are growing in places that put giant sequoia groves at risk.

Back to Wuerthner’s piece:

McCarthy and other legislators want to “expedite” logging projects under the guise of “saving” the big trees. But, make no mistake; this is more than just about saving sequoias; instead, it is a stealth attack to undermine the Nation’s environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, and other regulations that guide federal actions.

The SOSA legislation suggests that under “emergency situations,” the Forest Service can develop a plan “prior to conducting an analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.” It doesn’t take much imagination that is the SOSA legislaiton is enacting, proponents will seek to expand such “emergency” legslation to all wesern forests, which have burned or which “may” burn at some future point in time.

A stealth attack? Seriously? 

But first, I never quite know what to do when I notice typographical errors in a published piece that I’m going to cite because I know how easy it is to make typos. I make many of my own and sometimes I will correct an obvious typo, but I’ve left them in the excerpt above because … well, perhaps I’m feeling uncharitable.

Would many people like to see public land managers do more to manage western forests? You bet. There are lots of reasons, but one that caught my attention is described in this article on the website Inside Climate News.

Here’s the headline from a piece published in early March: “Increasingly Large and Intense Wildfires Hinder Western Forests’ Ability to Regenerate. A new study suggests that reducing forest fire severity in the next few decades could make all the difference for future generations of trees in the West.” And an excerpt:

The findings, published … in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, show that, for the next few decades, fire intensity is the bigger factor influencing how forests regenerate after a blaze. And they suggest that there is a short-term window of opportunity to help coniferous forests regenerate with pro-active management of wildfires and forests.

The key would be to reduce the overall intensity of wildfires and to minimize the size of the most intense fire patches, said co-author Phil Higuera, an ecosystem and conservation science researcher at the University of Montana. The way to do that is by using intentionally set fires, as well as selective logging, to clear smaller trees out of forests.

Ah, selective logging. Perhaps we call it mechanical treatment. Either way — whether it’s giant sequoia lands or western forests — plenty of scientists seem to agree that we need to do it. And soon.

Back to Wuerthner:

“The legislation is in response to recent wildfires that have killed, by some estimates, up to 19% of mature giant sequoia.” (He got that right). Here’s what else he wrote:

The legislation views natural morality from high-severity fire, insects and disease as a problem instead of viewing these as essential elements of sequoia ecology.  It views these ecological processes as a sign of “unhealthy” sequoia groves. Like so much of the wildfire policy coming from Congress and other organizations, it focuses on trees, rather than ecosystems. Healthy forest ecosystems relie on mortality from wildfire, disease, drought, and disease.  Of course, the solution is “chainsaw medicine”.

Oh my gosh, the typos! Again, I make a lot of them myself. But did he mean to say that the legislation view “natural morality” from fires, etc., as a problem? Ah, no, we know he meant natural mortality. But here’s the thing. Wuerthner apparently has spent a great deal of time studying wolves. If he had spent as much time studying giant sequoias he might know that the scientists who have studied them have told us that there is nothing natural about the rate the monarchs have been killed in high-severity wildfires in recent years.

Yes, the legislation views giant sequoia groves like the Homer’s Nose Grove pictured below as unhealthy. Some of us got a clue when we saw all of those dead trees. And yes, we also know that the trees grow in a forest and the forest grows on a planet and the green grass grows all around and around…

I agree with Wuerthner that healthy forest ecosystems (probably) rely (in part) on mortality from wildfire, disease and drought. But what is going to happen to all of the parts of those ecosystems when the forests have all burned up?

The upper photo shows a portion of the Homer's Nose Grove where the fire burned with high severity in the 2020 Castle Fire, killing many trees. The lower photo is a portion of the Garfield Grove showing low fire severity. Most trees still have green crowns, and just some small trees and shrubs are scorched. — NPS / Anthony Caprio (taken on a November 2, 2020 aerial survey by helicopter)

Wuerthner continues for about 18 more paragraphs before summarizing his point of view and encouraging readers to write to their Congressional representative to vote against the bill.

Here’s what he wrote:

There are three conclusions from the above.

1. Large high-severity fires are necessary for successful sequoia regeneration.

2. Sequoia regeneration is episodic and driven by climate.

3. Thinning and prescribed burns are not effective in precluding large fires.

4. The SOSA legislation is misguided and unnecessary.

Ummm… yes. That’s exactly what he wrote — three conclusions… or maybe four.

I’ll take on the first one: “Large high-severity fires are necessary for successful sequoia regeneration.” According to George Wuerthner, but not according to many scientists who have worked with and studied giant sequoias. 

And, I would add, it’s not necessarily just fire but soil disturbance that can aid giant sequoia regeneration. In fact, logging — and related soil disturbance — aided the regeneration of what was a very healthy second growth of giant sequoia in the Dillonwood Grove. Save the Redwoods League purchased the property on the southern edge of Sequoia National Park in 2001 and transferred it to the National Park Service. Unfortunately, according to Sue Cag, publisher of the website ILoveTrees.net, “thousands of Dillonwood giant sequoias were destroyed by the Castle Fire.”

As to Wuerthern’s conclusion number two, I don’t have enough knowledge to assess this statement. But here’s part of his support for that statement:

The past decade, particularly the last few years, has been beneficial for Sequoias. Though we humans view things from the perspective of our lifetimes, when you’re a tree that lives 3000 years, the loss of some mature trees every century or even every couple of centuries is not problematic. (emphasis added)

Yes, folks, I think that George Wuerthner may actually be living on a different planet from many of us. But I’m also reminded of what Richard Bach wrote in his book “Illusions,” — “What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly.” Perspective is everything in life.

As to Wuerthner’s view that thinning and prescribed burns are not effective in precluding large fires, I don’t know. My purpose here is to share information, and I know that many people believe this to be true and some do not.

Is the Save Our Sequoias Act legislation “misguided and unnecessary?”

I don’t think so. I don’t think it’s perfect. But I believe that if we humans want the remaining monarch giant sequoia trees that we love to keep living, we need to do something.

Nothing, sadly, is as simple as George Wuerthner or Kevin McCarthy would have it.

But Wuerthner is a big name in environmental activist circles. Some people will do just as he asked and reach out to their Congressional representative to try to kill the Save Our Sequoias Act. 

I am totally okay with people exercising their rights in our democracy. I would just like influencers like Wuerthner to be more honest.

Here’s a virtual presentation about fire ecology and giant sequoias coming up at 9:30 a.m. on Friday. It’s designed for fourth graders, but that may just mean that most of us can understand it! All are welcome to tune in. Sign up HERE.

Wildfire, water & weather update

The weather in the Sierra Nevada has been weird with thunderstorms and cooler temperatures than we would normally have at this time of year. There’s still a lot of snow at the higher elevations, and many recreational areas will remain closed over the coming Memorial Day weekend.

The best Sierra Nevada weather forecasts can be found at NWS Hanford, HERE, and NWS Sacramento, HERE. 

Wildfire update: Only small fires in California so far this season. But Wildfire Today (and others) report a terrible situation in Western Canada. There’s a very informative article HERE and an excerpt:

In the Climate Atlas of Canada, an article on “Forest Fires and Climate Change” examines the impacts of climate change on Canadian fires and summarizes studies by Mike Flannigan (professor of wildland fire at the University of Alberta) and other scientists who predict that by 2100, western Canada will see a 50 percent increase in the number of dry, windy days that let fires start and spread, whereas eastern Canada will see an even more dramatic 200 percent to 300 percent increase in this kind of fire weather.  And by 2040, fire management costs are expected to double.

Did you know you can comment here?

It’s easy to comment on items in this newsletter. Just scroll down, and you’ll find a comment box. You’re invited to join the conversation!

Giant Sequoia News is now on Facebook

Consider following (or liking) Giant Sequoia News on Facebook for occasional updates in between newsletters. CLICK HERE to find us.

Giant sequoias in the news

• The Porterville Recorder published this article about the Save Our Sequoias Act passing out of the House Natural Resources Committee by voice vote.

• The Daily Caller has a piece about the Save Our Sequoia Act HERE. The headline: “Dems, Environmentalists Oppose Bill Aimed At Saving Iconic California Trees From Wildfires.” It mostly pulls content from the Washington Post’s Climate 202 newsletter HERE (gift link).

• Conde Nast Traveler published a guide to Sequoia National Park and Kings Canyon National Park with beautiful photos this morning. Read it HERE.

Historic photo of the week

A hollowed-out fallen giant sequoia dwarfs the man posing on a horse — around 1900 in Mariposa Grove, Yosemite National Park. — Photo by George Fiske, courtesy of University of Southern California Libraries via Calisphere

Photographer George Fiske (1835-1918) is reported to have been the first photographer to live year-round in Yosemite. In the 1920s, famed photographer Ansel Adams made many prints from some of Fiske’s negatives. Unfortunately, much of Fiske’s work was destroyed in a fire in 1904. You can read more about Fiske HERE and see more of his work on Calisphere HERE.

Thanks for reading!