Public Perceptions of Giant Sequoia Over Time1
William Tweed2
Abstract: Public perceptions of the giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron
giganteum) differ significantly from those of land managers. Members of
the public tend to perceive sequoias as unchanging, sacred objects, not as
dynamic members of evolving ecosystems. These perceptions strongly
color public expectations about how giant sequoias should be managed,
and thus must be taken into account by successful land managers.
Public land managers who perceive giant sequoia trees
only as biological objects to be managed like other trees are
missing an important point. Giant sequoias are not only
biological organisms but also, at least to human beings,
sacred objects with substantial psychological context. Much
of the recent controversy surrounding the management of
Big Trees results from this fact. In recent years, we have all
too often managed the trees from a strictly biological point
of view, ignoring in the process the emotional context that
controls much of the public's reactions to our actions. The
result of this biological focus has been that significant
portions of the public have objected strongly to our
management of the groves. This criticism is not leveled at
any single managing agency. Whether we are talking about
the problems the Forest Service has had with its giant
sequoia forestry program, or the criticisms the National Park
Service has received for its prescribed burning within the
groves, the cause is the same-managers have failed to
understand or credit the strong emotional feelings many
citizens hold for the Big Trees.
Foresters, natural resources managers, and others trained
in the modern biological sciences tend to perceive that giant
sequoias in most respects are simply conifer trees, similar in
most respects to their many arboreal cousins. Biologically,
this is true. That which is distinctive about the sequoias
is really fairly minor compared to that which is shared
with other trees. With the exception of the fact that they
grow larger than their neighbors and live longer than most
other Sierra Nevadan species, the giant sequoias are not
biologically all that distinctive.
But this is not at all how the general public views
the Big Trees. In the popular mind, as compared to the
biologically trained scientific mind, size and age are of
critical importance. These two attributes are readily accessible
to the human imagination and tend to capture our interest.
Think of the popular literature about the sequoias. How
often do key phrases or ideas repeat themselves? "This tree
1
An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Symposium
on Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystem and Society, June 23-25,
1992, Visalia, California.
2
Chief of Park Planning and Concessions Management, Sequoia and
Kings Canyon National Parks, National Park Service, Three Rivers, CA
93271.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-151. 1994.
was alive before Christ was born." "This tree weighs as much
as a dozen blue whales." "The world's largest living thing."
Most citizens see the giant sequoias not as just another
expression of coniferous biological diversity, but rather as
a unique life form with very special significance. Visitors
to the groves are fascinated by the trees' "immense" size,
"amazing" age, and "astounding" vitality. And each of these
attributes resonates within the human psyche. Because we
prize our own limited time on this planet, we admire organisms
which persevere on a scale which grossly exceeds our own.
Adding greatly to the public sense of the Big Trees'
significance is their perceived rarity. Again biology and
popular perceptions diverge. Most visitors perceive the
giant sequoias as extremely rare. Giant sequoia literature
traditionally has emphasized this point: The sequoias grow
"only in 75 remnant groves"; they are found "only in the
southern Sierra Nevada and naturally nowhere else on earth";
they are "living fossils," surviving "only in a tiny part of
their past range." These statements are true, of course, but
again, they do not describe a unique situation. Numerous
Sierra Nevadan plant species exist within smaller geographical
ranges than the giant sequoia, and many have evolutionary
histories every bit as interesting. But these other species are
seldom showcased in the way the Big Trees are.
The reaction of persons of European descent to the
sequoias has been amazingly consistent since the trees
were first publicized in the early 1850's. From the very
beginning the public was fascinated by the trees' distinctive
characteristics, and from these perceptions of uniqueness
came motivation to protect the groves. It can be argued that
during the 19th century no other plant species in North
America motivated so much public curiosity, so much
preservation concern and activity. Within a year of Dowd's
discovery of the Calaveras Grove, the first of numerous
exhibit trees had been cut and laboriously hauled away to
a city for display. Throughout the remainder of the 19th
century, curiosity remained high enough to justify repeated
cuttings for urban display. Hollowed giant sequoia stumps
became an expected highlight of world's fairs and major
museums. Big Trees were displayed at the fairs at Philadelphia
in 1876 and Chicago in 1893, two of the nation's biggest
public events between the end of the Civil War and the
beginning of the 20th century. In 1893, the American Museum
of Natural History cut the Mark Twain Tree from what is
now Kings Canyon National Park and hauled a cross section
to its new building facing Central Park in New York City. A
full century later, the huge cross section remains on display,
still fascinating new generations of urban residents.
Even more impressive, in historical hindsight, was the
power of the sequoias to motivate American citizens to
reject all the political norms of 19th century laissez-faire
5
land management policy. In the mid-19th century, when the
groves were first discovered by European-Americans, this
nation was at the very height of its expansionist pioneer era.
With the sole exception of lands needed for national
defense, all government lands were for sale, usually for a
minimal price. Regardless of political affiliation or orientation,
nearly all Americans agreed on the necessity of the
privatization of government land and of the unfettered right
of land owners to utilize their holdings as they individually
saw fit. Yet, within a dozen years of the discovery of the Big
Trees, and in total contradiction of the nation's political
culture, Congress saw fit to set aside the Mariposa Grove
and give it to the State of California to be managed in
perpetuity for preservation and recreation. In hindsight, few
students of conservation history or public land management
realize just how radical the 1864 Yosemite Grant was within
the political context of its times. It directly contradicted the
entire land management ethic of the nation. Yet such was the
power of the giant sequoias to motivate action.
As the last third of the 19th century passed in an orgy of
public land give-away under such often-abused statutes as
the Timber and Stone Act and the Swamp and Overflow Act,
the giant sequoias retained their ability to motivate Americans
toward resource preservation. In 1880, the Surveyor General
of California, responding to local demands, unilaterally set
aside the Grant Grove from sale while all the land around it
was made available for logging. And in the late 1880's,
California residents began a campaign to protect major parts
of the sequoia belt which resulted in the 1890 creation of
Sequoia and General Grant National Parks. Sequoia National
Park, in fact, ranks second in age in the entire American
National Park System. The importance of the giant sequoias
so motivated 19th century citizens and their politicians that the
designation of a federal park to protect the trees followed
only the protection of Yellowstone's thermal wonders.
Not surprisingly, early managers of the reserves set aside
to protect giant sequoias stressed the very characteristics of
the trees that had originally captured the public's interest.
Books, museums, and ranger lectures endlessly emphasized
the trees' age, size, and rarity. To these values were added
corollary values that would later come to haunt the late20th-century managers of the groves. The sequoias were
"enduring," "timeless," and "unchanging." Because their
individual antiquity so exceeded individual human life spans,
the perception that the trees did not change was extended
back over the entire life history of the species. Biologists
should have known better, of course, but most went along with
the assumption. As late as 1973, a well-reviewed new book
about the giant sequoias was entitled The Enduring Giants.
During the past 30 years, radical and necessary changes
have occurred in giant sequoia management. Beginning in
the early 1960's, the National Park Service began to move
away from its founding philosophy of preserving objects to a
management strategy based on preserving ecosystems. In
6
few areas was this change more applicable than in the
management of giant sequoias. Because early National Park
managers had accepted the idea that giant sequoias were
enduring and unchanging, it was easy to manage them as
individual objects. Trees were fenced to protect them from
visitors; fires were suppressed. Every attempt was made to
provide a stable and unchanging visual scene.
The arrival of ecosystem management in the National
Park Service's sequoia groves challenged all these old
values. Studies that began under Richard Hartesveldt in the
early 1960's and have continued through a long sequence of
researchers to this day repeatedly pointed out the fallacies in
the old position. Neither giant sequoia groves nor individual
trees were particularly "enduring" or "unchanging." Actually,
the groves and trees were every bit as prone to change as
the rest of the natural world. Repeated intense natural
disturbances, particularly fires, had played a major role in
determining forest structure, and climates had changed
so dramatically over recent millennia that some groves
were probably not much older than their oldest individual
living trees.
Eventually both Forest Service and Park Service managers modified their management strategies to take into
account their increasing knowledge of grove dynamics
and history. In Park Service groves this new knowledge
expressed itself mostly in the form of a highly visible
prescribed fire program which aimed to make major changes
in existing forest structure and return the groves to a more
"natural" state. In Forest Service groves, similar motivations
expressed within a multiple-use management context
resulted in active forestry programs to remove "whitewoods"
from the groves.
Rather quickly, both of these programs ran into significant
public opposition. Public perceptions of the trees had not
evolved in concert with changing management philosophies.
While scientists and managers had begun to appreciate and
even value the dynamic, flexible nature of the giant sequoia
groves, most citizens remained comfortably wedded to
the concept of Big Trees as enduring, unchanging sacred
objects, largely unconnected to the ecosystems in which
they resided.
This perception gap between giant sequoia grove managers, who are responding to what they define as biological
imperatives, and significant portions of the general public,
who have been taught that giant sequoias are sacred objects
which transcend the normal limits of life, continues to haunt
and to confuse the current world of giant sequoia management.
The point of this paper is not to argue that one perception or
the other is inherently superior. Instead, it is to assert that
most managers, pursuing an ecological logic, have lost touch
with mainstream public perception. In a democratic society,
this situation is not sustainable, since managing agencies are
ultimately dependent upon the goodwill of the public if they
are to accomplish their (often self-defined) tasks.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-151. 1994.
Successful giant sequoia managers must respond to a
number of perceptions held by the general public:
•And finally, for many citizens, the preservation of the
•To many (perhaps most) citizens, giant sequoias are
not living organisms within ecosystems, but rather
sacred objects transcending the normal limits of
human perception.
•To many (perhaps most) citizens, the sequoias represent
a model of enduring, unchanging nature.
•“Sacred object” status means to most citizens that the
trees are to be “left alone”; corollaries include:
Tree cutting is very suspect, regardless of rationale, and ecological management of any type
which changes human experiences (perceptions)
usually unacceptable.
As we gather together to discuss the present and future
management of these fascinating trees, I challenge you all
to keep in mind the limitations placed upon us by these
aspects of popular culture. Managers who ignore these
perceptions are fated to suffer further controversies within
their programs. A public which does not see sequoias as we
do will likely continue to resist even the best-intentioned of
management programs.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-151. 1994.
giant sequoias as sacred unchanging objects transcends
the usual issues which guide their judgments about
natural resources management.
7