Perspectives of the Forest Products Industry on
Management Strategies1
Glen H. Duysen2
Abstract: Past history indicates a wide range of management strategies in
the giant sequoia groves of Tulare and Fresno counties. The variation in
management is a result of grove ownership, Federal and state regulations
and policies, and public sentiment. When the West was developing in the
late 1800's, lumber from the giant sequoia was a highly desired product.
Private groves were harvested. These lands now are stocked with
second-growth sequoia, pine, fir, and cedar. Management activities since
the 1930's on Forest Service, state, Native American, and private properties
have been confined to the removal of the white wood species. Management
of sequoia groves on Federal park lands has been limited to control
burning for fire protection. Regardless of the management strategy applied
during the past 120 years, the giant sequoia specimen tree is a most hearty
"soul," maintaining a defiant stance against old age, fire, wind, drought,
and man's activities. Current management strategies on Federal lands are
mandated by law, regulation, or management plans, and basically provide
only for fire protection for the sequoia groves. Selective harvesting of
white wood species in sequoia groves on state land has resulted in healthy,
esthetically pleasing, timber stands, which the forest products industry
strongly supports. Management strategies for all ownerships should provide
for the reproduction of the giant sequoia species. As a fast growing tree
adaptable to the local climate, the establishment of giant sequoia
reproduction for future national lumber requirements on state, private, and
Forest Service lands is a worthy goal.
My comments today are based on my observations as a
licensed professional forester, working in and around both
public and private giant sequoia groves for the past 25 years
in Tulare and Fresno counties.
We can learn much about the giant sequoia species by
examining three different management strategies practiced
over the past 120 years. As California developed in the
1880's, the first strategy involved the demand for redwood
lumber. Many small sawmills were constructed on private
property. A major species milled was specimen size giant
sequoias. Evidence of this practice can be found in the
Converse Basin, Dillonwood, and Mountain Home. Although
generally regarded as a poor management practice today,
these lands currently support a well-stocked stand of
second-growth sequoias, with a mixture of the other native
conifer species.
Since the 1930's, the harvesting of specimen size giant
sequoias has been very minor, but logging of the white wood
species (pine, fir, and cedar) has occurred within sequoia
groves on both Federal, state, and private lands. This management strategy varies from a very light selective harvest
to removing all white wood trees. A wide range of other
practices have been found within and around the Sequoia
1
An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the
Symposium on Giant Sequoias: Their Place in Ecosystem and Society, June
23-25, 1992, Visalia, California.
2
Resource Manager, Sierra Forest Products, Terra Bella, CA 93270.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep.PSW-151. 1994.
National Forest. On Tule River Native-American land and
within their groves, there has been harvesting of the conifer
species. The Sequoia Crest grove is an example of summer
home development within a grove, which required the
removal of the white woods and some second-growth
sequoias. Mountain Home State Demonstration Forest has
selectively harvested within their groves, resulting in an
excellent stand of second-growth sequoia intermixed with
pine, fir, and cedar. However, because of Federal laws and
regulations, sequoia groves within the USDI National Park
boundaries have had limited physical activity. Road construction has been minor, and fire protection management
and regeneration has been conducted through control burns.
So then what have we learned from these management
strategies? There are widely divergent opinions concerning
how the entire stand structure should be managed in a grove,
but the forest products industry strongly supports the protecttion and preservation of specimen giant sequoia trees.
Fire Management and Regeneration
Strategies
Exposed mineral soil and sunlight are requirements for
the regeneration of the species. These two conditions do not
occur in the nondisturbed grove. In order to perpetuate the
species, we believe manipulation of the surrounding vegetation is essential to attaining the proper seed bed.
We do know that although some people believe the
giant sequoia tree is a fragile, near-extinct species, there are
sufficient examples which indicate the hearty nature of the
tree. Major fires over the past 1,000 years have not been able
to destroy these magnificent giants. Winter storms, while
eliminating an occasional tree, have not caused major damage
to the groves. Recent studies have found the giant sequoia to
be a very windfirm species throughout the world. Human
activities, whether through road construction, logging, or land
development, apparently have not affected the longevity and
health of the species. Ground disturbances have not occurred
for 120 years at the Converse Basin and at Dillonwood, with
later activity on the Tule River Native- American Reservation,
Camp Lena, and Sequoia Crest. The remaining specimen
trees in these groves appear to have remained thrifty and
windfirm when compared to groves that have not been
entered. The forest products industry emphatically believes
our giant sequoia groves should be managed carefully and
skillfully, but not treated as an endangered species. Giant
sequoia groves do not need or require wide buffer strips or
entire drainages set aside as protection measures.
137
Protection from wildfires has been a high priority for
many years in the management of giant sequoia groves on
both National Park Service and USDA Forest Service lands.
This protection has created problems and becomes more
difficult over the years because of the elimination of periodic
ground fires, and the rapid growth of understory stands of
the conifer species. To reduce the fire hazard to the groves in
recent years, two methods have been used: controlled ground
fires and mechanical removal.
The National Park Service has taken the lead in the use
of controlled ground fire to reduce the catastrophic wildfire
potential. The forest products industry, while realizing the
limitations under which the Park Service operates due to
laws and regulations, has the following general concerns in
the use of control burning:
• Difficult to control intensity of burn;
• Creates additional air pollution;
• End product is not esthetically pleasing;
• Site preparation is often not adequate for regeneration;
• Destroyed conifer resource not utilized.
The Forest Service has advocated mechanical methods
to remove the fire potential in their groves and to promote
regeneration. With the signing of the Mediated Agreement
for the Sequoia National Forest in 1990, mechanical entry
into the Sequoia groves is not permitted except for the
specific purpose of reducing the fuel loads, after analysis
through a grove Environment Impact Statement. Mechanical
entry has several advantages:
•Method can be controlled;
•Removed white woods can be utilized;
•Sites quickly heal esthetically; •An adequate seed bed can be prepared; •Visibility of specimen trees can be enhanced. A Multiple-Use Strategy
Another land management practice worthy of discussion
can be found on the Mountain Home State Demonstration
Forest (this strategy was also used on selected areas of the
Sequoia National Forest). Selective and small group harvesting of white wood species within giant sequoia groves in
the State Forest has been the practice for many years. A
multi-age stand of healthy pine, fir, and cedar co-exist with
the specimen size giant sequoias. The timber stand has been
138
opened sufficiently to permit the establishment of secondgrowth sequoias. Specimen trees are visible to the visiting
public. Recreation is the first priority in the management of
the State Forest, and the numerous campgrounds are heavily
used. This is living proof that timber management, even in
giant sequoia groves, can be in harmony with recreation and
wildlife. The forest products industry strongly supports the
multiple-use concept as exemplified on Mountain Home
State Demonstration Forest. Their managers over the years
are to be praised for their progressive and dedicated approach
to managing this natural resource.
Diverse ownership and management strategies are supported by the forest products industry. We are aware that
on Federal lands the strategies are often dictated by law,
regulation, and mediated management plans. State, NativeAmerican, and private lands are managed under different
circumstance. We also recognized the reasons for the
differences. We do not advocate the same strategy for all
ownerships. We strongly reject the view that a single
management strategy for all giant sequoia groves, whether
National Park, National Forest, state or private, is in the best
long-term interest of the groves or the American people. We
also reject the non-management concept. Non-management
is bad management.
The development of second-growth commercial stands
of giant sequoia on USDA Forest Service, state, and private land should also be pursued. As a fast growing and
desirable commercial species, second-growth giant sequoias
may help to supply the need for wood products for our
future generations.
Conclusion
This symposium has presented different views on Sequoia
grove management; presenting these different strategies is a
constructive problem-solving method. Only through open
dialog and the sharing of information will we be able to do
the best job in managing our respective natural resources.
The use of misinformation and broad accusations in
order to influence the public has no place in sound resource
management. It is evident from the quality of speakers that
the giant sequoia is in no danger of extinction or is being
mismanaged in any ownership. All participants at this
symposium have the responsibility to speak honestly and
professionally with the public and our elected representatives. If
we do not tell the whole story, then we should not consider
ourselves professionals.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep.PSW-151. 1994