If Forests Could Speak
by Jennifer Normoyle
Forests came into existence over 380 million years ago, and present-day humans a mere 300,000 years ago. Mature, biodiverse forests are highly evolved. They have innate intelligence and complex communication strategies that promote survival. For eons, they thrived without interference and relied upon fire for periodic ecologic restoration. But many believe they can manage forests better than forests can manage themselves and regard forests only for their extraction value. Adherents of this viewpoint suffer from arrogance. They are both foolish and myopic. We cannot improve upon what years of evolution have wrought so magnificently, and intact, natural forests are essential for planetary health and our survival. Forests deserve preservation, not relentless desecration, and we should feel humility given their many mysteries.
In the debate over how best to address wind-driven wildfires affecting the Western half of the United States that are causing significant destruction of property and loss of life, proponents of active forest management promote cleaning up dense woodlands and post-fire landscapes. They advocate extensive fuel load reduction by mechanical thinning, prescribed burns, or both. Logged trees transform into wood products, and woody debris creates energy in biomass incinerators. After replanting with fast-growing monoculture trees, post-logged natural forests become industrial tree farms that provide an endless timber supply. Supporters of active forest management contend that their strategies reduce the risk of wildfires and restore scorched woodlands while also supplying timber and energy for electricity.
If forests could speak for themselves, they would tell us to listen to sager voices. Voices that teach ancient indigenous wisdom about healthy relationships of interdependence with the natural world and those of forest ecologists who conduct their work not for monetary gain but because they love wildlands and strive for scientific truth and integrity. Listening to these other voices, we would undoubtedly become wiser, more responsible stewards of the land.
What would we do differently?
We would condemn “fuel reduction” projects for “forest restoration” and “wildfire risk reduction” when conducted far from communities. These euphemisms are no more than justifications for more for-profit logging. They remove excess carbon from the ground and are a harmful use of the taxpayer dollars used to subsidize them.
We would accept credible forest science that clarifies dense biodiverse forests tend to burn with lower overall intensity, and thinning doesn’t enhance protection against wind-driven fires other than for 100-foot defensible space creation around structures and communities.
We’d embrace coexistence with naturally-occurring mixed-intensity wildfires in mature, biodiverse forests. Because they create new habitats and open up hunting grounds, patches that are high-intensity in these fires benefit forest health and promote ecologic restoration far better than low-intensity-only prescribed fires. Downed snag trees also help preserve moisture in the forest floor.
We would limit intentional burns to those that create defensible space near communities and those used for cultural and ceremonial purposes. When correctly applied, cultural burns benefit forests and the plants, animals, and people who inhabit them.
We would contain wildfires only to the extent that they threaten communities. We would shift our primary focus to better preparing ourselves for wildfire “from the home outward” with retrofits, defensible space creation, community planning, and maintenance of evacuation routes.
We would limit sprawl into the wildland-urban interface that puts people and property at risk.
We would denounce extreme forms of logging like clearcutting that accelerate climate change through loss of sequestered carbon and increase wildfire severity due to decreased shade, elimination of windbreaks, and replacement with highly flammable monoculture tree farms. We would also condemn salvage logging of snag forests. The only thing “salvaged” is timber industry profits.
We would log thoughtfully and selectively to minimize harm to forest ecosystems. By turning to increased use of sustainable alternatives to wood, like bamboo and hemp, we would limit the need to log.
We would ban biomass incineration. It pollutes the atmosphere and exacerbates climate degradation, exposing forests to excessive heat and drought and enhancing the conditions that lead to frequent, severe wildfires.
We would no longer voraciously commoditize our forests. They create the oxygen we breathe and store carbon safely in soil, roots, trunks, and branches. They provide habitat, promote biodiversity, and furnish the shade that cools streams for spawning fish and weary hikers. They nourish our souls.
We would treat our forests with the respect and reverence they deserve.
If only forests could speak, and if only we would listen.
~~~
Recommended Reading:
Silent Forests, James Hansen, Red, Green and Blue, June 21, 2019
Braiding Sweetgrass, Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants, Robin Wall Kimmerer, Milkweed Editions, 2013
Finding the Mothertree, Discovering the Wisdom of the Forest, Suzanne Simard, 2021, Knopf
The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate — Discoveries from a Secret World, Peter Wohlleben, Greystone Books, 2016
Smokescreen, Debunking Wildfire Myths to Save Our Forests and Our Climate, Chad T. Hanson, The University of Kentucky Press, 2021
