SOS Forests

The Meaning of Restoration

Did USFS Chief Tom Tidwell say what journalist Rocky Barger said he said? One can never tell with these two word twisting characters. It’s worth a look-see.

According to Rocky [here], Tidwell said:

… when Tidwell talks of restoration he isn’t talking about restoring the forest to the way it was in the past.

What? Let’s look at the definition of the word “restoration”:

res·to·ra·tion [rèste ráysh'n] res·to·ra·tions (plural)

NOUN

1. restoring of something removed: the return of something that was removed or abolished — “calls for the restoration of curfews”

2. restoring of something to former condition: the restoring of something such as buildings or furniture to an earlier and usually better condition — “Restoration work will begin next week.”

3. thing restored: something, especially a building, that has been brought back to an earlier and usually better condition

4. model: a model made to resemble or represent something in its original condition — “a restoration of a Neanderthal dwelling”

Synonyms: reinstatement, reestablishment, return, restitution, reinstallation
Synonyms: refurbishment, renovation, repair, renewal, rebuilding

The prefix “re” means back, against, again, anew.

Forest restoration is, without any doubt, to return the forest to the way it was in the past, to bring it back to an earlier and better condition. There is no other meaning to the word “restoration”.

If Chief Tidwell wants to make forests into something they have never been before, he should not use the word “restoration”.

He could use the word “transmogrify” as in, “Our objective is to transmogrify our priceless heritage forests into something completely different, unlike anything they have ever been before.”

That would be honest, if that was what he really means, and according to Rocky that IS what Tidwell really means when he uses the word “restoration” unartfully and incorrectly.

Rocky notes in the article linked to above that Tidwell went to Idaho schools. Maybe in Idaho they don’t speaka da English too gouda. Maybe the schools there teach kids the wrong meanings of words. Maybe they teach that up means down and hot means cold, and that “restoration” has nothing whatsoever to do with past conditions.

If so, then Idaho schools should be transmogrified into something they have never been before — decent places to educate kids.

But regarding the restoration of forests, the meaning and goal of the practice is to return forests to the structures and conditions of prior eras. Restoration has everything to do with the past.

You don’t restore a painting or a house by making it into something new and different. When art historians restore Renaissance paintings created by the Great Masters, they don’t scratch off all the old paint and slap on new images of their own invention. Imagine scouring the Mona Lisa with paint remover and then painting Betty Boop on the canvas. That would be something, but it would not be restoration.

One of the goals of forest restoration is the preservation of heritage. Heritage is rooted in the past, in history, in tradition. Heritage is not something that hasn’t been invented yet; it is something that is passed down from preceding generations.

According to Rocky, Tidwell wants to transmogrify forests, not restore them. The reason is (allegedly):

The climate has changed already in many places so much that it cannot sustain the kind of trees that grew there before.

When you look at the warming trend it’s apparent that many of the forests we know and love today won’t be able to survive the warmer conditions expected in the next 40 years, let alone the next century. …

Tidwell doesn’t want to get into a debate about the causes of climate change.

Tidwell allegedly doesn’t want to get into a debate about the causes of climate change.

What? Hello Rocky and Tom, the CLIMATE HAS NOT CHANGED!!!!!!!!!!!

Nowhere has there been such a profound change in climate that there has been any alteration in the tree species that grow there. They can’t point to any place where a tree species grew 100 years ago, or 500 years ago, where it will not grow now.

Nowhere has that happened. I defy anyone to name the place.

Tidwell doesn’t want to debate the causes of climate change. Okay, let’s debate the reality of it.

There has been no climate change. According to the best available science, global temperatures have risen 1 deg F since the depths of the Little Ice Age. It is currently 45 deg F outside. Yesterday’s high was 54 deg F. That means on a similar day 100 years ago it would have been 46 deg F with a high of 55 deg F. That’s not a significant change. In fact, it is such a tiny change that it is essentially undetectable and highly questionable. It is not a game changer.

According to the National Climate Data Center (a government agency and certainly not a climate skeptic outfit), last winter’s (December - February) temperature in the contiguous United States was the coldest winter temperature of the last 20 years and winter temperatures have been trending downward at a rate of 0.47 degrees F per decade for the last 20 years [here].

According to the best available science, the globe is expected to continue cooling for the next 30 years at least [here].

Rocky goes on to say:

The Forest Service has decades of research that show the effects of climate change but also presents a game plan for restoring the forests so they can survive along with the species that depend on them for habitat. Upon this general game plan a new consensus for management can be built.

He implies something that is not true. The USFS has not researched climate change for decades. Climate change is a new concept, and as explained above, is not even real.

What the USFS has researched for decades is forest regeneration, and what the researchers have found is that the best growth comes from on-site genotypes.

The USFS is not going to start planting palm trees or southern pines in Idaho. That would be a complete failure and everybody knows it. They are not even going to plant trees from any distance away. The research has shown that the planting stock which does best comes from seeds gathered in the immediate vicinity. That’s what “on-site genotypes” are — seedlings grown from seeds that come from the exact same location where the seedlings are to be planted.

Decades of research demonstrates conclusively that the climate is NOT changing, in so far as tree genetics are concerned.

Historical research has also demonstrated conclusively that in prior eras, such as Medieval, Roman, and Minoan times, the climate was much warmer than today, perhaps 5 deg F. Yet back then the exact same tree species grew where they grow today. We need to go back to the Wisconsin Glaciation over 12,000 years ago to find a truly different climate, and that condition was 10 to 15 deg F colder than today. What grew in Idaho back then were tundra and steppe species, and only in areas that were not covered with continental ice sheets.

If there is any danger of climate change, it is that the Ice Ages are going to return. It is going to get colder, not warmer. In fact, the globe has been in a neoglaciation mode, cooling off, for the last 7,000+ years [here].

These are just the facts, sports fans. We deal in facts here, not wild conjecture based on political or quasi-religious New Age prophesies.

Rocky quotes Tidwell:

“We can’t recreate the conditions of the past,” Tidwell said. “We need to look forward.”

Technically speaking, that’s true. But restoration is not re-creation. Forest restoration means active management to bring back historical cultural landscapes, historical forest development pathways, and traditional ecological stewardship to achieve historical resiliency to fire and insects and to preclude and prevent a-historical catastrophic fires that decimate and destroy myriad resource values [here].

In forest restoration the conditions of the past are not exactly duplicated, but they are guides to achieving forests that are resilient to disturbances. History is important. We can learn from history. One lesson is that the forest conditions of the past are excellent guideposts for the future.

The forests of the future are not going to be radically different from those of the past. They are not going to contain different species. If they are to be resilient, they must reflect the conditions that were resilient in the past. If forests are going to have old-growth trees in them, then those forests must recapitulate the historical development pathways that lead to old-growth. If we are going to get a handle on our forest fire crisis, then we must restore the fire-resilient, open, park-like forests of yesteryear with active management and frequent, seasonal, anthropogenic (human-set, not lightning-set) fires.

I think Chief Tidwell knows all that. I don’t think Rocky Barger gets it, but Tidwell does. I hope so, anyway.