Over a century after the first redwoods were set aside and protected in public ownership, the redwood movement has come a long way. For the majority of the public, “saving redwoods” has come to mean placing threatened redwood groves into parks and preserves like Big Basin State Park (1902), Muir Woods National Monument (1908), Humboldt Redwoods State Park (1921), Redwood National Park (1968), and the Headwaters Forest Reserve (1999) (Hartley 2011). Following a century where 95 percent of the ancient redwood forests fell to the axe and most of the large groves that remained are protected in State and National parks and reserves, what does it mean to save the redwoods today? If for the first 100 years saving meant placing in public ownership, I argue that for the next 100 years, saving will mean working to heal the forest that remain, whether in public or private ownership. In a time when climate change is rapidly changing , it also means the random choice of lines we’ve drawn on maps to show public and private ownership is quickly becomming irrelevant. We need a new paradigm that will build resilience and adaptability to climate change into the system. What new science is needed to insure these efforts are succecful? Do scientists and land managers have the tools they need to cope with change on a global scale? How can we engage and gain the support of a skeptical public more used to clear cut logging than forestry based on conservation science? If we somehow manage to do this right, it can be a model for how forests around the world are managed; if we fail we risk losing the last Redwoods forever.
Final Thoughts