Tree Tips--Preservation or Conservation--2/15/02

Printed in the Mendocino County Observer

Preservation or Conservation - What's the Difference?

There is a difference between preservation and conservation. Preservation calls for a hands-off approach, allowing for no management. Typically what will be set aside for preservation is determined by an easily identified characteristic, such as everything within a certain distance from a watercourse or, in the case of the Heritage Tree Initiative, the diameter of a tree. If a stand or a tree meets the prescribed criteria, it can't be managed now or in the future.

An important shortcoming of preservation is that it makes no provision for changes over time. This is critical when dealing with forests whose health depends on fires in a time when we suppress wildfires, because a no-management policy approach can lead to problems in forest health due to overcrowding and stress.

Conservation is a different kind of approach, one in which management is permitted. Under a conservation approach to forest management, resource professionals look at important factors like changes over time, resiliency of the stand, the stand to be left after harvest, and the fertility of the site. The goal is to provide for a sustainable system in terms of the resources while also providing for compatible human uses.

A shortcoming of the conservation approach is that it assumes that the parties involved can find common ground and have a certain level of trust. When there is disagreement about what the goals should be or what sustainability means, or if the parties involved distrust one another, it becomes difficult if not impossible to come up with an appropriate management strategy.

To advocate preservation is to move to ban management. To advocate conservation is to move to provide clarification as to what the goals are (fuel reduction, timber production, wildlife habitat management, good aesthetics, etc.) and then to actively work toward those goals.

It's worth remembering that we currently grow less than 30% of the wood we use in the state. Preserving more trees here in California would mean meeting even more of our demand through imports. If we as a public do decide to preserve more forestland, we need to take responsibility for the ecological and ethical implications of relying even more heavily on wood from forests that are less well protected than our own.

Point of clarification: The Heritage Tree Initiative is still in the signature-gathering phase. If it does make it on the ballot, it will be in November of this year.

Clare Nunamaker is a Registered Professional Forester and member of NorCal SAF, CLFA, and the Forest Stewards Guild.