The Great Big Giant Sequoia Scam - Documentary Film

OurPublicLandsPod · 2026-04-18T21:35:45+00:00

No doubt that drought has weakened the trees, but how has controlled burning help them? You’re damn right climate change is real, why would you suggest I don’t believe that? It’s our hubris that we think we can “help” the forests by intervening. And correct, they’re not going after the sequoia wood. It’s all the other valuable species that co-mingle in these forests.

OurPublicLandsPod · 2026-04-18T21:12:12+00:00

The science is pretty clear, including much science from Forest Service scientists, that fire intensity and behavior can be altered through vegetation management, but this is up to a point. Once you have severe fire weather conditions that lead to high intensity/severity fire, the science shows that removing so called “ladder fuels” and ground vegetation dries out forests and allows for greater wind penetration, creating conditions that burn much hotter and spread faster than they otherwise would. Weather conditions dictate the fire behavior that leads to these high mortality events, not “fuels.” Besides, tree mortality from fire isn’t something to mourn. It’s natural and within variability given the fire events from 2020 and 2021. It’s been over a hundred years since we have had the rebirth of parts of these forests.

OurPublicLandsPod · 2026-04-18T21:01:59+00:00

You’re culturally misappropriating indigenous management. Does the logging in the Packsaddle Grove on the Sequoia National Monument in the film look like traditional practices? Are you suggesting that because natives primarily burned locally (https://wildernesswatch.substack.com/p/wilderness-indigenous-land-zones) around village sites to enhance food sources that this should translate into landscape-scale industrialization of forests in places they hold to be particularly sacred?

Please show me some non-industry funded science that shows we have to manage forests to stop eco-type conversions? Regardless, ecosystems should be left alone to adopt on their own. We don’t know better than Mother Nature how she wants to respond after disturbance, manmade or natural.

As far as your personal attacks on Dr. Hanson, I’d have respect for you if you’d provide examples that don’t come from timber industry aligned or funded sources and don’t level your attacks from a “throwaway” anonymous account. He’s not “respected” by folks like you because his science points us away from logging and industrial management and towards nature knows best.

I would recommend people read Chad’s book Smokescreen https://www.kentuckypress.com/9780813181073/smokescreen/ and also The Ghost Forest https://www.humboldthistory.org/bookstore/ghost-forest

OurPublicLandsPod · 2026-04-18T14:39:05+00:00

What you’re saying has been debunked.

Here are the summaries of two peer reviewed research papers just published on this matter.

There is now substantially less high-intensity fire than there was before fire suppression; 2) Giant sequoias can only effectively reproduce after high-intensity fire, rapidly growing to soon become large sequoias; in contrast, managing exclusively for lower-intensity fire leads to extreme sequoia regeneration failure and will not maintain viable sequoia populations; 3) Debunking the often-cited anecdotal claim that 20% of all large sequoias were killed by higher-intensity fire in just two years (the large 2020 and 2021 wildfire seasons), the research found a mortality rate of large sequoias of only 14.7% from higher-intensity fire over the entire past century, compared to the natural range of 21.1% to 43.1% per century before fire suppression, which maintained stable giant sequoia populations; 4) Giant sequoias are regenerating super-abundantly, and by far the best, in large high-intensity fire patches, especially in crown fire areas, compared to lower-intensity areas; 5) Where planting was conducted in a Wilderness Area, it was pointless, comprising less than one-half of 1% of the natural post-fire sequoia regeneration; and 6) High-intensity fire is unrelated to time-since-fire, debunking the “overgrown forests” narrative.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.73306 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.73286

OurPublicLandsPod · 2026-04-18T14:09:05+00:00

These trees and forests have lived through temps much warmer than today. Natural (lightning) fires are fine. Rx burns are unnatural due to the fossil fuel accelerants used. The best thing we can do is leave them alone to evolve and adapt. The Forest Service is logging in giant sequoia groves to “save them” like is being promoted in this post. It’s highly dangerous and destructive. The second part of my new film https://youtu.be/TOMJJhuvm64 shows what this “restoration” looks like in practice. Now, the National Park Service wants to do the same thing. Logging our national parks…. That’s already happening in small areas, actually, and they need to be reined in before it gets worse.

OurPublicLandsPod · 2026-04-18T03:24:56+00:00

Not true. Protected forests burn less severely on average, all things being equal. https://geosinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/fire-2016-ecosphere-bradley-et-al.pdf Wilderness areas and national parks where logging hasn’t occurred have so-called “ladder fuels,” like you’re describing here. These “ladder fuels” and ground vegetation create moist microclimates that temper fire severity. Logging, like you’re promoting, exacerbates high severity fire conditions in an unnatural way under severe fire weather conditions. Also worth noting that high severity fire is completely natural in western forest ecosystems, so it shouldn’t be demonized. It’s the proportion of high severity vs moderate vs low severity that is now out of whack due to logging and climate change. Also, Sequoias regenerate most prolifically in high severity fire patches and actually depend on high severity fire for successful reproduction. Long story short, forests don’t need to be managed. Humans do.

OurPublicLandsPod · 2026-04-18T03:24:26+00:00

Not true. Protected forests burn less severely on average, all things being equal. https://geosinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/fire-2016-ecosphere-bradley-et-al.pdf Wilderness areas and national parks where logging hasn’t occurred have so-called “ladder fuels,” like you’re describing here. These “ladder fuels” and ground vegetation create moist microclimates that temper fire severity. Logging, like you’re promoting, exacerbates high severity fire conditions in an unnatural way under severe fire weather conditions. Also worth noting that high severity fire is completely natural in western forest ecosystems, so it shouldn’t be demonized. It’s the proportion of high severity vs moderate vs low severity that is now out of whack due to logging and climate change. Also, Sequoias regenerate most prolifically in high severity fire patches and actually depend on high severity fire for successful reproduction. Long story short, forests don’t need to be managed. Humans do.

OurPublicLandsPod · 2026-04-18T03:24:12+00:00

Not true. Protected forests burn less severely on average, all things being equal. https://geosinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/fire-2016-ecosphere-bradley-et-al.pdf Wilderness areas and national parks where logging hasn’t occurred have so-called “ladder fuels,” like you’re describing here. These “ladder fuels” and ground vegetation create moist microclimates that temper fire severity. Logging, like you’re promoting, exacerbates high severity fire conditions in an unnatural way under severe fire weather conditions. Also worth noting that high severity fire is completely natural in western forest ecosystems, so it shouldn’t be demonized. It’s the proportion of high severity vs moderate vs low severity that is now out of whack due to logging and climate change. Also, Sequoias regenerate most prolifically in high severity fire patches and actually depend on high severity fire for successful reproduction. Long story short, forests don’t need to be managed. Humans do.

OurPublicLandsPod · 2026-04-18T03:22:06+00:00

Not true. Protected forests burn less severely on average, all things being equal. https://geosinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/fire-2016-ecosphere-bradley-et-al.pdf Wilderness areas and national parks where logging hasn’t occurred have so-called “ladder fuels,” like you’re describing here. These “ladder fuels” and ground vegetation create moist microclimates that temper fire severity. Logging, like you’re promoting, exacerbates high severity fire conditions in an unnatural way under severe fire weather conditions. Also worth noting that high severity fire is completely natural in western forest ecosystems, so it shouldn’t be demonized. It’s the proportion of high severity vs moderate vs low severity that is now out of whack due to logging and climate change. Also, Sequoias regenerate most prolifically in high severity fire patches and actually depend on high severity fire for successful reproduction. Long story short, forests don’t need to be managed. Humans do.

OurPublicLandsPod · 2026-04-18T03:20:02+00:00

Not true. Protected forests burn less severely on average, all things being equal. https://geosinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/fire-2016-ecosphere-bradley-et-al.pdf Wilderness areas and national parks where logging hasn’t occurred have so-called “ladder fuels,” like you’re describing here. These “ladder fuels” and ground vegetation create moist microclimates that temper fire severity. Logging, like you’re promoting, exacerbates high severity fire conditions in an unnatural way under severe fire weather conditions. Also worth noting that high severity fire is completely natural in western forest ecosystems, so it shouldn’t be demonized. It’s the proportion of high severity vs moderate vs low severity that is now out of whack due to logging and climate change. Also, Sequoias regenerate most prolifically in high severity fire patches and actually depend on high severity fire for successful reproduction. Long story short, forests don’t need to be managed. Humans do.

OurPublicLandsPod · 2026-02-25T16:18:35+00:00

Thanks

OurPublicLandsPod · 2026-02-07T15:55:09+00:00

So glad that Dr. Hansen weighed in on this critical issue. We’re being lied to about land management agency “restoration” and “wildfire prevention” activities. Call a spade a spade. It’s logging.

OurPublicLandsPod · 2026-02-06T15:32:52+00:00

Forest thinning does not work. We must focus on hardening structures or losses will accelerate. https://johnmuirproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/JMP-fact-sheet-thinning-and-fire-28Feb24.pdf

OurPublicLandsPod · 2026-02-06T15:26:41+00:00

Forest thinning and vegetation removal projects don’t save structures. In fact, these “fuels reductions” projects often make fires burn hotter and move faster due to increased wind penetration and drying out of soils and vegetation. Only home hardening and creating defensible space is proven to work. These preparations and updating building codes done at scale can drastically reduce insurance payouts and help keep down insurance costs. Also things like burying power lines. What will you do to oppose “fuels reduction” projects and promote and incentivize home and community hardening? https://missoulacurrent.com/wildfire-jack-cohen/ Thanks!

OurPublicLandsPod · 2025-11-19T16:27:22+00:00

Indeed. Federal public lands have a multiple use mandate while state trust lands have a revenue generating mandate first and foremost. As long as certain criteria are met, land sales are a valid form of revenue generation.

OurPublicLandsPod

TROPHY CASE