Pyrological Rhetorical Ecologies: Contested Discourse in the Redwood Forest

Abstract

This essay employs a critical rhetorical ecologies framework to examine forest fire management and post-fire restoration discourse in the context of Wilderness Watch, Sequoia Forest Keeper, Tule River Conservancy, and John Muir Project v. National Park Service. The case uniquely positions environmental advocacy groups in active litigation against the National Park Service (NPS) over post-wildfire replanting initiatives in the Giant Sequoia groves of Kings Canyon National Park. By analysing this legal and ecological conflict, the essay explores the rhetorical situation of science communication within contested environmental policy. Drawing on the scientific work of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, the analysis reveals how dominant strands of scientific reasoning – shaped by legal and institutional rhetorics – systematically marginalise alternative ecological perspectives in favor of judicial logics aligned with ‘royal’ scientific discourse. Deleuze and Guattari were chosen because of their foundational contributions to science communication. The essay raises critical questions about how forest management is communicated and contested among diverse public stakeholders.