The decades-old practice of industrial forestry is not sustainable. This practice of extractive logging on public and private lands is dominated by clearcuts, logging roads, and timber plantations. The loss and degradation of natural forest ecosystems is driving climate change and amplifying the severity of heat waves and drought, posing significant public health and safety risks by amplifying their effects on water shortages, wildfires, landslides, floods, invasive species and other stressors already on the rise due to climate change. Although forests are not like a crop of corn, those employing industrial forestry continue to genetically accentuate rapid regrowth, in order to liquidate the forest and regrow it. Industrial forestry practices have both immediate and generational consequences. Fire danger is radically increased following clear cuts because once trees and understory are removed, hotter, windier, and drier conditions are created (see John Muir Project, Understanding the Science, Ep. 2: Are Current Fire Management Practices the Contemporary Sisyphus?).
Another negative consequence of the industrial model is its effect on bird species and insects. Insect-eating birds are a major part of an intact forest, helping to keep the ecological balance. But once the trees are removed, seed-eating birds replace the insect eaters and thus the insect infestations become common and overwhelming. The soil, the primary resource in the landscape, is essentially spent and compromised by the third generation of clear cutting because the process of clear cutting chops the soil, rips the layers of fungi and microbes, and creates little gullies that wash away the topsoil. Sadly, today Timberland Investment Management Organizations (TIMOs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) have taken over the ownership of many forestlands with one goal in mind—maximizing short term profits.
An ecological model of forestry places utmost importance on carbon sequestration and storage. Our forests store billions of tons of carbon dioxide that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere. They also help regulate local temperature and precipitation patterns—functions that are arguably as important as their carbon-storing potential. Beverly Law writes, “Climate change mitigation and biodiversity protection are an essential part of forest management decision making” (The Status of Science on Forest Carbon Management to Mitigate Climate Change, March 9, 2022).
The current practice of herbicide spraying, especially aerial spraying, has no place in an ecologically managed forest. Herbicide spraying is toxic to aquatic invertebrates and fish because it kills algae, insects, and aquatic plants, effectively destroying their food base. It contaminates vital sources of drinking water for wildlife and human communities. Thriving older and more complex tree strands along waterways provide protection for salmon and steelhead and support the recovery of endangered species.
An ecological model of forestry moves away from even-aged timber management toward heterogeneous forest stands of varied layers and ages. Unlogged forests of varying strands, especially older trees, provide high canopy cover, wind breaks, and a cooler and shadier microclimate. Naturally occurring fires are almost always less severe in such a landscape, and natural fires provide important snag habitat for many species of birds and small animals. An ecological model recognizes that natural disturbance events are integral to the ecosystem, and allows the diversity and complexity of the forest to recover rapidly for a variety of plant and animal species. Forest regeneration following a natural burn becomes a carbon sink. Snagged trees retain carbon, and the soil, undisturbed (unlike within the industrial model), remains a major source of carbon retention. Furthermore, the current industrial trend toward forest bioenergy and burning of wood pellets adds significantly more carbon dioxide per unit of energy to the atmosphere than the burning of fossil fuels.
We need a shift in our approach to forest management from corporate control to local control and from capital-intensive to labor-intensive. These transitions should be at the heart of an ecological model of forestry. Taking the philosophy ‘less is more’ and applying it to management in our forests is in many ways the opposite of Industrial forestry, and could go a long way in reversing the negative impacts of the past. While protecting our remaining unlogged wild forests and allowing nature to heal the damage from past practices must be our priority, we must move toward an ecological model as quickly as possible in situations where forest products are being harvested.
The Forest Team of the Oregon Chapter supports the adoption of an ecological model of forestry for Oregon that recognizes forests as complex “ecosystems with diverse biota, complex structure, and multiple functions, and not simply collections of trees valuable primarily for production of wood” (Franklin, Johnson, and Johnson, Ecological Forest Management).
***
To find out more about the Forest Team or to join our work, contact Carol at illinoisvalley@oregon.sierraclub.org.