by Bruce Barnbaum

Cut Oak Tree

Forests vary greatly due to geography, geology and climate, requiring broad statements about forests and forestry to be modified to greater or lesser extents for them to be meaningful in each unique area. The information presented below applies directly to the temperate rainforests of the Pacific Northwest from Northern California to Alaska and portions of the information are specifically geared to shed light on misinformed testimony that came up during those hearings that are specific to other parts of the United States.

The paper was written in 1992, and updated in 1998 and 2001.

Section 1: An Overview of an Untouched Forest

To establish a baseline, let us look at conditions in an untouched, natural, old growth forest. This is the forest that nature gave us, the forest that has evolved since the retreat of glaciers from the last ice age.

From the famed redwood forests of northern California to the dominant fir/hemlock forests of Oregon and Washington, to the fir/cedar/hemlock/spruce forests of Washington and British Columbia, and on to the spruce/hemlock forests of Alaska, we continuously find mixtures of trees in all locales. We never find extensive pure stands of any single species. In the drier regions east of the North Cascades or Sierra Nevada we may find nearly pure stands of ponderosa pine and, at higher altitudes, lodgepole pine, but such monocultures are never seen in the rainforest.

Mixed in with the conifers of the Northwest rainforests, we may find maples, alders, cottonwoods, birches, and other deciduous hardwood species, which dominate the forests in some locales.

Within these forests are trees of all ages large old giants, medium aged trees, young trees and saplings along with a variety of shrubs, ferns, mosses, lichens and microorganisms. More than 1800 microorganisms have been identified as existing within such forests, and up to 1400 of them may exist in any one forest locale. Animals of all types and sizes exist within the forests–mammals, birds, reptiles, mollusks (snails, slugs, etc.), amphibians (toads, frogs, salamanders, etc.), insects, spiders, and, of course, fish within the streams, lakes, ponds and wetlands. The forest forms a complete biological interaction of all plant and animal species.

The subterranean fungi are of particular importance, for they interect directly with tree roots in a way that greatly enhances the tree's ability to take in nutrients. Without this interaction, roots become inefficient and largely ineffactive at drawing nutrients into the tree. Thus subterranean fungi are among the most important organisms in any untouched old-growth forest.

A particularly fascinating example of this biological interaction was the recent discovery of air roots put out by maple trees of the Pacific Northwest rainforests directly from their branches into the mat of mosses and ferns hanging heavily on those branches. The air roots supply more than 50% of the nutrients to those maple trees; the maple's subterranean roots supply less than 50% of its nutrients!

The forest canopy softens the fall of rain during heavy cloudbursts. The trees, shrubs, ferns, and mosses hold the ground together, preventing erosion. The mircoorganisms interact with the larger flora of the forest to process and purify water. During the heaviest storms, water is retained within the forest as if it were an enormous sponge, and released slowly over the succeeding days, weeks, and months. As a result, historic river flows show less fluctuation than are seen today.

Young trees are abundant in an old growth forest. Growth is vigorous in the saplings, young trees, and middle aged trees. Older trees are less vigorous in their growth. Some saplings die quickly; some live only long enough to become young trees but cannot compete further with hardier trees nearby; some live to middle age; some to ripe old age of 500, 1,000, and even 2,000 years. Growth in this undisturbed forest has reached an equilibrium with death, decay, and nutrification.

The untouched rainforests of the Pacific Northwest contain the greatest biological mass per acre of any ecosystem on earth. They are, therefore, the most productive ecosystems on earth. Even the undisturbed rainforests of the Amazon are not as dense with life as those of the Pacific Northwest, although they do contain a greater variety of both plant and animal species. ThPacific Northwest’s immense reservoir of life represents a natural resource of almost inestimable value: not only the value of wood contained within the forest, but also its value to wetlands and their mutual purification of water for streams within its bounds and those below it, its value as a blockade against soil erosion and therefore its value to the the fishery, its value for land-based wildlife, its value as an oxygen producer, its still undiscovered values for genetic, food, and medicinal purposes (such as the discovery of the chemical taxol in the bark of yew trees that stops ovarian and breast cancer in humans), and its value for recreation due to its wondrous beauty.

Within the untouched forest some trees of any age may be blown over during intense storms, but most survive. Fire can be a scourge, sometimes killing all trees over many acres, and in the most extensive fires, over many square miles. Most fires are canopy fires, destroying the trees from the top. Only the most intense portions of fires burn all the way down to the ground, as was seen in the extensive Yellowstone fires of 1988. Burnt forests usually recover quickly from within by seed: those seeds that have been dropped and were lying on the forest floor as the fire swept through. Only if the forest floor were burned in an intense fire will recovery take place from the periphery.

Needles of tall conifer trees are remarkably efficient at extracting water from fog banks and low clouds even when no rain falls. More than 25% of their water intake is derived in this manner when water drips to the ground as localized "rain" when no rain is actually falling. This bonanza is supplied to the trees, shrubs, and all other elements of the forest. The untouched, old growth forest creates its own local weather conditions, which helps it to sustain itself. Thus the unmanaged forest produces defenses against periodic droughts.

Such forests supply oxygen from their intake of carbon dioxide through the chemical process of photosynthesis, they prevent erosion, purify water, provide habitat — both food and shelter — for the animals, and (not to be forgotten), supply immense beauty, solitude, and inspiration for humans who venture into them.

There are a number of private foresters scattered between Texas and British Columbia who understand the value of untouched forests and have chosen to manage their land in ways that replicate conditions of old growth forests. There are numerous variations on the methodology used. I shall outline the forest practices of one such enlightened forester whose methods of selective timber harvesting prove that such procedures are both sustainable and profitable.

Mr. Merv Wilkinson of Vancouver, British Columbia, purchased 136 acres of old growth forest as described above in 1944 (57 years ago) and has been logging the land ever since, but still retains an old growth forest. Over the past twenty five years he has managed an increasing number of other forest lands–some in excess of 500 acres–using the same methods that he has used on his own land for over half a century.

Every five years Mr. Wilkinson does a major cut, taking out somewhat fewer board feet than the forest grows during that same period of time. He removes some of the largest trees, some medium sized trees, and some of the smaller trees. He thus takes away most of the "interest," leaving the "principal" untouched. He allows some trees to die, fall, decay, and supply nutrients to the forest, and habitat for wildlife, accounting for the remainder of the "interest." In this manner he replicates conditions of an untouched old growth forest to a remarkable extent.

Between major cuts, he does minor cutting and maintenance each year (such as removal of trees that have fallen during the previous year, or ones that are about to fall), providing some employment to loggers (those who cut the trees) and yarders (those who remove the trees) every year on the same plot of land, and major employment every five years. By contrast, after a clearcut neither loggers nor yarders will set foot on that land again for employment during their lifetimes, because regrowth time for a replanted clearcut ranges from 50 to 100 years. Mr. Wilkinson's selective cutting approach is extremely beneficial to timber workers.

Mr. Wilkinsons calculates his road costs–after eleven major cuts–at about 25¢ per foot, an extremely low cost made possible by regular use of the same permanent roads that were created during his initial harvest. His initial cut was along lines that became the permanent entry roads for logging trucks and yarding operations. He has now used those same roads for eleven major cuts. He figures his road cost per lineal foot as the initial cost plus ongoing maintenance costs, divided by the number of times he has used the roads for major cuts. By contrast, under common logging practices, roadbuilding is exceptionally expensive because a road is used only once before enormous erosion destroys it after the clearcut. When a second clearcut comes along, new rebuilding is required at high cost. It is the second highest expenditure associated with common clearcutting practices.

Mr. Wilkinson has never planted a tree because the forest is fully self seeding. This approach eliminates the greatest cost associated with clearcutting: the cost of replanting a forest. In fact, he has to "weed" out the surplus of saplings! As young saplings, they can simply be pulled out of the ground, and the ones "weeded out" are chosen to maintain a mixture of species.

Under current logging practices trees are clearcut, slash is burned to add nutrients quickly to the soil, but burning also kills all seeds on the ground, necessitating replanting, the highest expense of forestry today. None of this is necessary. Mr. Wilkinson grows western red cedar, Sitka spruce, hemlock, and Douglas fir, puncturing the industry-promoted misconception that a clearcut is needed to grow Douglas fir (please see section 7). In fact, all that is needed is an opening in the canopy, as Mr. Wilkinson has consistently demonstrated for a half century. He gets top dollar every five years for the high quality timber on his property, with mills bidding heavily for his timber. Every forest product company should recognize this as a solid basis for moderating its intense opposition to clearcutting.

Saplings in Mr. Wilkinson’s managed forest are given shelter from strong winds, violent storms, prolonged droughts, excessive sunlight and other extremes of weather by the standing trees. This replicates conditions in an untouched, old growth forest. In a clearcut/replanted tree farm, saplings receive no protection from any of the above conditions, and drought conditions, in particular, can prove fatal in the denuded landscape stripped of the protective forest that maintains moisture with such efficiency.

Mr. Wilkinson never uses pesticides. Mixed age, mixed species forests are strong enough to chemically adapt to pest infestations. Single species (monocultures), single aged tree farms are highly vulnerable to any pest infestation, especially during their 7th to 10th years, necessitating extensive use of pesticides, which get into the groundwater and surface waters directly. Therefore his methods of selective cutting to maintain a mixed-age, mixed species forest have no adverse effects on either land-based wildlife or on aquatic species in wetlands or streams, nor do they have any adverse effects on water quality for human consumption. His approach eliminates another costly aspect of today's clearcutting practices, costs that are not taken into account by the forestry industry..

Mr. Wilinson's selection forestry reduces erosion to insignificance because most trees within any given plot of land remain standing after each harvest, while shrubs, ferns, mosses, lichen, and even microorganisms are maintained with minimal losses. Thus the biological integrity of the forest remains intact and unbroken. Oxygen is continuously supplied to the atmosphere, water is continuously purified because the forest’s intricate biological interactions are not destroyed. Fisheries are not impacted by selection logging operations. Land-based wildlife is essentially undisturbed.

Selection cutting of trees eliminates the highest cost associated with forestry (replanting) and dramatically reduces other major costs, such as road construction and pesticide use and its attendent pollution. As we will see in Section 3, it eliminates the excessive costs to society that are totaly ignored in today’s flawed economic analysis of clearcutting methods.

The minimum impact methods employed by Mr. Wilkinson’s selection forestry for both felling and yarding of trees speak of a respect for the forest. Trees are selected for cutting on a hierarchal basis: first are trees that have died (though, as stated above, he does allow some trees to die and remain standing for wildlife habitat purposes), second are trees whose growth rate has declined. Third are trees selected to maintain openings in the canopy for those species requiring more light, such as Douglas fir, and to create maximum room for root systems of standing trees to spread. Felling must be precise to minimize damage to standing trees, requiring a higher level of skill from the loggers.

Concerning yarding methods (the method of removing trees from the site after they are felled), on both flat ground or relatively low rolling terrain, such as Mr. Wilkinson's land, felled trees are removed on "skidder trails" between the permanent roads. No yarding is done during heavy rains, or when the ground is heavily saturated from recent rains, because damage to the ground from dragging of logs increases dramatically under such conditions. There is some damage, of necessity, to shrubs, ground mosses, ferns, and other small foliage during yarding, but if damage becomes too severe, alternate skidder trails are created to minimize damage to any one locale.

On steeper slopes, the minimum impact Swiss method should be applied. A giant set of pulleys and aerial cables is hung on standing trees from the bottom to the top of the slope to aerially transport felled trees from the point of cutting to the staging area. This method eliminates virtually all dragging of logs on the ground. The only dragging is minimal, and occurs when lifting the tree onto the aerial pulley system for the above-ground transport to the staging area. The ground is largely undisturbed, keeping erosion to a minimum.

This approach can be employed on relatively shallow or steep slopes. Trees are brought downhill to a staging area at the bottom of the slope, or upward to a staging area at the top. The pulley system of yarding can be used on slopes of several hundred feet in height to slopes exceeding two thousand feet. This method eliminates the enormously destructive activity of dragging logs uphill or downhill along the ground, while also eliminating the need for numerous unsightly, nearly-parallel roads crossing the face of steep slopes, as is commonly seen on mountain slopes subject to clearcutting.

It must always be remembered that as altitude increases, as slopes steepen, as soils become thinner, and as rainfall decreases, the percentage of trees removed must progressively decrease or the forest cannot recover satisfactorily. When any one of those factors becomes too marginal (i.e., too steep a slope, too high an altitude–which varies with latitude, etc.) logging should not be considered.

Selection forestry requires the highest skills in choosing the appropriate trees to harvest, in felling them with precision to minimize damage to standing trees, and in yarding them with minimum damage to the environment. Timber workers are fully capable of carrying out these tasks superbly when given the opportunity to display their skills. Anyone who feels that this is impossible is seriously underestimating the capabilities of timber workers.

Selection forestry is best for the land because it keeps erosion to a minimum; best for timber workers (loggers and yarders) because it offers regular employment; best for the environment, including the forest itself and any adjacent wetlands or streams because it allows the biological functions of a forest to continue uninterrupted; best for the environment because it doesn’t introduce toxic pesticides; best for wildlife because it maintains habitat; best for reforestation because it offers protection for fragile young trees, and best for aesthetics and recreational opportunities because the beauty of the forest remains largely intact. Selection forestry basically simulates the conditions of an untouched forest through intensive, enlightened management.

Section 3: The Disregard of Natural Conditions and True Costs Created by Clearcutting

Under current clearcut practices, in which all trees are removed from a plot of land, everything dies with the trees–shrubs, mosses, ferns, lichen, microorganisms, etc. The unwanted slash strewn on the ground is burned to place additional nutrients into the ground, but burning also kills all seeds on the ground–just as an extremely intense fire in an old growth forest could kill seeds on the ground–necessitating replanting, the major cost of forestry. Slash burning is also a major source of air pollution. Furthermore, slash burning heats the ground to temperatures that immediately kill the subterranean fungi, destroying an essential component of all healthy forests. Those that survive are subject to more extreme temperatues due to increased sunlight hitting the ground in summer, and more extreme frosts in the winter caused by the removal of the protective forest canopy. It can truly be said that the visible damage of a clearcut–the total removal of trees–is only part of the damage. The damage that takes place underground is of equal importance.

Once replanted, trees may return relatively quickly, but the mosses, ferns, understory shrubbery, and the abundance of microorganisms do not return for decades, sometimes for a century or more. Repeated clearcuts will eventually destroy subterranean organisms to such an extent that tree growth becomes highly problematical. In Germany, where clearcutting originated, the famous Black Forest is no longer a dense forest, but a sparse stand of trees. It is estimated that it could take several centuries of care before the forest could recover to its former glory. (It should be noted that such conditions as acid rain caused by industrial pollution has contributed to the poor condition of the forest.)

The untouched forests of Olympic National Park are heavily overlain with mosses hanging from tree branches. The clearcut and replanted tree farms immediately outside the park boundary show no mosses, few ferns, and virtually no lichen. The microorganisms, unseen by the naked eye, are almost entirely missing for a period of up to a century after a clearcut. The replanted tree farm constitutes a raw lumber factory for commercial purposes, but not a forest.

The shrubs, mosses ferns, lichen, and microorganisms have no apparent commercial value, so their loss is ignored. But they are essential to a true forest’s efficient purification of water, which has immediate commercial value to fisheries. By retaining wetlands and true forests (ones with complete biological interactions), we would greatly cut cost of water purification for human usage.

Is there no value to clean water? Is there no value to a standing forest that processes pure water so efficiently? Is there no value to the oxygen in the air, or the forests that create it? Is there no value to logging performed with regard to the land, rather than clearcutting performed with regard to corporate profits? Surely there is, but it is not seen in our current methods of economic analysis, which does not recognize natural values. A more realistic analysis of the financial impact of clearcutting would graphically demonstrate its adverse financial impact.

Clearcut - Slash and Burn

The ramifications of the growth pattern are astounding. Suppose the felled tree contains 1,000 board feet of wood (a block of wood measuring one foot square and one inch thick). In another 75 years it would possess 4,000 board feet of wood if left uncut. If cut, three new saplings would have to replace it immediately, each achieving 1,000 board feet in another 75 years for the original tree and its three successors to equal the yield of the single tree! Since most clearcuts take place every 50-75 years, we must require a minimum of four times as many trees in our forests–all relatively thin, tall trees–to yield the same amount of lumber as we would require if we followed nature’s rhythms. By clearcutting on a time scale geared to industry, rather than selectively cutting on a time scale geared to nature, we seriously undermine our own production requirements.

Second, let's consider a broad overview of the effect of clearcutting directly on the land. The high canopy that softened the fall of rain in the heaviest storms are removed by a clearcut. The intertwined mat of living roots that held the soil together atrophies quickly after the trees are cut. The degree of erosion increases as slopes steepen. Streams and rivers, once rich with salmon, cannot support the fishery because salmon are unable to negotiate the silt-laden waterway to their spawning grounds. In past years abundant salmon was the pride of the Pacific Northwest; in 1992 the commercial salmon fishing season was cut in half along the Oregon and Washington coasts because of the severe decline in the number of salmon. Today, several species of salmon are listed as endangered. Clearcutting has contributed significantly–albeit not exclusively–to the decades-long decline of salmon. This is another cost of clearcutting that is not reflected in the timber industry’s accounting.

Third, consider the loss of recreational values caused by clearcutting. Tourists flock to old growth forests, and will pay to see them, walk through them, and gain spiritual renewal from them. Nobody goes to enjoy lands that have been clearcut. Selective logging can retain the identity, vitality, and spirituality of old growth forests, remaining open to the public at all times except for the several weeks of intermittent cutting and removal activity. Areas subjected to periodic selective logging can be made compatible with recreational opportunities; areas subjected to clearcutting practices cannot be used in such a manner.

Soils in the Pacific Northwest rainforest form an extraordinarily thin layer over bedrock or the high water table. This can be seen clearly when a tree falls. There is no deep tap root, but a shallow spreading of the root system just underground. When erosion is accelerated by clearcutting practices, the entire soil base can be destroyed within several clearcut cycles.

Erosion removes the biological base needed for forests to regenerate. Cascading streams below clearcuts are not white with foam, but brown with silt carried down from the clearcut. More biological mass is lost to erosion after a clearcut than is produced by natural biological processes between clearcuts. As a result we may be able to reforest after one, two, or even three clearcuts, but beyond that our base will be exhausted and reforestation may be impossible, as has been demonstrated in German forests that have undergone successive clearcuts.

During the 1992 House Agricultural Hearings, Rep. Wally Herger of California stated, "Anyone who is opposed to clearcutting is opposed to reforestation." This statement is insupportable in light of the cumulative adverse impacts of clearcutting on the biological resource base and in light of the sustainable, selective forestry procedures of Mr. Wilkinson and others like him (please see Section 2), where reforestation becomes a natural outcome of the management approach. Mr. Herger’s statement should be modified to say, "Anyone who is opposed to clearcutting favors natural reforestation, favors real forests over raw lumber factories, favors landscapes that are pleasant to view, is opposed to erosion and opposed to destruction of fish and wildlife habitat."

Fire in an old growth forest (as noted in Section 1) may remove trees from many acres of forest land, and perhaps from many square miles of forest in a single stroke, but fires have never created the fragmented patchwork of clearcutting/slash burning/monoculture replanting that is so dominant in today’s forestry methods. NASA satellite photographs released in 1994 clearly show that the fragmented clearcutting of the Pacific Northwest rainforests are more destructive to the entire ecosystem than the more highly publicized clearcutting of the rainforests of Brazil’s Amazon region (please see Section 5).

Clearcutting is the primary cause of job loss among timber workers. Between 1977 and 1987 the number of board feet removed from public forests in Oregon increased by 16%, but the number of field workers decreased by 15%, according to Oregon’s Department of Employment and Forestry. The decreasing number of jobs was not caused by newly designated wilderness areas, but by increasingly automated clearcutting and yarding procedures.

Selective cutting, by contrast, cannot be highly automated, and therefore is a labor intensive method of tree harvesting, which creates more jobs for field workers. In regions where jobs are seriously jeopardized by logging restrictions brought about by excess cutting in recent years, selective logging would dramatically improve the job picture. This shows that a continuation of clearcutting procedures would be a triumph of corporate profits over field worker’s jobs.

The grim efficiency of clearcutting, and therefore the higher return in profit for the landowner, is the sole reason for its continuation. But the same could have been said about slavery prior to the Civil War, and the same could have been said about child labor in sweatshops prior to its abolition at the turn of the 20th century. Slavery was abolished because it was wrong; child labor was abolished because it was wrong; clearcutting will eventually be abolished because it is wrong, but it will continue into the near future because of the powerful financial interests that fight tenaciously for its continuation to the exclusion of other approaches.

Yarding procedures after clearcutting show the same lack of respect for the land as clearcutting, itself, shows. Tree removal during and after felling is conducted even in the most adverse weather conditions. I regularly witness yarding operations in the clearcut areas near my own home taking place by dragging logs up or down steep slopes even during the heaviest rains. The damage to the land is thorough, and erosion is increased to the maximum level possible.

During the House Agricultural Committee hearings Rep. Robert Smith of Oregon said, "Don’t take away the tool of clearcuts." It should be clear that the "tool of clearcutting" is merely a tool for maintaining industry profits at current levels together with forest product prices at current levels, but not a tool for enlightened forest management. It should be abolished because it is ecologically disastrous and has proven itself to be economically disastrous, as well, when the complete picture is viewed. A complete study of clearcutting’s economic impacts on fisheries, recreation, water quality, and lowland areas below clearcuts, would clearly show that its economic impact is massively detrimental to society, but not to the timber companies.

The following two tables compare selective cut and clearcut environments.

Section 4: A look at "New Forestry" or "Seed Tree Forestry"

In 1992 Mr. Dale Robertson of the U.S.Forest Service and Mr. Cy Jamison of the B.L.M. discussed the possible cessation–or near cessation–of clearcutting on federal lands under their respective jurisdictions during the House Agriculture Committee hearings. Instead both agencies would switch largely to a recently created procedure termed "seed tree forestry," or, alternately, "new forestry." With this approach, several trees–the "seed trees"–are left standing in a locale in which all other trees are removed. The number of "seed trees" remaining can be as low as five to ten per acre.

Seed tree forestry is a travesty. Five to ten trees per acre are insufficient to prevent massive erosion, the single greatest problem with clearcutting. The number of trees remaining are far too few to present any degree of protection to new saplings. Five or ten trees per acre provide pitifully little shade, and have no real ability to extract moisture from passing clouds or fog banks as numerous trees can in a viable forest. Understory foliage, along with the mosses, ferns, lichen and microorganisms would disappear around the few seed trees, just as they would in a complete clearcut.

The seed trees would be rendered highly vulnerable to blowdown during any moderately strong storm, whereas numerous trees tend to mutually protect one another in a viable forest. All that one has to do is look at the forest immediately adjacent to any clearcut to see the high percentage of trees that are blown down in storms as soon as their protection is removed by the clearcut.

Seed tree forestry is a cynical renaming of clearcutting, and its only benefit is allowing private industry and federal agencies to claim they are no longer clearcutting. But in fact they are clearcutting–only they are doing it in a more ragged manner by missing a few trees along the way! Seed tree forestry is clearcutting by another name, and should be looked upon as such.

Rep. Jim Jontz of Indiana saw through the ruse when he asked Mr. Dale Roberston if he considered a cutting of trees that left five trees standing per acre to be a clearcut. Mr. Robertson replied that it was "not technically a clearcut." Perhaps he is correct: technically it isn't in point of fact it is. Seed tree forestry is clearcutting.

As an analogy, it is just as correct to say that "technically" AIDS doesn't kill anyone. AIDS simply weakens the immune system, so that a disease like pneumonia kills the victim. The fact is, however, AIDS is a killer!

Seed tree forestry will accelerate major devastation of American forests. Over the past ten years, the U.S. Forest Service has progressively diminished the maximum size of clearcuts to its current 40 acre limit due to public pressure and scientific research showing the extent of clearcutting destruction. Seed tree forestry will allow hundreds of acres perhaps thousands of acres–to be clearcut in the guise of an approach that is "not technically a clearcut." Forests throughout the United States, especially those about to opened for the first time to logging in Montana, will be open to thorough demolition. Seed tree forestry should be seen for what it is: a "fifth column" targeted at the heart of America's natural resources.

Both "Clearcutting" and "Selective Cutting" need to be better defined. Because trees are useful for so many purposes, and are also renewable resources, cutting of trees will–and must–continue, but clearcutting is an unacceptable method of removing trees. The percentage of trees that can be removed from any forested plot must be based on a variety of factors, including the richness of the soil, the steepness of the slope, the amount of rainfall, the length of the growing season, the amount of sunlight and shade, and habitat.

Rich soils allow for quicker growth of young saplings, whether planted or naturally seeded. Thus richer soils can withstand the loss of a higher percentage of trees than poorer soils. On flat terrain, erosion will be minimal if trees are removed, whereas on slopes erosion is greater. The greater the steepness of the slope, the more the potential for erosion, loss of soil, and potentially even the loss of remaining standing trees. Thus, the percentage of trees removed should decrease as the steepness of slopes increase.

Rainfall in any given location should be an important factor in determining the percentage of trees that can be removed from any location, but its impact is more complicated. Areas of little rain will not see fast growth of trees, and few trees should be removed from such areas. Areas of moderate rainfall will see greater growth of trees, allowing removal of a higher percentage of trees compatible with sustainable growth. Areas of high rainfall may see the greatest rate of tree growth, but also the greatest potential for erosion, particularly on steep slopes. Thus the amount of rainfall must be carefully considered together with the richness of the soil and the steepness of slopes to determine its factor in the removal of trees.

The length of the growing season is of critical concern in determining the percentage of trees that can be removed in any "harvest." In the tropics, the growing season is year-round. In arctic climates, the growing season is measured in weeks. In northern Canada and inland Alaska trees that are a hundred years old may be only inches in diameter. As altitudes increases, the growing season is truncated. Finally, at treeline, growth is slowed to a crawl due to the shortness of the growing season. Trees at at altitude of 10,000-11,000 feet in California's Sierra Nevada Mountains grow at roughly the same rate as trees in Washington's North Cascade or Olympic Mountain ranges at 5,000-6,000 feet, which grow at about the same rate as trees in northern Canada near sea level. As the growing season diminishes, the percentage of trees that can be "harvested" must decline.

The amount of sunlight and shade is another important factor, but like rainfall, its effect is more complex. In a dry climate, a shady north-facing slope will retain moisture far longer than sunny south-facing slope, allowing trees to grow on shady slopes where only shrubs and scrub plants grow on sunny slopes. In wetter climates, different types of trees may grow on sunny slopes from those that grow on shaded slopes. In the Pacific Northwest, Western Red Cedar will grow more abundantly on shady slopes, while Douglas Fir are found more abundantly on sunny slopes. Thus the degree of sunlight or shade should be a factor in considered what percentage of trees, and which species of trees, may be removed while maintaining a sustainable mix of existing trees.

Habitat of both fauna and flora is a critical factor. If threatened or endangered species are found within a forested location, it is essential that any removal of trees be prevented lest the species habitat is so compromised that it cannot survive. Under such circumstances, habitat can be the overriding consideration that negates consideration of the other factors discussed above. The effect of tree removal on salmon or other threatened or endangered aquatic species should also be an overrding factor in determining "tree harvest" levels in an entire watershed, not just in a specific locale.

The type of trees, or the size and age of trees on a forest are considerations. For example, it may be that if all trees of a single species are removed, even though they may constitute only a moderate or small percentage of the existing trees within the forest, it is either unlikely or impossible that such trees will regrow in that forested locale. Specifically targeted removal such as this should not be allowed. Furthermore, if a very low percentage of a species of tree exists in a specific locale, avoiding the removal or damage of such trees should be a goal in any "harvest."

Thus the percentage of trees that can be removed while maintaining a sustainable forest will vary greatly from one location to another. Guidelines, however, can be given in order to begin form the basis of evaluating what can be removed in a "harvest.".

In the following set of proposed definitions, I will assume that all factors are moderate (i.e., soils are of moderate richness, slopes are not steep, rainfall is moderate, the growing season is approximately 4-6 months, tree species are mixed,the trees are neither in full sun or full shade there are no problems with endangered or threatened species.) Under these "average" circumstances, I propose the following definitions:

These broad definitions would require modifications based on local ecological conditions discussed above. The basic criteria must be dependent on three primary considerations: the regenerative capability of the location, the degree of erosion due to the level of cutting, and visual disturbance due to the cut level. Critical habitat considerations override all of these. In locations where regenerative capability is low (higher altitudes, drier locations, etc.), or where erosion levels can be high (steep slopes, loose soils, etc.) or where visibility is high, percentages would be lower for each definition. In locales where productivity is high and erosion is low (low altitude flatlands with sufficient rainfall) percentages can be increased somewhat for each definition.

The amount that can be removed sustainably must also be determined by the frequency of cutting. If a "selective cut" (based on the definitions above) is performed every year, within just a few years almost nothing is left. This constitutes a clearcut. After a "harvesting" of trees, another removal of trees must be separated in time to allow regrowth of the number of board feet that has been removed within the "harvested" plot. Anything more is unsustainable and must not be allowed. Any amount of removal greater than 50% should not be allowed except in extraordinary circumstances that must be judged on merit on a case-by-case basis.

Section 7:Deceptions by the U. S. Forest Service and Private Forest Product Companies

Many of the governmental and public perceptions of our federal forests–and private forests as well–are created by information and misinformation regularly given to the public by forest product companies and state or federal agencies. The following items are examples of calculated misinformation put out by both private industry and governmental agencies.

The first set of examples of deliberately deceptive information can be seen in highlights of a conversation I had with Mr. Jerry Hazen of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, a spokesman for Superintendent Doug McWilliams. The conversation took place on June 11, 1992 the day the New York Times reported the NASA satellite photographs of logging in the Pacific Northwest compared to that in the Brazilian Amazon (please see Section 6). I phoned the superintendent's office to obtain reaction to the article and to obtain further information about Forest Service practices.

At one point I asked Mr. Hazen what percentage of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest was uncut old growth, and he said "between 60% and 80%." I quickly protested, saying that I lived at the edge of the forest and noted that large portions of it had been cut at least once. He countered by saying that I apparently saw only a small portion of the forest, but not much of it, and produced the following figures: the forest encompasses more than 1,700,000 acres and that 643,000 had been logged at one time or another. "Therefore the rest is old growth," he said.

I pointed out that much of that acreage is above timber line!
After a pause he said, "Perhaps I overstated that figure."

I was taken aback by the attempted deception. I then pointed out that a significant portion of that acreage is so close to tree line that the few trees growing are only four inches in diameter, even if they are 200-300 years old, and if he is including those in his percentage of old growth, he is grossly inflating that figure even further. He said nothing. When I expressed doubts that even 10% of the forest is old growth, he still said nothing.

I knew the forest and its terrain, and could counter his statement, but if I were a senator or representative from Nebraska or Delaware seeking information, I may not have thought of altitude, tree line, and other such factors so I probably would not have been able to question his statement. I suspect the intentional misinformation Mr. Hazen tried to pass off on me is not an isolated case, and it disturbs me to hear U.S. Forest Service officials attempting to deceive the public while hiding behind the friendly facade of "Smoky the Bear."

At two other points in the conversation Mr. Hazen showed his disdain for old growth forests by referring to them as "no growth" forests. It is intensely disturbing that a spokesman for the U.S.Forest Service cannot recognize that there is vigorous growth of both young and middle aged trees in an old growth forest (please see Section 1), but there is no net growth because the forest has reached a biological equilibrium–the epitome of forest development. With that attitude rife within the U.S.Forest Service, how can anyone expect more enlightened policies toward forestry to emerge from that agency?

When I asked him how many board feet of timber are grown in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest per year, he was unable or unwilling to give me the figure. But the fact is that any good forester knows how much is grown on his acreage each year.

Mr. Hazen said that forest practices had improved, and noted that the cut will be 20,000,000 board feet this year (1992), as opposed to 300,000,000 board feet in the mid-1980’s. I commended the Forest Service for the change and asked what brought it about. He said it came about because the Forest Service was now looking at the forest as an ecological entity rather than as a commercial entity. I asked if that was an admittance that it had previously looked upon the forest as a commercial entity, and he said "No!" I asked him if either of the two logging figures were sustainable, and he could not–or would not–answer the question.

How can any amount be responsibly cut if the sustainable level is unknown?

There are two obvious reasons for the reduced levels of timber cutting in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. First, after years of such flagrant overcutting there simply is not much available for cutting now. Second, four million acres of virgin forest are about to be opened to commercial clearcutting in Montana, so the pressure to continue overcutting the Washington forest can be removed temporarily. Congress should reconsider opening Montana’s magnificent forests to the same devastation that the coastal forests have experienced in Washington, Oregon, and California.

When I read portions of the N.Y.Times article to Mr. Hazen and asked him to comment, he instead tried to disparage the scientists behind the information ("I would need to know the credentials of the man who did the study.") and when I reread the portion saying that it was a team of NASA scientists, pointing out that they were employed by the same government that employs him, Mr. Hazen turned his disdain to the writer of the article ("I would need to know the credentials of the writer."). At no time did he admit that a problem may exist, or that the information raised disturbing questions. His evasiveness was equally disturbing.

In mid-June the General Accounting Office announced that its investigation showed the Forest Service had been grossly inflating assessments of forest growth within its jurisdiction, thus making its overcutting for the past dozen years or more even more reprehensible. I am not surprised at this deception after conversing with Mr. Jerry Hazen.

Turning to deceptive statements by forest product companies, a consortium of forest product companies known as the "Forestry Council" has promoted a long-running advertising campaign in newspapers, magazines and TV that say "America’s forests have more trees today than they had fifty years ago." In a perverse sense, the statement is true: when an old growth Cedar or Douglas fir measuring 10 feet in diameter and 200 feet in height is cut down, it may be replaced by ten saplings that are each an inch in diameter and two feet tall, a 10:1 increase in the number of trees! After all, the young saplings and the old giant are all "trees" in the literal meaning of the word "tree." The statement may be true, but it is extraordinarily devious, masking more than it says.

While the statement, "America’s forests have more trees today than they had fifty years ago," may be literally true, the fact of trees quadrupling their volume between their 75th and 150th year (see previous section for this information) shows that clearcutting practices necessitate a substantial increase in the number of trees to retain the same total volume of wood within our forests that we had fifty years ago. Does our total volume of wood today equal that of fifty years ago? It is doubtful. Can the U. S. Forest Service together with private forest product companies determine the total number of board feet in today’s forests and compare that figure with the number of board feet in our forests fifty years ago? That information would provide a more meaningful picture of the extent of our forest resource base today compared to the resource base half a century ago.

Douglas fir trees do not require clearcuts for vigorous growth to occur, as private timber companies have claimed for decades. Forest fires, they have said, have historically created the open conditions needed by Douglas fir, and clearcutting is simply a management tool to recreate similar conditions. Mr. Merv Wilkinson’s selective forestry procedures prove that such claims have no validity whatsoever. Douglas fir does not require full sunlight to grow well; it simply requires a sufficient opening in the forest canopy, and a relatively small opening is sufficient.

Clearcutting and monoculture replanting (the replanting of a single species) creates a distinctly different ecology–a less disease resistant plot of trees–from one created by burning and self-regeneration. What is created is not a forest, but a commercial lumber factory, with few attributes of a true forest, other than trees. Burning, as explained in Section 2, generally occurs in the canopy, except in the case of the hottest portions of forest fires, when it can singe the ground, as well. The famous fires in Yellowstone in 1988 appeared to be catastrophic during the weeks of burning, but after the smoke cleared it was found that only relatively small portions of the expansive burnt area were burned right down to the ground. Vast areas began to return from seed within a year.

It is difficult to determine exactly how much old growth forest remains, but the best research indicates it is now less than 10%. Yet that figure is just as deceptive as the "number of trees in our forests today." Most forest cutting in the Pacific Northwest has taken place in the coastal lowlands and inland mountain valleys. Much of the coastal lowland has been converted to urban, suburban, and rural agricultural lands, never to be reforested again. But these lands represent the most productive forests. The remaining old growth forests are largely confined to steep slopes and high altitudes above canyon bottoms, the least productive forests. Thus the 10% still remaining purely in terms of acreage may represent less than 2% in terms of real productivity. Throughout the Sierra Nevada, Rocky Mountains, and eastern U.S. forests, logging and development has pushed the forests into the mountains and other less productive areas. We have lost a great deal of forest acreage, but when we factor in productivity of the land, we have lost even more.

Today it makes no sense ecologically or economically to log the remaining old growth forests, because erosion and further destruction of fisheries would economically offset any gain from the lumbering. The visual destruction would send recreational values plummeting, and reforestation of such marginal locales could take many decades, if not centuries. It makes sense to allow remaining old growth forests to continue untouched as a blockade against erosion, as a source of oxygen and water purification, and as a source of immense beauty that attracts tourists of all types. It would be sensible to augment existing old growth stands by an increase in old growth forests elsewhere simply by banning all future lumbering activities and letting them become old growth stands in the coming centuries.

Weyerhaeuser Corporation, one of the largest forest product companies in the nation, has billed itself as "the tree growing company." Yet Weyerhaeuser is apparently in the process of selling off large portions of their timberland for development, often after clearcutting the land for its final affront to nature and final payoff to the "bottom line." In Snohomish County, Washington, where I live, Weyerhaeuser is currently in the process of selling off its last remaining landholdings. It was once one of the largest landowners in the county. Weyerhaeuser apparently has greater interest in commercial and residential land development for future corporate income than it has in forestry. Along with that change in emphasis, is the continued loss of forest land–or even raw lumber factories–as part of our natural resource base.

Section 8: The Recent Decline of American Songbirds

This section is a response to the 1992 House Agriculture Committee Chairman Harold Volkmer of Missouri, who expressed concern numerous times about the decline of American songbirds in the Mark Twain National Forest in his state. He seemed surprised that the birds should be declined despite his oft-repeated citing of the statement that "there are more trees within that forest today than there were fifty years ago, when songbirds were more abundant." The increase in the number of trees is a decidedly deceptive mockery of truth (please see Section 5, page 11) and should not be repeated as fact without explaining the major difference between "forests" today–after clearcutting has been introduced–and forests of past years before their trees were ever cut and replanted.

The decrease in the number of songbirds is the subject of an in-depth article in the May, 1992 edition of Scientific American. The article was written by Dr. John Terborgh, the James B. Duke Professor of Environmental Science and director of the Center for Tropical Conservation at Duke University. He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University, and was professor of biology at Princeton University before moving to Duke. I strongly urge anyone interested in this tragic subject to read the article in its entirety. Its conclusions are indeed frightening, not only for songbirds, but for all life on earth, including human life.

According to Dr. Terborgh’s research there are two prime reasons for the songbird’s decline. The first is the large scale deforestation occurring in their wintering grounds of Central and South America. The second reason involves the change of habitat from forest to rural agriculture in much of the central United States over the past 150 years.

Raccoons, oppossums, and other land predators that flock to rural and suburban areas and raid garbage cans and dumps, also raid the nests of birds on a regular basis. These animals existed only in small numbers in heavily forested areas in times past, but have proliferated with the spread of civilization (just as coyotes, rats, and pigeons have increased their range, as well) and the decline of forests.

In addition parasitic birds–those that lay eggs in another bird’s nest, fooling the host bird into rearing the parasitic bird’s young–had proliferated, primarily the brown cowbird that followed bison on the plains in years past and cattle on ranches today. The young of these birds tend to hatch first in the songbird’s nest, grow large quickly, then outcompete the songbird’s young for food when they hatch, causing widespread starvation among the songbird’s young. Such parasitism occurred largely at forest edges, and the fragmentation of forests throughout the midwest–particularly in regions converted to agriculture has contributed largely to such parasitism. Continuing studies by numerous researchers indicate that parasitism has now penetrated into the very center of the large Shawnee National Forest in Southern Illinois, where between 80% and 100% of the songbird nests contained parasitic eggs.

At this stage of research the source of the parasitic birds are not fully understood, but one researcher, David S. Wilcove, a graduate student at Princeton University, detected no cowbirds whatsoever in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and strongly suspects the parasitic birds are coming from the Ozarks and the Appalachians.

Among other remedies for stopping the continuing loss of songbirds, Dr. Terborgh states, "it would be valuable if the U.S. were to demonstrate some leadership in the prudent management of natural resources. We could begin by calling a moratorium on clearcutting of the last expansive virgin forests of the Northwest."

This is a call that is frequently heard, but just as frequently ignored, most notably by industry and government leaders still calling for the continuation of clearcutting even in the face of overwhelming evidence of its catastrophic effects. I firmly believe we will have only ourselves, and our vast reservoir of blind greed, to blame for the loss of all pleasant surroundings and ultimately the complete loss of our life support systems. We should have the intelligence to recognize the problems we have created, but I am not convinced we have the resolve or wisdom to correct our self-inflicted problems before it is too late.

Section 9: Conclusion

Forestry policies should be predicated on the simple truth that if we base our logging practices on nature’s needs, the market will adapt, but if we base our logging practices on industry’s desires and needs, nature will not adapt. Nature cannot adapt to the artificially imposed requirements of humanity. Humanity should take a humbler attitude in recognition of the "wisdom" of natural processes, rather than the arrogance we often display in our belief that we can "improve" upon nature by our alteration of it. If our logging practices are based on immediate profits and jobs, there will be neither profits nor jobs in the future because there will be no forests without sustainable forestry. We must proceed in the following manner:

1. Immediately abolish clearcutting on all national forest lands. (Abolition on state and private lands throughout the U.S. should quickly follow.)
2. Adopt sensitive, selective forestry methods, as outlined in Section 2 of this paper.
3. Do not consider the use of "seed tree forestry" because of its highly destructive nature.
4. Do not allow the same devastation of virgin forests in Montana and elsewhere that has been allowed over the past several decades in Washington, Oregon, and California.

In considering the various forestry bills now before the Congress, prime consideration should be given to the health of the ecosystem, and the sustainability of the forest in the decades and centuries to come. Today’s clearcutting practices undermine the ecosystem. Clearcutting must be abolished in favor of selective logging – logging that removes no more board feet at each cutting than the forest can grow between harvests. It was the only method of logging used before clearcutting practices came into widespread usage. But selective logging can only be successful if carried out with a complete understanding of the biology of the forest, and with an abiding respect for the land. Selective logging practices can be easily abused by any operation ignoring minimum impact requirements in both the felling and yarding of trees.

History and current events have shown us, however, that we have little respect for the land (witness the current degradation of the land in nation after nation worldwide), little respect for other human beings (witness the genocides of the 20th century and recent events in eastern Europe, Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and elsewhere), and little respect for other living creatures (witness the steady worldwide loss of other species at the hand of man). Instead we have a respect and a yearning for money, alone. If we are to maintain life on earth, that attitude must change. Only strong leadership can begin to change that attitude. When will the Congress and the President begin to supply that leadership?

Submitted by: Bruce Barnbaum
31417 Mountain Loop Highway
Granite Falls, WA 98252
(360) 691-4105
barnbaum@aol.com