Forest Facts Archive :: Logging Practices Print Window          Close Window Logging Practices How should America be managing its forests? This question begs the response that forests don’t intrinsically need to be managed at all. Human intervention is often more of a symptom than a cure for problems in forest health. This is not to say that forests can, or should, remain entirely static over time; fires, insects, and storms make forests highly dynamic, as are all natural ecosystems. Old growth forests, riparian zones, and areas of particular habitat sensitivity are all poor candidates for supplying America’s ever-growing demand for logs, boards, chips, and paper-pulp. It goes without saying that we should be producing and using more recycled products, and reducing overall demand. But when land is logged – as we know that it will be -- how should it best be done to protect ecosystems and ensure long-term sustainability? It turns out that we don’t always know the answer to this question – but we do know that the answer is both location-specific and ecosystem-specific. Forests vary in their age structure, their species composition, their natural disturbance cycles, and their regeneration patterns. Logging practices are also varied – but not necessarily for the right reasons. Below are brief descriptions of a few common forestry practices, along with some pros and cons of each. Clear-cutting, or removal of all trees in a given area, continues to be overused and misused, in part because it offers quick profits, especially for the pulp market. The most common mistakes made in clear-cutting have been: Cutting on slopes, causing rampant erosion of topsoil Logging along waterways, causing changes in silt, mud, large woody debris and water temperature that can kill a river’s inhabitants Cutting large areas that in no way mimic natural disturbances, making it difficult to achieve natural regeneration. On the other hand, clear-cutting sometimes may offer the largest return (in terms of board-feet or volume of wood) for the smallest amount of disturbed land area. Clear-cuts can vary in size, and do not have to occur at an “industrial” scale. Selective cutting, or removal of individually chosen trees from a forest, is much more aesthetically pleasing in the short term, but can likewise be abused. Selective cutting is often used as a euphemism for high-grading -- taking the best specimens and the most desired species. This reduces the genetic viability and changes the species composition of a forest, steadily degrading it over time. Too many roads can be a serious problem. The fewer trees one takes from any given areas, the greater the area that must be accessed overall. Roads can change the travel patterns of wildlife, exacerbate runoff and erosion, and allow disruptive motorized use by humans. More roads also mean more stream crossings, and every crossing is a potential problem. Well-managed selective cutting involves thinning of less valuable trees as well as those with the largest price tag. It is usually most practical in areas where trees are being cut for high-quality wood products rather than pulp. The seed-tree method involves cutting of all but a few high-quality trees that are left behind to provide natural seed for regrowth. This sometimes helps solve problems with natural regeneration. However, one must keep in mind: Lone seed trees can be vulnerable in windy areas The genetic variability and species diversity of the resulting seedlings may be lower than normal. This technique is only applicable where trees normally regenerate by seeding into open areas, rather than by root-sprouts, root suckers or fire-released cones, to give a few examples. On a positive note, this method does try to ensure that seedlings grow from local seed, rather than seed collected from off-site. In a shelterwood system trees are thinned to allow regeneration on the forest floor, and then cut once seedlings have become established below. At times, seedling generation may take place without thinning. Logging must be done in such a way as to not unduly disturb the new seedlings. This is only applicable for species that will become established in partial shade and then grow in full sun without being out-competed by other vegetation. If done successfully, a shelterwood system can have some of the advantages of a clear-cut without all the drawbacks. Many variations on these methods have been employed -- as well as other methods not mentioned here -- with varying success. There is still a great deal of room for experimentation to improve not only the methods themselves, but the manner in which they are used. The tactics foresters choose can make the difference between a functioning ecosystem and a mere tree farm, between healthy watersheds and silted, eroded streams, or between quick profits or long-term income. There is still much to learn.