Debunking the clearcutting myth
www.stopclearcutting.org

1) Clearcutting creates early successional forests.

As we know, early successional habitat is the foundation of the forest food web. After clearcutting, it might regrow and become early successional habitat. But that isn’t what happens. All the regrowth is bulldozed and sprayed, so that primarily a single species commercial pine is permitted to grow.

2) Clearcutters follow the Forest Practice Rules, the “strictest environmental forest rules in the world.”

Maybe they are the strictest, but the most fundamental, key aspects of those rules are not enforced by CDF or CDFG. The rule which states that the goal must be to retain functional wildlife habitat for all species is not enforced, period. Deer are starving in the Sierra, they are the ideal indicator species. Old growth dependent species are on the brink of extinction already.

3) We need lumber for homes in California. We should not export our environmental impacts abroad.True--but just as we don’t need to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to get more oil, we don’t need to destroy our forests to meet our demand. We need to conserve wood--recycle more paper--build with alternative materials like adobe, rammed earth, monlithic, cob, sod or many other globally proven methods.

4) Clearcutting is not deforestation because a tree plantation is then replanted with superior carbon sequestering activity.

Removing all trees from large land tracts results in that land’s deforestation and a release of the soil’s greenhouse gases. Although replanting will eventually result in a forest, the effect for an appreciable time is that of deforestation. Removing all trees significantly contributes to global climate change. While some say that clearcut plantations improve carbon sequestration, this assertion is belied by fact. The U.S. Department of Energy, cites research that found “when ground is cleared for forest planting, rotting organic matter in the soil releases a surge of carbon dioxide into the air that will exceed the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by growing trees for at least the first 10 years of forest growth; only later will the uptake of carbon by the trees begin to offset the release of carbon dioxide from the soil.” At the current accelerating rate of climate change, we can little afford to wait a decade for each plantation to BEGIN to become carbon-neutral.

5) Without clearcutting, the forest would be unmanaged and be vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire.

However, the truth is that fire-wise management using selective logging as well as removal of both surface and ladder fuels is available to all timber operators, and is the appropriate choice in a changing Sierra.

Clearcutting is, in fact, contributing to heightened Sierra fire danger and putting all residents in greater danger. It is well-accepted that, due to climate change, the Sierran fire regime is going to become more severe and frequent, even if we do all the right things. However, clearcutting and plantations are not among those right things. The 300-450 trees replanted per acre are creating a future of similar-sized, closely-spaced, fire-vulnerable trees at high risk of crown fires. In discussing the Tahoe basin, the California Board of Forestry wrote in 2005: “Extensive harvest in the late 1800s and early 1900s resulted in an overall young forest. There is concern that these changes have contributed to an increased likelihood of severe fire. Younger forests are more susceptible to mortality from fires. This is due to the lower height and size of small trees. Their bark is thinner, and their crowns are lower to the ground, making them more susceptible to lethal heating by flames of a low height. With much of the Basin in a younger state, a large proportion of it could burn severely, with high rates of mortality.”

If the current massive clearcutting is allowed to proceed, the Board of Forestry will soon be writing a similarly dire assessment for the whole Sierra. Escalating catastrophic wildfires from plantations,
particularly as global warming continues to alter the region’s climate, will threaten the safety of a growing population, historic towns, wildlife, and 65% of the state’s water supply. END