Some food for thought and a challenge to some assumptions that appear to
be widely held by our society that I think bear reexamination.
In certain circles I have often heard it said that Pacific
Northwest forests and ecosystems are very fragile. Quite often those who work
in the timber industry are perceived to be callous, greedy, brutes, destroying
these fragile forests, for economic gain with no thought to the future or
anyone but themselves.
And logging
in general is perceived to be unsustainable.
To me an interesting juxtaposition to these perceptions is
that, while timber harvest is maligned, sustainable farming is upheld as
environmentally responsible. There is a romantic image of the hard working
farmer in harmony with nature and the land, providing sustenance to all from
the soil. Of course, by this logic, conventional farmers are often perceived to
be destroying the earth and, from what I can tell, are often perceived to be
hardly better than loggers in the rape and pillage department.
To examine these different perceptions, we first need a
definition of what is sustainable. My definition of a sustainable system is a
system that requires no input or a minimum of input from resources (energy) outside
itself in order for it to keep functioning and providing resources. I prefer the term self sustaining. It needs to
be understood though, that, because of entropy, there is no such thing as a
perfect, self sustaining system that operates in a closed loop. Every known
system in this universe requires at least some input from outside itself and
every known system loses energy and thus, resources. The best we can do is use the most
sustainable systems available to us to provide us with the resources we need. The
most sustainable systems merely lose resources at a slower rate, they don’t
perfectly recycle and preserve them.
Under the definition I have just put forth, forestry is, by
far, the more self sustaining system and means for our society to procure
resources. Pacific Northwest forests are not fragile. They are, in fact, complex and dynamic ecosystems which
are inherently resilient, some of the most resilient in the world. They
regularly experience disturbances such as fire, windstorms, avalanches, landslides,
volcanic eruptions, disease outbreaks and floods to name some of the more
common ones. With or without human involvement, forests grow back after all of
these disturbances. If these ecosystems were so fragile, none of them would
exist today. Natural disturbances would have destroyed them long before loggers
arrived on the scene.
Case in point: About 10,000 years ago, all of the Pacific
Northwest north of Olympia, Washington was pretty much a big rock pile left
after the retreat of the continental ice sheets of the last ice age. There have
been many generations of forests between then and now, each generation of
forest, more often than not, being wiped out by some disturbance and replaced
by the next generation.
Logging is similar to natural disturbances in many ways,
though it needs to be said that timber harvest is not exactly the same as a
natural disturbance. Natural disturbances may favor different species, both
native and non native, than human influenced forestry practices or they may
create different successional pathways than non natural disturbances.
Intensive timber management treats trees basically as a crop
and is considered a form of agriculture. For this reason, when it was created, the
U. S. Forest Service was placed in the Department of Agriculture because that
was the prevailing thinking of the day. However, all forests don’t need to be
managed intensively like crops to meet society’s needs for raw materials. Many can
be managed much less intensively, taking into account such factors as
biodiversity, ecosystem health and long term sustainability. The Forest Service
began making the shift to this thinking several decades ago.
Intensive timber management certainly can decrease
biodiversity in some situations and opening the forest can encourage the growth
of some non native weed species. But decreases in biodiversity and non native
weed invasion result from natural disturbances as well.
Forest disturbances, logging included, as long as the land
is allowed to come back to forest, can also be important factor in biodiversity.
Opening up the forest encourages the growth of certain native species that
provide large concentrations of resources for other native species. This
enhances biodiversity in some situations.
The surest way to thoroughly destroy a Pacific Northwest
forest is to clear it and plow it and it doesn’t matter if the plowing is done
under an organic or conventional farming system. About the only thing you could
do to a forest that is worse than turning it into farmland is to then cover the
land in asphalt and concrete.
Agriculture, even organic farming, in much of the Pacific
Northwest involves converting land from a complex forest or forest dominated ecosystem
into a heavily modified, simplified, much less biodiverse system. Farmed land consists of a few desirable
non native plant species (the farmed crops) and a slew of undesirable non
native weeds and this land bears little resemblance to a forest ecosystem.
Timber harvest, on the other hand, leaves much of the forest
ecosystem intact as biological legacies and retains many more native species
than agriculture. Woody debris in the form of stumps, logs and brush, is typically left
behind after timber harvest, providing resources for native organisms to
survive, everything from microbes to fungi that eat the cellulose in the wood
and break it down, to birds, small mammals and amphibians who shelter in the
debris. How is agriculture more self sustaining than timber in this respect?
There are significantly fewer biological legacies like large
woody debris left in short rotation, intensively managed, timber stands than in
less intensively managed forests but even so, by contrast, most farms grow
annual crops that, once harvested, return little biomass to the soil. Longer
lasting biological legacies, such as woody debris are removed from the field. Most
timber harvest doesn’t involve deep disturbance of soil like plowing. Plowing permanently
destroys soil structure and disturbs forest soil organisms, fungi in particular.
Hydrology is altered by plowing and summer irrigation as well. These agricultural
acts alter microbial community, shifting it away from forest microbes. How is
agriculture more self sustaining than even intensive, not to mention non-intensive
forestry in this respect?
Forestry typically doesn’t require fertilization of the soil,
though it probably has come to the point in some intensively managed forests,
that fertilizer is required to grow timber. Agriculture, even organic farming, typically
does require regular fertilization. Fertilization not only requires inputs of
resources from outside the system, it causes the community of organisms on the
land and in the soil to shift away from forest type communities. Where it is
needed, fertilization of forests, requires fewer inputs over longer time
periods and measures can be taken to minimize this need. How is agriculture
more self sustaining than forestry in this respect?
This post is not in any way meant to demonize or cast blame on farmers, either conventional or organic. Most of the food I eat was grown on farms under both of these management systems. It is undeniable that untold masses of people would live in misery, malnourishment and starvation without farmers. And I think most farmers are grossly undervalued and underpaid for the important services, food being at the top of the list, that they provide for our society. I operate a small farm that is no more sustainable or free of damage to forest ecosystems than any other in the Pacific Northwest so I am certainly not above it all.
This gets back to what was mentioned earlier about sustainability and people's perceptions. There is another widely held belief that humans and human activity are not natural. To this I would point out that humans evolved on this planet, or if you prefer, were created on this planet as part of its natural systems. At this point in time, in order to sustain human life and civilization we have to use the resources of this planet. If we don't want untold masses of humans to starve, we have to farm. And the manner and degree to which we use resources is very important. In living systems, such as farming and forestry, the more self sustaining the systems we use are, and the less we use, the longer the resources will last.
My goal in this post has been to point out that forests
in the Pacific Northwest are resilient, some of the most resilient in the world
in fact, definitely more than the tropical forests where many of the timber
resources that supply the global market come from today. While logging a forest
is not the same as a natural disturbance, there are enough similarities between
timber harvest and natural disturbances, and our forests are resilient enough,
to provide a lot of room to harvest timber in ways that don’t irreparably damage
to our forests. We have to use this planet's resources and, of the many means by which our society gets its raw materials
to meet the basic human needs (food, clothing and shelter), timber harvest in
the Pacific Northwest probably has the least impact on native ecosystems and
ecosystem services such as providing clean water and air.
This is not to say that I think all forestry practices are
perfect, I have problems with many of them and, as with most things, there will
always be room for improvement. And to say that native ecosystems and aren’t
impacted by logging would not be true. However, these impacts are much less
than under almost any form of agriculture, some forms of permaculture being a possible
exception.
I would also point out that most of the people in the timber
industry don’t want to see the capacity of forests to produce resources of all
kinds, not just timber, destroyed any more than the average farmer wants to see
his or her soil destroyed. Timber is how they make their living and they quite
often recreate in the forest as well. And they depend on ecosystem services
like everyone else. Why would they want to destroy it beyond its capacity to
produce more timber or keep the air and water clean? Ironically, throughout my
life, I have known many people in the timber industry who have used the same
language to talk about forests as farmers do to talk about the land they work.
So why does the image persist that one practice, farming, the
one that causes extensive, long lasting damage to native Pacific Northwest
ecosystems is environmentally superior to another practice, logging, that causes
less ecosystem damage and is more sustainable? I suspect that it is all about
image and dogma.
There is an issue of scale. Many people probably react very
emotionally to the visual impact of seeing a forest of trees much larger than
themselves removed rather suddenly. It is a bit like seeing a house burn down.
What is not understood by many however, is that, a forest in the Pacific
Northwest, unlike a house, will spontaneously regenerate. Of course the new
forest won’t be exactly like the old one and it won’t regenerate as quickly as
it was removed but a forest will grow back whether human action is taken to
that end or not.
Seeing row crops like corn, wheat or potatoes harvested also
has a visual impact but these crops are on our own scale so it isn’t as
visually shocking. The forest of giant trees that occupied the land where the
crops are now grown and the stumps that marked their places were removed so
long ago that probably few people living today even remember that forest.
Farms are neat and orderly and logging units are messy and
untidy. So the image of a neat and tidy farm is perceived as being a good thing
even though its tidiness actually means there is little habitat for fewer
species and even fewer native species.
A messy logging unit is perceived as being a bad thing because
it just looks bad even though the logs and debris lying around in an untidy
manner are providing food and shelter for numerous native species. These logs
and debris are completely absent from most farms and, along with them, native
species habitat. But, I think, most people don’t understand this and the pervasive
dogma that logging is bad interferes with people’s motivation to try and
understand how and why we use resources and what are the best alternatives for
resource use.
I wonder what the general perception is concerning carpenters versus
loggers. I don’t hear many people bad mouthing carpenters. Carpenters build
things readily recognized by the majority of society as being useful or even essential,
houses for us to shelter from the elements and furniture and cabinets etc, etc.
Yet, without the logger, the carpenter wouldn’t have the lumber to practice the
craft. The mental gymnastics and double speak required to justify vilifying
loggers while praising carpenters would surely be worthy of an Olympic
performance, if they held Olympic contests on such things.
Timber products are renewable, recyclable and biodegradable.
Done right, forestry could be the ultimate organic practice because, in addition
to requiring fewer inputs from outside the system, it has much less impact on
native species and ecosystem services than farming practices that completely
clear the land and till the soil. Timber is arguably one of the most
environmentally friendly resource uses in the Pacific Northwest and it could
provide badly needed revenues to rural communities. Sadly, it seems the
prevailing dogma continues to prevent even reasonable use of many of these
resources on public lands.
To me all of this begs the question: Where are we going to
continue to get our resources? If certain farming systems and practices are
considered sustainable in the Pacific Northwest, then certain forestry systems
and practices should be as well. If organic farming is sustainable then so is organic forestry.
The photos that follow are of different places that I have
known and seen logged over the years and what they look like now. These forests
are definitely not old-growth and don’t harbor the same communities as
old-growth forests but neither are they complete, irreversible devastation. Food
for thought are the photos of our small farm (I chose this specifically to
illustrate that I am not against farmers or farming) and a few photos of large
scale natural disturbances that have recovered.
 |
| Glacier Peak from the vicinity of Lake Byrne. Glacier Peak is a stratovolcano which is prone, as most stratovolcanoes are, to mud flows. The forested terraces or benches at about mid frame are lahars, or giant mud flows that came off Glacier Peak, burying the valley (Whitechuck River) in hundreds of feet of mud. Eventually the Whitechuck cut down through these mud flows and a forest grew back on them. |
 |
| Glacier Peak and Whitechuck River valley from Meadow Mountain. The lahar terraces are more visible from this view point. One can see a more recent example of mud flows and how they recover at Mount Saint Helens. |
 |
| Close up of Glacier Peak lahar terraces from Meadow Mountain. Much of the forest on these mud flows pictured here and in the preceding photos is actually old-growth although not all of it because there have undoubtedly been many forest fires in this area since the lahar became reforested. Traveling over these terraces, one would never know from the forest present that these are huge mud flows. You have to take your clues from the oversteep slopes cut into the terraces by the river and the very flat ground on top, not typical of most land forms (except for large mud or debris flows) in the North Cascades. |
 |
| Diablo Dam circa 1935 Courtesy of Seattle Municipal Archives, Photo No. 13100, 1935 Diablo Dam & Diablo Lake, Ruby Mountin in Background. Note that there is a lot of bare rock here. There are hardly any trees in the foreground, or the background, none around the dam and only small trees on the hill at the right side of the frame just behind the dam. This area was burned and logged. Also note the numerous rock bluffs visible on Ruby Mountain in the background and on the low hill on the left side of the frame at mid frame. The Seattle Municipal Archives is full of images of this area, the Skagit Project and more often than not, images from the early to mid 1900's show a marked difference between the tree cover then and the tree cover now. Much of this area was burned in the 1920's and the degree to which the forest has grown back since then is striking. If you know what you are looking at, the evidence from these forest fires are readily evident even today. |
 |
| Diablo Dam 2006, taken by Pat Buller 71 years after the photo above was taken. I changed the photo to gray scale so it would be more similar to the black and white photo above. This photo was taken from a lower angle than the one above because this was the only area I could find that was free enough from trees to provide a relatively unobstructed view of the dam. You can no longer get an unobstructed view from the point where the photo above was taken. This photo is unfortunately a little dark but it is obvious that there is a thick growth of trees in the foreground as well as behind the dam. Many of the trees in the forest behind the dam are about 2 feet in diameter. Also note the patch of trees by the right bank spill gates (left side of photo). Some of these trees are about 2 feet in diameter. There were no trees in this spot in the above photo. By the way, this particular spot is pretty much solid bedrock with very little soil. It is harder to see in this photo, but there aren't nearly as many rock bluffs visible on Ruby Mountain and the low hill in the background. This is because the trees have grown up on and around them. Again, on essentially bare rock. |
 |
| Color version of above photo. Some features might be more visible in this photo. Our forests are definitely resilient enough to grow back on what is essentially bare rock. |
 |
| Gravel bar on Diobsud Creek with red alder (Alnus rubra) and willow (Salix spp.) seedlings. |
 |
| Close up of alder seedlings on gravel bar. This is a pretty barren and inhospitable site. Seedlings of other native tree species as well as non-native weeds will get established here as well as long as the stream doesn't wash the gravel away or bury the site. There is a butterfly bush (Buddleia spp.), a non-native to the Pacific Northwest that many consider a weedy species here, near where this photo was taken. |
 |
| Area where I was standing in the photo above during a recent minor flood. Floods, major and minor can happen several times a year and our forests are adapted to deal with these disturbances. |
 |
| Aftermath of the flood, a small alder in the flooded area shown above. |
 |
| Close up of the roots of the small alder above. This tree is not necessarily dead. Alder is well adapted to stream beds. I have seen alders buried in sediment well above the root collar (at the base of the stem and top of the roots) a condition that would kill many other plants and they just grew a new set of roots into the higher level of sediment. Of course I have also seen alders buried this way that were killed. The opposite happened to this particular tree, sediment was washed away but there is still quite a bit of root area in the gravel so it might well continue growing. It will be apparent this coming spring if this little tree will survive or not. |
 |
| Red alder can grow in what is basically just a pile of rocks because it has a symbiont or mutualist bacteria that grows in it's roots. This bacteria fixes atmospheric nitrogen in the soil. Elemental nitrogen is a gas and it is not easily fixed in the soil but, when it is, it is one of the nutrients essential for plants to grow and lack of it often limits plant growth. |
 |
| Close up of alder roots. The bacteria live in nodules formed by the tree around the roots. These nodules are visible here. This alder was growing in a gravel walkway by the back steps of the house so it had to be pulled. |
 |
| Alder, willow and cottonwood stand a little farther along in development. This was a bare gravel bar in about 2005. The log jam behind me slowed flood waters and diverted them allowing seedlings in the gravel bar to continue growing to this point, becoming saplings. The leaf litter will start to develop a soil layer but much of it will be washed away by floodwaters. A layer of moss, most of which won't be washed away in smaller floods, is beginning to cover the rocks here as well and it will also help develop soil. This stand may continue to develop or might be washed away in a flood. |
 |
| Area during a recent minor flood near where I was standing in photo above. Note that the sapling trees and vegetation trap debris floating in the flood waters. The stems of the trees and the debris that they trap increase channel roughness which slows water down making it less erosive and causing finer sediments like sand and silt to settle out of the water column. |
 |
| This area was a bare gravel bar in the early to mid 1990's. It is perched several feet above the present surface level of the creek so it is relatively safe from inundation from all but the biggest floods though the creek can still erode it away. Notice large amounts of leaves on the ground and a heavy growth of moss. Any floodwaters high enough to inundate this area will be slowed by all the vegetation, causing sand and silt to settle out and contributing to the soil layer. It doesn't appear that much fine sediment has settled out here but even so the forest is recovering. I often see ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) near this spot. |
 |
| This area was a bare gravel bar sometime in the early 1970's. It is still occasionally inundated by floodwaters which deposit sand and silt but no erosion has occurred here in years. On and interesting side note, you will probably never find cottonwood morel mushrooms (Verpa bohemica) here. Flooding, even years in the past, seems to ruin an area for this fungus, no matter how many cottonwoods are growing there. |
 |
| Logging unit on private timber land harvested in the winter of 2012, 2013. It looks messy but note that the soil is mostly undisturbed and the logs left behind, debris on the ground and piles of debris will provide lifeboat habitat for native species from bacteria and fungi in the soil to birds and animals that live in forests to survive until the next forest grows back. In the mean time, some native species like elderberry, blackberry and salmonberry that will provide food for birds and animals will increase growth and crop yields, providing more forage for certain native species. Of the down side, this area will also be invaded by non-native weeds and the forest rotation (years between cuts) is probably too short to allow a lot of habitat for native species to develop in the forest. That being said, weeds also invade areas subject to natural disturbance and, again, even under this system of management, there is much more wildlife and native species habitat than in a plowed field. The timber harvest here has also provided badly needed tax revenues and jobs for an economically depressed area. |
 |
| Logging unit on Washington State DNR (Department of Natural Resources) land. This was logged and replanted to Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Douglas-fir is often replanted because it is a more valuable timber crop. In the past, the enthusiasm for planting this species went way overboard and it was planted in many areas where it was not suited to grow well. More suitable species are usually planted in these areas today. Other native Northwest trees will grow back in this logging unit as well, though maybe not as abundantly as under natural conditions, though I have seen many stands of timber that have grown back naturally after a fire that were heavily dominated by Douglas-fir, which is a fire adapted species. This unit was logged in about 2006 or 2007 so it was about 6 years old when this photo was taken. I am embarrassed to admit that I don't remember exactly when it was cut even though I saw it happen. Note the woody debris in the right foreground of the photo. There are a lot of logs and other debris in this area not visible due to the heavy growth of fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium). |
 |
| I helped log this area in the winter of 1998, 1999 when I worked for Reece Brothers Logging. This is DNR land as well. and the stand is about 13 or 14 years old. Again, replanted to Douglas-fir but there are a number of other native species of trees and shrubs present. The tree in the left foreground of the photo has been stripped by a bear coming out of hibernation in the spring. Bears often strip trees for their cambium early in the year when other food sources aren't available. Again, a lot of woody debris was left behind after logging this area but it is mostly hidden in the undergrowth. |
 |
| Different spot in the same area pictured above. |
 |
| Private timber land logged (clearcut) and replanted sometime around the year 2000. |
 |
| Pre commercial thinning of the area pictured above. This opens up the canopy and provides more resources, light, water, nutrients for the remaining trees so they will grow faster. I have heard that this is not necessarily the best forestry practice from the point of view of wildlife but, that being said, the wood and resources of the cut trees are also being recycled on-site and will provide some structure and habitat for certain native species. A concern of mine is recent interest in biofuels from forests. All of the cut trees pictured above could theoretically go for biofuel production. I am not against this idea. I think it has a lot of potential but I think a lot of consideration should be taken to make sure enough woody debris is left behind in forests to maintain forest function. |
 |
| U.S. Forest Service land logged (clearcut with leave trees) in the winter of 1987, 1988. I helped log this when I worked for G&D Logging. Not far from the point where this photo was taken, I got flipped about 10 feet into the air and, when I landed on a log, my pelvis was knocked permanently out of its proper alignment, an injury that will continue to give me problems for the rest of my life, I am sure. The slash in this unit was burned after logging and replanted to Douglas-fir, though, again, other native trees are growing here as well. Slash burning was halted in the early 1990's due to concerns about air pollution. Burning makes many nutrients in the soil available and seems to give certain advantages to native plants that are fire adapted. Of course, if the ground was burned at too short intervals, I wonder if this might accelerate nutrient exhaustion in the soil. It seems that in the newer units nowadays on private land where chemicals are used to control unwanted plant species, the plant communities that initially colonize the newly disturbed area are quite a bit different than under the old burning regime. |
 |
| Logging unit near the area pictured above. This area was logged (clearcut) probably sometime in the late 1950's or early 1960's. I didn't look around too much but it was probably also slash burned and replanted with Douglas-fir. There is a high percentage of Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) in this stand. Note the large number of logs present. This stand is beginning to self-thin, a secessional stage where trees that didn't grow fast enough or got a late start growing are overtopped, shaded out and die, creating larger spaces between the remaining trees which continue to grow larger. The logs from the trees that have died create habitat for fungi, plants and animals. |
 |
| The original stand from which the logging units pictured in the previous two photos were cut. This area, according to my dad, was part of a big burn that occurred in the Illabot Creek area sometime around the turn of the last century. There is a high percentage of Douglas-fir in this stand with an understory of shade tolerant red cedar, Pacific silver fir and western hemlock. |
 |
| This stand of mostly Douglas-fir was replanted after this spot was logged (clearcut) 1979 for the second time and slash burned. So the forest here is the third one to have occupied this site since sometime in the 1930's. In 1979 this was Scott Paper land and I helped my dad cut a winter's worth of firewood out of the logging unit. The property is now owned by Seattle City Light and there are no plans to cut it again. |
 |
| This area was logged (clearcut) 1976 or 1977 and slash burned. The original logging here probably only removed the largest trees, leaving most of the rest behind. This spot is not too far from where I grew up and I spent a lot of time in this area. I got several deer here when the area was more open. |
 |
| This stand was logged 1966 (clearcut) and commercially thinned, or select logged, in 1993. The original logging at this site probably removed the large, more valuable trees, leaving large openings in the forest that let shade intolerant trees like Douglas-fir get established but it also left plenty of suppressed trees that created another commercially viable stand in a relatively short time. |
 |
| This area was logged late 1920's early 1930's. Again, the original timber harvest here probably only removed the largest trees, creating large openings that let Douglas-fir get established, while leaving a number of smaller trees behind. |
Round cut from a snag felled for firewood in the forest pictured above. This round had about 80 annular rings. The snag it was cut from was dead several years by the time it was cut which was several years ago. This tree was about average size for the stand. So this puts the age of the stand at about 85 years, meaning the preceding forest was logged in about 1930. The method I used to age the stand is not precise but is is probably a good ballpark estimate.
 |
| Another part of the forest pictured in the preceding two photos. |
 |
| Another part of the forest pictured in the preceding three photos. I selective harvested this area in 2007, removing a number of trees in the area behind me where the forest is more open. |
 |
| Same area as previous photos select logged in the winter of 2004, 2005. |
 |
| Part of area select logged in the winter of 2004, 2005. |
 |
| Part of area select logged in the winter of 2004, 2005. The small tree in the foreground is a Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii). The small trees are shade tolerant and will persist under the forest canopy but they only bloom (the flowers are quite beautiful, I think) and produce fruit when they have abundant sunlight. Opening the forest allowed this tree to flower and produce fruit which is eaten by a variety of wildlife, including ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus). |
 |
| View about 180 degrees from previous photo. |
 |
| Landing for selective harvest activities in 2004, 2005 and 2008. The area in the foreground was bare mineral soil in 2008. At the left of the frame is a bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), another fruit bearing tree important for wildlife that produces fruit the best with abundant sunlight. |
 |
| Area in same forest as above, select logged in 2010/2011. I removed the alder and bigleaf maple and left the larger Douglas-fir and red cedar, hoping they will someday be wildlife trees. This photo was taken just after logging operations were finished in the spring of 2011. |
 |
| Same site as above spring 2014. |
 |
| Same area as above, select logged in 2010/2011. Photo taken in the spring of 2011. |
 |
| Area pictured above, spring 2014. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), shrubs that both produce berries and vegetation for fodder for wildlife. There are also wild blackberries or dewberries (Rubus ursinus) and a few other berry plants growing here. While I like the berries and they are good for many species of wildlife, the heavy shrub growth inhibits trees from growing back. If left alone, trees would eventually take this spot back over. I wanted to speed this process up a bit. I wasn't allowed to burn for vegetation management and I didn't want to spray, so I transplanted alder seedlings to the site. The seedlings are present in this photo but nearly impossible to see. The alders will fix nitrogen in the soil and I want to get a good patch established here to make the forest a little more fire resistant. I'm hoping a large alder patch here will also prevent or slow the spread of several conifer root rot fungi present in this area. Hardwoods like alder and maple are generally not susceptible to root rots that have coniferous hosts. I have recently read some papers that seem to encourage a little less human interference in forest succession so maybe I should have left this area to go through the process on its own. This would have taken quite a few years though there would be an abundant source of berries for wildlife species that utilize them for that much longer. |
 |
| Trillium (Trillium ovatum) in area pictured above. This species is generally thought of as being a more closed forest canopy species but I have seen them in clearcuts. I think they probably do a little better under conditions where the forest is selectively logged though. |
 |
| Bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa) in site pictured above, select logged in 2010. Another species that seems to like more heavily forested areas but does occur in big forest openings. It appears to do pretty well under select logging conditions as well. |
 |
| Area near the Pugh Mountain trailhead that I helped select log in 1999 when I worked for Reece Bros. Logging. I have read evidence that commercial thinning might not turn out to be as good for wildlife as previously thought. However, I think it is still a good place to start from in trying to figure out the best way to use our forest resources. |
 |
| Area near Pugh Mountain trailhead that I helped select log in 1993 when I worked for Summit Timber. |
 |
| Forest on my place (see) select logged in 1984. This area was thinned more heavily than the forests pictured above that were thinned in 2004 through 2010. My hope is that those areas will look something like this in another 30 years. |
 |
| Riparian leave strips. The strips of standing trees between the logging units are growing along streams. The leave strips will provide shade to help prevent warming of the water and to contribute large woody debris mostly in the form of logs which will slow sediment transport in the streams. Riparian leave strips have been required by The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for over 20 years now on private and state owned forest land. The U. S. Forest Service has employed them on its lands for as long as the state or even longer. The unit logged in 1987 pictured previously in this post had a riparian leave strip around a larger stream. I don't know what the present requirements for riparian leave strips are but it is a certainty that if a stream flows year round, a riparian leave strip is required for it. The timber industry was one of the first in this state to adopt riparian protection areas. |
 |
| View of many decades worth of logging units. The units in the background on Oakes Peak were logged in the 1960's and 1970's. The cutting line is barely visible. There are some units on the ridge in the foreground that were logged in the early 1980's, again, barely discernible. The most recent unit near the bottom, center frame was logged in 2000. |
 |
| Another view of the ridge in the foreground of the previous photo. |
 |
| There is a logging unit pictured here that was logged in about 1979. Can you see it? Much of this forest is part of the Cow Heaven Burn of about 1929. My dad cut a number of fence posts for the farm in this old burn under a permit from the U. S. Forest Service. |
 |
| Our Stump Farm. This was an old growth forest in the 1920's or 1930's. The old growth stumps scattered in the pasture bear evidence that a lot of big trees grew here once. My dad put in a lot of time and hard work removing many of these stumps. There was a strawberry field here at one time but it has been in pasture for over 40 years. There has not been a forest here since it was first logged. It has been plowed but not for over 40 years. Because of this and because of the remaining stumps and the small clumps of trees on them there are probably more native, forest adapted organisms living here, both in the soil and above ground, than in a regularly plowed field but nothing close to what you would find in even the most egregious clear cut. I chose our fields for this post because I don't wish to scapegoat a group of people, farmers, or agriculture, something everyone in our society either participates in or uses whether they be vegetarian or carnivorous. I am merely trying to highlight the misperception that farming is or can be sustainable while forestry or logging is not. |
 |
| View of fence line at the Stump Farm. The area on the left side of the frame is what this whole area would look like if the forest had been allowed to grow back. On the left is a lot of food, cover and other habitat for forest adapted organisms, on the right there is virtually nothing for native, forest adapted organisms. In addition, the soil in the pasture is exhausted and needs to be fertilized. The soil in the forest wasn't great to start with but it still grows a forest pretty well and will do so even after several episodes of logging. Farming is not more sustainable than forestry. |
 |
| Another view of the fence line pictured in the previous photo. |
 |
| Close up of dramatic change in vegetation type at the fence line. Out of curiosity, I did a rough species count in our home pasture and the forest behind it which occupies the same soil type. Most of the grasses in the pasture are introduced non-native species so I did a count of non-grass species. In the pasture I came up with a count of 43 non-grass species. Of these 43 species, only 18 were native species. More importantly, none of the native species was abundant, mostly it was a few plants here and there. In the forest behind the pasture, I got a count of 63 non-grass species, of which 55 were native and, more importantly, nearly all of these native species were abundant. The home pasture has also been neglected. It needs to be plowed, limed, fertilized and re-seeded. For the best pasture, I should have only a few, 5 to 10, non-native grasses and or legumes on that pasture. I know people that do hay crops with only one or two grass species. So, while there are about 18 native species present at the home pasture, if I was managing the pasture properly, there should technically be no native plant species at all and only a few non-native grasses. Contrast this with 55 native species abundant in the forest behind the pasture all providing habitat for other Pacific Northwest native organisms. |
 |
| View of part of the stump farm that still has timber on it but is grazed. Again, there is probably more habitat here for forest adapted organisms native to the Pacific Northwest than fields that are regularly plowed. There is even a little woody debris present but this probably has much less habitat for native, forest adapted organisms than a clear cut. |
 |
| Close up of the ground in the photo above. There is a lot of moss and a few starflowers (Trientalis latifolia) and evergreen violets (Viola sempervirens) but little else besides some pasture grass and weeds. I did see a Calypso orchid (Calypso bulbosa) here for a few years. Evidently this species, which looks quite delicate, can stand a fair bit of disturbance. I was amazed that it survived being eaten or trampled. Even grazing has a heavy impact on our lands. |
 |
| This is the ground just on the other side of the fence and a road from the previous two photos and this is what that area would look like if I kept the cows out of it. |
 |
| Another view of the area pictured above. The salal (Gaultheria shallon) present indicates that this site has naturally nitrogen poor soils. The salal, like many or most Ericads (plants in the family Ericaceae) has a mutualistic relationship with fungi by which it obtains crucial nutrients from poor soil. |
 |
| Clear cut logged in 2013. It looks like this area has been devastated but a forest similar to the ones previously pictured in this post will grow back on this site. What it will look like depends on how long it is allowed to grow before being cut. It will probably never reach the old growth stage or have anything close to the habitat of an older forest but it will be a forest nonetheless with more habitat for native, forest adapted organisms than a farm. Note all of the woody debris present that will help native, forest adapted organisms to persist on the site. |
 |
| Our Stump Farm. Logged sometime in the 1930's and cleared and converted to agriculture in the following years. There has not been a forest on this site since it was logged about 80 years ago, the soil is exhausted and has needed to be limed and fertilized for a number of years now. There are a few trees present but the forest ecosystem on this site is in very poor condition. And consider this: Leaving it in pasture and grazing where it is only plowed occasionally is a much less intensive use than row crops where the soil is plowed and fertilized annually. On such intensively managed sites the forest ecosystem is virtually non-existent. |
 |
| Part of the forest on my place. This area was logged within ten years of the Stump Farm pictured above. To my knowledge, it has been logged at least twice since then and never fertilized. Still a forest remains on the site. Forestry could be the ultimate in organic resource production in the Pacific Northwest, not only for timber but other products as well. |
I have attached a list of items, copied directly from the University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service Website (with permission), that are made from forest products. The Idaho Forest Product Commission also has an extensive list of forest products. I have deleted (with permission) those items that are not likely to be produced from Northwest forests (I probably missed a few of these). And I have included a list of references for sustainable forestry practices.
University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service
Department of Forestry Fact Sheet FORFS 02-02
Terry Conners, Extension Specialist in Forest Products
List created July, 2002 from a number of other lists, with additions.
Corrections and Additions will be welcomed! (tconners@uky.edu)
Lumber and plywood to build new homes, Doors, Window frames and sills, Flooring, I-joists, LVL (laminated veneer lumber), Parallel strand lumber, Finger-jointed lumber, Machine stress-rated lumber, Coat racks, Furniture, Landscape timbers, Highway guard rails, Snowshoes, Toothpicks, Match sticks, Chopsticks, Shutters, Canoe paddles and oars, Sound boards for musical instruments, Organ pedals, Drum Sticks, Wood blocks, Speaker cabinets, Amplifier cabinets, Metronomes, Xylophones, Harmonicas, Stage flooring, Sandboxes and Backyard play sets, Charcoal, Tool handles, Toilet plungers, Medicine cabinets, Parallel bars, Vineyard stakes, Wooden toys, Rulers, Birdhouses, Fencing, fence posts and rails, Firewood, Boats, Ladders, Hockey sticks, Dog houses, Pallets, Particleboard, Medium density fiberboard (MDF) (used in kitchen cabinets and furniture panels, for example), Hardboard, Garage doors, Gazebos, Hot tubs and spas, Lath, Trellises, Kitchen utensils, Pencils, Ping Pong paddles, Golf tees, Animal bedding, Railroad ties, Seesaws, Model airplanes, Coffins, Brush handles, Cable reels, Canes, Cedar chests, Cedar closet lining, Closet rods, Barrels, Crutches, Desks, Docks, Decks, Kitchen cabinets, Grandfather clocks, Stair rails, Truck and trailer flooring, Mouldings and baseboards, Paneling, Picnic tables, Pilings for building construction, Popsicle sticks, Porch swings, Produce crates and boxes, Rocking horses, Shingles, House siding, Putty-type of wood filler, Tongue depressors, Totem poles, Sleds, Salad bowls and serving ware, Telephone poles, Wheelbarrow handles, Wood carvings, Pegboard, Ship masts and yardarms, Toilet seats, Piano keys (wooden), Rolling pins, Yo-yos, Dice, Silverware chests, Venetian blinds, Billiard cue sticks, Fuel for meat smokers, Logs provide nutrients for shiitake mushrooms, Cutting boards, Model airplanes, Biscuits for wood joining, Doll houses, Test tube racks, Wine racks, Handrails, Stake-body truck sides, Log houses, Bowling alley lanes, Bowling pins, Railroad crossing gates, Rural bridges, Tent poles, Hurdles, Wooden matches, Parts of snowboards, skis and skateboards, Name tags, Flagpoles (for smaller flags), Cribs, Police batons, Planters, Dowels, Scaffold planks, Concrete forms, Glu-lam beams (used to create long open spaces, as in churches), Excelsior, Veneer, Bushel baskets, Kitchen counters, Woodcut artwork, Merry-go-Round horses, Birdhouses, Snowshoes, Woodworking clamps, Spinning wheels, Baskets, Novelties such as Nutcrackers, Checker sets, Jewelry boxes, Foundry patterns, Crates, Garage doors, Theatre scenery, Gunstocks, Beehives, Mallets, Butcher blocks, Organ pipes, Crucifixes, Knife handles, Children’s puzzles, Work benches, Toboggans, Bookcases, Park benches, Gun racks and cabinets, Billboards, Snow fences, Trellises.
Products Made from Wood-Derived Chemicals
(Processed products, not oils or latex, etc. Some cellulose products may derive from other cellulose sources such as cotton linters, depending on economics and manufacturer.), Textiles (Rayon, Tencelô), Cellulose acetate (wrapping and photographic film), Cellulose nitrate (former composition of movie film, except that it was very flammable and unstable with age), Celluloid (rarely produced nowadays, except for guitar picks and pick guards, fountain pens, accordion cases and ping-pong balls. Formerly used for costume jewelry, clocks, etc.) Cellulose acetate and cellulose nitrate are both used in adhesives and lacquers, Calendars, Diplomas and Certificates, Report cards, Lamp shades, Book covers, Concert posters, Identification badges, Newsletters, Recipe cards, Salt boxes, Sugar and flour bags, Can labels (except for tomato cans for some unknown reason!), Bottle and jar labels, Cereal boxes, Shelf labels in grocery stores, Adhesive-backed labels, Receipts, Menus, Poster board, Baking cups, Coupons, US currency is not made from wood pulp it is made from cotton and flax fibers, Coffee filters, Facial and bath tissue, Packaging for facial and bath tissue (the boxes and wrappers), Napkins, Sanitary and surgical absorbent products, Disposable diapers, Kites, Catalogs, Game boards, Masking tape, Crepe paper, Birthday and Christmas wrapping paper, Stickers, Coloring books, Flashlight battery labels, Paper dolls, Baseball cards, Tracing paper, Milk cartons, Egg cartons, Postage stamps, Paper towels, Playing cards, Building insulation, loose and in panel form, Grocery Bags, Paper Cups, File Folders, Post-It Notes, CD labels, DVD and VCR tape packaging, Magazines, Magazine card inserts, Postcards, Maps, Fast food packaging, Frozen food boxes, Construction paper, Kraft paper (wrapping paper), Multi-wall sacks for birdseed and pet
foods, Price tags, Sandpaper, Seed starter blocks, Loudspeaker cones, Tea bags are usually not made from wood pulp they are mostly made from abaca, also known as Manila hemp, Tea bag labels are made of wood-based paper, cigarette papers and vacuum cleaner bags are made from hemp or flax fiber!, Bible paper, Wallpaper, Tubes for bathroom tissue and paper, towels, Artificial snow (paper snow), Wax paper, Confetti, Admixture with sprayed-on grass seed, Food additive (non-digestible cellulose dietary fiber), Used in diet drink products, food texture enhancer. (In the late 1970s, a diet bread used cellulose fiber from wood as one of its ingredients.), Butcher paper, Musical instrument cases (cardboard type, as for guitars), Phone books, Photographs, Newspapers, Tickets, Business cards, Roofing felt, Ice cream containers, Pizza boxes, Disposable tablecloths, Retail software boxes, Corrugated cartons, Ceiling tiles, Absorbent socks for oil spills, Absorbent liners for supermarket meat, trays, Stationery and notebook paper, NCR (no carbon required) paper, Tax forms, Marriage licenses, birth and death certificates and other civil documents, Racing forms, Programs for sporting events, Fiber filler for plastics: Tool handles, Football helmets, Buttons, Eyeglass frames,
Ball point pens, Electronics cases (televisions, calculators, computers), Loudspeakers, Automobile parts (e.g., door panels), Packaging, Trays, Thermoformed products like gun cases, Marine/Trailer flooring, Wood-plastic composite lumber: Planters, Fencing, Decking, Signs, Parking stops for parking lots, Spare tire covers, Melamine paper-faced board, Additive to unfired ceramics to give them strength, Fungicides, Hair spray, Cosmetics including thickeners such as methyl cellulose and methyl†hydroxy†ethyl†cellulose, Methanol (used in colognes, solvents), Torula yeast (a food supplement) is grown on wood sugars and wood mineral nutrients leftover from pulping operations. This is used in baby foods, imitation bacon, cereals, baked goods, etc., Tannin (used in natural tanning process, less common than formerly), Liquid Smoke, Linoleum (oxidized linseed oil mixed with pine resin and wood flour), Acetic acid (produced by distillation of wood), Biofuels from wood distillation, Liquid nail polish, Shaving cream (tea tree oil, camphor, etc.,varies by manufacturer), Ink (incorporate tall oil rosins from hard pines), Tall oil fatty acids and derivatives are used as: PVC stabilizers, Synthetic lubricants, Polyamides, Corrosion inhibitors, Soaps, Detergents, Emulsifiers, Rubber processing additives, Asphalt additives, Concrete additives, Epoxy additives, Plasticizers, Metalworking chemicals, Oil field chemicals, Rosin-based adhesive products.
The following information is copied from the website of the Temperate Forest Foundation {http://www.forestinfo.org/
CMC (carboxymethyl cellulose) is used as a food thickener and texturizer for products such as ketchup and ice cream (depending on manufacturer); also used to stabilize oil well drilling muds. Cellulose-based pill fillers, Cellophane (wrapping material, also used for Easter basket grass!), Toothpaste additives (e.g., cellulose gum), Plastic twine, Hardhats and sports helmets, Cigarette filters (cellulose acetate fibers), Cellulose industrial filters, Sausage casings, Cellulose sponges, Artificial vanilla flavoring (by-product of Kraft process pulping), Cleaning compounds, Chewing gum is a combination of natural rubber (especially chicle, from the Sapodilla trees from Central and South America) with some synthetic latexes to extend the natural latex supply. Other wood chemicals such as rosin esters and terpenes are also common ingredients.
I am not exactly sure how to cite the above lists properly so what follows is verbatim from the website where I got them:
Educational programs of the Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service serve all people regardless of race, color, age, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, M. Scott Smith, Director of Cooperative Extension Service, University of Kentucky College of Agriculture, Lexington, and Kentucky State University, Frankfort. Copyright © 2002 for materials developed by the University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. This publication may be reproduced in portions or its entirety for educational or nonprofit purposes only. Permitted users shall give credit to the author(s) and include this copyright notice. Publications are also available on the world wide web at: http://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/Forestry/forestry.html.
With the understanding that there will almost always be a debate about what an organization really stands for, here are some organizations, ideas and models I knew about or recently discovered:
Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Timber, Fish and Wildlife Program and related DNR Science and Environment.
Washington Department of Natural Resources Olympic Experimental Forest
Washington Department of Natural Resources Capitol State Forest
H.J. Andrews experimental forest in Oregon (U.S. Forest Service).
The Rainforest Alliance. (The Rainforest Alliance works in the tropics to protect the environment and to help forest communities maintain themselves. They get it that forest communities have the most at stake in maintaining healthy ecosystems but these communities also need to be able to make a living. Our many environmental groups in the Pacific Northwest could learn a lot from this example and apply it locally).
The Forest Stewardship Council.
The Sustainable Forestry Initiative.
World Wildlife Fund Sustainable Forestry.
The Journal of Sustainable Forestry (a peer reviewed scientific journal).
Solutions for a sustainable and desirable future
Volume2/Issue 6/Page 57-63
Temperate Forest Foundation {http://www.forestinfo.org/
With a little research I am sure the reader can find many more ideas and references for sustainable forestry.
