Survey Results

The poll I recently posted was based upon what people's opinion about logging is. I asked if they supported the continuation of forestry because I wanted to know how avid the readers are about forestry and also how much they care or if they even know anything about it. I gave four options for answers being: Yes, No, Yes: only if they don't destroy the forest, and No, I love trees too much.  My expectation for the results was that most of the readers would agree with forestry only if it didn't damage the forest extensively. Out of 22 students nine responded to the survey, of the nine respondents, four replied that they did support logging but only if it did not harm the forests too much. The results were as expected, however the reasoning behind it I believe is that it was the safe answer. It did not required a polarized decision, more or less it was a response that would leave them feeling like they saw the good of forestry while protecting our environment. Based upon the results I received I would like to delve deeper into what happens to our forests when people respond to forestry in ways similar to how most of my respondents did and how logging has improved its techniques to better the timber industry.  

What is Sustaible Forestry? (Research)

It may come as a bit of a shock but logging has become the new best friend of our world's forests, according to the green community. Harvesting trees has now come to be a means of protecting the forests rather than the traditional notion that logging destroyed eco-systems, habitats and soil. Recently ecologist have discovered that the eco-conscious forestry has over all improved the health of the forests rather than letting them to sprawl at will. Sustainable forestry by definition is the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfill, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems. But still their is controversy over what techniques shall be deemed sustainable.

Two very common techniques of logging include clear cutting and selective logging. Clear cutting is a controversial forestry/logging practice in which most or all trees in a harvest area are cut down. The controversy behind clear cutting spawns from being synonyms with deforestation. Clear cutting can have major negative impacts. These have been cited as soil erosion, poor quality re-growth, increased risk of pest epidemics, increased wildfires, loss of biodiversity, and loss of economic sustainability and increased environmental instability, loss of carbon contributing to global warming and so on. However  clear cutting does have some benefits if properly executed is sometimes used by foresters as a method of mimicking disturbance and increasing primary successional species like poplar (aspen), willow and black cherry (North America). Clear-cutting has also proved to be effective in creating animal habitat and browsing areas, which otherwise would not exist without natural stand-replacing disturbances such as wildfires, large scale windthrow, or avalanches. The other common technique used by logging companies is selective logging. Selective logging is the practice of removing mature timber or the lessening of older trees to improve the timber stand. This system may be used to manage even or uneven-aged stands. Management objectives can include the protection of forest soils, maintenance or improvement of wildlife habitat, the increase of individual stem productivity, encouragement of regeneration / species diversity or the improvement of the visual amenity of plantations. Selection cutting may include opening up areas to allow tree species that require greater light intensity to grow but that are not large enough to meet the legal definition of a clear cut. Single tree selection logging is currently being used to limit the extensive damage that the pine beetles have caused in our own forests. By removing the infected timber it not only provides the foresting company with a sustainable product but also reduces the threat of more trees being infected. Despite some benefactors However, selective logging has fallen under serious criticism due to the destruction it is causing in the Amazon rain forest. Selective logging is seen as a gateway destructive practice, as it creates logging roads into the interior of forests leaving them accessible and vulnerable to other harmful human activities, like wildlife hunting and misuse of land. Furthermore, because one of the effects is to dry out the soil in the forest, selective logging has been linked to increased drought and wildfire vulnerability. "In 2005, it was suggested that selective logging actually
damages as many trees as full on clear cutting even though only a fraction of the trees are removed."( www.thebusinessplanconsultants.net) Many  critics of selective logging see it as a thinly veiled commercial initiative to mislead eco-activists into labeling it sustainable with the least amount of change required on their part.

With such immense pros and cons it has made it very difficult for major global organizations, such as Forest Steward Council, to determine which technique shall be allowed. This lack of decisiveness has alternatively done more damage to the forests these organizations are so adamant about protecting, by permitting the continuation of illegal logging to flourish because of the lack of strict regulation policy. In recent years, illegal logging in the Amazon Rain forest has become a huge issue and a globally followed story. Illegal logging is responsible for much of the destruction and deforestation of the rain forest in Brazil, and recent reports suggest that the number of acres hurt by the practice is on the rise.

The solution needs to be an unbiased investigation into both clear cutting and selective logging
techniques to for once decipher which is really the greener; more sustainable option and what are other
options. It has been proven that current forestry organizations have an inability to come to a
consensus on what is the best practice, and therefore require a third party to make the decision
for them. Once the facts are collected, local, state, and federal governments need to be lobbied
to establish laws that reward green logging techniques and punish other practices. Perhaps a
system of tax credits, tax reduction, tax incentives could give loggers incentive to conform to
new policies that would result in a major benefits to the sustainability of our planet for us and future generations.

http://www.thebusinessplanconsultants.net/documents/Article-SustainbleLogging-CohesiveActionNeeded9-5-08.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_logging

The Great Debate

http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-10-31/opinion/17515075_1_old-growth-trees-old-growth-forests-logging

There is an ongoing debate between environmentalist and forestry companies. Obviously it is the eco-conscious activists that strongly oppose the continuation of clear cutting and selective forestry. Activists are quick to attack logging companies and forestry policies when it involves any kind of logging in old growth forests. Although counter argument from the industry state that they are only assisting the health of the forests and that they are an essential industry that supplies everyone with everything from our houses to the paper we write on.

The article I came across discusses the position that California home owners are having to deal with.During the dry season of in California  homeowners and politicians are working hard to have logging companies come in and take out the underbrush near residential areas to prevent fires from endangering homes. The proposition is called the Healthy Forest Initiative, which insists that logging of old growth forest will protect homes from potential fires rather than cutting out brush.
Although a deal has come up called the Feinstein logging compromise.Though perhaps well-intended, the Feinstein-Weyden compromise leaves the bulk of the administration's original plan intact. It adds some unenforceable language about protecting old-growth forests, but includes numerous loopholes that allow logging of old-growth trees and roadless areas. Further, the compromise fails to restrict activities to the thinning of undergrowth and very small trees. As usual, large healthy trees will be targeted for removal.
 
The compromise package would permanently reduce (and in many cases eliminate) citizen participation and environmental analysis on decisions involving logging of old-growth forests on public lands. What's more, it only requires 50 percent of funds to be spent on reducing combustible underbrush near communities, and it defines the notion of "urban areas" so broadly that projects could be located virtually anywhere, including the back country.
Scientists have warned us for years that the removal of big trees is one of the main causes of increased fire severity. Such logging reduces the cooling shade of the forest canopy, creating hotter, drier conditions on the forest floor. The extra sun exposure increases the growth rate of flammable brush. Where big trees have been removed, dense and highly flammable undergrowth soon develops.

As the Trees Fall

It is to no surprise that the current state of the world's forestry industry has caused environmental problems. However one might not have realized that there is a constant battle of the forests between the environmental activists and the logging companies. Currently in Australia environmentalists are struggling to stop these industries from cutting in old growth forests that support endangered species such as, sugar gliders and owls. Zoologists and Botanists have been pouring over maps and Google Earth, tracking breaches of logging conditions-trees cut down in protection zones. Documents maintained by Forests NSW staff show there were 13 breaches recorded in south-eastern NSW last year.The breaches include cases of ''lack of care taken by operator'', ''operator did not see marking tape'' and ''poor rigor in completing surveys''. Some could be explained by mishaps such as a vehicle slipping on a steep hillside into a protected area. In one case a logging contractor cut down trees in an area marked as ''old growth forest'' because a global positioning system device had run out of batteries.
This tug of war over trees has led to frustrations on both sides of the argument. Antagonist Workers complain of "manic hatred" whilst Anti-logging activist say damage to state forests is routine and systematic due to the obvious disregard to the NSW(New South Wales) Forest Agreements.''It's not exactly a surprise to us that there are so many breaches because the fox is in charge of the hen house,'' says Lisa Stone, a campaigner with South-East Forest Rescue. ''It keeps happening over and over again. You have got areas where they are supposed to be taking out single trees and then you go there and it's practically clear-felled.''
A wood chip company, South-East Fiber Exports, is planning to build the state's first wood-fired electricity plant at Eden, burning ''offcuts''. The company says opposition to its power plant is driven by people with the broader agenda of ending logging in native forests altogether. Some may say these mistakes are due to tight dealines and rugged working conditions but environmentalist are not prepared to let them off that easy. The North-East Forest Alliance has identified damage to stands of trees inhabited by koalas, stuttering frogs, sooty owls, powerful owls, golden-tipped bats and yellow-bellied gliders. The group has also walked through south coast state forests Tantawangalo, Yambulla, Glenbog and Dampier, collecting photographs of logging sites. Earlier surveys of the various regions by the Environment Department show habitat supporting sooty owls, yellow-bellied gliders, square-tailed kites, giant burrowing frogs, bent wing bats, tiger quolls, glossy black cockatoos and powerful owls may have been damaged.

The purpose of forestry is to continue to manage and ensure the continuation of sustainable forests while maintaining the social,biological, and  economical values of the logging industry. Reforestation is one way that forestry protects the continuation of forests. However when logging companies neglect to purpose of forestry it destroys our ever precious biosphere. Without a compromise old growth forests and many endangered species will be obsolete. 
http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/blog/DampierStateForestNSW3128Oct2010.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/when-trees-fall-in-the-forests-20101111-17pgt.html