Disclaimer: This is a discussion about government policy (United States) relating to nature and forests, and will thus be inherently political in many ways.
On March 1st of this year, an executive order was issued that focused on increasing logging rates across the country (1). The National Forest Service aims at increasing logging rates by 25% over the next 4-5 years (2), and on the 4th of April, the secretary of the USDA put 110,000,000+ acres of National Forestry System land under “Emergency Situation Determination” (3).
These plans seem to be aimed at helping the economy, ecosystems, and domestic lumber production. I’m most interested in the effects that this could have on ecosystems nationwide. Habitat disruption and clearcutting are already having negative effects on our nation’s forests, and I wonder what additional logging would do? What doesn’t help is that the executive order seems to want to drop normal regulations tied to mass logging that would be in the way:
“Additionally, all relevant agencies shall take all necessary and appropriate steps consistent with applicable law to suspend, revise, or rescind all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, settlements, consent orders, and other agency actions that impose an undue burden on timber production” (1)
If anyone has any other viewpoints or ideas, please feel free to add them. I think this is a topic that should warrant some serious disccusion!
And similarly, the moron-in-chief has opened up the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument to commercial fishing and relaxed commercial fishing regulations generally.
I’ve always been of the opinion that public federal land should not be used for commercial purposes, period (with few exceptions such as salvage timber harvesting after tornadoes, hurricanes and such). Apparently the government thinks otherwise though
It is, of course, worth remembering that logging can be a good thing. Historically many of our forests were more open than they are today, and returning to this historical state can be good thing, if well planned. There’s a reason logging is a part of many ecologically-minded management plans.
Of course, but is clear cutting what is being called for here? Of course, clear cutting isn’t always bad, either - here in the Great Lakes region patch clear cutting is a common wildlife management decision in order to allow for the growth of young forests.
Yes, some amount of logging might be necessary to undo the damage done by treating national forests as a commercial resource in the past (densely packed monoculture plantations), but the most concerning part is the willingness to ignore environmental regulations and endangered species protections in the process
What specific consequences would this increased logging have? I think I have a few but I’m not sure if they are true or not. I understand (hope) that these forests are replanted after being logged, but those trees take a while to grow, and all that open space and absence of a canopy will destroy animal and plant habitats. Maybe even allowing some invasives to thrive in what was once a normal native forest? Plus, logging equipment has the potential to contaminate soils with heavy metals and toxic chemicals.
I have a question in regards to clearcutting - are all those stumps still alive? Are they still actively collecting water and nutrients from the soil, or are they dead? If they’re dead, then that would definitely be a bad thing, not only for the tree itself, but all of its fungal partners who rely on exchanging nutrients with trees.
