Clearcutting - The Debate over Clearcutting

Clearcutting is a method of harvesting and regenerating trees in which all trees are cleared from a site and a new, even-aged stand of timber is grown. Clearcutting is only one of several methods of timber production and management on both private and public forests. However, this single method of harvesting trees has been controversial since at least the mid-1960s.

Many conservation and citizen groups object to clearcutting on any forest, citing soil and water degradation, unsightly landscapes, and other damages. The wood products industry and mainstream forestry professionals defend clearcutting as an efficient and successful silvicultural system.

The choice of clearcutting by forest owners is much dependent upon their objectives. If that objective is for maximum timber production, clearcutting can be financially efficient with lower costs for timber harvesting than other tree harvesting systems. Clearcutting has also proven successful for regenerating stands of certain tree species.

The Society of American Foresters, an organization that represents mainstream forestry, promotes clearcutting as "a method of regenerating an even-aged stand in which a new age class develops in a fully-exposed microclimate after removal, in a single cutting, of all trees in the previous stand."

There is some debate about the minimum area that constitutes a clearcut, but typically, areas smaller than 5 acres would be considered "patch cuts". Larger cleared forests more easily fall into the classic, forestry defined, clearcut.

Removing trees and forests to convert land to non-forest urban development and rural agriculture would not be considered clearcutting. This is called land conversion - converting the use of land from forest to another type of use.

Clearcutting is not a universally accepted practice. Opponents of the practice of cutting every tree within a specific area contend it degrades the environment. Forestry professionals and resource managers argue that the practice is sound if used properly.

In a report written for a major private forest owner publication, three extension specialists, one forestry professor, one assistant dean of a major college of forestry and a state forest health specialist agree that clearcutting is a necessary silvicultural practice. According to the article, a complete clearcut "usually creates the best conditions for regenerating stands" under certain conditions and should be used when those conditions occur.

This is opposed to a "commercial" clearcut where only trees of marketable species, size and quality are cut.

Clearcutting detractors say that there is an ever-growing public opposition to clearcutting. This negative public feeling is so widespread that the forestry profession can't possibly "spin" it to be good even if with eloquent spokespersons and professional endorsements.

Aesthetics are the main source of public objection to clearcutting. An often disinterested public and casual viewers of forestry activities have overwhelmingly decided that clearcutting is not an acceptible social practice simply by looking at the practice from their car windows.

Negative terms like "deforestion", "plantation forestry", "environmental degradation" and "excess and exploitation" are inextricably associated with "clearcutting".