Old Growth Forests
Old Growth Forests
What's all the debate about cutting trees? Lumbering has been a major industry in the United States for more than 300 years. Trees have always been a valuable renewable resource. What does it matter if trees are cut as long as new ones are planted to replace them?
Lumbering is very different from other resource recovery operations such as coal mining or oil drilling. Coal and oil are nonrenewable resources. When they have been extracted from the earth and used, they are gone essentially forever. But trees grow back. In fact, for many years Americans have been encouraged to make greater use of renewable resources, such as trees, and to depend less on nonrenewable resources, such as coal and oil.
The debate summarized in the quotations above concerns a specific kind of lumbering: the cutting of old-growth, or "ancient" forests. The major tree species in old--growth forests--redwoods and Douglas firs, for example--often live more than 1,000 years. Their life spans may be anywhere from 200 to 2,000 years. Recently, timber companies have been more eager to harvest trees in ancient forests in the American Northwest, primarily in Washington, Oregon, and northern California.
The potential profit for the companies is enormous. By one estimate, the ancient forests of the Northwest contain more wood than any other place on earth, three times that of all the wood in the world's tropical rain forests. A single mature Douglas fir has a value of at least $15,000 and can provide enough wood for 20 houses. These profits can be crucial for lumber companies facing difficult economic times.
Probably the most powerful argument for lumbering in ancient forests, however, is one of employment. Many residents of the northwestern states depend on lumbering for their livelihood. They fear that jobs will be lost if companies are not allowed to cut old-growth trees. In areas where unemployment has reached 10 percent or more. workers do not want to hear that some forests are off limits to the lumber industry.
Many people object to lumbering in old-growth forests, however. They raise a number of points to support their view They argue, first of all, that 90 percent of all old-growth forests have already been harvested. We need to preserve at least some portion of those that remain, they say.
Critics of the lumber industry also believe that old-growth forests are very special ecological areas. These areas have not been studied very well, they say, and we cannot be sure what ancient forests are really like. But we have learned enough to know that they are very different from other ecosystems and should be preserved.
In addition, it is obvious that at some point, if lumber companies have their way, all ancient forests will be gone. At that point, the companies will have to turn to some other method of growing and harvesting the trees they need. Why can't they start using those methods now, rather than ten years into the future?
Finally, some people say that the employment argument is not a sound one. If companies are really concerned about people's jobs, they ask, why are they turning more and more to automated methods of harvesting trees and cutting logs? Why are the majority of those trees now sent overseas--most commonly to Japan--for processing?
created by: Debbie Anholt
updated: 5-5-2000
contact me: anholt@lclark.edu