I once had a professor who said that the term "sustainable forestry" was redundant and should not be used. His point was valid...the subject of 'forestry' should present sustainable methods of forest management and should not need to be pre-defined by the term 'sustainable' or 'good.' However, as most of us know, times can change and my professor, like some of us may not be quite up to speed with the vernacular. Unfortunately, today's usage of forestry is too broad to stand alone. Terms like good forestry or sustainable forestry are often necessary and not repetetive at all. This article discusses some real eye opening facts and figures regarding the 'sustainability' of our current forest practices.  

How important is sustainable forestry to you?  How important should sustaining healthy forests be for your family, your local community, your county, and our state?  I feel we are at a crucial place in the timeline of our forest resources in PA.  We are at a true cross road, a point where we could easily go the wrong way.  I feel that we have weakened our forests in PA through improper harvesting practices, making our forests more prone to injury from wind, insects, diseases, and other would be enemies of the forest.  At this point in time, summer 2004, we need to become aware of our situation and our dire need for change!  Never before, in the history of our PA forests have insects, diseases, wind and drought had such an advantage over our trees. 

For decades, we have been slowly chipping away at the best growing stock in our woods.  For instance, allow me to paint a common picture of a property owner that harvested all his oak 18 inches and larger about 20 years ago.  Then, the same owner reacted to a great timber market about 8 years ago and harvested his remaining trees, mostly cherry, 16 inches and larger.  After his death 2 years ago, a new owner decided to help pay the mortgage by calling a local mill and harvesting the same property 12 inches and larger.  This scenario is very common.  Actually, I would say it is “normal” among PA forests.  However, when we take a moment to understand what happened to the health and vigor of the forest through the three harvests we can easily be frightened for the future.

All three harvests were based on a diameter.  In each harvest, a diameter was set and all trees above that diameter were sold and cut.  The problem with this method is that the landowner did not know that the small trees (left on the property) were the same age as the large trees (taken to the mill).  Also, the landowner was not aware that the small trees were inferior to the large trees.  The landowner did not realize that he sold his best growing stock, the strongest individuals, and the most competitive and most healthy trees.  The landowner also did not realize that the trees left on his property were the worst growers, the weakest individuals, the least competitive and least healthy trees.  Simply stated, the landowner’s three harvests “cut the best and left the rest” and now the trees that are left on the property are more susceptible to potential enemies, and less likely to survive an attack by insects or diseases.

There are many topics that we could explore on this same subject.  The health of our forests and their sustainability could be measured in many ways.  For instance, we could discuss the decreases in log sizes and lumber quality.  We could also bring up the fact that our most valuable wildlife species are decreasing in numbers while species with little wildlife value (and less market value, too) are increasing at an alarming rate.  We could also discuss our concerns with invasive species and competing vegetation that are taking full advantage of our “normal” harvesting practices.  Let’s not ignore the fact that it has become almost impossible in most of PA to grow red oak seedlings because they are preferred by our abundant deer population.

Our forests are always under attack.  One of our main goals in forest management should be to strengthen our trees for such an attack.  We should be concerned with improving the vitality of our forests and improving their health at the same time.  We are at a cross roads and we can either continue down the wrong road of weakening our forest resource or we can make a decision to do no more harm and take the road that can begin to increase the health and vigor of our woods. 

To end this article, I want to present you with a scenario regarding our current timber volumes being harvested in PA on a yearly basis.  Of course this is a foundational theme for sustaining forests, i.e. we must be able to grow more than what is being harvested.  Let’s take a closer look at harvest volumes per year and what that means over the next rotation of our forests in PA.  The numbers used in the following example are taken from my experience and do not represent hard data from research.  I feel they accurately depict what I have seen in my 14 years of forestry experience. 

PA has 17 million forested acres.

Current volume/year harvested is approximately 1.6 billion board feet

ü      DIVIDE by avg. number of board feet/acre (5,000) and we see that we will need approximately 320,000 acres of forest/year to maintain current harvest rate.

ü      MULTIPLY by typical rotation age or minimum time to maturity for our hardwoods (80 years)

ü      EQUALS:  Based on these numbers, we will need 25, 600,000 acres of forest over the next 80 years to maintain current harvest rates.  Since we only have 17 million acres of forest, we will be operating in the red in about 52.8 years, a 27.2 year shortfall.

So, what would be a sustainable harvest level?  Let’s take another look using 1 billion board feet/year

ü      DIVIDE by 5,000 bf/acre and we see that we will need 200,000 acres/year

ü      MULTIPLY by 80 years

ü      EQUALS: Based on this reduced harvesting level, we will need 16,000,000 acres of forest over the next 80 years to maintain this harvest rate.  Of course, 16 million is less than 17 million, so in this case we would have the acreage available.

This has been a simple, yet hopefully eye opening exercise.  Of course, these numbers are being used here for discussion purposes only, but this information is quite telling.  Many factors can change the numbers used and the outcomes presented.  Some of you will say “I would use a higher number here or a lower number there and the outcome would be different.”  Let’s not dispute the numbers too heavily, because there are many other factors affecting forest sustainability that we have not factored in yet.  What about the fact that not all 17 million acres of forest land is accessible for harvesting?  What about the fact that our overabundant deer herd has slowed and even halted our forests ability to regenerate (substantially lengthening the rotation age)?  What about the fact that many of our preferred species cannot compete with lesser species of vegetation?  Of course we cannot put a number on these factors to add them to our exercises above, but they would certainly have some negative affect on the conclusions.

Are we fully aware of our forest’s condition?  Are we fully aware of the many factors affecting our forest’s sustainability?  Are we fully aware of the importance of our forests?  Are you?  What are you doing about it?  Let me give you some options…1) Join a local woodland association (http://vip.cas.psu.edu/associations.html) 2) Strengthen your local woodland association by donating time or resources and getting involved with local forest-friendly agencies 3) Educate yourself about forests and forest management (start here at The Forester or check out http://www.appalachianforestconsultants.com/forestmanagement.html).

Charles Dubois once said, “The important thing is this: to be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become.”  

Mike Wolf

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed