Utilizing Clear Cuts as a Resource-Wide Management Plan

Mention the words, “Clear Cut”, and “forestry” in the same sentence around almost any crowd apart from forest managers and the response will invariably come back negative. But why? Why do the general public and even some wildlife biologists view this as such a negative thing? I can sum it up in one word: Education. As a forester I can see both sides of the argument. People in the general public and the average wildlife or fishery student here at UW Stevens Point see clear cuts as devastation to the landscape. Loggers see clear cuts as the most efficient way of harvesting lumber resources.
Let’s think about the potentially negative impacts of clear-cuts. First off, aesthetics come into play. This is one of the most important factors viewed by the public, especially along major roads and adjacent to housing developments. Second, there is the loss of certain habitat for wildlife species. This tends to be the major concern amongst wildlife biologists. Third, there is the increased risk of landslides and soil erosion. Fourth, there is the loss of streamside habitat in riparian areas and the degradation of stream bank structure. Finally, there is an increased potential of wildfire hazards. Although there are many other perceived flaws with the idea of clear cutting a section of forest, I’ll just take the time to solve these five common negative views.
Generally I would agree that clear cuts are not exactly pleasing to the eye. With all of the knowledge that forest managers have today about public views on aesthetics, we (foresters) have certain strategies to make clear cuts appear more “friendly” to the eye of all those concerned. For instance, along side roads that are frequently being used a forester will leave a dense strip bordering that road so that people in cars won’t have to see the clear cut behind it. After a certain amount of years when the clear cut has had time to regenerate and grow, the forester will then appoint the loggers to go in and harvest the remained timber that was originally left behind.
Another very important issue with clear cuts is habitat loss. Knowledgeable wildlife and fisheries biologists know that although habitat for certain species may be lost in some cases, habitat for other species such as grouse, deer, and elk (too name only a few) will be created. Forest managers develop plans in accordance to wildlife and fisheries biologists they work with. We develop plans that minimize species’ losses and maximize species’ gain from new habitat created. When it comes to stream side habitat, foresters will leave the appropriate buffer area to eliminate negative effects on streams.
Soil science students will be relieved to know that clear cuts do not cause excess soil erosion at all. Soils that have the potential of forming a landslide will be eroded with or without clear cuts. The only time that forestry can prove to be negative on erosion is when new roads are being made without consent from the forester administering the timber sale.
The problem of increased fire hazard as a result of clear cuts is being handled more responsibly than it used to be in the past. When a pine plantation is clear cut the loggers will either make one burn pile that will be burnt in winter or some other low risk time, or they will scatter the brush which will be used for a controlled burn which helps forest structure in the long run.
Even with these five “myths” being busted, it should be apparent that clear cuts are not bad and have more benefits than negative impacts on the environment.