Part three of “The Forest Advocate” series

A recent federal court decision struck down a lawsuit that would have curtailed forest management in two areas within the White Mountain National Forest and undermined the ability of the Forest Service to access the full suite of science-backed tools necessary to manage and conserve complex forests.

Last fall, the Center joined a group of non-profit conservation organizations in an Amicus Brief in that court case to support the White Mountain National Forest’s management plan that was presented and thoughtfully adjusted based on public input, scientific data, and on-the-ground ecological review. These organizations don’t always agree – but in this case we did – for the basic fact that a ‘simple solution’ of not allowing any harvesting on those lands compromises a thoughtful forest management plan that supports forest health and the creation of recreation, timber, and wildlife values that people want and need.

Despite the strong chorus of conservationists that support forest management, we increasingly see calls of “don’t cut trees!” as THE environmental response, a simple and effective message that vilifies public servants and those who work the land and undermines what should be a big tent opportunity to better engage and educate the public through the universal love of forests and appreciation for what they provide.

There is no question that forests are a critical defense against worsening climate change. They remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in soil, roots, and the wood of tree trunks and branches (Catanzaro and D’Amato, 2019). They also filter and supply water, buffer extreme precipitation events, and support a wide range of plants and animals.

But here’s the tricky part: what enables forests to do these things, and to do them sustainably and resiliently over time, is complexity. And the call to leave all forests alone is at odds with maintaining a complex forest landscape.

Forest complexity is the diversity of tree and shrub species, ages, sizes, and spacing. Complex forests demonstrate a greater capacity to survive and thrive amidst environmental stress and act as a buffer against disturbances. Complex forests reduce susceptibility to insect infestations, diseases, and extreme weather events, all of which are clear, present, and increasing dangers in our region.

Active management strategies, including the careful harvesting of trees, play a pivotal role in promoting this complexity (Kosiba, 2023). Removing certain trees in ways that reflect natural disturbances, for example, lets sunlight reach lower levels of the forest, encouraging the growth of new individual trees and additional species, increasing the growth and vigor of adjacent unharvested trees, and creating more and varied layers in the forest canopy (Catanzaro, D’Amato, and Silver Huff, 2016).

This matters in northern New England because while our forests are diverse and varied in terms of species composition and types, they are surprisingly similar in terms of age and stage of structural complexity (Janowiak et al 2018). Species diversity provides some resilience in the forest, but the age and physical similarity of the trees and relative simplicity make them comparatively less resilient and more vulnerable.  Across any forest, more complex means more resilient, so ideally we want many species, many diameters, many heights, and many ages.

Each forest has its unique characteristics, history, and ecological dynamics and management strategies need to be tailored to specific conditions to be effective. Good forest stewardship considers both the details of conditions on the forest parcel being managed and the context of the larger landscape surrounding it. Fortunately, the principles of ecologically-based forestry can be applied across a range of forest types and conditions for any landowner and supported by licensed foresters ready to provide expert advice on using forestry to build climate resiliency.

People are entitled to their opinions when discussing forest management. It is problematic, however, when they argue based on opinion and emotion but not facts. The Northern Forest has been managed for generations, first by Indigenous people and then by large and small landowners, all with different motivations, leaving a varied landscape largely resilient over millennia. With increasing pressures of climate change, land sales, dynamic forest markets and material use, and ever-changing federal policy, now is the time to ensure sound science can inform a long-term approach to forest stewardship and management, continuing the region’s ability to maintain a resilient landscape, healthy habitats, and strong regional economies.

Let’s not fall prey to calls for blanket “hands off” management that cherry-pick science and ignore the much broader consensus that forest management can in fact support the underlying ecological conditions and complexity that ensures public and private forests are healthier and stronger for future generations.

References