>

> Exactally what about these clearcuts are you against? I am having
> a hard time understanding how a forestry student can claim to be against
> one of the most effective tools that foresters have in regenerating
> a forest.

Not to sound defensive, but there are alternatives to clearcutting that inspire less controversy. I'm not making the argument that cc is inherently bad, it just extends the human footprint too much. Other harvesting methods exist that don't do this quite as much. Shelterwood cuts and patch-cuts, for example. Of course these are just variations on the cc theme, but they really aren't as devestating as simply clearcutting.

The biggest problem with clearcutting is this businiess with the human footprint. To me, bare mountain sides are ugly. The road-side beauty strips used the hide cc aren't all that beautiful. I also think cc tends to value a forest only in economic terms, which leaves out considerations of a standing forest's value to non-humans and the ecosystem in general.

Another problem with clearcutting: stream sedimentation. Trees and undergrowth do a tremendous job of preventing erosion. After clearcutting this function is removed, and the streams fill up with mud. This raises the water temperature, which is harmful to aquatic life (every see a trout in a silty river? They can't hack the temperature increase or the suspended sediment.)

I agree that in some cases clearcutting may be appropriate. Aspen harvests are one instance of this, given aspen's ability to sprout from below ground root systems. Aspen also regenerates quickly from these suckers. Clearcutting for the sake of water management is also appropriate (something you left coasters are probably familiar with. Clearcutting is also used as a disease management tool. Hypoxylon canker of aspen is a huge problem, as there is no known control of Hypoxylon. So they clearcut the aspen and replace it with a tree species that isn't as susceptible to disease.

A standing forest generates tremendous money in the form of recreation dollars. In fact, recreation is becoming one of the largest job and money providers to communities that have a forested land base. Personally, I prefer looking at and travelling within a bunch a standing trees than loooking at a piece of plywood.

OK. After rambling away {typing away:)} I'll say this: Clearcutting just perpetuates the same old, same old. I don't think a society can continually (over-) exploit its natural resources. Forests don't exist simply for people. Clearcutting, for the most part, emphasizes economic values, while ignoring all other benefits. Valueing a forest in its entirety, i.e. as a part of an ecosytem, is what needs to be done. In other words there's more to a bunch of trees than lumber!

P.S. I don't think I was flamed just now, but maybe I was baited ;)

Karl Kulp