Mary Ellen Croteau: Clearcut

Traveling through the U.S., one is rarely aware of the presence of clear-cutting.  This is because lumber companies are careful to leave a row of trees between the road and the clear-cut.  In Canada they are not as concerned about image, it seems, because logging is done right up to the roads and rails.

My husband was cross-country skiing last winter when he came across a lumbering machine.  He described the sight:  A huge metal claw reached out and grabbed the tree while an extended arm sawed it off at the base. It then turned the tree horizontally and fed it into its maw, spinning it at dizzying speed while lopping off the branches and bark, finally excreting the log onto a transport truck.  It took only a few minutes from start to finish.  He described it as a frightening sight to witness such rapaciousness so close up.

The young girl from across the aisle of the train asked her mother why there were so many trees cut down.  Her mother replied that they were cut down to build new houses with.  “Still,” the girl said, “it makes me sad to see them all cut down.” A man directly in front of me cut in:  “I work in a sawmill. When they clear-cut, they replant immediately.  Also, when there has been a fire, they go in right away to cut the wood before the insects get into it, because then it wouldn’t be any good.” The mono-forests that result from replanting are more like farm fields than forests.  They are sickly looking things:  to be most productive, only one type of tree is planted.  They all grow the same height and girth at the same time.  But having no overstory of large trees for shelter, no rotting trees underneath for nourishment, no wildlife, no understory of diverse plants to protect and feed the soil and keep disease in check, the trees that grow in “replanted” forests are not good for much more than paper pulp, harvested every 10 years or so.

A woman recently reassured me that lumber companies now only “selectively” timber “so that it doesn’t harm the forests.” I wonder where she got this idea? Traveling to the California Redwood State and National Parks, I saw a half dozen trucks roll by with huge redwood trees strapped on behind. The trees were so large in girth that only three or four sections of log could fit on one flatbed.  These were old growth trees coming from the supposedly protected state and national forests.  This, in fact, is “selective timbering.” While they have been telling us that they are protecting the national forests, our government has actually sold off (or rather, given away) rights to timber on public lands, even the mighty redwoods that now grow only in a small section of the west coast.

Lumber companies consider any tree that has reached maturity to be “non-productive.” They argue that these trees need to be cleared away so that younger trees can grow (so that these younger trees can be harvested in turn.) I wonder if they would take the same approach to other species, cull all adult members to let the youngsters grow?

I was shocked to see that Canada’s vast forests, at least all those I could see from our four day train trip from Vancouver to Toronto, were mostly timbered out.  Judging by the size of the trees that remained, most were under 20 years old.  Sawmills lined the route, and freight trains loaded with lumber were constantly passing.  Even Jasper National Park in the Canadian Rockies contained no large trees or old-growth tree stands.

There are alternatives to wood products which are sustainable as well as creating jobs.  Numerous plant fibers can be farmed and harvested in small plots as well as large fields, and can produce a better quality paper.  Recycled plastics, which are now largely unused and contribute to landfill problems, can be made into a strong and durable lumber-substitute which is impervious to weather and rot.

If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we create a sustainable culture which doesn’t destroy our earth?