Recently, I was jogging through our local state forest when I hit a patch that had been logged.  The big beautiful pine trees had been reduced to stumps and huge puddles had formed as a result of large cumbersome logging equipment invading the area.  The other parts of the forest were scattered with squirrels, birds, and even the occasional deer, but in the logged area, all the wildlife had fled and the birds were driven out even further due to the loud machinery. They only way logging in national forests can continue is under strict and extensive regulation. 

There are widely held beliefs that logging is beneficial.  It is argued that logging has a positive impact on the economy, environment, and works to prevent wildfires (Palmisano).  Proponents say that logging contracts help the local economy by providing jobs and industry where it was previously lacking.  Logging is also believed by some to actually improve growth of flora after logging expeditions are finished.  And the main argument, seen mostly in the western states, is that logging is a viable deterrent for wildfires.  The logic is, cutting down trees takes away the fuel to these wildfires.

There are many holes in this argument, starting with the benefits to the local economy.  Firstly, jobs provided by logging contracts are extremely limited.  While there are some jobs on site, cutting down the trees, the majority of the processing in the timber industry is outsourced to a different state or country (Southeast). So in reality, most of the economic benefits of logging are being reaped by some other group of people.  Also, logging can affect other industries that provide more stable economic growth than the logging contracts itself.  A town in Alaska saw a steep decline in economic prosperity after a logging expedition started because it was affecting the salmon population in surrounding waterways, and Salmon was their main industry (Southeast).  This caused huge problems for the locals that depended on fishing to make a living.  In a smaller way there was a negative impact on the economy because tourism declined in the area due to the natural landscape being replaced by bulldozers and chainsaws.

Another popular argument is that logging is actually beneficial to the environment.  While it seems reasonable to say that logging is an artificial way to clear a landscape, the same way a forest fire would, the data does not agree.  A study was done comparing growth of trees in areas that had been burned by wildfires and areas that had been logged.  The results showed that areas that had been logged grew back less dense than before and less dense than the area effected by the forest fire.  And even ignoring the plant life, logging has an obvious adverse affect on the animals in the area.  One study showed that the sounds of the equipment alone was enough to disturb birds migration patterns. 

The main argument that is most widely accepted is that logging prevents wildfires.  There has been significant research into this topic and the results aren't exactly complimentary to the argument.  One study showed that wildfires were actually more likely to occur in areas that had been logged (Donato).  Another showed that logged areas burned faster than areas that had not been logged.  Though they may have burned as intense as more dense areas, this rapid burning still contributes to the quick spreading that makes wildfires so devastating and dangerous.  Anderson and Boykin write that control burning is an effective way to prevent the spread of wildfires (Anderson).  Control burning is more effective and more beneficial to the landscape.  Forest fires and nature's way of thinning out the forest, control burning is the closest we can get to a natural solution.

The only way to make logging in National Forests viable is through strict and extensive regulation.  Policies must include regulation on everything, not just the obvious aspects like number of acres being logged.  The location of the logging is something that is very important.  If a company is restricted to an acceptable amount of acreage, but it is in the middle of the forest, roads must be must and big loud equipment must be driven to the location, disturbing all the wildlife in its path.  Restricting logging companies to areas that are already near developed areas would help prevent any unnecessary pollution and negative effects on the surrounding wildlife.  Another way companies could make up for their logging is through replanting.  If the same companies that were cutting down the trees were responsible for replanting them, it would help in two way.  First, companies may put more thought into how many trees really need to be cut down, and if not, it would at least help with the problem with forest density after logging, mentioned before.  Lastly, and most difficult, is a tax.  A specific and substantial tax that pertains to logging in national forests should be implanted and applied to companies who choose to cut on federally protected lands.  The revenue from these taxes should be saved exclusively for projects that assist in the preservation and protected of the environment.  

It is very clear that the perceived benefits of logging are either false or not worth the risk posed to the environment.  Logging provides limited jobs while harming other aspects of local economy, it does not prevent wildfires but can potentially make them worse, and it does not yield the same benefits of re-growth that naturally occur. As citizens of the United States, we are obligated to protect and preserve our beautiful landscape.  The only way this can be done without locking the timber industry out completely is through extensive regulation that includes: acres, location, tax, and requires replanting.

