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. The damage done by the logging expedition ruined the whole purpose of running through the forest, it ruined the natural experience.  Not only did it disrupt my experience, it disrupted the life and habitat of the animals and flora in the area.  Logging is a necessary industry, but in its current state, it is too harmful to the ecosystem. The only way logging in national forests can continue is under strict and extensive regulation. 

Many assume that logging is beneficial.  This assumption is fueled by much misinformation regarding tree growth and logging related economics.  Those who support logging argue that logging has a positive impact on the economy, environment, and works to prevent wildfires.  Supporters argue that the solution to the dense forest is thinning the forest through logging because thinner forests can't burn as well as dense flora and logging contracts will provide revenue to rural areas that are in need of jobs and general industry (Palmisano). Many supporters are also misinformed in believing that post fire logging aids in the regeneration of plant life, meaning plants will grow back better if burnt areas are logged.  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. 

Many of these arguments do not stand true when put into practice, starting with the benefits to the local economy.  Firstly, though logging contracts would be beneficial in some rural areas by providing jobs, the reality is that they are not a permanent fix.  Logging jobs are short term because companies have to find new areas with available timbre once the maximum amount has been taken from a given area.  Also, 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, the majority of the economic benefits of logging are being reaped by some other group of people.  Another issue is that 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.  And to make things worse, there was also a negative impact on the economy because tourism declined in the area due to the natural landscape being replaced by bulldozers and chainsaws.

Supporters of logging state that it is beneficial to the environment.  Supporters argue that by logging, they are clearing the landscape, the same way a wildfire would, in a safe and beneficial manner.  However, a study was done that compared 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 (Donato).  Excluding the effects on plant life, animals suffer as well.  Logging completely removes there habitat and protection from large areas in the forest.  Studies have shown that the sound alone, from logging equipment and falling trees is enough to disturb the nesting and flight patterns of native birds in the surrounding area.

The most common excuse for pushing more lenient regulations regarding logging on national land is that logging prevents wildfires.  There has been significant research into this topic and the results contradict this argument.  One study showed that wildfires were actually more likely to occur in areas that had been logged (Donato).  When referencing the Rim Fire in western United States studies found that "protected forest areas with no history of logging burned least intensely" (Hanson).  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 because it doesn't remove any plant life from the ecosystem, it is just an unnatural way to start a natural process.

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.  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. This would also help prevent forest fragmentation, which occurs when excessive cutting leaves isolated patches of forest that are cut off from the rest of the ecosystem.  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 ways.  First, companies may put more thought into how many trees really need to be cut down.  Big companies are always looking at the bottom dollar and requiring them to replant trees will cut into their profits and force them to limit themselves to the bare essentials needed.  On another front,  it would at least help with the problem with forest density after logging, mentioned before. The lack of natural growth of trees after logging may be countered by extra planting and seeding.  Lastly, and most difficult, is a tax.  A specific and substantial tax that pertains to logging in national forests should be implemented and applied to companies who choose to cut on federally protected lands. This would give companies incentive to seek timber elsewhere and leave protected lands alone.  However, the revenue provided by these taxes gained from the companies that did choose to log in National forests should be saved exclusively for projects that assist in the preservation and protected of the environment.  This would allow more research into the affects of logging while also maintaining the safety of our forests.

Consider the perceived benefits of logging compared to 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 required replanting.

