We have about 140 acres of woodland in Walpole, MA at our campus. We’ve reopened our sledding hill, gotten more sun exposure for our gardens, reopened our mile or so of trails. I also cut about 4 cords of firewood a year from my employer’s land in exchange for the improvements I’ve made to their property. It’s fair to say I’ve done a lot of chainsawing.

Still, I consider myself an environmentalist who hates to see large clear cuts. It’s one thing to cut trees here and there and something else to level a 200 acre, often very hilly plot. I don’t know about Oregon, but out here the clear cutting can be very rough on the forest soil and nearby streams. I’m all for working forests, especially privately owned ones. I wouldn’t mind owning some timberland myself, but if and when I do, trees will be taken out in a more reserved fashion. I’m not saying that some areas wouldn’t be clear cut, but probably there won’t be much.

Another problem with large-scale clear cuts is that it leads to large, even-age stands, often composed of only a couple of tree species, which in turn invites extra insect and/or disease problems.

Another thing I see in my travels to forests around the country is that the trees are harvested too fast in my opinion. 20 or 30 years of growth may be enough for the landowner since that’s all a chip board or pulp mill requires for log size, but shouldn’t we have some forests that are allowed to grow large, mature trees? From what I’ve seen very few timber land owners are willing to wait that long between harvests because the trees slow their growth and since everything has to be measured in dollars of value added per acre per year, when the growth rate slows, well, that’s when it’s time to cut. Thankfully some forests are tied up in the national parks. From what I’ve seen even the national forests turn their trees over too fast.

I’m not sure the size question is an environmental question, however, or simply one of taste and preference. I don’t mind seeing forest working and trees being cut, but what I have seen is forest land being pushed too hard, a lot like I see farm land being too intensively cropped, come to think of it.

Still, as I say, I cut trees myself, so maybe I’m not like your lost environmental friend.

Lastly, I was in Oregon for a few weeks last month. After visiting with my brother’s in-laws in Sisters, we went up to Astoria and spent several days running down the coast to California. We had lunch in Gold Beach too. That river inlet there is pretty fantastic from what I saw.

Take care,
Steve B.
Walpole, Ma

It was here first trip ever to the NW, and I believe her exact words were: “We’ve been told that you guys have cut down almost ALL your big trees!”

From our vantage point I was able to point out the forest in various stages of regrowth ranging from freshly harvested ( admitedly rather ugly) all the way up to fully mature trees (virtually indistinguishable from ‘old growth’) in what I would guess were about 5 year increments. She couldn’t believe that a forest could ‘go green again’ in the span of five years or so.

It IS a religion, and radical fundamentalists of any religion are, generally speaking, nuts. Sometimes benign nuts, sometimes very dangerous nuts, but in general, nuts.

Radical fundamental environmentalists are no different than the radical fundamentalists of any other religion. They WON’T listen to reason, and can run the gamut from just being willfully ignorant to outright dangerous.

Responsible use of land is at once a birthright, a purchased privilege, and an obligation everyone shares. But the key is RESPONSIBLE USE. Not the neglect that many environmentalists say we should do.

During the mid-to-late ’90s, if I’m remembering correctly, harvesting and burning in the western states was SEVERELY curtailed, in the name of environmentalism. The result was tons of deadfalls per acre. What was the natural outcome of this? The uncontrollable wildfires we saw a few years ago, as a result of lightning strikes in fuel-dense areas. Many people lost homes, some people lost lives, because those forests had not been maintained properly, in the name of “environmentalism”.

Proper management of those forests would have saved property and life. Radical fundamental environmentalism, and an administration willing to listen to it and base public policy on it, cost many people their homes, and some people their lives.