We, the Maine Forest Service, in general, don’t believe in the practice of clear-cutting for sustainable forest management. Below is a brief highlight for the different factors why we disagree with clear-cutting. We would like to point out, however, that clear-cutting is an economically efficient way to harvest timber. In the following pages, the Committee On Clear-Cutting Policy (CCP) will see our position on each of the proposed regulations.

Firstly, the committee should be informed of the research that the Maine Forest Service has done to examine the effects of clear-cutting on the forest environment as a whole. These effects explain the long-term persistence of clear-cutting operations which will eventually affect forester’s jobs and the supply of timber.

First and Foremost, clearcutting destroys the natural balance of the forest ecosystem. It is a common misconception that the forest isn’t a “living” place, and that similar to fields of corn or wheat, the trees are merely “our crops” to be harvested when needed. This is clearly not the case. Trees are not only the home to the animals and insects that live in them, but they are also the home of numerous t

Now, we will address the following six regulations that have been proposed by the committee. Firstly, we believe that the allowable size of clear-cuts should be reduced from 250 to 125 acres, reducing clear-cutting by half the original amount. As we have mentioned above in our general clear-cutting position, we do not agree with clear-cutting. However, until an economically feasible alternative to clear-cutting has been researched, we don’t want to destroy the economic status of the Maine timber companies. These are multi-million dollar corporations that employ many residents as well as providing valuable tax revenues for the state. Ultimately, these corporations are part of a network that supply essential raw materials to the American economy, as a whole. However, on the other hand, we can’t just look at the economics of this issue. If we do not reduce the amount of clear-cutting, the forest’s ecosystem will deteriorate so quickly that future generations won’t be able to grow and harvest new crops of trees. Once again, even reduced clear-cutting doesn’t necessarily bring about a balance between the economical and environmental aspects of our forests. However, it is the most feasible solution until an alternative has been found.

ypes of microorganisms and bacteria such as the mycorrhizal fungi, an important organisms who’s existence directly correlates to the growth rate of new and existing trees. Removing mass numbers of trees rich in these organisms not only hurts the future generation of trees that will be planted there, but the surrounding trees around them. In sum, each part of the forest is dependent on the other for means of survival.

Some topics in this essay:
Forest Service, CLEAR-CUTTING PROPOSAL, Douglas Firs, Commissioner Conservation, Clear-Cutting Policy, Policy CCP, soil erosion, maine forest service, buffer zone, forest service, maine forest, trees grow, Maine Forest, economic view, forestry companies, separation zones, growth cycle, Committee Clear-Cutting, growth cycle trees, harvested 40%, committee clear-cutting policy, economic view efficient,