Words Matter – Addressing Misguided Nomenclature in Forests and Forestry

A Personal Perspective – Richard Zell Donovan^[1], September 2022

The world is changing, but all too often we remain stuck using either terms that are outdated or perhaps misused. “Clearcutting” and “management” are two contrasting examples of forestry terms which the author believes are either outdated or being misused, and perhaps constructive to clarify (perhaps even debate?), I think. 

CLEARCUTTING – Building on a perspective I wrote on the topic of biomass energy, clearcutting is now an outdated, even inaccurate, term, particularly when used to describe what purports to be a valid or good technique for the sustainable management of forests. Unfortunately, in the worst of circumstances the term still applies, such as when timber cuts/harvests are implemented in a manner that means indiscriminate harvesting of a patch of land, sometimes hundreds of hectares or acres or more, leaving no part of the land untouched (i.e., zero “retention), levelling all the trees. Typically there Is no nature-oriented design in this kind of harvest – it usually happens in square or rectangular blocks, does not consider conforming to natural boundaries or the needs of nature, including wildlife habitat. From this author’s perspective, foresters, industry and even government have lost the argument that clearcutting is a valid technical approach for forest management. In this context, nothing about clearcutting seems sustainable from where I sit.

In other cases the term is used when it is not even accurate. In many cases “designed clearcuts” actually have trees left in clumps in the middle of the forest (i.e., retention for wildlife habitat or as seed sources for future tree regeneration) or around the forest in the form of protection zones for wetlands of all kinds or wildlife habitat. Even actions such as variable retention, or varying the form or design or size of patch cuts, may not be sustainable or close to sustainable unless there are strong ecological, social and economic considerations used in their design and implementation. 

The author’s suggested practice is when “calling a clearcut a clearcut” it is a pejorative or negative term. As such, in the negative case a clearcut is when there is literally no tree left uncut in a harvest. At best there may be consideration such an approach may work for the regeneration of some commercial trees, but typically no consideration to other values such as wildlife habitat, water resources, etc. Unfortunately this also means little to no consideration of patch design or configuration based on “line of sight” considerations for some birds or mammals who may want or need to traverse or cross such a space, no nesting or perch trees for birds (raptors and other species), and no spatial configuration of the cut to natural contours and boundaries such as waterways or wetlands or geologic factors. 

Despite the continuing or heretofore attempts to legitimize “clearcutting” by many forestry organizations or specialists, or even in silviculture text books, the professional forestry community has lost this “word and practice battle”. Let’s get rid of it as a purported tool for working towards sustainable forest management. Clearcutting is an indiscriminate practice and a negative term that shouldn’t be associated with sustainability-focused forest management. 

When there are situations where smaller clearings indeed may have value for tree regeneration, wildlife habitat or other reasons, the author suggests using the term “patch cuts”, with the intention that patch cuts are always to be designed and implemented in a way that recognizes multiple values and clearly reinforces the sound technical, ecological, social and economical ways of managing a forest. 

MANAGEMENT – It is common for some NGOs and others to use the term “management” interchangeably with “logging”, in so doing foisting blame on the forestry community that their concept of forest management is only driven by a desire to log, or logging. In other words, management, even worse “active management”, is a synonym for logging. This author objects to this simplification or use of the words management or active management in such a way. 

Starting more broadly, the following are examples on how management is defined in general. First, according to Whatishumanresource.com”, management is defined as:

“a distinct process consisting of planning, organising, actuating and controlling; utilising in each both science and art, and followed in order to accomplish pre-determined objectives.”

Second, Wikipedia defines “forest management” as follows:

“a branch of forestry concerned with overall administrative, legal, economic, and social aspects, as well as scientific and technical aspects, such as silviculture, protection, and forest regulation. This includes management for timber, aesthetics, recreation, urban values, water, wildlife, inland and nearshore fisheries, wood products, plant genetic resources, and other forest resource values.^[1] Management objectives can be for conservation, utilisation, or a mixture of the two. Techniques include timber extraction, planting and replanting of different species, building and maintenance of roads and pathways through forests, and preventing fire.”

Perhaps at some point in the past, when “getting the wood out” (i.e., timber harvesting) was the main value many landowners focused on or forests were managed for, management virtually always meant logging. For some organizations and foresters, this may still be true. But from where I sit, such an approach to management is outdated. For example, here in the eastern U.S., when private non-industrial landowners (i.e., “smallholders”) are asked how important logging is to them, the majority put logging way down their list of priorities after amenity values such as beauty, wildlife, investment, nature, or others such as recreation, hunting firewood or other values^[2]. In my experience, starting in the 1980’s, and for many forest managers today – at all scales – management is often not primarily driven by logging but by management options or values, such as amenities, ecosystem services, recreation, NTFP harvests, etc. Thus, management can mean strict protection, harvesting, recreation, etc.

From where I sit, management means intentional management decisions by humans to take actions on forests. Typically such management will mean managing forests as a matrix of natural areas and oftentimes overlapping (or sometimes separate) and diverse objectives and uses. This may include protection, recreation, collection of non-timber forest products (NTFPs), religious ceremony sites, or the felling of trees for commercial sale or to be used for firewood. Some uses can be complementary, others can’t. In my experience most landowners, foresters, and even many ecologists or social scientists, wish to maintain logging as an option in the above matrix of forest uses, but one they may use more, less or not at all depending on the circumstances and the range of values and objectives they are managing for. 

To be clear, from this author’s perspective, strict protection is management, even “active” management! The at times necessary focus on protection is a human perception and decision, and increasingly landowners of all kinds are embarking on management actions that might include strict protection, but also other actions to make their forest more resilient or adapted to the forces of climate change. This may include management options such creating “set asides” (i.e., protection zones with little to no impactful human use, including wetlands, riparian zones, wildlife corridors), extending the tree rotations or life of certain trees or groups of trees to maintain or re-establish late successional or old growth forest, considering species shifts in management to respond to changing climate, or doing the harvesting of timber or non-timber forest explicitly using reduced impact logging techniques that will leave more trees of all ages standing and growing and seek to reduce the negative impacts of harvesting on non-harvested resources. 

---

^[1] The author is an independent forest advisor, lives in Jericho, Vermont, has 40+ years of field experience in 50+  countries in boreal, temperate and tropical forests, has lived in Mexico, Paraguay and Costa Rica, has a Bachelor’s degree in history and romance languages and a Master of Science in natural resources management.  Field experience, discussions with other ecologists, foresters, social scientists and others, and many references have informed the perspectives herein. The independent views expressed herein do not represent those of any organization that the author has worked with before or provides advice to now. 

^[2] Butler, Brett, et. al. “Family Forest Ownerships of the United States,” U.S. Forest Service, 2016.