env.science week 2

The Endangered Global Commons The Effects of Climate and Topography on Air Pollution The Effects of Air Pollution Air Pollution Control: Toward a Sustainable Strategy Noise: The Forgotten Pollutant Indoor Air Pollution Spotlight on Sustainable Development 20-1: Germany's Sustainable Approach Pays Huge Dividends

20.1

20.1

20.1

20.1

20.1

20.1

20.1

CHAPTER OUTLINE

CHAPTER 12

I n the early 1970s, scientists pored over satellite photographs of the drought-stricken African Sahel, a band of semiarid land that bor- ders the southern Sahara. One of them noticed an unusually green

patch of land amid the desert. Curious to find out the reason, Norman MacLeod, an American agronomist, flew to the site. There, surrounded by newly formed desert, was a privately owned ranch of 100,000 hectares (250,000 acres). Its grasses grew rich and thick even though vegeta- tion in the surrounding fields had long since died, leaving the sandy soil unprotected. Why?

Grasslands, Forests, and Wilderness: Sustainable Management StrategiesThe Tragedy of the

Commons Rangelands and Range Management: Protecting the World’s Grasslands Forests and Forest Management Wilderness and Wilderness Management

Spotlight on Sustainable Development 12-1: Saving the World’s Tropical Rain Forests Point/Counterpoint: Controversy over Old- Growth Forests in the Pacific Northwest

12.4

12.3

12.2

12.1

Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations.

—Theodore Roosevelt

221

CRITICAL THINKING

Exercise In a speech to a group of business executives, one opponent of the U.S. Clean Air Act noted that natural sources of air pollution such as volcanoes often exceed human sources. Be- cause of this he argued that air pollution con- trol legislation was misguided. He went on to say that he supported efforts in the U.S. Con- gress to weaken air pollution legislation be- cause it was not only unnecessary but also hurt the economy. Regulations, he claimed, cost jobs and reduced the nation's productiv- ity. Analyze this premise, using your critical thinking skills and your knowledge of air pollution.

222 PART IV. Resource Issues: Solutions for a Sustainable Society

CRITICAL THINKING

Exercise One of the most dramatic changes on the planet in the last 2 decades has been the steady march of the world’s largest desert, Africa’s Sahara. In the 1970s and 1980s, re- searchers estimated that the desert spread southward at a rate of 5 kilometers (3 miles) per year. They attributed this expansion to drought, overgrazing, and agricultural land abuse in the semiarid grasslands bordering the desert. The 5 km/yr projection, however, was based primarily on measurements in a few locations, which researchers assumed were representative of the entire continent.

Using satellite observations of vegeta- tion, however, scientists have found that the Sahara has advanced and retreated—largely in response to rainfall. From 1980 to 1984, for example, the desert’s southern boundary moved 240 km (150 mi) south. Between 1984 and 1985, it moved north by 110 km (69 mi). In 1987 and 1988, it shifted northward again by 155 km (97 mi). In 1989 and 1990, how- ever, the desert boundary shifted southward 77 km (48 mi).

Although the southern border of the desert in 1990 was 130 km (81 mi) farther south than in 1980, the researchers believe that the shift does not reflect a long-term trend, but rather differences in year-to-year rainfall.

Some critics of global warming use this data to argue that desertification caused by climatic shift is not occurring. They say that the shift of the desert is a natural phenome- non. How would you answer this claim? What critical thinking rules will you use?

Stretching around the perimeter of the ranch was a fence that held out the cattle of the nomadic tribes that had overgrazed the surrounding com- munal property for decades. The ranch was di- vided into five sections. The ranch’s cattle grazed each section on a 5-year rotation—a sustainable strategy in the semiarid land. This example shows us the devastation wrought by mismanagement but also the possibilities created by sustainable management.

This chapter examines the state of the world’s grasslands and forests—sources of food, fiber, and numerous ecological services—and offers sugges- tions on sustainable management. It also discusses wilderness areas—vital sources of recreation that, if managed sustainably, could also become impor- tant means of preserving biodiversity. Before we begin, we must examine one of the reasons why lands are deteriorating.

The Tragedy of the Commons The desert surrounding the ranch in the chapter opening was at one time lush communal grazing land. Tribespeople of the Sahel grazed their livestock on the land with abandon, even- tually causing its destruction. As far back as ancient Greece, Aristotle recognized that communal property, shared by many people, often deteriorates severely. Early civilizations, for example, clear-cut communal forests and overgrazed their cattle on grasslands. History, however, shows that these civilizations paid dearly for their disregard. The skele- tons of buildings from ancient cities stand out in deserts that were once the rich forest and grassland ecosystems of the Fertile Crescent. Much of Iran and Iraq, which is now barren desert, once supported cattle, farms, and rich forests (FIGURE 12-1). Historians believe that the decline of Greece and Rome may be partly the result of the rampant misuse of their lands.

Economists have debated the fate of other common re- sources such as air, water, and land for decades. It was not until 1968, however, that professor Garrett Hardin exposed the cycle of destruction in a paper entitled “The Tragedy of the Commons.”

12.1

FIGURE 12-1 Legacy of past abuse. View of barren hillsides of Iran. Once covered by rich forests, these lands have been ruined by centuries of abuse, starting with deforestation.

CHAPTER 12: Grasslands, Forests, and Wilderness: Sustainable Management Strategies 223

In England, Hardin noted, cattle growers grazed their livestock freely on fields called commons, which fell into ruin as the users became caught in a blind cycle of self- fulfillment. Families found that they could enhance their personal wealth by increasing their herd size. Each addi- tional cow meant more income at little if any additional cost because the farmer did not have to buy new land or feed. The commons provided them.

Hardin argues that the cattle growers were rewarded for doing wrong. They realized that increasing their herd would lead to overgrazing and deterioration of the pasture, but they also recognized that the negative effects of overgrazing would be shared by all of the community. Thus, each herdsman ar- rived at the same conclusion: He had more to gain than to lose by expanding his herd. This shortsighted thinking re- sulted in a spiraling decay of the commons. As each pur- sued what was best for himself, the whole was pushed toward disaster. “Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all,” wrote Hardin.

The logic that compels people to abuse communal hold- ings has been with humankind as long as common property has. Today, however, the process has reached epic proportions. The overgrazed communal property of the Sahel is one of the most recent examples. This tragedy has been worsened by unsustainable government policies. In the 1960s, for exam- ple, loans were given to nomadic people to drill for water. With a steady supply of water, previously nomadic tribes no longer migrated south during the dry season. The land around the wells and human settlements deteriorated as herders exceeded the carrying capacity.

The tragedy of the commons provides partial explana- tion for many of the world’s problems, from air pollution to the rapid increase in human population. In the rich, indus- trial nations as well as in the poor, developing countries, for example, fertility is driven largely by personal desires. In India, children provide security in old age or improve the social status of women. In Mexico, childbearing may be motivated by male pride; in the United States, by personal satisfaction. Individual self-serving acts of procreation create a tragedy that befalls all of humanity.

Hardin’s analysis of the tragedy of the commons, al- though important, gives the impression that common re- sources are unique in their mismanagement. In many places, privately held resources are also abused (FIGURE 12-2). Erroneous frontier notions of the Earth as an unlimited sup- ply of resources, ignorance of the impacts of human actions, and a short-term view of economics dictate unsustainable management strategies on a wide variety of privately held resources (Chapter 20).

Today, many lands are gripped by the tragedy of over- exploitation. Short-term exploitation may have been per- missible at one time, when the human population was small in relation to the Earth’s resources. Today, too many people depend on the biosphere for food, water, and other resources, and the cumulative effect of many small insults has become staggering. Local problems have spawned regional calami- ties. Regional problems are now spreading to create global concerns.

KEY CONCEPTS

Rangelands and Range Management: Protecting the World’s Grasslands

Cattle and other livestock range over half the Earth’s sur- face, feeding on grassland vegetation. So important are they to human nutrition that in many parts of the world domes- ticated animals outnumber humans three to one.

The grasslands on which many of the world’s livestock depend are known as rangelands and are a vital component of global food, leather, and wool production. When prop- erly managed, grasslands and the livestock they support can provide useful products ad infinitum. Regrettably, the vast majority of the world’s rangeland is unsustainably utilized. This section examines the problems facing rangelands and shows how they can be managed sustainably to ensure a steady supply of food and other resources. Before we begin, a few words on rangelands are in order to broaden your understanding.

KEY CONCEPTS Rangelands, grasslands on which livestock graze, are an impor- tant element of the global agricultural system. When properly managed, they can be a sustainable food source.

12.2

Communal resources—that is, resources held in common by people, such as land, air, and oceans—often deteriorate as individuals become caught up in a cycle of self-gratification. Personal gain dictates actions that have negative effects shared by all who use communal property. Privately owned lands also deteriorate as a result of ignorance, greed, and other factors.

FIGURE 12-2 Private abuse. This privately owned farmland is deteriorating because of poor land management, which has led to severe soil erosion.

224 PART IV. Resource Issues: Solutions for a Sustainable Society

An Introduction to Rangeland Ecology Dozens of plants, mostly grasses, inhabit the grassland biomes of the world. Grasses, like all other plant species, capture sunlight energy and use it to produce organic mat- ter. Livestock and native grazers feed on grasses, acquiring the nutrients, both organic and inorganic, they need to sur- vive. People, in turn, consume the meat of these animals or drink their milk. Thus, organic plant matter and its energy are passed up the food chain.

Grasses are unique among plants in that they can with- stand a considerable amount of grazing without suffering. This is possible because they grow from the basal zone, the lowermost portion of the leaf. (It’s for this reason that our lawns withstand periodic cutting.) Most other plants grow from the top. Periodic grazing would kill them.

Even though grasses are adapted to grazing pressure, there are limits to how much grazing a grass species can withstand. As a general rule, it is safe to remove the top half of the exposed part of a grass plant. The rest constitutes a metabolic reserve—so named because it provides the pho- tosynthetic capability needed to provide food for the roots of the plant, which may extend 2 meters (6 feet) or more into the ground (FIGURE 12-3). Without this reserve, the plant is likely to die or be severely weakened.

Rangelands start to deteriorate when there is little or no recovery time between grazings. As a result, plants are so heavily grazed that their metabolic reserve is removed. Oth- erwise, grasses are rather hardy plants that are adapted to the sometimes harsh conditions of the world’s grassland biomes— for example, periodic drought and even occasional fire. Grasses can withstand drought because their roots extend deep into underground water supplies. They also store enor- mous amounts of nutrients that permit the plant to regrow after drought or periodic fires.

KEY CONCEPTS

The Condition of the World’s Rangeland In the United States, 85% or over 110 million hectares (276 million acres) of grassland, much of it public land, have undergone slight to moderate desertification in the last 200 years—equivalent to an area nearly twice the size of Texas! The Navajo Indians, for example, live on a 6 million- hectare (15 million-acre) reservation in Arizona, New Mex- ico, and Utah. Theirs is a sun-parched land, dusty and dry. To feed and clothe their people, the Indians have gradu- ally increased the size of their sheep herds. Today, the herd size exceeds the carrying capacity by at least four times. Baked by the hot summer sun and swept by fierce winter winds, the overgrazed reservation is quickly becoming an arid dust bowl.

Northwest of Albuquerque, New Mexico, is another tract of parched desert land, the Rio Puerco Basin. In the late 1800s, its lush grasslands supported huge herds of cattle. A century later, however, the land has deteriorated under the strain of overgrazing. Erosion has formed deep gullies. Wind and rain erode the soil 5 to 10 times faster than it can be replenished. According to the Bureau of Land Manage- ment (BLM), which manages most of the federally owned rangeland, 57% of the rangeland acreage assessed in 2009 meets all standards for good rangeland or is making signif- icant progress toward meeting standards down 4 percentage points from 2006. Some conservationists argue that current standards for good rangeland may not represent truly sus- tainable conditions. The remaining 43% do not meet stan- dards of good rangeland. On much of this land, conditions appear to be deteriorating.

Worldwide, the condition of rangeland also appears to be less than optimum. The United Nations Environment Pro- gramme estimates that nearly 75% of the world’s rangeland is at least moderately desertified, with a reduction in carry- ing capacity of at least 25%. The major culprit in this deteri- oration is overgrazing. In addition to desertification, this all-too-common practice results in severe erosion, declines in groundwater, loss of wildlife, and invasions of weeds.

Forests are also damaged by livestock. In some regions, branches are cut from trees for animal food. Entire forests are removed to make way for cattle ranches. In India, for in- stance, grasslands do not provide enough food for the nation’s 196 million cattle, which forces people to turn to state forests and other lands.

KEY CONCEPTS A large percentage of publicly and privately owned rangeland in the United States and other countries has been degraded be- cause of unsustainable land management practices such as overgrazing.

Grasses form the base of the food chain on rangelands. These hardy species are adapted to periodic drought, fire, and grazing as long as care is taken to protect the metabolic reserve of the plant.

Metabolic reserve

Grazed

(a)

(b)

Metabolic reserve

Metabolic reserve intact

Metabolic reserve

Death

Death Most of metabolic reserve eaten

Ungrazed

OvergrazedUngrazed

Recovery

FIGURE 12-3 The anatomy of grass. (a) Grasses are generally hardy species adapted to periodic grazing. (b) The lowermost por- tion, the metabolic reserve, however, cannot be removed without weakening or even killing the plant.

Rangeland Management: A Sustainable Approach Grasslands have been grazed by native species for thousands of years with no apparent ill effect. In fact, grazing may ben- efit grasslands, for grazers such as deer and cattle help to spread seeds and fertilize the soil. The hooves of these ani- mals pulverize rock and make soil. They also drive seeds into the ground.

Sustainable grazing management can, if properly carried out, protect or even improve the quality of rangeland. The island within the Sahel, discussed in the introduction to this chapter, provides living proof that humans can manage range- land sustainably. What are the components of sustainable rangeland management?

Range management involves a number of basic tech- niques that are often employed simultaneously: (1) control- ling the number of livestock on land, (2) deferred grazing, (3) controlling the distribution of livestock, (4) restoration, and (5) rangeland improvements.

KEY CONCEPTS

Controlling Livestock Numbers The first and most impor- tant step in managing rangeland sustainably is to control the number of animals and the duration of grazing on a piece of land. This measure honors one of the major principles of sustainability: living within the limits (Chapter 2).

The key to proper range management is maintaining live- stock populations within the carrying capacity of the ecosys- tem. The most important variable in determining the carrying capacity is the weather—especially the rainfall and tempera- ture. In dry periods, the carrying capacity may be half that of a normal year. Accordingly, the number of livestock allowed to graze on a piece of land should be cut in half. In wet years, it may be double the normal year’s carrying capacity.

Truly effective range management requires a willingness to cooperate with nature, one of the key principles of sustain- able ethics. Many ranchers, however, are unwilling or unable to adjust their herd size with the weather. The cost they pay may be a gradual deterioration of their land. The irony of this is that in the long term they may be lowering the carrying capacity and ultimately destroying the land’s productive capacity.

KEY CONCEPTS

Deferred Grazing The ranch mentioned in the opening paragraph of this chapter was successful because its owners shifted cattle from one field to the next each year. This process, called rotational grazing, is beneficial because it

Rangeland and pasture use must be adjusted according to the carrying capacity of the land, which varies from one year to the next with the weather. Those who cannot adjust their herd size run the risk of lowering the carrying capacity of their land and even destroying grazing opportunities.

Grasses are well adapted to grazing pressure, and grasslands and herbivores can coexist in a sustainable relationship that is beneficial to both.

reduces the grazing pressure on each section and ensures a healthy crop of grass. This technique is growing in popular- ity and need not just be used in semiarid or arid grasslands. A large percentage of the dairy farmers in Wisconsin prac- tice rotational grazing. This technique reduces costs for feed, equipment, and veterinary care and is especially helpful to smaller operations that would be unable to compete with larger dairy herds. And, in many instances, rotating cattle from one field to the next appears to be promoting a healthier pasture with a diverse array of species. This, in turn, seems to benefit native bird species.

Rotational grazing patterns must be tailored to the lo- cal conditions and ecosystem. Some farmers practice short rotational schemes; others may require more complicated schemes as in the deferred grazing scheme showed in FIG- URE 12-4. As you can see, in this instance the rancher di- vides his land into three sections: pastures A, B, and C. During year 1, pasture B is grazed first. Pasture C is grazed second. Pasture A is ungrazed. In year 2, pas- ture C is grazed first; pas- ture B is grazed second. Pasture A is grazed last. In this rotational scheme, pasture A is kept out of use for nearly 2 years while Pastures B and C are grazed. This gives grasses in pasture A a chance to grow and produce seeds. During the last part of year 2, pasture A is grazed, but only after the plants have reached maturity and dropped their seeds. The cattle spread the seeds in their feces and help drive them into the soil as they move about on the land. This helps to maintain a healthy plant community. During the next 2-year period, Pasture B is withheld from grazing, giving it time to recover.

Rotational grazing in its various forms is a simple yet highly effective and sustainable strategy that benefits ranch- ers, the economy, and the environment. It increases the vigor of the plants and enhances their nutritional value. It can even increase the carrying capacity of the land over the long run, permitting even greater profit. Furthermore, it helps to ensure a more diverse ecosystem beneficial to native species. Rotational grazing is a system of food production that helps human society meet its current needs in ways that ensure future generations a plentiful supply of food.

KEY CONCEPTS

Controlling the Distribution of Livestock Livestock often aggregate around water sources—stock ponds and natural water sources. Because of this, parts of the range may be se- verely overgrazed while other parts are ignored. In heavily grazed areas, more palatable and nutritious plants may per- ish, leaving behind less palatable and less nutritious species. In some cases, grasses may be destroyed entirely. Denuded areas, especially stream banks, often suffer serious erosion.

Cattle can be shifted from one pasture to another to permit grasses to mature and produce seeds. This method enhances the condition of rangeland and may increase the carrying capac- ity in the long run.

CHAPTER 12: Grasslands, Forests, and Wilderness: Sustainable Management Strategies 225

GO GREEN

If you’re a meat eater, consider buying sustainably grown or- ganic beef.

226 PART IV. Resource Issues: Solutions for a Sustainable Society

To promote more uniform grazing and protect the land from overgrazing, ranchers can construct fences around areas they want to protect. A more economical way of ensur- ing a more uniform grazing pattern is to locate water sources and salt licks strategically in areas that are underused.

Another way to improve rangeland and pasture is intensive grazing, intentionally intensively grazing land for short periods, then rotating cattle on to other pastures. While this technique may seem as if it would damage land, prop- erly controlled intensive grazing improves the quality of pasture and rangeland. It forces cattle and other livestock to eat all grasses, not just the most delicious ones. If left on their own in a pasture for extended periods, livestock will graze on just the most tasty species, leaving less palatable grasses uneaten. As a result, the cattle tend to overgraze the most valuable plants. This often causes the most desirable—the most nutritious species—to die, leaving only less palatable species and weeds, which take over, decreasing the nutritive value and health of the grassland. By forcing cattle to eat all species, then moving them into another pasture, a rancher en- sures the long-term health and viability of all grasses

On the author’s farm in east-central Missouri, he has divided his pasture into 14 subpastures. He runs cattle in one at a time, forcing them to graze the land (FIGURE 12-5). Cattle may remain in a small section for 2 to 5 days, depend- ing on its size. Once that land is grazed down, he moves

them to another pasture, and then another. Within 2 to 3 weeks the first pasture is ready for grazing. It looks lush and green like a lawn.

KEY CONCEPTS

Restoring and Improving the Quality of Rangeland Sus- tainable rangeland management also requires steps to re- store deteriorated land. Restoration includes such measures as fertilizing land and replanting barren areas with native grass seeds. To improve the success of this measure, ranchers often run cattle over the land to force the seeds into the soil. Reseeded areas reduce soil erosion and often support a greater number of cattle than unseeded areas. They also help restore groundwater and protect streams from sediment, by reduc- ing erosion.

The productivity of the land can be improved by peri- odic controlled burns. This returns nutrients to the soil and thus promotes the growth of grasses. The healthier the grass crop, the faster cattle grow to marketable size. In addition, controlled burns help kill undesirable plant species—for example, woody shrubs and prickly pear cacti.

Fencing and careful distribution of water sources and salt licks can help promote a more uniform use of rangeland and protect some areas from serious degradation.

First year Second year Third year Fourth year Fifth year Sixth year

Deferred Grazed last

Grazed second

Grazed second

Grazed first

Grazed first

Pasture A

First year Second year Third year Fourth year Fifth year Sixth year

Grazed first

DeferredGrazed second

Grazed second

Grazed last

Grazed first

Pasture B

First year Second year Third year Fourth year Fifth year Sixth year

Grazed second

Grazed second

Grazed first

DeferredGrazed first

Grazed last

Pasture C

FIGURE 12-4 Deferred grazing scheme. Each field gets nearly a 2-year rest during a 6-year rotation cycle.

a minimum number of cattle on public land are fined by the government. No maximum limits are set. Such policies pro- mote the deterioration of the land and need to be replaced with sustainable grazing limits based on carrying capacity.

In 1978, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act was passed by the U.S. Congress as a means of promoting better range management. This law calls for improvements on lands managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The law required these agencies to develop guide- lines for proper range management on public lands. Whereas the Forest Service guidelines were designed by range man- agement specialists and others, the BLM’s policy was for- mulated by an advisory board composed of ranchers. Critics argue that because of this, the BLM policy is too lenient and contributes to the deterioration of federally owned lands.

The Public Rangelands Improvement Act requires the BLM and Forest Service to reduce grazing on public land where damage is evident. This strategy is unpopular among ranchers, who either cannot see the benefits of improving range conditions or dispute the claims that they are over- grazing the land. One of the chief weaknesses of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act is that it does not pertain to

CHAPTER 12: Grasslands, Forests, and Wilderness: Sustainable Management Strategies 227

Restoration and general improvement measures that in- crease productivity help to create a healthier ecosystem. Be- sides providing food, such lands are more stable and less prone to erosion and pests. Interestingly, numerous studies have shown that grasshoppers, rabbits, and even weedy plant species such as sagebrush are much more numerous in over- grazed areas than in healthy rangeland.

KEY CONCEPTS

Revamping Government Policies As in other sectors of the agricultural community, govern- ment policies that are not based on sound scientific under- standing of rangeland carrying capacity can facilitate the rapid deterioration of this valuable resource. In Australia’s Northern Territory, for example, ranchers who fail to keep

Restoration of degraded grasslands—for example, by applying fertilizer or reseeding the land—is an essential element of build- ing a sustainable system of livestock production. Efforts to boost the productivity of land, including periodic burns, are also help- ful in this regard.

FIGURE 12-5 The author’s small herd of belted galloways are all-natural grass-fed beef that are rotated from pasture to pasture after a short, but intensive grazing period.

228 PART IV. Resource Issues: Solutions for a Sustainable Society

Indian lands in the West, where grazing reductions are des- perately needed. As a result of private and federal actions, U.S. rangelands seem to be gradually improving, but much more work is needed.

KEY CONCEPTS

Sustainable Livestock Production In many countries, cattle and other livestock are raised in confined quarters called feedlots for at least part of their life cycle. Although this practice does not affect grasslands directly, it does have a tremendous environmental impact. For exam- ple, pen-raised cattle produce huge amounts of manure in lim- ited spaces. Much of it is dumped in landfills. At one time, farmers used the manure their animals produced to fertilize their cropland. Today, however, many farmers produce only livestock and no longer grow crops—so they have less access to farmland on which to apply manure.

Another problem with livestock raised in enclosures is that they require enormous quantities of grain, mostly corn and sorghum. Ironically, most farmers who supply grain to feed cattle use artificial fertilizer on their land. If applied in excess, the nutrients may wash into nearby waterways, caus- ing pollution. Artificial nutrients also fail to replace all of the nutrients removed by plants.

Hogs also tend to be raised in confined quarters where they are sustained on a steady supply of grain. Such opera- tions produce huge amounts of waste, which is often stored in waste lagoons, where the liquid evaporates or percolates into the ground, polluting groundwater. When waste la- goons break or flood, they can cause severe water pollution problems. Realizing the enormous economic and environ- mental costs of this technique, many hog farmers in the mid- western United States have found a way around this problem. They’re allowing their hogs to range freely in pastures, feed- ing on natural vegetation. The farmers provide Quanset hut- like shelters to protect the hogs, but move the houses from time to time, to more evenly distribute grazing and to prevent the deposition of huge amounts of manure in one place. This technique appears to be working. It reduces odors created by most hog farms, and it spreads fertilizer evenly on the land, nourishing plants hogs will eat. This reduces the demand for grain, which saves farmers money. All in all, this technique costs about 70% less than confinement facilities and it helps protect the environment.

In the less developed nations, the wealthy class is the primary consumer of meat. Because livestock are fed grains or are sometimes produced on land that could grow food crops, meat production for the wealthy reduces overall food supplies. These practices also make food more costly for the poor. In Egypt, for example, corn to feed animals is now grown on cropland previously used to grow staple grains such as wheat and rice. In Egypt, the percentage of the nation’s

Many ill-conceived government policies result in the deteriora- tion of publicly owned rangeland. To promote sustainable use of grasslands, government policies should be based on objective scientific criteria.

grain fed to livestock has increased from 10% to 36% over the past quarter century. In Mexico, the share of grain fed to live- stock has increased from 5% in 1960 to 30% today, despite the fact that 22% of the nation’s people are malnourished.

Livestock production in confined spaces can be made more sustainable. One step to improve the sustainability of meat production is to return manure to cropland to provide nutrients. A sustainable system therefore might require a reintegration of livestock and crop production.

Meat production may have to be decreased in the long run to accommodate the growing population. As noted in Chapter 4, many more people can be fed on a vegetarian diet than on a meat-based diet. Central to all strategies are efforts to slow and perhaps stop the growth of the human population.

KEY CONCEPTS

Forests and Forest Management

Covering slightly more than one-quarter of the Earth’s land surface, forests are a valuable asset to humankind. The most notable direct benefits are an estimated 5,000 commercial products—such as lumber, paper, turpentine, and others— worth tens of billions of dollars a year. Each year, primary and secondary products from U.S. forests sell for more than $448 billion, according to the USFS Forest Products Lab- oratory. Primary products are roundwood (logs), and sec- ondary products are lumber and paper. Tertiary products such as furniture and turpentine add billions more to the value of the nation’s forests. The U.S. forestry and timber products industry employed an estimated 1.7 million peo- ple in 2008, according to the U.S. Forest Service. Forests are important to Canada’s economy as well. In Canada, 320 com- munities and more than 433,000 people are economically dependent on forests and the $82 billion-dollar-a-year forestry industry. One of every 15 jobs in Canada is derived from timber, wood, paper products, and related industries. Moreover, forest products are the single most important export product the nation has to offer. In many poorer nations, forests are a source of wood and charcoal for cook- ing and heating.

Forests also provide refuge from hectic urban life and op- portunities for many forms of recreation. They are home to many of the world’s species. Forests protect watersheds from soil erosion, thus keeping rivers and reservoirs free of silt. They also reduce the severity of floods and facilitate aquifer recharge. In addition, forested lands assist in the cycling of water, oxygen, carbon, and other nutrients.

The United States has about 300 million hectares (740 mil- lion acres) of forestland (FIGURE 12-6). Canada has nearly 1 bil- lion acres (397 million hectares) of forest land, about 10% of the world’s total. According to estimates of the Worldwatch Institute, world forests cover an area 15 times greater than

12.3

In many countries, livestock are raised in pens and fed grains that could be used to feed large numbers of people.

that of the United States—approximately 4.2 billion hectares (10.6 billion acres). About two-thirds of these forests have al- ready been logged or disturbed in some way by human activ- ities. In the United States, 95 to 98% of all forests have been cut at least once since the settlement by Europeans.

Despite the great benefits of forests, only about 13% of the world’s forestland is under any kind of management. In addition, only about 2% of the world’s forests are protected in forest reserves.

KEY CONCEPTS

Status Report on the World’s Forests Since the advent of agriculture, nearly one-half of the world’s forests or about 3 billion hectares (7.5 billion acres) have been cleared and converted to other uses, mostly farms and hu- man settlements. In East Africa, over 90% of the original moist forest is gone. In Brazil, a country with one of the world’s largest forests, 38% of its trees have vanished. In the Philip- pines, 97% of its forests are gone. To date, the United States has lost about one-third of its forests. Europe has lost 70%. Much of this land has been converted to other uses such as farming, or has deteriorated severely after timber harvesting.

The world’s forests provide many social, economic, and envi- ronmental benefits. A large portion of the world’s forests have been logged or disturbed. Very little forested land is under per- manent protection.

Deforestation continues today. According to the Rain- forest Action Network, an environmental organization, we deforest and alter 31 million hectares, or 78 million acres of tropical rain forest each year, an area larger than Poland. The World Resources Institute claims that the rate of tropical deforestation is about 13 million hectares per year. For refer- ence, 13 million hectares (32 million acres) of forests covers an area about the size of the state of North Carolina or Alabama.

Although most of the news regarding deforestation de- scribes the rapid deforestation occurring in the rain forests in South America, Central America, Asia, and Africa, defor- estation is also occurring in temperate deciduous forests and northern coniferous forests. In fact, Canada, Russia, and China are centers of timber cutting that many believe is occurring at unsustainable rates.

The heavy use of forests might not be so bad if efforts were made to replant trees at a rate commensurate with cut- ting. In less developed countries, for every 10 trees cut down, only 1 tree is replanted. In Africa, the ratio is 29 to 1.

Besides destroying habitat for many species, deforesta- tion decreases sustainable fuel supplies needed for cook- ing and home heating. According to estimates of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), 100 million people in 26 countries now face acute fire- wood shortages. In rural Kenya, shortages mean that some women must spend up to 24 hours a week in search of wood. (Spotlight on Sustainable Development 12-1 discusses deforestation in tropical rain forests.)

CHAPTER 12: Grasslands, Forests, and Wilderness: Sustainable Management Strategies 229

30˚ 30˚

75˚

75˚

90˚

90˚

105˚120˚

120˚

45˚

45˚

Each dot represents 10,000 hectares (25,000 acres)

FIGURE 12-6 U.S. forestland. This map shows the distribution of forestland in the United States.

230 PART IV. Resource Issues: Solutions for a Sustainable Society

KEY CONCEPTS

Root Causes of Global Deforestation Deforestation throughout the world stems from numerous factors. As noted in Chapter 2, a frontier mentality has per- vaded many cultures. In the United States, colonists cleared eastern deciduous forests to make room for farms and set-

Worldwide, about one-half of the world’s forests have been cut. The land they once occupied has already been converted to other uses, mostly farming, or undergone severe deteriora- tion. Deforestation continues today in tropical rain forests, northern coniferous forests, and temperate deciduous forests at a rapid pace and threatens the long-term sustainability of human civilization.

tlements. Often the land eroded under poor management, so settlers picked up and moved into new territory. Seemingly unlimited forests merited little protection in the frontier days. Forests seemed an impediment to human progress, too. There was, of course, no understanding of the ecologi- cal importance of forests and the free services they provide to humans.

Unfortunately, many nations still view vast stands of timber as valuable only if it is harvested or cut down and con- verted to some other use. And, as nations run out of lumber, corporations expand into new territories, cutting trees in remote locations. Huge tracts are laid barren as a result of this activity.

In less developed countries (LDCs), deforestation occurs for several main reasons. Forests are leveled to provide fuel

SPOTLIGHT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

12-1 Saving the World’s Tropical Rain Forests

Rain forests are found in the tropics. Forming a thick, lush carpet of vegetation with a stunningly diverse array of species, the tropical rain forests of the world are being logged at a feverish pace. In 2006, the annual rate of deforestation was estimated to be about 13 million hectares (32 million acres) per year. Historically, other disturbances to forests caused by road building and other activities is sim- ilar to deforestation rates. The rates of destruction in spe- cific regions were discussed in Chapter 11. Some experts think that tropical rain forests in all but a few places could be virtually obliterated early in this century if we do not enact strict measures to protect them (FIGURE 1).

The loss of tropical rain forests is one of the most se- rious problems facing the world today. It is a major cause of extinction because the tropical forests contain about half to two-thirds of the world’s species.

The late Al Gentry, a researcher who studied tropical forests before his untimely death in an airplane crash, said that the “loss of so many species is not only a tragic squan- dering of the Earth’s evolutionary heritage but also repre- sents depletion of a significant part of the planet’s genetic reservoir, a resource of immense economic potential.” Genes from the tropical rain forest help boost agricultural pro- duction, as discussed in Chapter 10. Wild species are also a source of new medicines and a host of other new products.

Tropical forests play an important role in global cy- cling of oxygen and carbon dioxide. By various estimates, global deforestation accounts for about 13% of the world’s annual increase in carbon dioxide. In less developed nations, deforestation results in 35% to 65% of annual emissions be- cause of the relatively low levels of fossil fuel use and high rates of deforestation. It may, therefore, be a major factor in global warming (Chapter 20).

Tropical rain forests are home to indigenous tribes that have lived sustainably for thousands of years. They are vast reservoirs of plants that may have medicinal value.

Clear-cutting tropical rain forests exposes the soil to intense rains that wash away the soil and fill nearby streams and rivers with sediment. These problems are common- place in Pakistan, India, Thailand, and the Amazon Basin of South America. In Thailand, a devastating flood in 1988 was caused by massive deforestation by commercial tim- ber companies, which ultimately led to a nationwide ban on timber cutting.

Much of the rain falling on intact tropical rain forests evaporates to become clouds again, only to rain down on

FIGURE 1 This boy in Nepal is holding trees that will be planted to restore a lost rain forest.

wood and charcoal for cook- ing and heating homes. According to the UN FAO, nearly half of all the wood (tropical and nontropical) cut each year is harvested to supply these needs.

Deforestation also results from poverty, unsustainable population growth, and landlessness. Countries often open up forests to resettlement to ease pressure in cities. The poor people who move into the forest cut trees and try to eke out a living. The faster the population grows, the faster the forest falls. Today, approximately 25% of the annual tropical deforestation is attributed to humans in search of sustenance.

Land ownership patterns in less developed nations also contribute to the loss of forests. In El Salvador, 2% of the landowners have title to 60% of the land. With the good land in the hands of a few, poor rural peasants often enter forests and cut down trees to carve out plots to farm. Many of these people exploit fragile and hilly terrain, semiarid grasslands, or rain forests. Because they are relegated to mar- ginal lands, their farms often fail, and they must move on— often going deeper into the forest to repeat the cycle.

Industrial wood production, wood cut for paper mak- ing, lumber, and wood products, accounts for much of the remaining deforestation. This wood is destined for markets in MDCs and LDCs. About half of all industrial timber har- vesting is carried out to supply the needs of Europe, North America, and Japan.

CHAPTER 12: Grasslands, Forests, and Wilderness: Sustainable Management Strategies 231

the neighboring downwind forest. When forests are cut, surface runoff increases, and rainfall decreases by 50% or more downwind from clear-cut regions. As the area of de- forestation spreads, rainfall declines over large regions, and once lush areas turn into barren tropical deserts. For- est fires, almost unheard of in tropical forests, become a problem due to the drying effect. Some tropical soils bake to a hard, brick-like consistency when exposed to sunlight.

Ironically, tropical soils are generally nutrient poor. In fact, approximately 95% of the nutrients are in the bio- mass (live plants) and only 5% are in the soil, just the opposite of a temperate forest. Cutting and burning the forests to make room for ranches and farms releases enough plant nutrients to support crops for a few years, but because the soil has little reserve and nutrients are quickly taken up by crops or washed away, the land quickly deteriorates, becoming barren and unproductive.

Although clear-cutting of large tracts is widespread in the tropics, efforts to harvest trees by selective cutting often alter the forest so much that they destroy as many species as clear-cutting.

Because of these problems, many nations have enacted laws to protect their forests. In 1988, Brazil established its first extractive reserve in the Amazon Basin, in the state of Acre. Set aside for harvesting rubber, nuts, fruit, oils, and other products, the 40,000-hectare (100,000-acre) reserve allows people to reap sustainable economic benefits while protecting the biodiversity of the forest. All told, 46 extrac- tive reserves have been established in the Amazon, by Brazil and other countries, with hopes of more soon. (Spotlight on Sustainable Development 27-1 discusses efforts to help indigenous people market their products.)

As noted in Chapter 11, extractive reserves can be man- aged sustainably and represent a long-term solution to eco-

nomic and environmental problems facing less developed countries. To understand why, contrast cattle ranching with the sustainable harvest of rain forest products. In the state of Rondonia, Brazil, ranchers and farmers have cut down or disturbed at least 35% of the rain forest, creating mil- lions of hectares of wasteland. On most soils, ranchers can graze one cow per hectare for 5 years. In the next 2 years, because of declining soil fertility, they can graze only one cow per 4 hectares (10 acres). After that, the land is often destroyed.

In contrast, large tracts of rain forest set aside for sus- tainable harvest can produce a variety of products (among them latex, nuts, and fruits) indefinitely. Studies show that the income potential of sustainable harvest far exceeds cattle ranching and plantations.

One of the most important strategies for protecting existing tropical rain forests and providing wood for pres- ent and future generations is replanting the land already harvested and abandoned by timber companies or settlers. Small teak plantations are cropping up in Costa Rica in an effort to reestablish forests and produce valuable wood sustainably.

Although replanting does not duplicate the incredible diversity of forests, commercial plantations with a modest degree of diversity could be developed to provide wood and other products. This could dramatically reduce pressure on primary forests.

Although positive steps are being taken, rain forests are being destroyed much faster than they are being protected. Individuals can help by joining groups that are working to protect the forests; by avoiding wood products derived from rain forests (teak, disposable chopsticks, parquet floors, and many hardwoods); and by writing governmental repre- sentatives and urging action.

GO GREEN

To protect forests, avoid dis- posable products like paper cups, paper plates, and dispos- able chopsticks.

232 PART IV. Resource Issues: Solutions for a Sustainable Society

KEY CONCEPTS

Unsustainable Government Policies Robert Repetto, an economist at the World Resources Institute, puts much of the blame for global deforestation on ill-advised government policies that influence how a nation’s forests will be used. This is especially noticeable in nations where governments con- trol the majority of the nation’s forest reserves. The govern- ment of Canada, for instance, owns 94% of its forest land. The Indonesian government controls 74% of its forest land. Even governments that are committed to conservation often have policies that promote unsustainable forestry practices. Con- sider some examples.

Governments the world over have typically sold tim- ber below market value to logging companies. Studies have shown that the U.S. Forest Service has lost money on most, if not all, of its national forests for years because it routinely auctions off timber rights below the cost of building roads (which the Forest Service—the taxpayer—pays for), sur- veying, paperwork, conducting auctions, and restoring land- scapes and watersheds. Below-cost timber sales are a form of public subsidy to the lumber industry; they amount to about $330 million a year and discourage conservation by compa- nies, builders, and individuals.

The United States is not alone in selling off timber be- low cost. Many other countries, among them Canada, Ghana, Indonesia, and the Philippines, let their timber go cheaply. Canada, for instance, has routinely sold timber at a loss— some suggest at losses greater than those of the United States. Much to the chagrin of environmentalists, and often with- out public consultation, provincial governments have leased huge tracts of land to private corporations from the United States, Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, and other countries. According to one source, nearly 100% of Canada’s boreal (deciduous) forest has been leased over the next 20 years for logging. Some of this land is in provincial parks and wildlife reserves.

Many economic policies encourage an unsustainable exploitation of forest resources. Numerous less developed countries, for example, restrict the export of raw wood by international companies to create jobs at home and encourage economic development of domestic wood-processing indus- tries. Bans or taxes that limit raw wood exports, they think, will increase the export of finished wood products (for example, furniture), netting higher revenues than the sale of raw wood. Unfortunately, says Repetto, many of the small mills are highly inefficient and use 50% more logs than the industry stan- dard to achieve a given output of milled products. Such poli- cies consequently result in a higher rate of deforestation.

Another problem is short-term contracts. In many less developed nations, 35 years or more are required for a stand of trees to recover from logging, but contracts are written for 20 years. Because companies have no long-term interest in their concession, such contracts discourage them from pro- tecting forests. Long-term contracts might encourage them to harvest forests sustainably.

Deforestation results from many factors, including frontierism, a lack of knowledge of the importance of forests, population growth, poverty, and inequitable land ownership.

As noted in Chapter 26, heavy borrowing from inter- national banks and industrialized nations has created enormous debt in the developing world. To pay back the loans, countries often lease their land at bargain rates to timber companies from other countries, which come in, clear the forests, then move on. Some countries promote timber harvesting and con- version of forest land to grow export crops. Export crops are also grown on prime farmland, forcing peasants to turn to forests and other fragile ecosystems to make a living.

Government tax policies also encourage deforestation. For instance, in Brazil, the government once offered huge in- come tax credits to investors in cattle ranches, once a lead- ing cause of deforestation in the Amazon. Although tax credits have ended, Brazil is still aggressively promoting the conversion of its rain forests to agriculture.

In the developing world, governments often promote set- tlement of forests by giving away land or by building roads into forests. The urban dispossessed then move in, clear the land, and attempt to eke out a living there.

The Canadian government has long encouraged defor- estation with little regard for the environment. In British Columbia, where forests are falling at a rate far greater than the estimated annual sustainable yield, there are practically no institutional channels by which citizens can influence forest management on public lands. Citizen participation in decisions to log is extremely limited. As a result of recent deregulation, logging decisions are left largely to logging companies. In addition, forest laws that do exist expressly prioritize logging above all other considerations, making it difficult if not impossible to challenge environmentally harmful logging. Interestingly, although the United States has had policies that allow citizen input on forest manage- ment, especially proposed timber sales on federal land, the Bush administration recently gave Forest Service officials the right to approve logging in federal forests without the usual environmental reviews, a change reportedly made at the request of lumber and paper companies.

Canada’s logging industry is a powerful force in its econ- omy and political scene. Here, and elsewhere, logging com- panies reportedly violate rules and regulations regarding logging, cutting trees right to the banks of rivers; cutting on steep, erosion-prone slopes; making clear-cuts much larger than allowed by law; and failing to protect areas set aside for wildlife. Two-thirds of the coastal temperate rainforest has been degraded because of logging and development. In British Co- lumbia, 140 stocks of salmon have been driven to extinction and 624 are at high risk, largely as a result of poor logging prac- tices. Because of this, Canada is often considered the “Brazil of the North.” What is more, the government seems to do little to stop lumber companies from such practices.

When conservationists argue for controls on defor- estation, the timber industry responds with the threat of lost jobs. In British Columbia, however, as in the American Pacific Northwest, wood products jobs have been steadily declining because of automation for years, while the annual cut has risen sharply. The timber companies wield an enormous amount of power and use the job issue as a smokescreen, say critics. Their power and influence throughout the world are additional factors responsible for widespread deforestation.

CHAPTER 12: Grasslands, Forests, and Wilderness: Sustainable Management Strategies 233

In less developed nations, violations and illegal cutting are also major problems. The Brazilian government estimates that 80% of the timber harvesting in the tropical rain forests is illegal. The nations have few resources to monitor logging practices and enforce laws. Logging companies harvest beyond legal boundaries of logging concessions, cut in sensitive areas, and falsify records, taking more timber than allowed.

Especially troublesome is the invasion of reserves set aside to protect native cultures and biodiversity, known as extractive reserves. Miners and loggers have moved in, de- spite official designation. In many less developed nations, gov- ernments have stripped rights of native peoples to the land, opening it up to exploitation.

KEY CONCEPTS

An Introduction to Forest Harvesting and Management To understand the kinds of reform necessary, we must first look at the way trees are currently harvested. Trees are com- mercially harvested by four basic methods: clear-cutting, strip-cutting, selective cutting, and shelter-wood cutting.

KEY CONCEPTS

Clear-Cutting Clear-cutting is a standard practice that is used primarily for softwoods (conifers) that grow in large stands containing relatively few tree species. Those species best suited to clear-cutting have seedlings that grow in open, sunny plots. Clear-cutting is also the method of choice on hardwoods such as aspen. It is the preferred method of har- vest in tropical rain forests, which typically have many dif- ferent tree species.

In clear-cutting operations, loggers remove all the trees in 16- to 80-hectare (40- to 200-acre) plots. They then burn the remaining material. This returns nutrients to the soil, facilitates regrowth, and reduces the threat of fires that could damage the regenerating forest. As the new stand grows, trees are thinned to prevent overcrowding.

Clear-cutting is one of the fastest and cheapest methods of harvesting trees. Clear-cutting may also increase surface runoff, the flow of water over the ground’s surface, which en- hances stream flow. This may increase the supply of water to cities, farms, and industry. Clear-cutting increases suitable habitat for some species, such as deer and elk, which bene- fits hunters. However, small clearings are better for elk than larger ones because they generally avoid open spaces larger than 8 hectares (20 acres). Elk prefer to remain at the edge of meadows, so they can escape into nearby forests should a predator arrive. Thus, large square or rectangular blocks are

Trees are harvested primarily in four ways: clear-cutting, strip- cutting, selective cutting, and shelter-wood cutting.

Ill-advised government policies including below-cost timber sales contribute to widespread deforestation and unsustainable forest management. These policies are often promoted by power- ful economic interests that stand to gain from lenient timber- harvesting practices.

less advantageous for elk than smaller, irregular cuts. Another factor that determines whether a clear-cut increases or de- creases elk habitat is the location of the cut. Winter range is a limiting factor in elk populations. Thus, clear-cuts in win- ter range, which make more food available, are more bene- ficial than cuts in the more abundant summer range. In the Rocky Mountain states, however, clear-cuts are generally made in elk summer range, high in the mountains.

For a long time, researchers have thought that clear- cuts were beneficial to deer and elk because they permit herbs, grasses, and bushes to grow, thus providing additional food. However, a Washington State University wildlife biol- ogist, Charles Robins, recently discovered that although plants grow faster in clear-cuts, they contain lower levels of important nutrients. Robins found that the available pro- tein content of huckleberry growing in clear-cuts was less than half that of huckleberry found in old-growth forests. Plants in clear-cuts also produce more defensive compounds such as tannins, which lower the plants’ nutritional value. Robins thinks that these changes in food value could hinder repro- duction in wildlife.

Clear-cuts create unsightly scars that may take years to heal (FIGURE 12-7). If not replanted or reseeded natu- rally, soil erosion may become severe, especially on steep terrain. Eroded sediment fills streams and lakes, destroying fish habitat and increasing the cost of water treatment. Sed- iment also reduces the water-holding capacity of lakes and streams, which increases flooding, already more likely be- cause of the elevated surface runoff. Erosion in clear-cut areas may deplete the soil of nutrients, thus impairing or even preventing revegetation.

FIGURE 12-7 Clear-cutting. This clear-cut, on steep slopes in the South Tongass National Forest of Alaska, is not only an eye- sore but also increases soil erosion, impairing forest regrowth and polluting nearby lakes and streams.

234 PART IV. Resource Issues: Solutions for a Sustainable Society

Large open patches in mountainous terrain may accel- erate a process called sublimation, the conversion of snow to water vapor. When this occurs, snowmelts actually decrease and stream flow declines.

Routine burning in clear-cuts can damage soils by de- stroying nutrient-cycling bacteria. Burning also volatilizes soil nitrogen, robbing nutrients from the soil itself. Burning may also destroy mychorrizal fungi (MIE-koe-RYE-zl FUN-gee), which grow in soils and attach to plant roots, greatly in- creasing their uptake of water and nutrients.

Clear-cutting fragments wildlife habitat, creating ecolog- ical islands. These islands are exposed to wind and more pronounced changes in temperature, humidity, and light that greatly affect indigenous species. In the Pacific North- west, studies suggest that for each 10-hectare (25-acre) clear- cut, an additional 14 hectares (35 acres) will be degraded.

Clear-cutting destroys habitat and can contribute to the decline of many species. In the Pacific Northwest, heavy cutting of old-growth forests—ancient forests more than 250 years old, with many sections from 500 to 800 years old—threatens the spotted owl and dozens of other species dependent on this habitat (FIGURE 12-8). Excessive cutting of old-growth forests in the past century has devastated valu- able salmon runs in Washington, Oregon, and California, as explained in Chapter 11.

Canadian forests are also threatened. Old-growth forests are especially threatened by timber cutting. One of the hard- est hit areas is Vancouver Island in British Columbia. Accord- ing to one analysis, Canada’s coastal old-growth forests are

being clear cut at a rate of approximately 200,000 hectares (500,000 acres) per year. Besides decimating native plants and animals, clear-cutting in Canada impinges on indigenous peoples who have hunted and harvested the forest sustain- ably for many years. (For a debate on old-growth forests, see Point/Counterpoint 12-1.)

In tropical forests, clear-cutting often has devastating results. Soils become baked in the sun and too hard to support growth; others wash away in torrential rains. For more on this subject, see Spotlight on Sustainable Develop- ment 12-1.

New regulations by the U.S. Forest Service are helping to reduce the impact of clear-cutting in national forests, but on private lands it is largely unregulated. There are 34,000 privately owned tree farms in the United States, covering approximately 30 million hectares (75 million acres). Large commercial tree farms operate much like agribusinesses. Seedlings are planted, fertilized from airplanes, doused with herbicides to control less desirable species, and sprayed with pesticides to reduce losses. When the trees reach the desir- able size, they are cut down, and the cycle begins again.

KEY CONCEPTS Clear-cutting removes entire forests quickly and efficiently. Some tree species such as pines, which grow in open sunny fields, are best harvested in clear-cuts. Clear-cuts benefit certain wildlife but tend to destroy and fragment the habitat of others. Clear- cutting creates ugly scars and can cause considerable environ- mental damage such as increased soil erosion.

FIGURE 12-8 A bird and its forest. (a) The spotted owl is just one of many species that are adapted to (b) old-growth forests. When its habitat is destroyed, the owl disappears.

(a)

(b)

Strip-Cutting Arguing for smaller clear-cuts on private and federal land, E. M. Sterling, an expert on forest man- agement, notes that Austria harvests as much wood from its forests as does the Pacific Northwest. Yet Austrian forests show little evidence of clear-cutting because of strict forestry laws that apply to public as well as private lands. Austrian law, for instance, forbids clear-cutting on all steep, erodible land. It also limits the size of clear-cuts. A private landowner may cut 0.6 hectare (1.5 acres) without permission but must obtain a permit for larger clear-cuts. Seldom do clear-cuts ex- ceed 2 hectares (5 acres). Most clear-cuts are narrow strips that blend in with the terrain and reseed on their own. This technique is called strip-cutting, and it leaves intact forests that will naturally reseed the small clear-cuts. It also reduces erosion and other environmental impacts of clear-cutting. U.S. clear-cutting can be improved to reduce erosion and the vi- sual impact—for instance, by making cuts smaller and by blending them with the terrain.

KEY CONCEPTS

Selective Timber Cutting Selective cutting, as its name im- plies, is the removal of a limited number of trees from a for- est. It takes place in multispecies (diverse) forests such as those of the northeastern United States. In selective cutting, foresters remove desirable tree species such as maple or beech trees. They generally remove the mature trees but will cut down deformed trees to get rid of them.

The object of selective cutting is to reduce visual scarring and to preserve species diversity in forests, which helps to protect forests from disease and insects. This method also reduces fire hazards and minimizes soil erosion and the destruction of wildlife habitat.

Selective cutting may sound like the answer to clear-cutting. Unfortunately, it has several major disadvan- tages, cost and time among them. This practice also removes the genetically superior trees, whose seed is needed to keep the forest healthy. As a result, a forest may slowly degener- ate, producing lower quality wood.

Selective cutting in tropical forests can also be quite damaging if done with heavy equipment. A study in the east- ern Amazon showed that when only 3% of the trees were removed, 54% had been uprooted, crushed, or damaged dur- ing the construction of roads and logging operations. Road building can also accelerate soil erosion, and—because larger tracts of forest must be harvested to achieve the same out- put as a clear-cut—more roads may need to be built. Selec- tive cutting is also not suited to trees whose seedlings grow

Clear-cutting can be carried out on a smaller scale to minimize visual and environmental impacts. One technique is known as strip-cutting.

in sunny locations. If properly carried out, however, this technique produces little scarring, causes little or no ero- sion, and does little damage to wildlife habitat.

KEY CONCEPTS

Shelter-Wood Cutting Shelter-wood cutting is a kind of selective harvesting that addresses some of the concerns of critics. In this technique, poor quality trees are first removed from mixed timber stands, leaving the healthiest trees in- tact. These trees reseed the forest and provide shade for their seedlings. Once seedlings become established, loggers re- move a portion of the commercially valuable mature trees, leaving enough in place to provide shade for the seedlings. Finally, when the seedlings become saplings, the remaining mature trees are harvested.

Shelter-wood cutting has many of the advantages of se- lective cutting. It leaves no unvegetated land except for roads, minimizes erosion, and increases the likelihood that the forest will regenerate. It also reduces habitat destruc- tion and ensures a healthy seed source. However, it is more costly than either clear-cutting or selective cutting.

Shelter-wood and selective cutting can be economically competitive with clear-cutting in second-growth forests, ones that have been cut previously, if logging roads are already pres- ent. Even in low-diversity forests containing only one or two tree species, these techniques can be economically competi- tive. Because shelter-wood and selective cutting prevent the scarring of the land, they provide additional economic and aes- thetic advantages to regions that rely heavily on tourism.

KEY CONCEPTS

Creating a Sustainable System of Forestry With the world population growing by about 83 million people per year and the demand for wood for fuel and wood products rising with it, steps are needed to create a sustain- able wood and wood products production system. At least four major strategies are needed. First, efforts are needed to reduce demand for wood and wood products. Second, mea- sures must be implemented to ensure a more sustainable harvest of timber. Sustainable forestry optimizes yield on for- est land while protecting the long-term health and diversity of forest ecosystems. Third, efforts are needed to protect and perhaps even expand untapped forests throughout the world—for example, by establishing forest preserves that protect native species and provide ecological services such as flood control. Fourth, efforts can be made to replant forests.

Selective harvesting can be modified to correct its problems. This method, while more expensive, helps preserve multispecies forests.

Selective cutting takes place in multispecies forests with species whose seedlings grow best in shade. It reduces visual scarring but is expensive and time-consuming and can cause consider- able damage to unharvested trees.

CHAPTER 12: Grasslands, Forests, and Wilderness: Sustainable Management Strategies 235

GO GREEN

Get off junk mail lists by writing (send a form letter) directly to those who send you junk mail or you can get off numerous lists at once by contacting the Mail Preference Service, Direct Mar- keting Association PO Box 643, Carmel, NY 10512. You can find a mail-in form at this web site, http://www.privacyrights.org/ letters/jm1a.htm.

236 PART IV. Resource Issues: Solutions for a Sustainable Society

KEY CONCEPTS

Reducing Demand Reducing the growth of the human pop- ulation could help to decrease pressure on the world’s forests and protect them from further destruction. Demand can also be reduced through efficiency measures. How?

Wood can be saved by using thinner saw blades in saw mills, which reduce the kerf (wood removed by the blade), and improved machines that do a better job of processing logs for plywood along with a host of other technologies. The U.S. Forest Service estimates that the amount of wood re- quired to make a sheet of plywood or plank of lumber could be reduced by 33% through such measures. Special training for workers could also help reduce wood waste. According to the Worldwatch Institute, by training workers, improving equipment maintenance, and managing forests better, com- panies could produce the same amount of wood from one- third less land.

According to the U.S. Forest Service, new homes could be built with about 10% less lumber by spacing studs (ver- tical framing members) a little wider and by other efficiency measures that would not compromise the structural integrity of the house. Building smaller homes that use 20 to 30% less wood could also reduce pressure on the world’s forests.

Individuals can also reduce consumption by using fewer paper products, avoiding overpackaged items, and using the backs of scrap paper rather than new paper for homework and notes. The constant bombardment of printed advertis- ing material can be stopped by writing companies and ask- ing them to take you off their lists.

Four measures are required to create a sustainable system of wood production: (1) reductions in demand for wood and wood products, (2) sustainable management, (3) establishment of forest preserves, and (4) restoration of forest land.

Another way of reducing the demand for trees is by re- cycling paper. Paper production is growing dramatically, much faster than other wood products. Increased recycling of newsprint and other paper products could reduce the amount of forest cut down each year. Individuals, companies, colleges, and governments can help by purchasing paper products made from recycled paper (Chapter 23).

The use of alternative building products can also ease pressure on the world’s forests. One interesting innova- tion is the wooden I-beam, which is used to build ceilings and floors (FIGURE 12-9). These are made of plywood and oriented strand board, both of which are made from small- diameter, fast-growing trees. All in all, 40% to 60% less wood is needed to make a wooden I-beam to provide the same service as a 2� � 10� or 2� � 12� board cut from an old-growth tree. Alternative building materials such as straw bales can be used to build homes and can reduce our demand for wood. Many other options are available to us at work and at home.

KEY CONCEPTS

Managing Forests and Tree Farms Sustainably Protect- ing forests and the soils that support them is essential to cre- ating a sustainable society. In the United States, forest management began in the late 1800s. In 1905, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt established the U.S. Forest Service. Its first head, Gifford Pinchot, promoted careful use of forests over strict preservation. He promoted the multiple- use concept and sustained yield—using the forest for many

Demand for wood and wood products can be greatly reduced by controlling growth of the human population, using wood and wood products more efficiently, finding alternatives, and recy- cling paper and wood materials.

236 PART IV. Resource Issues: Solutions for a Sustainable Society

GO GREEN

Buy recycled paper products— notebook paper, pads, paper towels, toilet paper, etc.—and be sure to recycle all your waste paper.

FIGURE 12-9 The wooden I-beam. This product, made from wood scraps and small trees, uses 40% to 60% less wood than a solid beam and thus greatly reduces our impact on old-growth forests.

CHAPTER 12: Grasslands, Forests, and Wilderness: Sustainable Management Strategies 237

purposes, from timber harvesting to recreation, but manag- ing it scientifically to sustain its valuable services.

Pinchot’s notion of multiple and sustained use has per- sisted. Scientifically based management has long been viewed as a key to managing forests to ensure a sustained yield. However, studies show that past knowledge of forest ecol- ogy was limited and that some practices were not sustainable.

Sustainable forest man- agement (SFM) is an evolv- ing science. In a sustainable forest management pro- gram, forests are managed in ways to protect and pre- serve a diverse set of goods and services, including recreation and ecological services (flood control). In addi- tion, in sustainable forest management, forest managers seek to support the forest ecosystem in its entirety, paying attention to the health of the soil and the condition of streams and lakes. In more traditional forest management, foresters tend to focus solely on yield. Timber production becomes paramount and forests are treated more like farms but not all forest farming practices are sustainable. In SFM, forests are managed as complex ecosystems, not as simpli- fied farm production designed to produce one species max- imally at the expense of the health of the soil and water. To achieve this goal, SFM often seeks to mimic natural cycles. Clear-cuts, for instance, are patterned after natural fires, which hopscotch across the landscape leaving patches of green between areas of devastation. They provide trees to reseed the area and furnish habitat for species dependent on the forest. Managers may protect dead trees, too, which are home to many bird species. Sustainable forest man- agers may also attempt to promote forests containing a mix of species, ages, and/or sizes of trees. Tree cuttings are done on longer cycles, rather than shorter cycles dictated by financial considerations. SFM can be applied to all types of forests, although it must be adjusted to climate, terrain, and type of tree.

Many other steps can be taken to ensure the health of for- est ecosystems. One of the most important is to eliminate clear-cuts on steep terrain. This decreases erosion and pro- tects streams and other surface waters. In the tropics, smaller clear-cuts help protect biodiversity and ensure reseeding. In the United States and other countries, reseeding by log- ging companies should be monitored more carefully, espe- cially on public lands.

Protecting forests from natural hazards—including dis- eases, insects, fires, droughts, storms, and floods—is also important to creating a sustainable system of forestry. Dis- eases, insects, and fires account for most of the damage. Sound management that seeks to maintain trees and forests in a healthy state can minimize these problems. Just as in rangeland, the healthier the forest ecosystem, the fewer the pest problems. Maintaining a healthy forest may require pe- riodic thinning of trees to reduce competition for water, which weakens trees and makes them more susceptible to pest damage. Maintaining genetic diversity in forests also reduces

damage from insects and disease organisms. Insect- and disease-resistant trees could be developed for reseeding on public and private land. Finally, all imported trees and lum- ber should be carefully inspected to avoid accidentally intro- ducing pests.

Fire accounts for a large amount of U.S. forest destruc- tion, leveling 2 to 4 million hectares (5 to 10 million acres) of forest each year. According to recent data from the For- est Service, 88% of all forest fires are caused by human beings—either accidentally or deliberately. The remaining 12% are ignited by lightning, but these fires account for nearly 65% of the annual forest damage.

To protect watersheds, timber, and recreational oppor- tunities, the Forest Service and state governments attempt to reduce forest fires by posting fire danger warnings and sponsoring television and radio announcements. In addi- tion, the Forest Service has an active fire surveillance program that seeks to pinpoint fires and, if necessary, put them out as quickly as possible.

In the United States, efforts to protect forests from fire began in the early 1900s. Although strict fire control has saved billions of dollars worth of timber, ecologists and foresters now realize that it can be detrimental to forests. As our understanding of forest ecology has improved, it has be- come clear that some fires benefit forests. Small fires, for in- stance, burn dead branches that have accumulated on the ground and return nutrients to the soil. Most animals can es- cape minor ground fires, and larger living trees are generally unharmed by them. Periodic ground fires also prevent intense, destructive fires that occur if ground litter accumulates.

In forests protected from fires for long periods, the am- ple fuel supply caused by the buildup of dead branches may cause a fire to burn uncontrollably once it starts, spreading from treetop to treetop as a crown fire. Huge areas are de- stroyed in firestorms so hot that the soil is charred and wildlife perishes. Trees may be so severely burned that they die.

Periodic fires not only protect forests from devastating fires, they also foster their renewal. Why? Some forest species require occasional fires for optimal growth. The cones of the jack pine, for instance, open up and release their seeds during fires, as do those of the Douglas fir, sequoia, and lodgepole pine. Fires remove brush that shades seedlings and help replenish soils. Fires also help reduce disease and control potentially harmful insects.

Recognizing the benefits of periodic ground fires, for- est managers now let many naturally occurring forest fires burn, provided they are not a threat to human settlements. The Forest Service also deliberately sets hundreds of fires each year (prescribed fires) to remove underbrush and litter (FIG- URE 12-10). This practice reduces the chances of potentially harmful crown fires. It also improves wildlife habitat, soil fer- tility, timber production, and livestock forage.

Another way to ensure sustainable forestry is through certification. Timber companies practicing sustainable forest management can now be certified as sustainable by inde- pendent organizations that inspect their operations. Certifi- cation ensures retailers and customers that the wood was produced and processed in an environmentally acceptable

CHAPTER 12: Grasslands, Forests, and Wilderness: Sustainable Management Strategies 237

GO GREEN

Buy recycled paper products— notebook paper, pads, paper towels, toilet paper, etc.—and be sure to recycle all your waste paper.

POINT

50 years. Federal and state laws require that streams are pro- tected, wildlife habitat is created, and productive soils are cared for.

The forest products industry supports protecting old growth and wildlife habitat. The issue that must be ad- dressed is one of balance. Over 1.6 million hectares (4 mil- lion acres) of old-growth forest are already preserved and will never be harvested. One must recognize that preserving forestland does not assure that it will never be susceptible to fire, wind, insects, and disease. These natural forces and the normal progression of forest growth will eventually dras- tically alter today’s old-growth forests.

The spotted owl, followed by several fish species, has grabbed the attention of the entire nation. Special interest groups use the spotted owl and other fish and wildlife species as surrogates to eliminate needed management on millions of acres of forestland. Despite sympathetic court rulings and administrative actions, special interest groups have not demonstrated that scientifically based forest management cannot be compatible with fish and wildlife habitat en- hancement or restoration. In fact, neither the government nor special interest groups have proven in court that harvest- ing trees harms a species that enjoys Endangered Species Act protection.

The spotted owl and fish issues have raised important philosophical issues about humans’ role in the natural en- vironment. The Endangered Species Act requires protection of all threatened or endangered species without regard to the social and economic costs of such protection. What once was a universally acceptable premise is now being scrutinized at all levels of society. There are literally thousands of species that threaten to stop development, agriculture, fishing, transportation, and power generation in all 50 states. The elevation of wildlife above people’s needs is a philosophi- cal change that will shake the foundations of modern soci- ety. The answer cannot be nature versus people. The solution to these conflicts must come from the wise management of our natural resources in balance with social and economic values.

The public debate over national forests in the Pacific North- west focuses on the volatile passions generated by the images of ancient forests and endangered wildlife. Unfortu- nately, these images are far from reality. The forests of the Pacific Northwest have always been a mosaic of ages and ecosystems. Natural fires, volcanoes, floods, windstorms, insects, and disease have all played a major role in the evo- lution of our present forests. These forests were never all old growth, and the wildlife that they support have evolved in a wide variety of age classes and habitat types.

Congress designated national forests to provide the American people a stable source of timber, water, grazing, minerals, recreation, fish, and wildlife. The principle of mul- tiple use has guided the management of national forests for nearly 100 years. Comprehensive land-use management plans developed under congressional directive and presidential administrations have assigned millions of acres of forestland to nontimber uses. In fact, before the listing of the north- ern spotted owl as a threatened species, only 30% of national forests in the Pacific Northwest were available to grow trees to produce lumber and paper products for millions of peo- ple. Protection plans for the spotted owl and other species set aside nearly 90% of our federal forest lands for uses that preclude timber harvesting.

Restrictions on forest management to protect old-growth and other forests have drastically reduced the supply of tim- ber from our national forests. Literally dozens of compa- nies, and the communities they support, were established on the promise of a sustained yield of timber from our national forests. Close to 100 towns in the Pacific Northwest are de- pendent on a lumber mill for their economic lifeblood. When the forest products industry gets a cold, the local commu- nities catch pneumonia.

Trees are a valuable resource that can be planted and grown to produce lumber and paper products for future gen- erations. Over 40% of the lumber used in the United States to build homes is manufactured in the Pacific Northwest. Stopping the scientific management of our national forest will lead consumers to turn to countries with little or no environmental restrictions for their forest products. All forests harvested in the Pacific Northwest are promptly replanted to grow trees for the future, as they have been for over

Old Growth, Spotted Owls, and the Economy of the Pacific Northwest Ralph Saperstein Ralph Saperstein is the Public Policy Manager for Boise Cascade Corpora- tion. He has spent the past 18 years tracking forest issues for the forest products industry.

Controversy Over Old-Growth Forests in the Pacific Northwest

You can link to websites that represent both sides through Point/Counterpoint: Furthering the Debate at this book’s internet site, http://environment.jbpub.com/9e/. Evaluate each side’s argument more fully and clarify your own opinion.

238 PART IV. Resource Issues: Solutions for a Sustainable Society

COUNTERPOINT

For years, the tobacco companies would trot out their research scientists who announced the results of their latest studies “conclusively proving” that cigarette smoking was not linked to lung cancer. Today, against all evidence that logging the public’s national forests is an economic and an ecological dis- aster, the timber industry continues to indulge in its own ver- sion of chronic denial. To listen to industry spokespeople, there are no problems in our national forests that more cut- ting will not solve.

Let’s be clear: 95% of the original native forests that once covered most of our nation are gone. The 5% that remains is primarily in the Northwest, much of it badly fragmented by clear-cuts—the practice of cutting, then burning every living thing in 40- to 80-acre increments. What is left resides almost exclusively on public lands as part of the system of national forests. These forests belong to present and future generations of Americans, not to the timber industry.

The mere fact that in 150 years—a short time in the life of a forest—we have managed to dispatch all but 5% of this once dominant ecosystem attests to unsustainable forestry practices. We have, in fact, been hacking down our native forests at twice Brazil’s rate. Ironically, everyone seems to be in agreement that Brazil, which still has 80% of its orig- inal forests intact, should stop cutting.

Typically, the industry argument is framed in terms of jobs versus owls: a narrow and inaccurate characterization. The two primary reasons for decreased timber employment are automation and exports. Tellingly, in Oregon, during the decade before the emergence of the spotted owl, while the total cut from national forests increased 15%, employment in the timber industry decreased 16%. The industry exports more timber annually than the entire cut from all national forests. According to Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio’s of- fice, one-fourth of all the trees cut in the Northwest are ex- ported. If you add minimally processed timber, exports account for up to 60% of all timber cut. It is clear we do not need federal timber for domestic consumption. Like a third- world colony, we export our raw materials—and our jobs— to foreign nations who then sell us back finished goods. If we simply stopped exports, we could cease logging national forests and experience no timber shortage.

Standing national forests offer much wider and more essential values than timber alone. Forests provide us with clean air and pure water. They abate flooding, moderate the climate, and deter desertification. Forests provide wildlife habitat and abundant fisheries. They are a source of med- icines. The bark of the Pacific yew tree contains a chemi- cal called taxol, a potent anticancer substance remarkably effective against ovarian cancer. Tragically, for decades, the yew has been cut and burned as a weed species.

Standing forests also act as a vast carbon storehouse. Once cut, they release enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, hastening global warming. And, of course, forests offer us recreation and inspiration. Yet, incredibly, when preparing timber sales, the government attributes no

value to standing trees. In Alaska, the U.S. Forest Service sold 400-year-old trees for $1.48 each!

A congressional study showed that the U.S. Forest Ser- vice lost $5.6 billion in direct taxpayer subsidies over the past decade on timber sales. We are asked to pay for the destruc- tion of our own heritage for the sake of temporary employ- ment and short-term profits that will disappear with the last native forests.

As for the spotted owl, the disregard for existing federal laws has been so blatant that in May of 1991, U.S. District Judge William Dwyer issued a temporary injunction against timber sales in the Northwest. Judge Dwyer observed: “More is involved here than a simple failure by an agency to com- ply with its governing statute. The most recent violation of the National Forest Management Act exemplifies a deliberate and systematic refusal by the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service to comply with the laws protecting wildlife.”

It is absurd to suggest that endangered species are “threatening” to stop development or that the Endangered Species Act represents an “elevation of wildlife against peo- ple’s needs.” To the contrary, it is an act of last resort. It is precisely a century-long imbalance of placing human needs and economics ahead of everything else that has brought the forests to the point of near total ruin. The owl is an indicator species by which scientists judge the health of the entire for- est ecosystem. And science tells us that the ecosystem is in deep trouble. As to balance, there are some 1,500 pairs of spotted owls and 5.5 billion people. Clearly, humans are not endangered. They can even be restrained, while owls cannot. Are we so impoverished that we need to kill the last handful?

The time has long passed for “compromise” or “bal- ance.” It’s time to stop managing our national forests like a private social welfare program and return them to present and future generations of Americans. We would not think of hiring displaced quarry workers to fill in the Grand Canyon. We would be far more foolish to sacrifice the enormous value of standing national forests for the benefit of wasteful employment that consumes much more than it produces.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. In your view, which author makes the most com-

pelling case? Why? 2. What factors influence your view on this matter? Do

you have certain biases or philosophies that affect your viewpoint?

Owls, Lies, and Taxpayer Waste Victor Rozek Victor Rozek is the general manager of the Native Forest Council.

CHAPTER 12: Grasslands, Forests, and Wilderness: Sustainable Management Strategies 239

240 PART IV. Resource Issues: Solutions for a Sustainable Society

manner. To ensure uniform standards, a consortium of envi- ronmental groups, foresters, timber producers, indigenous groups, and various independent certifiers formed the For- est Stewardship Council, which drew up guidelines for for- est management and wood production. They now accredit independent certifiers, creating a uniform globally consis- tent system to ensure sustainable forest management and wood production. The Forest Stewardship Council has cer- tified timber operations on 134 million hectares (331 million acres) in more than 105 countries. Today, several thousand wood products are sold each year using Forest Stewardship Council-certified wood. Expect that to change, however, in the near future. Home Depot and Lowes sell some Forest Stewardship Council certified wood.

One promising development in the management of forests is the Model Forest Program launched by Canada in 1991. It seeks to involve a large number of stakeholders (organizations and individuals) in the management of Canada’s forests, 94% of which are on public land—that is, land owned by provincial, territorial, or the federal govern- ments. Management plans for 10 large forest areas, ranging from 100,000 to 2.5 million hectares (250,000 to 6.2 million acres), are based on consensus among loggers, conserva- tionists, scientists, and government officials. They seek to pro- tect valuable ecological resources while setting forth sound harvesting strategies. Other nations, including Mexico and Russia, have adopted similar programs.

Private efforts are also needed. In Alberta, conservation groups started a program to protect the grizzly bear, whose population has declined from 6,000 to fewer than 700 in 2009. This species, now in danger of extinction, may be saved by voluntary efforts of these organizations and timber companies. Spray Lakes Sawmills in Alberta, for example, has become a financial sponsor of the project and is voluntar- ily developing ways to harvest trees that have less impact on grizzly habitat.

Black bears in British Columbia could benefit from wide- ranging efforts to protect and better manage old-growth forests. Studies show that most black bears den in hollows in trees that are at least 500 years old. But much of British Columbia’s old- growth forests are being cut and will be harvested every 80 to 100 years, seriously jeopardizing the bear’s habitat.

KEY CONCEPTS

Saving Primary Forests/Creating Forest Preserves Some forestry experts believe that we need to protect many of the remaining uncut forests, primary forests. To do so will re- quire states and nations to set aside large tracts of primary forest throughout the world. Such measures, say proponents, will ensure continued delivery of the many free services forests provide, such as flood control. They will also help pro- tect biodiversity and, in the tropics, will safeguard the homes of many indigenous peoples who still depend on forests.

Better management of existing forests, based on sound scien- tific principles, including tree thinning, prescribed burns, and replanting, helps to create a more diverse and healthier forest that is less susceptible to disease and insects. Certification pro- grams can help promote sustainable forest management.

FIGURE 12-10 Benefits of forest fires. (a) Dense undergrowth in an Oregon pine stand results from the control of forest fires. (b) Controlled burning removes the undergrowth. (c) Periodic burning prevents disastrous fires, returns nutrients to the soil, and increases forage and wildlife.

(a)

(b)

(c)

In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed a law that prevents the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) from funding projects such as dams and roadways that will de- stroy tropical forests in less developed nations. The law also directs the agency to help countries find alternatives to forest colonization and requires it to support preserves and other measures to save forests and promote biological diversity.

Primary forest preserves house insect predators (birds and other insects) and thus act as physical barriers to the spread of pests from harvested forests. Old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, for instance, house 100 times more in- sect predators than neighboring tree plantations—and thus tend to limit pest outbreaks.

KEY CONCEPTS

Restoring Forestland Restoration is a key principle of sus- tainability and is vital to efforts to create a sustainable system of timber production. Tropical rain forests once covered an area of 1.6 to 2 billion hectares (4 to 5 billion acres)—a land area equal to about half the United States. Today, more than half of the rain forests have been cut down. Although some of the land has been converted to human use, at least two-thirds of it is unoccupied and available for replanting. These lands could be replanted with a variety of trees and managed sustainably. This would greatly reduce pressure on the world’s remaining tropical rain forests. Planting only 5% of the rain forest land already cleared could nearly double the supply of commercially harvested wood.

Tree farms that support a mixture of species and differ- ent-age trees can supply wood and nonwood products while providing wildlife habitat.

KEY CONCEPTS

Wilderness and Wilderness Management

Wilderness, as defined by U.S. law, is “an area where the Earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man is himself a visitor who does not remain.” Why is it important? Why should we set aside large tracts of wilderness?

Why Save Wilderness? Wilderness provides an escape from modern society (FIG- URE 12-11). Joseph Sax, author of Mountains without Handrails, writes that nature “seems to have a peculiar

12.4

Building a sustainable system of forestry will require efforts to re- plant millions of acres of forestland that has been cut and never replanted.

Saving uncut or primary forests helps preserve biodiversity but also protects nearby harvested forests from outbreaks of pests.

FIGURE 12-11 More than just a pretty place. Wilderness re- stores us. It also offers numerous free ecological services, from climate control to watershed protection.

power to stimulate us to reflectiveness by its awesomeness and grandeur.” It helps us understand ourselves and the world we live in, awakening us to the forgotten inter- dependence of living things. “Our initial response to nature,” Sax writes, “is often awe and wonderment: trees that have survived for millennia; a profusion of flowers in the seem- ing sterility of the desert. . . . [It] is also a successful model of many things that human communities seek: continuity, stability and sustenance, adaptation, sustained productiv- ity, diversity, and evolutionary change.”

Wilderness, especially forested regions, is vital to pre- serving biodiversity and nature’s free services. Many of the reasons for protecting wildlife, described in Chapter 11, also pertain to wilderness protection.

Historically, however, wilderness has been viewed by many people as something to exploit for short-term gain. In early colonial and postcolonial times, American lands represented untapped wealth—an unequaled opportunity to sustain a young, growing nation. To some frontierspeople and particularly early farmers, many natural resources were perceived more as obstacles than as assets. Forests needed to be cleared to permit farming. Marshes needed to be drained. Today many people view wilderness as simply a playground for an upper-middle-class elite—people who fight to pro- tect these lands to the detriment of others who could reap eco- nomic benefits from mining and timber harvesting.

Differing views create enormous controversy. Today, many environmentalists lobby for more wilderness to be set aside. The mining and timber industries, both powerful lob- bying forces, generally oppose wilderness designation, fear- ing that it will lock up valuable resources and hinder the economic development of the nation. Because only slightly over 16% of all government land holdings (excluding mili- tary bases and land on which public buildings are built), or about 4% of all land in the United States, has been afforded

CHAPTER 12: Grasslands, Forests, and Wilderness: Sustainable Management Strategies 241

242 PART IV. Resource Issues: Solutions for a Sustainable Society

wilderness protection, environmentalists argue that the min- ing and timber industries’ claims that wilderness is locking up the Earth’s riches are unfounded. Locally, however, wilder- ness tracts can tie up huge parcels of land, threatening the economic well-being of communities that have long made a living by timber harvesting and mining. Wilderness advo- cates, though, note that wilderness designation can create a more sustainable economy by promoting businesses in ru- ral areas that service hunters, anglers, hikers, backpackers, cross-country skiers, and others.

Should the United States set aside wilderness if it con- tains oil, natural gas, or minerals that could be used today? Many environmentalists believe that wildlands are more valuable than these finite resources because there are no substitutes for wilderness once it has been destroyed (Fig- ure 12-11). They also note that there are many more sustain- able ways to meet our demands for resources such as water, energy, minerals, and wood.

KEY CONCEPTS

Preservation: The Wilderness Act The earliest efforts at wilderness preservation in the United States began in the 1860s. John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club and a longtime wilderness advocate, is credited with much of the early interest in saving wilderness for future generations. Further advances came in the 1930s, when the U.S. Forest Service began to set aside large tracts of forest- land, called primitive areas, for protection. Between 1930 and 1964, the Forest Service established over 3.7 million hectares (9.1 million acres) of primitive areas in the national forests.

In 1964, Congress passed the Wilderness Act, estab- lishing the National Wilderness Preservation System. Un- der this law, the Forest Service’s primitive areas were renamed wilderness areas. The Wilderness Act directed the Forest Ser- vice, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Ser- vice to recommend additional land within their jurisdictions for wilderness designation. In 2010, 44.3 million hectares (109.5 million acres) of land were protected as wilderness. Fifty-four percent of the wilderness is in Alaska.

In addition to setting aside land for wilderness designa- tion, the Wilderness Act established rules and regulations for human activities in wilderness. For example, it forbids tim- ber cutting, motorized vehicles, motorboats, aircraft landings, and other motorized equipment—except to control fire, in- sects, and diseases or where their use was already established.

Although the Wilderness Act sought to create an “endur- ing wilderness,” many unwilderness-like activities were al- lowed to continue—notably livestock grazing and mining for metals and energy fuels—if claims were filed before the end of 1983. Wilderness areas throughout the United States are

Wilderness offers many benefits to humans. It provides refuge from urban life, offers valuable ecological services, and is home to many species of plants and animals. Historically, however, wilder- ness has largely been viewed as either a source of resources or an impediment to human progress. These opposing views are at the root of the controversy over wilderness protection.

also riddled with private inholdings, property owned by in- dividuals and companies who control the mineral and wa- ter rights on the property.

Although it has largely been a success, the Wilderness Act has some weaknesses. For example, it did not provide a means of designating wilderness on the 180 million hectares (450 million acres) of land held by the Bureau of Land Man- agement, mostly in the western states and Alaska. To correct this, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976), which calls on the BLM to submit recommendations on the wilderness suitability of its land. In 2010, BLM Wilderness Areas contained 3.5 million hectares (8.7 million acres), 8% of the nation’s total wilderness.

During the Bush years, however, wilderness designa- tion virtually stopped. In fact, the Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton proclaimed a “no new wilderness policy.” What is more, in 2003, the Bush administration denied the Tongass National Forest in Alaska protection under the roadless rule. This opened it—and very likely nearly 24 million hectares (60 million acres) of national forest throughout the United States—to timber and mineral development. Roadless areas are potential wilderness, but once roads are built in them they are no longer able to be designated as wilderness. Timber companies have been lobbying hard and pursuing legal action to kill the roadless rule that would effectively open up all of America’s untapped wild areas putting an end to further wilderness designation.

KEY CONCEPTS

Sustainable Wilderness Management Lured by the thought of quiet and solitude, backpackers pour into some U.S. wilderness areas only to be dismayed by crowds and special camping restrictions aimed at protecting lakes and streams from pollution. Wilderness crowding can result in severe environmental degradation. Grasses near favorite camping spots get trampled and eventually die, leav- ing behind only topsoil. Human waste deposited around campsites washes into streams. Streams are polluted by soap from dishwashing. Garbage often litters favorite sites and trails. Fragile areas get trampled. Wildlife are displaced. Hik- ing trails become deeply rutted. Horses soil trails and over- graze popular areas.

Overcrowding and the environmental decay that ac- companies it often occur near large metropolitan areas—in Colorado and California, for example. To wilderness pro- ponents, these are signs of the need for more wilderness— especially if the U.S. population is to increase by more than 125 million between now and 2050.

Crowding and the environmental degradation from overuse can be reduced or eliminated by better manage- ment: (1) educating campers on ways to lessen their impact,

The United States has a long history of wilderness preservation that continues today through the Wilderness Act. This law di- rects federal agencies to establish wilderness areas and stipu- lates the type of human activities that are permitted on these lands.

CHAPTER 12: Grasslands, Forests, and Wilderness: Sustainable Management Strategies 243

(2) restricting access to overused areas, (3) issuing permits to control the number of users, (4) designating campsites, (5) increasing the number of wilderness rangers to monitor use, (6) disseminating information about infrequently used areas to divert campers from overused areas, and (7) improv- ing trails to promote use of underutilized areas.

Globally, interest in wilderness protection is growing. Chapter 11 cited examples of extractive reserves, which if properly managed could help protect biodiversity. Although some countries—such as Costa Rica, Brazil, and Colombia—have set aside large parcels of land for protec- tion, many others have little or no protection whatsoever. Where they do exist, protected areas are often understaffed and overused.

Countries struggling to feed their people and meet the demands of rapidly growing populations often have little concern for protecting wilderness, even though it may be in their best long-term interest. Ecotourism, briefly described in Chapter 11, provides an economic incentive to protect wilderness in less developed nations. Interest in potential pharmaceuticals from plants and other sources, both dis- cussed in the previous chapter, also provides an economic rationale for protecting lands. Finally, the growing realiza-

tion that extractive reserves can be much more lucrative and environmentally sound than traditional land-use patterns (such as plantations and ranches) has provided additional im- petus for saving land from development. Although wilder- ness management is generally based on the preservation ideology, these compatible uses bode well for the fate of the wilderness in less developed nations.

Wilderness, grasslands, and forests are vital to our fu- ture. They cater to many different needs: eating, shelter, re- laxation, and escape. A world without them is almost unimaginable to those of us who love nature. A group of scientists peering through the glass of their space shuttle 100 years from now will see the evidence of our actions to- day. Whether they see patches of ancient desert within rich, productive land or just the opposite depends on actions and decisions we make today.

We’re not so poor that we have to spend our wilderness or so rich that we can afford to.

—Newton Drury

CRITICAL THINKING

Exercise Analysis Critical thinking rules instruct us to question the methods by which information is obtained. In this exam- ple, early estimates of desertification were based on studies that looked only at isolated regions; that is, their sample size was quite small. This is a common error in scientific research. Conclusions based on small sample size—a few isolated observations or small numbers of test animals—should always be regarded with caution.

This is not to say that the Sahara may not be expanding. It may be; it may not be. Looking at the new evidence suggests that although the desert may ebb and flow, overall it is marching southward for reasons noted in Chapters 10 and 20. The study cited in this exercise suggests that the desert marches southward in low-precipitation years, then recedes in years when precipitation is heavier. However, the trend has been an expansion of the desert. Clearly, further research is needed.

At this point, it is necessary to exercise one of the most paradoxical of all critical thinking rules—to tolerate uncertainty. Only time will tell whether the desert is indeed marching southward as a result of global warming and other problems mentioned in the introduction. Many global issues such as ozone depletion and global warming take place amid natural cycles. To discern real trends requires a decade or more of data.

244 PART IV. Resource Issues: Solutions for a Sustainable Society

CRITICAL THINKING AND CONCEPT REVIEW 1. What is the tragedy of the commons? Have you seen

any examples of it? Is reproductive freedom—the right to have as many children as one wants—contributing to the tragedy of the commons?

2. Critically analyze the concept of the tragedy of the commons. Is it a valid phenomenon? Why or why not? Does the inadequacy of resource management on pri- vately owned land negate the validity of this concept?

3. How can the operating principles of sustainability dis- cussed earlier in the book help reshape the livestock and forestry industries? Give specific examples of ways these principles can be applied.

4. What are the major problems facing the world’s range- lands? How can we create a sustainable system of pro- viding meat for human society?

5. Define the following terms as they relate to forest man- agement: sustained yield, multiple use, and clear-cutting.

6. What is meant by sustainable forestry? How is it differ- ent from the present method of cutting trees, which is based principally on sustained yield?

7. List and discuss ways to satisfy the growing need for wood and wood products in the coming years. Which of your ideas are the most ecologically sound?

8. In what ways can you reduce paper and wood waste and increase recycling?

9. Critically analyze this statement: “Wilderness is not essential to humanity. We should not be concerned with preserving wild areas. For the vast majority of the world’s people, they are of no value.”

10. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “The expanding U.S. population suggests the need for more wilderness designation.” State reasons for your position.

KEY TERMS basal zone Bureau of Land Management (BLM) clear-cutting commons extractive reserves Federal Land Policy and Management

Act feedlots intensive grazing metabolic reserve

Model Forest Program National Wilderness Preservation

System prescribed fires primary forests primitive areas Public Rangelands Improvement Act rangelands range management rotational grazing

second-growth forests selective cutting shelter-wood cutting strip-cutting sublimation surface runoff sustainable forestry wilderness Wilderness Act wilderness areas

Connect to this book's website: http://environment.jbpub.com/9e/ The site features eLearning, an online review area that provides quizzes, chapter outlines, and other tools to help you study for your class. You can also follow useful links for in-depth information, research the differing views in the Point/Counterpoints, or keep up on the latest environmental news.

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING To save on paper and allow for updates, additional reading recommendations and the list of sources for the information discussed in this chapter are available at http://environment .jbpub.com/9e/.