“A hardline conservationist makes his way to the Pacific Northwest for the first time, and by the time he leaves, is thinking it might not be so bad of an idea to cut down a few of those trees after all.” A slightly disgruntled ferry operator and ex-logger living on Vancouver Island produced this semi-sarcastic response in passing to a conservationist college student’s overeager prodding about old-growth logging. Beneath the context of the remark — an awkward conversation on a ferry between two individuals from completely different worlds — lies a poignant message. The question of whether we should log our old-growth forests, and to what extent if so, is deceptively multifaceted. From the outside, it may seem simple — a binary choice determined by greater personal ideals of morality, ethics, and economics — but a deeper analysis of the communities that inhabit the areas surrounding these forests unveils a significantly more complex dilemma.
There is no clear consensus on what constitutes an “old-growth forest,” although most definitions are similar enough that the term can be understood. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) efficiently defines an old-growth forest as a forest advanced enough in age to have characteristically larger trees, a vertically complex canopy system, and lots of large dead woody materials promoting unique forest floor ecosystems. Despite ambiguity on an exact definition, there is widespread agreement on the current location of North America’s last remaining significant stretches of old-growth forests — the temperate rainforests of the Pacific Northwest (PNW). The old growth in the PNW stretches across the Canada-U.S. border, inhabiting the northwest section of the United States and the southwestern coast of Canada.
Although physically connected, the old growth of the PNW is managed very differently between the two nations. On the U.S. side, the purview of the old growth is largely split between the National Parks Service (NPS) and the USFS. Some old-growth logging occurs on the land controlled by the USFS, while any land controlled by the NPS is completely free of logging. On the Canadian side, logging restrictions are less strict across the board. Any significant efforts toward reducing old-growth logging usually fail to produce anything nearly as legally binding as the U.S. NPS’s restrictions and almost always enact only small changes on the provincial level, if at all. On both sides of the border, the debate surrounding old-growth logging includes federal and regional legislatures, various independent indigenous nations with assorted opinions, international corporate lobbyists, working-class loggers who rely on logging for job security, and environmental activists.
Beyond questions of personal morality and ethics, the continued existence of old-growth forests has clear quantifiable value. Old-growth forests act as havens for biodiverse ecosystems. The unique layered canopies of old-growth forests harbor diverse ecosystems of invertebrates that would likely face extinction in the absence of old growth. Additionally, centuries-old dying trees — whether they remain standing and hollow or fall over and act as nurse logs — create critical habitats for a plethora of diverse and unique species.
Perhaps the most relevant and directly quantifiable characteristic of intact old-growth forests is their ability to sequester uniquely large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. Although constituting a small fraction of the world’s standing trees, old-growth forests are responsible for sequestering between 41% and 81% of all the currently stored CO2 in our forests. This is because, despite younger trees growing faster, the sheer size and associated ecosystems of old-growth trees allow them to store substantially more tons of carbon. Thus, the deforestation of these old-growth forests would not only release many tons of carbon back into the atmosphere but would also prevent major future carbon sequestration.
Reviewing the benefits of old-growth forests strictly as a logged resource, there exists a significant case for the necessary continuation of old-growth logging. Because of the age of old-growth trees, their lumber has multiple desirable and unreplicable properties. Old-growth lumber is highly dense, making it significantly sturdier. It is also far more rot resistant than new-growth wood, allowing for longer periods of usage, especially in situations where the wood will get wet often. It is for these reasons that old-growth wood is a highly favored material in house shingles, construction projects, furniture production, and any other woodworking product that seeks to maximize quality and longevity.
The debate surrounding old-growth logging is playing out right now in the PNW, and the sides are less black and white than one might think. In support of the continuation of logging to varying extents are private logging companies, government-owned logging practices, and individual loggers. “Private logging companies” is a broad category, encompassing internationally funded corporations to smaller practices operated solely by indigenous nations funding their struggle for autonomy. Indigenous nations, particularly on the Canadian side of the border, are slowly regaining small semblances of control over their ancestral land and, in turn, small semblances of control over managing the old growth.
“The debate surrounding old-growth logging is playing out right now in the PNW, and the sides are less black and white than one might think.”
Each indigenous tribe has varying opinions on how that land should be managed. Some take a hard stance against any logging, while others such as Canada’s Pacheedaht First Nation view investing in more sustainable logging enterprises as a necessary part of their journey to financial and cultural independence. Both private and public Canadian logging practices operate in large part to supply U.S. markets. While U.S. legislation on domestic old-growth logging tightens, the nation’s demand for old-growth timber remains stagnant, putting a greater burden on Canada to keep the flow of timber coming. American old growth might be saved, but Canada’s old growth pays the price. Many individual loggers, who often completely rely on the pay received from logging to sustain themselves and their families, live in fear of a world where the law prohibits their employment.
As old-growth logging increasingly becomes most common on the Canadian side of the border, much of the environmental counteraction occurs there. Environmental activists and conservationists carry out the fight against old-growth logging on two fronts — the courtroom and the forests. In the courtroom, activists seek legislation changes that grant increased protections for old-growth trees and surrounding areas. In the forests, activists will physically impede the operations of logging companies as long as possible. Despite some small achievements, many of these attempts only delay the inevitable. Judges are far more likely to side with the wealthier, often government-backed corporate logging companies in the courts, and Canadian police are quick to shut down any blockades. On the U.S. side of the border, modern protests are infrequent as legislation slowly trends in the conservationists’ favor.
The old-growth question is complex. In addition to subjective beliefs about the value of old growth, there is an undeniable need for both old-growth wood products and the carbon sequestration that old growth provides. Within many of the parties discussed, there is already a growing sense that a balance needs to be struck. The answer to how that balance can be achieved, however, is where the true old-growth question of our time lies. What role will indigenous nations play in determining the future of old-growth management? Will Americans continue to use old-growth products to their current extent, or will they make changes to take the burden off Canada? Will Canada achieve any widespread environmental protection legislation like America’s national parks? What do we value more, old growth as a consumable resource or an existing ecosystem? The answers to these questions will determine the future of North America’s last stretches of old-growth forests.
“The old-growth question is complex. In addition to subjective beliefs about the value of old growth, there is an undeniable need for both old-growth wood products and the carbon sequestration that old growth provides.”