Are We Practicing Forestry, or
Just Harvesting Timber?
Reflections on Balance in the
Forestry Profession
Robert S. Seymour
Maine Division SAF Fall Meeting
Oct 11, 2005
Premises
• We’re an ethical lot --- we see service to
society as defining our profession.
SAF Code of Ethics
Preamble
Service to society is the cornerstone of any profession.
The profession of forestry serves society by fostering
stewardship of the world's forests. Because forests
provide valuable resources and perform critical
ecological functions, they are vital to the wellbeing of
both society and the biosphere.
Premises
• Our service to society takes two, often
competing, forms:
– We’re agents of efficient forest products
delivery from the stump… our clients are
individual landowners here.
– We’re agents of stewardship and
sustainability of the ecosystem …society is
always our client.
• Our success – individually and
collectively – depends on how well we
achieve this BALANCE.
Premises
• How well we serve landowners and clients is
usually clear, easily measurable, and
immediately evident.
– It’s also covered in our State code of ethics.
• How well we serve society is fuzzy, resists
quantification, and has long-term lags.
– This is not covered in our State code of ethics in
any meaningful way.
• “Physicians bury their worst mistakes, but
those of foresters occupy the landscape in
public view for decades.”
Silviculture – how we
manipulate each stand –
is at the crux of these
intersecting ethical
demands.
Premises
• Our region – the complex, mixed-species
northern New England, Acadian Forest – is
among the most difficult places in the world to
practice silviculture well.
• Regeneration is easy -- “Something will
always grow back!” – but controlling
composition using only harvesting is not so
dependable.
• Trees are merchantable and become
valuable decades before they are mature –
requires patience and long-term owners to
achieve high yields and maximum values
My signs of mediocre forest
stewardship
• Harvesting growing stock prematurely
• Keeping stands in a continuous state of
regeneration
• Harvesting valuable but low-risk trees where
they’re needed to secure regeneration and
prevent type “erosion”
• Failing to invest in precommercial tending
treatments where their need is caused by our
own activities
• Failing to follow biodiversity guidelines,
especially for late-successional stands
Assessing stewardship
• All these factors are complex to
evaluate, and require foresters and
biologists
– Certification is meant to do this
• To a naïve public, they’re fuzzy and
intuitive at best, but no amount of
“education” will change any negative
views once formed.
How are we doing?
• Like my students on their recent prelim
exam:
– You can find examples of anything you
want to!
• It’s very difficult to generalize ….our
average performance is meaningless!
• FIA (Ken’s talk) sheds some light on
these topics (growing stock,
regeneration)
Stocking
Guides
Well (“adequately”) stocked
Understocked
ONLY Post Harvest timberland acreage, by FIBER Habitat,
by FIBER stocking region, 1996 - 2003 (FIA Data)
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
> 1.9 MM acres, 67%
= Regeneration
How much
of thisand
is
Overstory
growth
Harvests!
(9.5
monitored
and
yield
muchper
below
townships
year)
managed?
potential
50-year Cutting Cycle
Low/No
Basal Area
Understocked
SubOptimal
Optimal
Overstocked
Beech/Red Maple
47,273
165,332
101,316
142,076
18,796
Cedar/Blk Spruce
12,482
73,051
38,290
55,120
13,099
Hemlock/R. Spruce
16,316
158,919
88,151
60,643
2,931
Oak/White Pine
4,423
103,175
45,256
60,615
1,822
Spruce/Fir
44,703
491,247
280,205
203,331
88,159
Sugar Maple/Ash
11,397
107,076
126,750
237,368
35,840
Total
136,595
1,098,801
679,968
759,153
160,647
What are today’s red flags that Maine
foresters might have the “balance” wrong?
• Excessive clearcutting? ….NO
• Inadequate residual stand stocking?
• Unrealistic expectations for financial
returns from short-term investors?
• Inadequate investment in regeneration
and young-stand silviculture?
• Gradual reduction in late-successional
structures – our own spotted owl?
The most disconcerting red flag…
• Too few overworked and underpaid foresters
managing too many acres.
• Good stewardship takes time and effort, but
tends to take a back seat to production that
pays the bills.
– Consequence: “expedient” harvest prescriptions
• Foresters are not universally empowered to
insist on good stewardship, yet we’re still
expected to do it.
These are NOT blanket indictments!
• Many landowners are doing very well
– Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands
– Other FSC Certified owners (large family
ownerships with no publicly held stock)
• What about the others?
• Poor stewardship by some hurts us all
Worrisome scenarios ?
• Is it possible that we simply can’t
afford to manage our natural forests
well, given current market pressures?
• We’re a victim of society’s doublestandard: it expects good
stewardship, but has not generally
been willing to pay for it through the
market.
Worrisome scenarios ?
• Are we nearing the end of a long-term
experiment in private ownership of
working forests in Maine (and the
US)?
– Most forest in the world is publicly owned
• What is the end-game here?
Worrisome scenarios ?
• If non-sustainable management becomes
evident on substantial acreage, then
history will judge us harshly…… as
presiding over an era of exploitation (failing
to invest in stewardship).
• I can think of no better way to ensure the
success of the “National Park” agenda
Life is about choices…
• Vision A: We can be proactive and
insist on good stewardship everywhere.
• Consequences: We’re seen by society
as uniformly competent and balanced,
and we will be trusted, empowered, and
free from prescriptive regulations.
Life is about choices…
• Vision B: We can be passive, make
sure wood gets cut without breaking any
laws, and just accept what the system
dishes out.
• Consequences: We’re seen by society
as devaluing stewardship, causing our
profession to be suspect, hamstrung,
stifled by prescriptive regulations, and in
danger of being disenfranchised and
eventually replaced.
Ask these
Queensland
foresters
WHICH OF THESE VISIONS
FITS OUR PAST 15 YEARS
BETTER?
Managed Eucalypt stand,
now reserved
Have we been sufficiently proactive
on behalf of stewardship?
• FPA: many progressive ideas ca. 1990 proposed
but rejected by us:
– Licensed foresters oversee all harvests
– More rigorous requirements for regeneration
• Referenda: many bad ideas successfully opposed
by us (and others) – via FPA Task Force
• Governor King’s Council
– Silvicultural justifications for clearcuts
– Benchmarks for sustainabiltiy
• Master loggers, but not licensed foresters (!), are
now recognized suppliers of “certified" wood (IP)
Have we been sufficiently proactive
on behalf of stewardship?
• When forestry becomes political in Maine,
it’s rare for foresters to have an
independent, credible voice.
• Decisions are typically influenced by
stakeholders such as the Forest Products
Council and the Natural Resources Council
• Who speaks for balance?
Proactive Idea 1 –
Improve monitoring
• Better monitoring of harvesting activity
– Need measures of harvest “quality” linked
to future sustainability
– Acreage estimates from multiple sources
are disconcerting in their disagreement.
Proactive Idea 2 – Maine Code of
Practice for Forest Stewardship
• Draft a code of practice for stewardship and
silviculture
– Strongly performance-oriented, not prescriptive
– Attach to Maine forester licensing law
– Optional or Mandatory?
• Purpose: guarantee to landowner and society
that foresters are practicing good
stewardship, if that’s what they want.
• Currently, there are no enforceable
stewardship canons, so now we’re all in the
same boat in the public’s eyes.
How might we (MESAF) do this?
• Resurrect Forest Practices Force
• Our stewardship clients – society -- needs an
independent, candid assessment of what’s
going on
• We must be in a position to inform the
political process – take positions, not sides.
• MFS could do this, but SAF would do it better.
How might we (MESAF) do this?
• Create a new standing committee on
Licensing and Credentialing
• Charges:
– Define performance-based (not cookbook,
prescriptive) stewardship standards
– Support SAF’s effort to promote the
Certified Forester credential nationwide
• Many other professions do this…
Conclusions?
• The Maine forest is our legacy, and we have
much to be proud of. Many things are better
than 15 years ago.
• Nevertheless, the future of our profession is
uncertain, and we’re divided about what, if
anything, to do about it.
• If we unite behind a stewardship agenda that’s
more than just rhetoric, and deliver on it
through excellent silviculture, we’ll be OK.