Timber Industry Would Log 20 Million Acres of New England Forest Under the Illusion of Preservation
February 24, 2025
Share
For the past two years, there has been a push by Rhode Island’s timber industry to expand timber production (logging) in Rhode Island.
These include bills in the Rhode Island Legislature, such as H5784 in 2023 and H7618, the Forest Parity Act of 2024, that support this effort.
H7618 was put forward by a representative on behalf of the Rhode Island Wood Operators Organization, the state’s timber industry, led by an active member of the American Loggers Council. This year, the Forest Parity Act is H5098, which again has the support of the American Loggers Council.
The timber industry will likely claim science is on its side using a recent publication of a paper called “Beyond the Illusion of Preservation,” promoted by UMass Amherst MassWoods, a timber industry partner. The paper was cited by the vice president of the Environment Council of Rhode Island in his testimony supporting the Forest Parity Act.
The paper claims that not enough wood production is being conducted in New England’s forests and that logging more in the region, including in Rhode Island, will reduce logging elsewhere. Of course this is a large assumption based on no empirical evidence.
In reality, wood demand is high everywhere, so increased wood production in New England, especially in small areas such as Rhode Island, will hardly make a dent in national or global wood production. We would only be destroying our own natural forests. The paper’s suggestion that we should be increasing wood production while at the same time reducing wood consumption is ludicrous.
This paper proposes that about 20 million acres of forest be logged in New England by 2060 — almost two-thirds of the forests in New England. This includes 50% of public land, 50% of land owned by private homeowners and farmers, and 100% of land owned by corporations.
Do you want 50% of the Arcadia Management Area logged?
The paper calls this logging by the pseudo-scientific name “ecological forestry,” while in fact this logging creates artificial early successional habitat, requiring clear-cutting of forests causing deforestation and destroying the homes for native bird species such as the endangered cerulean warbler and the wood thrush.
Early successional habitat, which is cited heavily in the paper, is chainsaw-created habitat for gaming species that were not prevalent before European settlement, originally constituting only 1% to 4.5% of the region’s landscape. These game species are promoted for recreational hunting.
While the pro-timber industry paper recommends that 10% of forests be designated as wildlands with no logging, this is nothing compared to the vast 90% of forests the timber industry would be able to profit from logging if the goals in this report are met.
The timber industry and its allies are ignoring that paper’s recommendation to protect 10% and is in reality pushing for no protected forests. In Rhode Island, the timber industry allies supporting vastly increased logging include the Rhode Island Woodland Partnership and the Rhode Island Forest Conservation Commission, which won’t allow 10% of Rhode Island’s forests to be protected from logging through the opposition to the Old Growth Forest Protection Act.
The timber industry paper fails to emphasize that logging results in a net-carbon loss and instead comes up with excuses for why unlogged forests sequestering and storing carbon is not so important while also pretending that logging helps in carbon storage.
Meanwhile, the Rhode Island Woodland Partnership is partnering with the University of Rhode Island, the state Department of Environmental Management, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to encourage foresters to log forests, which they call “managing forests for climate resiliency.”
The paper also fails to address how logging makes the landscape more prone to wildfire and degrades soil and water quality.
The Save Rhode Island’s Forests Campaign is dedicated to protecting the state’s forests and opposing H5098 and other efforts by the timber industry and pretend environmentalists to increase logging in Rhode Island at the expense of our climate and biodiversity.
Nathan Cornell is the president of the Old Growth Tree Society and the coordinator of the Save Rhode Island’s Forests Campaign.
Categories
Join the Discussion
View CommentsRecent Comments
Leave a Reply
Your support keeps our reporters on the environmental beat.
Reader support is at the core of our nonprofit news model. Together, we can keep the environment in the headlines.
Don’t you dare cut a single tree in R.I. Timber industry folks need to face reality and find different careers.
The proposals by Nathan Cornell essentially want to cause deforestation in the rest of the world. RI and New England are great places to grow trees and since we all use wood, RI and New England need to take on the responsibility of providing our own wood. We can protect forests, protect old growth, and protect rural economies and forests around the world if we take a responsible approach to forest management, harvest what makes sense to harvest, and stop trying to shut down the forest for some fantasy of old growth. The only places in RI with actual old growth are probably too steep or too wet to ever log. The pretend definition of old growth that is in the current bill is a sham. 100 years old is not an old growth forest. Old growth is forests that have not been cut since 1636. And much of what the current bill offers is not stopping clearcutting (ending clearcutting is a good idea) but stopping all other forms of forestry needed to produce products we all use and undercutting rural forest based economies.
I walked with RI Tree ‘SAVERS’ last summer, after Many acres were left after all family members were deceased to be PRESERVED. ASTHEY HAD BEEN LEGALLY LEFT WITH EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO CUT! Both RI and CT University’Specialists in Conservation’ COULD NOT WAIT TO CUT THE ONLY HEALTHY GROVE OF OLD GROWTH TULIP TREES THAT ARE THE ONLY-THRIVING STAND HERE IN SOUTH COUNTY RI OR ANYWHERE IN NEW ENGLAND! Greed driven only…no respect for the former owners decision and rule. Nasty Liars in control. Stop Them! They are breaking the law. Practice your games on unhealthy already destroyed property. Self serving behavior for destruction of Life!
Thank you Greg ,
Well said!
Logging isn’t bad, but I’d say we need to log in the right places and the right way. I don’t believe anything should be clear cut.
Selective Thinning of white pine and oak stands will make for a healthier more diverse forest.
Typically the most floristically diverse areas are those that recieve more sun. Some of the most botanically diverse areas are meadows- such as Trustom Pond meadow, Great swamp meadow, Pratt farm etc.
As long as extensive clear cutting is avoided. I think logging will be overall beneficial to the landscape.
Whoever wrote this is an idiot that is ignorant of forestey.
The forest products industry prefers that people conflate ‘forestry’ — which is the management practice concerned with producing forest products, namely board feet, and the science of forests, which is embodies in forest ecology research. This we see ignorant comments that ‘old growth’ only means a forest unlogged since the 1600s, which is not based on any scientific foundation. Some forests can develop the structural and species components of old growth after a hundred years, for others 200 years, but it is not defined by whether European immigrants chopped them down at one point.
There certainly are better and worst forestry practices, but again, those are based on exploiting the resource. As a forest pathologist, I think most public land especially in places like Rhode Island that have almost no original forest left should be allowed to develop old growth character. If one can then selectively harvest that highly valuable, tight grain timber on a sustainable basis– that might work well. But our forestry practices have been moving in the opposite direction, cutting low quality 30 year old peckerwood for fiber — young trees that an old time logger would not have given a second glance.
Try not to log. Unless you want record heat and wildfires like California. Trees together are a good windbreak. They keep the earth cool and bring weather. Loggers just want those gravy train government contracts. Don’t let them ruin your land like they did California.
Wood demand is not high everywhere, or anywhere. Last two years has seen record low production of eastern hardwood lumber.
Unfortunately the writer refuses to talk intelligently with the region’s forestry professionals. While he applies his verbal attacks, he has no forestry background and draws erroneous conclusions. In one conversation I had, he seemed to have no idea about forestry education and claimed foresters were not scientists. His approach is damaging. It’s too bad because forestry personnel have done a great job over the past 100 years to protect, preserve and utilize our forest resources.
I regularly see trailer trucks heading North thru Springfield, Ma. on Interstate 91. These trailer trucks with Quebec, Canada license plates are loaded with quality Oak logs. Don’t know where the logs are cut but hopefully from an area with good harvesting
(eco friendly) methods.
Not one mention of silviculture In this article and how forest management can help make more resilient and diverse forest. The article makes out foresters just wanting to implement an Amazon style clear cut on our forest. The great thing about forestry is it’s science and sustainable forestry was coined by the U.S and Europe. We have all learned a hands off approach to our forest, on both coast has led to less resilient and diverse forest. With threats of fires in the west and forest pest/ invasive species we need sustainable management because at the end of the day a healthy forest is a mix of ecosystems and mixed age classes.
Regardless of what old-school foresters & loggers say (especially given their self-interest) recent climate science is most assuredly supportive of pro-forestation. The term more or less tells us forests have been taking care of themselves and the planet long before humans arrived on the scene. In the Climate Crisis it is even more critical that we support natural solutions for carbon capture. That said, for forest activists here in WMass, we are dismayed by the”teaching” coming out from the UMass Amherst campus with regards to forestry. For the most part they are either clueless with regard to climate science or in denial.
Now with increased tariffs on Canadian lumber, I bet the push to log will be even greater. I don’t think logging in ri is the answer but we do have a lot of dead and dying trees, especially Beech because of the Beech leaf disease, so I do worry about wildfires more now than ever before.
The writer mentions the RI Woodland Partnership with marked vituperativeness…”the RIWP is partnering with [insert evildoer here]” or “the RIWP encourages so-and-so to [insert evil sounding action here].” For those reading this not familiar with the landscape of organizations, agencies, and other parties, the RIWP sounds like it’s got a board that meets on Dr. No’s island, staff spawned in Hell, a zillion dollar budget from Weyerhaeuser, and a home office in a brutalist skyscraper owned by the Onceler. The fact is, the RIWP isn’t a thing at all. It’s not an organization, and, other than an anodyne statement about purpose and an agreement to be open-minded and civil, it has no mission, by-laws, budget or staff, hasn’t got any policies, membership rules, or operating principles. It’s just a get-together of people (from all manner of forest-adjacent constituencies) who find themselves with commonalities in their work (not lock-step agreements) and who want a forum to talk about what’s going on, come up with ideas for speakers who can help people learn, and discuss relevant issues of the day. You should check out what the RIWP is all about for yourself. You can watch recordings of its monthly meetings free on the Natural History Survey’s YouTube channel (https://youtube.com/@rinaturalhistory and select the RI Woodland Partnership playlist). The RIWP doesn’t DO anything like what the opinionist imagines because it isn’t a thing; it isn’t the bogieman he invokes to try to make his case. He may or may not have good points or worthy goals, but his arguments would land better if he stopped trying to rile people up through hyperbole.