This commentary is by Jonathan Wood, a private consulting forester who previously served as the Vermont secretary of natural resources.
Jonathan Leibowitz’s recent commentary for VTDigger, suggesting “Vermont’s forests are wildly out of balance, is one that should concern all Vermonters. His organization, the Northeast Wilderness Trust, is buying up thousands of acres of forest land in Vermont. Their goal is to establish large wilderness areas in the Northeast. They are a private nonprofit-organization.
In his commentary, he says Vermont’s forests are out of balance because we have about 5% less legally designated wilderness than some advocates believe is appropriate. As a forester, I agree that our forests are out of balance, but not for that reason. I’m not alone in believing the structure of our forests is too simplified.
Forest stands, in general, lack structural diversity and multiple age classes. These features are what native species such as songbirds need for habitat. Most of our forests are second-growth stands that have grown up from land that was once cleared. They are middle-aged forests, around 80 to 120 years old. Wildlife habitat and future forest resiliency require more active forest management to diversify that forest age structure. We also need to let some forests grow old.
Leibowitz says forests will do just fine without human intervention. We indeed need areas of passive management to study and enjoy. But human influence now goes far beyond property boundaries. Invasive plants and insects spread by humans, climate change and past land use all impact forests. We need to preserve our future management options as much as possible. We have a responsibility to mitigate human impacts in the future.
Wildlands and wilderness are important, but I take issue with his accounting. He is correct that only about 4.5% has official legal protection as forever wild and managed passively. But that number does not count the many thousands of acres of public land that are not officially designated but are going to grow old without any active management.
Vermont Conservation Design suggests 9% of old forest within the highest priority forest blocks should be in ecological reserves, and any additional ecological reserves need to be sited in a wider range around the state and rigorously evaluated for ecological appropriateness. The Northeast Wilderness Trust does not follow that model of applied ecology in choosing what they acquire. They have been buying historically managed timberland whose owners can no longer afford to own it. These were recently working forests. They are now allocated to wilderness with little thought about the impact on the local wood supply or regional ecological representation.
The reason his organization has been so successful in buying large tracts of forest land is the precise reason Vermonters should be concerned about our forests. Many thousands of these acres have been purchased because the longtime family forest landowners can no longer afford to own them. Property taxes in Vermont are increasing dramatically every year, and local markets for forest products have diminished over the years.
Vermont’s forests cover 78% of the state. Most of this land is privately owned, with families and individuals caring for more than 80% of Vermont’s forests. The best way to keep those forests as forests is to allow forest landowners to afford to keep their land. That requires more reasonable property taxes and viable local markets for forest products.
We can have both more wilderness and keep working forests. But we must know both the ecological and economic realities of the choices we make. The quest for even a small amount of more wild land excluded from active forest management could have an oversized impact on the viability of the local rural economy. Size and location are very important.
If Vermont land suitable for active forestry instead becomes wilderness, the resource base for sustainable forestry shrinks. As a society, we have a moral and ethical responsibility to locally produce a fair portion of the forest products we all demand. Many forests are not suitable sources for forest products. The use of local forest products is globally responsible. What we do not produce sustainably at home will be produced somewhere else, from more sensitive forests, in a less sustainable way.
We have the most resilient and well-managed forests in the world. They provide wildlife habitat, clean water and recreation and support small local communities. Wood is a better product environmentally than the alternatives. A vibrant rural forest economy is the best conservation tool we have. We must approach all aspects of forest management, including wilderness, with sound science, caution and humility. The allocation of forest resources must be ethically responsible and science-based. That includes the allocation of wild places.
