Return to North Glen or Reading List or Credo or Another Turn of the Crank
Forenote; by Ed
Iglehart (with apologies)
(from
a letter to Wendell Berry (1996))
I LIVE IN the Stewartry
of Kirkcudbright, near the lower end of the valley of the Urr Water,
on a small farm that is half woodland. Starting from my back door, I
could walk for days and never leave the woods except to cross the
roads. Though the Stewartry is known as a farming county, one third
of it is wooded. From the hillside behind my house I can see
thousands of acres of trees in the Stewartry and neighboring
Dumfriesshire.
Sadly, the majority of these are fast growing
conifers whose genetic origin is overseas. There are, however, many
small and a few larger remnants of semi-wild, semi-native woodland,
often including broadleaved species from afar. Many of these trees
are standing on steep slopes of the river and creek valleys that were
cleared and ploughed at intervals from the early years of settlement
until about the time of World War II. These are rich woodlands
nevertheless. The soil, though not so deep as it once was, is healing
from agricultural abuse and, because of the forest cover, is
increasing in fertility. Some have never been ploughed or otherwise
'improved'. The plant communities consist of a few native Scots pines
and a great diversity of hardwoods, shrubs, and wildflowers......
Conserving Forest Communities
By Wendell Berry
I LIVE IN Henry County, near the lower end of
the Kentucky River Valley, on a small farm that is half woodland.
Starting from my back door, I could walk for days and never leave the
woods except to cross the roads. Though Henry County is known as a
farming county, 25 percent of it is wooded. From the hillside behind
my house I can see thousands of acres of trees in the counties of
Henry, Owen, and Carroll.
Most of the trees are standing on
steep slopes of the river and creek valleys that were cleared and
plowed at intervals from the early years of settlement until about
the time of World War II. These are rich woodlands nevertheless. The
soil, though not so deep as it once was, is healing from agricultural
abuse and, because of the forest cover, is increasing in fertility.
The plant communities consist of some cedar and a great diversity of
hardwoods, shrubs, and wildflowers.
The history of these
now-forested slopes over the last two centuries can be characterized
as a cyclic alternation of abuse and neglect. Their best hope, so
far, has been neglect-though even neglect has often involved their
degradation by livestock grazing. So far, almost nobody has tried to
figure out or has even wondered what might be the best use and the
best care for such places. Often the trees have been regarded merely
as obstructions to row cropping, which, because of the steepness of
the terrain, has necessarily caused severe soil losses from water
erosion. If an accounting is ever done, we will be shocked to learn
how much ecological capital this kind of farming required for an
almost negligible economic return: thousands of years of soil
building were squandered on a few crops of corn or tobacco.
In
my part of Kentucky, as in other parts, we never developed a local
forest economy, and I think this was because of our preoccupation
with tobacco. In the wintertime when farmers in New England, for
example, employed themselves in the woods, our people went to their
stripping rooms. Though in the earliest times we depended on the
maple groves for syrup and sugar, we did not do so for very long. In
this century, the fossil fuels weaned most of our households from
firewood. For those reasons and others, we have never very
consistently or very competently regarded trees as an economic
resource
And so as I look at my home landscape, I am happy to
see that I am to a considerable extent a forest dweller But I am
unhappy to remember every time I look-for the landscape itself
reminds me-that I am a dweller in a forest for which there is,
properly speaking, no local forest culture and no local forest
economy. That is to say that I live in a threatened forest.
Such
woodlands as I have been describing are now mostly ignored so long as
they are young. After the trees have reached marketable size,
especially in a time of agricultural depression, the landowners come
under pressure to sell them. And then the old cycle is repeated, as
neglect is once more superseded by abuse. The salable trees are
marked, and the tract of timber is sold to somebody who may have no
connection, economic or otherwise, to the local community. The trees
are likely to be felled and dragged from the woods in ways that do
more damage than necessary to the land and the young trees. The
skidder may take the logs straight upslope, leaving scars that
(depending on how they catch the runoff) will be slow to heal or will
turn into gullies that will never heal. There is no local interest
connecting the woods workers to the woods. They do not regard the
forest as a permanent resource but rather as a purchased "crop"
that must be "harvested" as quickly and as cheaply as
possible.
The economy of this kind of forestry is apt to be
as deplorable as its ecology. More than likely only the prime log of
each tree is taken-that is, the felled tree is cut in two below the
first sizable branch, leaving many board feet in short logs (that
would be readily usable, say, if there were small local woodworking
shops) as well as many cords of firewood. The trees thus carelessly
harvested will most likely leave the local community and the state as
sawlogs or, at best, rough lumber. The only local economic benefit
may well be the single check paid by the timber company to the
landowner.
But the small landowners themselves may not
receive the optimum benefit, for the prevailing assumptions and
economic conditions encourage or require them to sell all their
marketable trees at the same time. Unless the landowner is also a
logger with the know-how and the means of cutting timber and removing
it from the woods, the small, privately owned woodland is not likely
to be considered a source of steady income, producing a few trees
every year or every few years. For most such landowners in Kentucky,
a timber sale may be thinkable only once or twice in a lifetime.
Furthermore, such landowners now must, as a matter of course,
sell their timber on a market in which they have no influence, in
which the power is held almost exclusively by the buyer The sellers,
of course, may choose nor to sell-but only if they can afford not to
sell. The woodlands are in much the same fix that Kentucky tobacco
producers were in before the time of the Burley Tobacco Growers
Cooperative Association-and in much the same fix as most American
farmers today. They cannot go to market except by putting themselves
at the mercy of the market. This is a matter of no little
significance and concern in a rural state in which 90.9 percent of
the forestland "is owned by approximately 440,000 nonindustrial
private owners, whose average holding is 26 acres."
I
have been describing one version of present-day commercial forestry
in Kentucky-what might be called the casual version.
But we
also have in view another version. This is the big-money, large-scale
corporate version. It involves the building of a large factory in a
forested region, predictably accompanied by political advertisements
about "job creation" and "improving the local
economy." This factory, instead of sawing trees into boards,
will reduce them to pulp for making paper, or it will grind or shred
them and make boards or prefabricated architectural components by
gluing together the resulting chips or strands.
Obviously,
there are some advantages to these methods. Pulping or shredding can
certainly use more of a tree than, say, a conventional sawmill. The
laminated-strand process can make good building material out of
low-quality trees. And there is no denying our society's need for
paper and for building materials.
But from the point of view
of either the forest or the local human community, there are also a
number of problems associated with this kind of operation.
The
fundamental problem is that it is costly and large in scale. It is
therefore beyond the reach of small rural communities and so will be
run inevitably for the benefit not of the local people but of
absentee investors. And because of its cost and size, a large
wood-products factory establishes in the local forest an enormous
appetite for trees.
The very efficiency of a shredding
mill-its ability to use small or low-quality trees-necessarily
predisposes it to clear-cutting rather than to selective and
sustained production. And a well-known inclination of such industries
is toward forest monocultures, which do not have the ecological
stability of natural forests.
As Kentuckians know from plenty
of experience, non-exploitive relationships between large industries
and small communities are extremely rare, if they exist at all. A
large industrial operation might conceivably be established upon the
most generous and forbearing principles of forestry and with me most
benevolent intentions toward the local people. But we must remember
that this large operation involves a large investment. And experience
has taught us that large investments tend to take precedence over
ecosystems and communities. In a time of economic adversity, the
community and the forest will be sacrificed before the factory will
be. The ideal of such operations is maximum profit to the owners or
shareholders, who are not likely to be members of the local
community. This means what it has always meant: labor and materials
must be procured as cheaply as possible, and real human and
ecological costs must be "externalized"-charged to
taxpayers or to the future.
And so Kentucky forestry, at
present, is mainly of two kinds: the casual and careless logging that
is hardly more than an afterthought of farming, and the large-scale
exploitation of the forest by absentee owners of corporations.
Neither kind is satisfactory, by any responsible measure, in a state
whose major natural resources will always be its productive soils and
whose landscape today is one-half forested.
Kentucky has
12,700,000 acres of forest-almost 20,000 square miles. Very little of
this is mature forest; nearly all of the old-growth timber had been
cut down by 1940. Kentucky woodlands are nevertheless a valuable
economic resource, supporting at present a wood-products industry
with an annual payroll of $300 million and employing about 25,000
people. In addition, our forestlands contribute significantly to
Kentucky's attractiveness to tourists, hunters, fishermen, and
campers. They contribute indirectly to the economy by protecting our
watersheds and our heath.
But however valuable our forests may
be now, they are nothing like so valuable as they can become. If we
use the young forests we have now in the best way and if we properly
care for them, they will continue to increase in board footage, in
heath, and in beauty for several more human generations. But already
we are running into problems that can severely limit the value and
usefulness of this resource to our people, because we have neglected
to learn to practice good forest stewardship.
Moreover, we
have never understood that the only appropriate human response to a
diversified forest ecosystem is a diversified local forest economy.
We have failed so far to imagine and put in place some sort of
small-scale, locally owned logging and wood-products industries that
would be the best guarantors of the long-term good use and good care
of our forests. At present, it is estimated that up to 70 percent of
the timber production of our forests leaves the state as logs or as
raw lumber.
Lest you think that the situation and the problems
I have outlined are of interest only to "tree huggers," let
me remind you mat during most of the history of our state, our rural
landscapes and our rural communities have been in bondage to an
economic colonialism that has exploited and misused both land and
people. This exploitation has tended to become more severe with the
growth of industrial technology. It has been most severe and most
obvious in the coalfields of eastern Kentucky, but it has been felt
and has produced its dire effects everywhere. With few exceptions our
country people, generation after generation, have been providers of
cheap fuels and raw materials to be used or manufactured in other
places and to the profit of other people. They have added no value to
what they have produced, and they have gone onto the markets without
protection. They have sold their labor, their mineral rights, their
crops, their livestock, and their trees with the understanding that
the offered price was the price that they must take. Except for the
tobacco program and the coal miners' union, rural Kentuckians have
generally been a people without an asking price. We have developed
the psychology of a subject people, willing to take whatever we have
been offered and to believe whatever we have been told by our
self-designated "superiors."
Now, with the two
staple economies of coal and tobacco in doubt, we ask, "What can
we turn to?" This is a question for every Kentuckian, but
immediately it is a question for the rural communities. It is a
question we may have to hold before ourselves for a long time,
because the answer is going to be complex and difficult. If, however,
as a part of the answer, we say, "Timber," I believe we
will be right.
But we must be careful. In the past we have
too often merely trusted that the corporate economy or the government
would dispose of natural resources in a way that would be best for
the land and the people. I hope we will not do that again. That trust
has too often been catastrophically misplaced. From now on we should
disbelieve that any corporation ever comes to any rural place to do
it good, to "create jobs," or to bring to the local people
the benefits of the so-called free market. It will be a tragedy if
the members of Kuntucky's rural communities ever again allow
themselves passively to be sold off as providers of cheap goods and
cheap labor. To put the bounty and the heath of our land, our only
commonwealth, into the hands of people who do not live on it and
share its fate will always be an error. For whatever determines the
fortune of the land determines also the fortune of the people. If the
history of Kentucky teaches anything, it teaches that.
But the
peculiarity of our history, so far, is that we have not had to learn
the lesson. When the Old World races settled here, they saw a natural
abundance so vast they could not imagine that it could be exhausted
or ruined. Because it was vast and because virtually a whole
continent was opening to the west, many of our forebears felt free to
use the land carelessly and to justify their carelessness on the
assumption that they could escape what they ruined. That early
regardlessness of consequence infected our character, and so far it
has dominated the political and economic life of our state. So far,
for every Kentuckian, like Harry Caudill, willing to speak of the
natural limits within which we have been living all along, there have
been many who have wished only to fill their pockets and move on,
leaving their ecological debts to be paid by somebody else's
children.
But by this time, the era of cut-and-run economics
ought to be finished. Such an economy cannot be rationally defended
or even apologized for. The proofs of its immense folly,
heartlessness, and destructiveness are everywhere. Its failure as a
way of dealing with the natural world and human society can no longer
be sanely denied. That this colonial system persists and grows larger
and stronger in spite of its evident failure has nothing to do with
rationality or, for that matter, with evidence. It persists because,
embodied now in multinational corporations, it has discovered a
terrifying truth: If you can control a people's economy, you don t
need to worry about its politics; its politics have become
irrelevant. If you control people's choices as to whether or not they
will work, and where they will work, and what they will do, and how
well they will do it, and what they will eat and wear, and the
genetic makeup of their crops and animals, and what they will do for
amusement, then why should you worry about freedom of speech? In a
totalitarian economy, any "political liberties" that the
people might retain would simply cease to matter. If, as is of ten
the case already, nobody can be elected who is not wealthy, and if
nobody can be wealthy without dependence on the corporate economy,
then what is your vote worth? The citizen thus becomes an economic
subject.
A totalitarian economy might "correct"
itself, of course, by a total catastrophe-total explosion or total
contamination or total ecological exhaustion. A far better
correction, however, would be a cumulative process by which states,
regions, communities, households, or even individuals would begin to
work toward economic self-determination and an appropriate measure of
local independence. Such a course of action would involve us in a
renewal of thought about our history and our predicament. We must ask
again whether or not we really want to be a free people. We must
consider again the linkages between land and landownership and land
use and liberty. And we must ask, as we have not very seriously asked
before, what are the best ways to use and to care for our land, our
neighbors, and our natural resources.
If economists ever pay
attention to such matters, they may find that as the scale of an
enterprise increases, its standards become more and more simple, and
it answers fewer and fewer needs in the local community. For example,
in the summer of 1982, according to an article in California Forestry
Notes, three men, using five horses, removed 400,780 board feet from
a 35.5-acre tract in Latour State Forest. This was a "thinning
operation." Two of the men worked full time as teamsters, using
two horses each; one man felled the trees and did some skidding with
a single horse. The job required sixty-four days. It was profitable
both for the state forest and for the operator During the sixty-four
days the skidders barked a total of eight trees, only one of which
was damaged badly enough to require removal. Soil disturbance in the
course of the operation was rated as "slight."
At
the end of this article the author estimates that a tractor could
have removed the logs two and a half times as fast as the horses. And
thus he implies a question that he does not attempt to answer: Is it
better for two men and four horses to work sixty-four days, or for
one man and one machine to do the same work in twenty-five and a half
days? Assuming mat the workers would all be from the local community,
it is clear that the community, a timber company, and a manufacturer
of mechanical skidders would answer that question in different ways.
The timber company and the manufacturer would answer on the basis of
a purely economic efficiency the need to produce the greatest volume,
hence the greatest profit, in the shortest time. The community, on
the contrary-and just as much as a matter of self-interest-might
reasonably prefer the way of working that employed the most people
for the longest time and did the least damage to the forest and the
soil. The community might conclude that the machine, in addition to
the ecological costs of its manufacture and use, not only replaced
the work of one man but more than halved the working time of another
From the point of view of the community, it is not an improvement
when the number of employed workers is reduced by the introduction of
labor-saving machinery.
This question of which technology is
better is one that our society has almost never thought to ask on
behalf of the local community. It is clear nevertheless that the
corporate standard of judgment, in this instance as in others, is
radically oversimplified, and that the community standard is
sufficiently complex. By using more people to do better work, the
economic need is met, but so are other needs that are social and
ecological, cultural and religious.
We can safely predict
that for a long time there are going to be people in places of power
who will want to solve our local problems by inviting in some great
multinational corporation. They will want to put millions of dollars
of public money into an "incentive package" to make it
worthwhile for the corporation to pay low wages for our labor and to
pay low prices for, let us say, our timber. It is well understood
that nothing so excites the glands of a free-market capitalist as the
offer of a government subsidy.
But before we agree again to so
radical a measure, producing maximum profits to people who live
elsewhere and minimal, expensive benefits to ourselves and our
neighbors, we ought to ask if we cannot contrive local solutions for
our local problems, and if the local solutions might not be the best
ones. It is not enough merely to argue against a renewal of the
old colonial economy. We must have something else competently in
mind.
If we dont want to subject our forests to the rule of
absentee exploiters, then we must ask what kind of forest economy we
would like to have. By "we" I mean all the people of our
state, of course, but I mean also, and especially, the people of our
states rural counties and towns and neighborhoods.
Obviously,
I cannot speak for anybody but myself. But as a citizen of this state
and a member of one of its rural communities, I would like to offer a
description of what I believe would be a good forest economy. The
following are not my own ideas, as you will see, but come from the
work of many people who have put first in their thoughts the survival
and the good health of their communities.
A good forest
economy, like any other good land-based economy, would aim to join
the local human community and the local natural community or
ecosystem together as conservingly and as healthfully as possible.
A
good forest economy would therefore be a local economy, and the
forest economy of a state or region would therefore be a
decentralized economy. The only reason to centralize such an economy
is to concentrate its profits into the fewest hands.
A good
forest economy would be owned locally. It would afford a decent
livelihood to local people. And it would propose to serve local needs
and fill local demands first, before seeking markets elsewhere.
A
good forest economy would preserve the local forest in its native
diversity, quality, health, abundance, and beauty. It would recognize
no distinction between its own prosperity and the prosperity of the
forest ecosystem. A good forest economy would function in part as a
sort of lobby for the good use of the forest.
A good forest
economy would be properly scaled. Individual enterprises would be no
bigger than necessary to ensure the best work and the best livelihood
for workers. The ruling purpose would be to do the work with the
least possible disturbance to the local ecosystem and the local human
community. Keeping the scale reasonably small is good for the forest.
Only a local, small-scale forest economy would permit, for example,
the timely and selective logging of small woodlots.
Another
benefit of smallness of scale is that it preserves economic democracy
and the right of private property. Property boundaries, as we should
always remember, are human conventions, useful for defining not only
privileges but also responsibilities, so that use may always be
accompanied by knowledge, affection, care, and skill. Such boundaries
exist only because the society as a whole agrees to their existence.
If the right of landownership is used only to protect an owner's wish
to abuse or destroy the land, upon which the community's welfare
ultimately depends, then society's interest in maintaining the
convention understandably declines. And so in the interest of
democracy and property rights, there is much to be gained by keeping
especially the land-based industries small.
A good forest
economy would be locally complex. People in the local community would
be employed in forest management, logging, and sawmilling, in a
variety of value-adding small factories and shops, and in satellite
or supporting industries. The local community, that is, would be
enabled by its economy to realize the maximum income from its local
resource. This is the opposite of a colonial economy. It would answer
unequivocally me question, To whom
is the value added?
Furthermore, a local forest
economy, living by the measure of local economic health, might be led
to some surprising alterations of logging technology. For example, it
would almost certainly have to look again at the use of draft animals
in logging. This would not only be kinder to the forest but would
also be another way of elaborating the economy locally, requiring
lower investment and less spending outside the community.
A
good forest economy would make good forestry attractive to
landowners, providing income from recreational uses of their
woodlands, markets for forest products other than timber, and so
on.
A good forest economy would obviously need to be much
interested in local education . It would, of course, need to pass on
to its children the large culture's inheritance of book learning. But
also, both at home and in school, it would want its children to
acquire a competent knowledge of local geography, ecology, history,
natural history, and of local songs and stories. And it would want a
system of apprenticeships, constantly preparing young people to carry
on the local work in the best way.
All along, I have been
implying that a good forest economy would be a limited economy. It
would be limited in scale and limited by the several things it would
not do. But it would be limited also by the necessity to leave some
wilderness tracts of significant acreage unused. Because of its
inclination to be proud and greedy, human character needs this
practical deference toward things greater than itself; this is, I
think, a religious deference. Also, for reasons of self-interest and
our own survival, we need wilderness as a standard. Wilderness gives
us the indispensable pattern and measure of sustainability.
To
assure myself that what I have described as a good forest economy is
a real possibility, I went to visit the tribal forest of the
Menominee Indians
in northern Wisconsin. In closing, I want to say what I learned
about that forest-from reading; from talking with Marshall Pecore,
the forest manager, and others; and from seeing for myself.
The
Menominee originally inhabited a territory of perhaps ten million
acres in Wisconsin and northern Michigan. By the middle of the
nineteenth century, as the country was taken up by white settlers,
the tribal holding had been reduced to 235,000 acres, 220,000 acres
of which were forested.
The leaders understood that if the
Menominee were to live, they would have to give up their old life of
hunting and gathering and make timber from their forest a major
staple of their livelihood: they understood also that if the
Menominee were to survive as a people, they would have to preserve
the forest while they lived from it. And so in 1854 they started
logging, having first instituted measures to ensure that neither the
original nature nor the productive capacity of the forest would be
destroyed by their work. Now, 140 years later, Menominee forest
management has become technically sophisticated, but it is still
rooted in cultural tradition, and its goal has remained exactly the
same: to preserve the identification of the human community with the
forest, and to give an absolute priority to the forest's ecological
integrity. The result, in comparison m the all-too-common results of
land use in the United States, is astonishing. In 1854, when logging
was begun, the forest contained an estimated billion and a half board
feet of standing timber. No records exist for the first thirteen
years, but from 1865 to 1988 the forest yielded two billion board
feet. And today, after 140 years of continuous logging, the forest
still is believed to contain a billion and a half board feet of
standing timber Over those 140 years, the average diameter of the
trees has been reduced by only one half of one inch-and that by
design, for the foresters want fewer large hemlocks.
About 20
percent of the forest is managed in even-aged stands of aspen and
jack pine, which are harvested by clearcutting and which regenerate
naturally The rest of the forest is divided into 109 compartments, to
each of which the foresters return every fifteen years to select
trees for cutting. Their rule is to cut the worst and leave the best.
That is, the loggers remove only those trees that are unlikely to
survive for another fifteen years, those that are stunted or
otherwise defective, and those that need to be removed in order to
improve the stand. Old trees that are healthy and still growing are
left uncut. As a result, this is an old forest, containing, for
example, 350-year-old hemlocks, as well as cedars that are probably
older The average age of harvested maples is 140 to 180 years.
In
support of this highly selective cutting, the forest is kept under
constant study and evaluation. And loggers in the forest are strictly
regulated and supervised. Even though the topography of the forest is
comparatively level, skidders must be small and rubber-tired. Loggers
must use permanent skid trails. And all logging contractors must
attend training sessions.
The Menominee forest economy
currently employs-in forest management, logging, milling, and other
work-215 tribe members, or nearly 16 percent of the adult population
of the reservation. As the
Menominee themselves know, this is not
enough; the economy of the forest needs to be more diverse. Its
products at present are sawed lumber, logs, veneer logs, pulpwood,
and "specialty woods" such as paneling and moldings. More
value-adding industries are needed, and the Menominee are working on
the problem. One knowledgeable observer has estimated that "they
could probably turn twice the profit with half the land under
management if they used more secondary processing."
Kentuckians
looking for the pattern of a good local forest economy would have to
conclude, I think, that the Menominee example is not complex enough,
but that in all other ways it is excellent. We have much to learn
from it. The paramount lesson undoubtedly is that the Menominee
forest economy is as successful as it is because it is not understood
primarily as an economy. Everybody I talked to on my visit urged me
to understand that the forest is the basis of a culture and that the
unrelenting cultural imperative has been to keep the forest intact-to
preserve its productivity and the diversity of its trees, both in
species and in age. The goal has always been a diverse, old, healthy,
beautiful, productive, community-supporting forest that is home not
only to its wild inhabitants but also to its human community. To
secure this goal, the Menominee, following the dictates of their
culture, have always done their work bearing in mind the needs of the
seventh generation of their descendants.
And so, to complete
my description of a good forest economy, I must add that it would be
a long-term economy. Our modern economy is still essentially a
crop-year economy-as though industrialism had founded itself upon the
principles of the worst sort of agriculture. The ideal of the
industrial economy is to shorten as much as possible the interval
separating investment and payoff; it wants to make things fast,
especially money. But even the slightest acquaintance with me vital
statistics of trees places us in another kind of world. A forest
makes things slowly; a good forest economy would therefore be a
patient economy. It would also be an unselfish one, for good
foresters must always look toward harvests mat they will not live to
reap.
Notes:
William H. Martin, Mark Matuszewski, Robert N.
Muller, and Bradley E. Powell, "Kentucky's Forest Resources"
(unpublished paper), 1 have taken statistics and other information on
Kentucky forests from this paper and also from William H Martin,
"Sustainable Forestry in Kentucky," In
Context (Center for Economic Development at
Eastern Kentucky University, winter 1993), I, 5-6; and William H.
Martin, "Characteristics of Old-Growth Mixed Mesophytic
Forests," Natural Areas Journal
12, no. 3 (July 1992): 127-135.
Dave McNamara,
"Horse I Logging at Latour," California
Forestry Notes (Sept. 1983): 1-10.
Scott
Landis, "Seventh-Generation Forestry," Harrowsrnith
Country Life (Nov/Dec. 1992): 33. l also made
use of Marshall Pecore, "Menominee Sustained-Yield Management,
"Journal of Forestry (July
l992): 12-16.
Return to North Glen or Reading List or Credo or Another Turn of the Crank