The recent announcement by Champion and other large landowners that they plan to double their clear-cutting, toxic herbicide applications and monoculture conversion of natural forests not only flies in the face of science-based silviculture, but also indirect opposition to the expressed desires of the people of Maine.

Does anyone remember the citizen initiative to ban clear-cutting? It would not only have stopped clear-cutting, but would also have resulted in the elimination of herbicides and forest monocultural conversion. Does anyone remember that the Ban Clearcutting initiative was undermined by the governor and the paper corporations by the behind-closed-doors development of the compact which was being discussed by the governor and the paper corporations even before the signatures were delivered to state certification?

Does anyone remember why the Compact was voted on the second time we opposed it? It was clear the Compact would increase clear-cutting, increase forest conversion and increase application of toxic herbicides. It is clearer now, more than ever, that the millions spent against the Ban Clearcutting initiative and the millions more in support of the “Compact to Destroy Maine’s Forests” were meant to solidify the paper corporations desire to implement intensive management based on greater clear-cutting and increased use of toxic chemicals, both of which, according to polling data, Maine people find unacceptable.

The paper corporations, with the governor and the Maine Forest Service backing, believe they can clear-cut, convert and herbicide their way out of years of overcutting (in 1996 the forest grew 4.9 million cords while 6.5 million were cut). This is like depleting one’s bank account for years, seeing the interest decline, and then believing that with drawn-down capital it will be possible to maintain income. It just doesn’t work. The only way to recover the lost capital is to spend less and build up equity.

Clear-cut, conversion and herbicide management will only damage the health of the forest and certainly not return economic rewards. The dollar cost of investing in intensive chemical based management is prohibitive and can only lead to a further downward spiral for Maine’s wood product industry.

The long-term impact of clear-cutting has been and will continue to be a reduction in long-term forest productivity due to the depletion of nutrients and the general decline in soil biofertility.

Biodiversity will be eliminated by continued fragmentation and monoculture designs. The threat posed by a reliance on toxic chemicals cannot be overstated. Round-up, Accord and Vision — the most frequently used herbicides — have been shown to cause cancer, abnormal growths and mutations — and one component, POEA, has been shown to kill salmon fry at levels in the parts per million range.

Monoculture forestry is more susceptible to insect and disease which not only undermines the paper corporations’ unrealistic projection of fiber yield, but also at the same time will require ever-increasing chemical applications — the chemical treadmill. The modeling in the recent report on Timber Supply 1995-2045 is based on intensive management where there is no disease or insect infestations. This is totally unrealistic as evidenced by the recent spraying of Sevin (a dangerous pesticide) on a thousand acres of a black spruce plantation in western Maine to contain the yellow-headed sawfly.

The Timber Supply Report woefully, and I suspect intentionally, understates the overcutting currently taking place on industrial land — rather than a growth to cut ratio of .85 it is closer to a 2-to-1 ratio. The industry land are so depleted and damaged that the industry average fiber yield is .18 cords per acre while that on non-industrial land is .36 cords per acre. Some of this difference is due to the budworm infestation of the 1970s and early ’80s, but the vast majority is due to excessive fiber mining of the forest through massive clear-cutting.

If nonindustrial land, which includes all small landowners, has a yield twice that of industrial land, perhaps the industry should take note and realize the small woodlot owners are doing something better — practicing silviculture, not forest liquidation. Indeed, yields could be increased, perhaps doubled, not with more clearcutting and herbiciding, but with sustainable selective cutting — managing the forests not over 40 year rotations, but over 80- to 140-year rotations and removing no more than 30 percent of the volume each cutting cycle.

Why cut a spruce at 40 years when it has just reached its growth potential? Higher fiber yields will be obtained if the spruce is allowed to grow at least another 40 years. Unfortunately, the paper corporations seem to have an adolescent problem in accepting delaying gratification.

Selection cutting will produce higher yields, higher quality at lower costs, and produce a forest based economy which has the potential for diversification and long lasting stability.

Finally, it is important to make the point that in face of the paper corporations’ continued arrogance and short sighted bottom line approach, they can only be viewed as threats to the health of Maine’s forests, as destroyers of our natural heritage, and a drain on our state’s economic future. If the paper corporations continue down this path they better be prepared for a expensive protracted war. We will have a hard time fighting them with their arsenal of big money, legions of lobbyists, expensive P.R. consultants and political influence pedaling. On the other hand, we have the support of the people and a secret weapon they don’t have — the truth based on sound science.

Industry had better be prepared to spend tens of millions more defending the indefensible. Like the tobacco companies, the paper corporations will finally learn that it will be a lot cheaper to do it right. The paper corporations could save themselves a lot of trouble and money, if they would only listen and learn from the cry of the fallen forest and the voice of the Maine people.

Jonathan Carter is the director of the Forest Ecology Network.