top of page
Writer's pictureThea Rose Lemberger M.S.

Misconceptions About Clear-cutting in Hardwood Forests

The image of hundreds of barren stumps scattered along a hillside from a clear-cut has triggered intensive responses from communities and debates within the forest products and environmental sectors about the proper methods to grow, harvest, and manage trees. Clear-cutting may not always be visually appealing, but it has long been misunderstood, causing public concern about its environmental impact—despite the benefits it can bring to forest health and management. The strong reactions are undoubtedly linked to a deep connection and love for the natural world and are likely associated with a set of assumptions. For example, it is often assumed that clear-cut landscapes occur within all softwood and hardwood forest types; thus, it is appropriate in all forest types and that clear-cutting always contributes to deforestation. However, these assumptions are often exaggerated, shaped by shifting perceptions within the environmental movement and advancements in forest management science. To understand the true impact of clear-cutting, it's essential to look beyond these initial perceptions and explore the nuances behind the practice.


Sustainable logging and forestry practices in a hardwood forest.

According to the Oxford University Press, one of the earliest uses of the term "clear-cut" appeared in the Transactions of the Highland & Agricultural Society of Scotland around 1893. Clear-cutting was first used to describe clearing forests to create space for agricultural land. Generally, the term refers to cutting down and removing every tree from an area. Clear-cutting has a bad reputation from the logging and timber-mining methods of the 18th and 19th centuries when timber was believed to be an unlimited resource, and a scientific understanding of regrowing a new forest was lacking. At that time, the focus on the efficiency of logging large areas of trees to operate machinery or transport logs often overshadowed considerations about what was best for the long-term health of the forest. Today, clear-cutting is applied in various ways, but it still tends to provoke the same reactions as in the past. Consequently, many people view clear-cutting as representative of all methods of harvesting trees for wood products.


For professionals in commercial and conservation forestry, as well as the wood products industry, concepts like silvicultural systems and forest management are often second nature. However, for those in adjacent fields—such as architecture, interior design, construction, energy, and fashion—forest management terminology and practices may be less familiar, which can contribute to misunderstandings about clear-cutting. Building a shared understanding of silvicultural systems and their role in forest management helps align expectations and fosters a common ground for discussing their impacts.


The first misconception is that clear-cutting is appropriate in all forest types. 

Clear-cutting is not appropriate in all forest types. The Society of American Foresters supports clear-cutting as a proven regeneration method to meet multiple forest management objectives while noting that clear-cutting is inappropriate in all forest types. A closer look at the unique aspects of hardwood and softwood trees and their respective forest ecology can help illuminate how they’re managed and which silviculture methods are used. Forest management is a broad field that includes silviculture, among other things, where silviculture systems describe methods of management used to achieve specific outcomes, albeit balancing perceived conflicts between conservation, timber harvesting, clear-cuts, wildlife habitat, landslides, surface erosion, and flooding; and contributions to non-point-source water pollution. Some examples of silviculture systems include group selection, selective systems, even-aged methods, shelterwood systems, single trees, and clear-cutting–the latter being the most controversial system. 


Clear-cutting is a silviculture method to regenerate trees in softwood and hardwood-managed forests. However, natural regeneration is the predominant mechanism for recruiting new trees in managed mixed hardwood forests. Hardwood forests tend to regenerate themselves, whereas softwood forests usually require some artificial reforestation actions. As a result, clear-cutting in hardwood forestry can be less common or seen as unnecessary for ecological or commercial values. From an environmental perspective, it closely mimics major wind events such as hurricanes, significant tornadoes, or fires, allows space for new trees to grow, and can benefit specific shade-intolerant trees. These light-seeded species require bare mineral soil for germination (such as Eastern Cottonwood, Black Willow, American Sycamore, Green Ash, and Yellow-Poplar).  


Additionally, clear-cutting can alter the microclimate of a forest, typically causing a type conversion (shift from one type of vegetation to another). Type conversions can also allow invasive species to take over and change wildlife habitat and soil health, among other things. Foresters and land managers apply knowledge about how different harvesting methods and disturbance regimes (such as clear-cutting) affect species regeneration, stand composition, and forest health. The natural differences between softwood and hardwood forest dynamics (precipitation, temperature, atmospheric moisture, soil acidity/alkalinity) also inform why specific best management practices vary by forest type and land owner objectives. 


The second misconception is that clear-cutting always leads to deforestation.

While clear-cutting can lead to temporary changes to a landscape, it typically does not result in deforestation or a permanent removal of a forest to another land use. Deforestation often occurs when forest land is cleared to create space for other crops, farms, houses, ballfields, solar panels, highways, or industrial manufacturing. Various factors cause deforestation, but usually, it assumes that clearing the land for another purpose will achieve short-term economic returns or outweigh the ecological damage. Despite what most people may think when a forest stand is clear-cut, regrowth of another forest will move in unless the land is purposely managed for a different outcome, i.e., agriculture. When clear-cutting is used as a silvicultural method to manage forest stands for regeneration, it does not lead to deforestation. 


The negative history of clear-cutting can make it difficult to accept its modern use as a regeneration tool in managed forests. However, by learning from the past and understanding the advancements in forest science, we can adopt a more forward-thinking approach. Forest science will continue to advance as research and experiments unveil findings to inform best management practices to achieve specific objectives while meeting many values specific to forest type. Differences between softwood and hardwood forest dynamics, management practices, and subsequent products are essential considerations for the public and businesses as the next phase of business sustainability takes shape, and we collectively work towards stewarding the woods for future generations.

bottom of page