Needed Forest Management Improvements

Forests provide food and shelter for a diverse number of plants and animals.  Without forests, many animals and plants could not survive.  Large trees provide cavities, seeds, and nuts for thousands of species. The Oak and Beech are two of the most important food trees in our forests, and nuts from these trees are a favorite food supply for diverse numbers of bird species and many animals like squirrels, bear, deer, and turkeys.  Trees like the Oak and Beech must be at least fifty years old before they supply significant quantities of seeds or nuts. Logging a forest for its wood products can destroy a forest’s ability to supply food and shelter for both plants and animals.

Forests of young trees are common in Maryland, but forests full of old trees are rare.  Species inhabiting old growth forests are often those that are threatened or endangered while species that inhabit young forests are relatively common.  Logging removes most mature trees that are needed by a variety of species as homes, and it also eliminates most of the dead and dying trees in a forest. Scientists have found that dead and dying trees are often more important than living trees in supporting diverse communities of species.

50% of the state forests in Maryland are managed primarily for production of wood fiber. This benefits a relatively small number of people, but is detrimental to the overwhelming majority of people concerned about clean air, flowing streams, and the preservation of wildlife and plant species.  Without enough forests our air will continue to deteriorate, our streams will dry up, and our underground aquifers will empty.

Private landowners own 88% of the forests in Maryland. The public cannot manage private forests with the intent of increasing the quantity of old growth forests.  We must concentrate on preserving public forests.

A public opinion survey taken in October 2001, by Mason Dixon Polling and Research showed that 82% of voters felt protection of state forests should be given a higher priority than logging. Only 3% of the voters felt logging should have higher priority.  11% of the voters felt these priorities should be equal.