In the preamble of its plan for sustainable forestry the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) makes the claim that they are developing "Innovative programs to create habitats and landscapes, and to enhance the diversity of flora and fauna."¹ Many of Maine’s forest companies are members of the AF&PA organization, which seeks to encourage member companies to practice sustainable forestry principles.

In fact, the intention of this organization and its member companies is very admirable. The idea behind sustainable forestry includes "meet[ing] the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."² In forestry, the practice of sustainability translates into planting more than is harvested and taking care of other aspects of the forest ecosystem. According to the AF&PA this includes "A land stewardship ethic which integrates the reforestation managing, growing, nurturing, and harvesting of trees for useful products with the conservation of soil, air and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and aesthetics"³ into its program. However, despite these lofty ideals, questions abound about how sustainable forestry will be implemented and what its effects are.

In the area of tree cutting, the AF&PA has a process in place for enforcing their beliefs in sustainable forestry. The AF&PA designed implementation guidelines that companies belonging to the organization must adhere to. For example, the AF&PA requires its companies to design an array of scientifically, environmentally, and economically sound practices, and it requires companies to reforest its lands. In addition, the AF&PA schedules regular checks of its member companies’ land to make sure that they are following the guidelines. However, the AF&PA does little to limit the ways in which trees are cut down. In fact, most environmentalists criticize Maine lumber companies that "Driven by global pressures to maximize short-term profits… have been clearcutting the forest, spraying toxic pesticides, building new logging roads, and subdividing pristine shorelands."⁴ All of these practices are highly damaging to the tree populations and surrounding ecosystems.

In addition, the AF&PA considers clearcutting, along with group and single tree selection, to be a viable form of tree harvesting. In their pamphlet on reforestation, the AF&PA describes clearcutting as a way to develop a new growth of trees "in a shade free environment"⁵ while single and group tree selection merely reflects a need to create openings for "regeneration" of species tolerant of growing in shade. However, many environmentalists disagree with this assessment of clearcutting. They contend that the practice of clearcutting "often wastes many small trees, often increases soil erosion, and eliminates habitat for many forest species."⁶ In Maine, many of the major environmental groups have taken action to stop or curb the process of clearcutting. Most recently, in early 1996, a compact was developed between two major environmental groups and large land owners to limit clearcutting and adopt a voluntary audit program. However, in the November 6, 1996 elections the compact was voted down by the Maine electorate.

In addition to this problem, lumber associations and companies create another quagmire in their plans to enact sustainable forestry. For example, while many of the AF&PA’s goals to enact sustainable forestry are admirable, their guidelines don’t enforce very strict rules upon member companies. For example, many of their objectives include statements like "each AF&PA member company will define its own policies, programs, and plans…."⁷ As a result, many companies are still allowed to carry out practices like clearcutting and pesticide use which are very environmentally harmful, but allowable due to the vagueness of the AF&PA’s implementation guidelines.

Besides the damage done to trees and the environment—from which their nutrients are taken and shipped far away from—the loss of forestland impacts wildlife in a major way. Moreover, the technique of clearcutting has the most serious impact. When an entire area is leveled many native species find themselves without a habitat to live and find food in. In the Maine North Woods this would include many species like moose, deer, black bear, beaver, loon, broad-winged hawk, blue spotted salamander, and brook trout. In addition, many endangered species such as the bald eagle and Canada Lynx also inhabit the Maine North Woods. While the populations of some animals like deer are thriving now, as forests continue to be destroyed and the food chain suffers, deer populations will gradually be lowered as well. The populations of many species will be affected as they run out of habitat to live and feed upon.

However, even more important than the reduction in individual species population, clearcutting may have a disastrous effect on the entire ecosystem. As George Wuerthner says "Conservationist biologists have come to realize that we cannot just …save species one at a time. We need to preserve whole, working ecosystems."⁸ For example, many of the large predators that suffer losses due to forest destruction reducing their range, prey on deer and moose. These predator species "influence the distribution, number, and age structure of moose and deer."⁹ With fewer of them, the deer and moose populations will soar. In places like Northern New Jersey residents continually complain that starving deer eat their plants during the winter because they have too little land to subsist off of. As a result, products such as electrified fencing and pesticides that keep deer away are readily available to residents. There would be fewer predators to keep their populations in check because most predators require a larger range of land. As a result, the plant populations in the area will suffer as the deer and moose overgraze the land. Then, once the deer and moose run out of food, many of them will starve to death. Overall, this process will have dramatic effects on the areas that are left uncut.

Another way in which deforestation has a spiraling effect on the land and ecosystems around it, is through water pollution and contamination. Many of the toxic pesticides that are used in the process of clearcutting will eventually runoff into streams, rivers, and lakes. While these pesticides may be used in other forms of tree harvesting, there is still sufficient vegetation in those areas to hold runoff onto much of the lands. Furthermore, as a result of clearcutting, soil erosion increases in areas where there is little or no other vegetation to hold topsoil down. Both of these forms of runoff will have serious effects on the aquatic plants, fish, and other animals that live in and around water areas. Subsequently, these losses will be felt by the animals that rely on aquatic species for habitat or food. In order to decrease the runoff into bodies of water, the AF&PA follows the Best Management Practices. According to the AF&PA these practices include "Erosion control measures on roads and skid trails… Leaving vegetated buffer strips along streams… and Guidelines for pesticide use."¹⁰ While these guidelines address the problem created by deforesting, they still do not stop a majority of the runoff that occurs from trees being cleared.