Since when is clear cutting considered sustainable?

Mark and Sierra Pacific Industries,     
  I and many others, are honored in protecting the glorious Sierra Forests, and the glorious Forests of the Pacific Northwest ! You should feel disgusted with your clear cutting of these glorious Forests ! I tell people everywhere I can, to stop buying Lumber "Trees" that are from your Sierra Pacific Industies Clear Cuts ! You will be out of business soon ! Sierra Pacific Industires !

Well, not quite - Here are the facts. All of SPI's timber harvesting plans are reviewed by multiple state agencies including CDF, Fish & Game, Water Quality, and often the Geological Survey. CDF is the lead agency per CEQA, but the other agencies provide their input through the THP review process. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards can stop any THP that they believe will harm the environment, and F&G can do so when sensitive wildlife species are found or through an appeal process. With regard to herbicides, CDF is not the responsible agency - that falls to the Department of Pesticide Regulation. Forest chemicals can only be applied by a licensed applicator using only state and federally-approved chemicals under a strict protocol developed by county agricultural commissioners. Forestry use of chemicals in California is small by agricultural standards -- in fact forestry ranks 54th of reported uses and represents less than one percent of commercial applications in the state. In addition, forest chemicals are typically applied once or twice in an 80-year period whereas much of agricutture applies the same chmicals (on our food) every year. SPI monitors application of pesticides, and has found no detectable amounts of chemicals in water courses after 4,000 analysis samples checked by EPA-approved labs. In summary, forestry on private timberlands in California is sustainable from the standpoint of wood product productionh as well as environmental protection.

Aw, common guys, you have all hijacked my review with your great comments... ;) Would you mind writing a review of your own so that we can all have your opinion all in one place? That way I wouldn't be the only one looking at it :)

First, I don't doubt that Mark's points hold some water about state review of logging practices. Yes, these things end up being reviewed by multiple state agencies.

However, just because the state is satisfied that specific practices are sustainable within the definition of state laws does not mean that the practices are, in fact, sustainable.  In fact we may not even know what is sustainable in this area since forests are extremely complex systems.  Although forests are generally homeostatic, how much clear-cutting and replanting will push them over the edge?  I don't know that there is an answer here that is generally accepted in the scientific community.

I don't know that we can say that California's timberlands are or are not sustainably managed.  We just simply do not know.  What we can hope is that as we learn more, rules can be substantially tightened as needed.