This is important because it gives us direction in what to pursue in the realm of community forestry.  If the goals is to restore the golden age of manufacturing and raw material production, we should manage our forests to produce raw materials.  If instead, the raw materials are going to be the basis for trade that will make us wealthy, we may want to focus on more highly valued products that have a niche in modern markets - maple syrup or fine furniture come to mind as products where New England has an advantage over other regions.

Selective logging (high-grading, diameter-limit cuts) is not a good thing.
Selection logging (selection system) is a good thing.

Local loggers know what to do. Usually, maybe, sometimes. They aren't foresters. Forestry consultants are, especially if they are certified by SAF, and the prescriptions that they will apply are based on knowledge of silviculture and present markets. It would be beneficial to hear about that side of the story a little more.

Why cut the low-value wood?
In several situations for different silvicultural systems, small trees of low value have to be cut, in order to focus growth on faster-growing valuable trees with better genetics. In a crowded canopy, tree growth slows down dramatically, and trees essentially stagnate and die. While the forest does not disappear as a result of that, it does lose a lot of the values that are necessary for timber production (which is necessary, since we all need wood for furniture and construction materials). If only the best trees are cut (practice known as high-grading or diameter-limit cuttings), then the remaining trees (runts) are left to grow at their very slow rates, and the forest is genetically depleted.

Clearcuts:
Actually, tree species diversity generally goes up with clearcuts (at least in the Northeast and I think in the Northwest too), as do numbers of small mammals and shrub song-birds. Further, this is prime habitat for large mammals as well (deer, bear, etc.) for the next 20 years due to high cover and plentiful food. The nutrient export spikes in the watershed that occur first year are generally mitigated very well by the advance regeneration of trees. Of course it is necessary that the clearcut is done properly, at a time when the advance regeneration is sufficient in numbers, sizes and tree species tolerance of conditions. Furthermore, nutrient spikes can be fully or mostly mitigated by use of wider stream buffers, and strip or patch clearcutting, when strips or patches of land are cut progressively over a period of a decade or two.

So, when comparing it to the alternatives: genetic degradation and lack of sustainability over the long term with practices common now (leave trees that are inferior genetically and the forest that is patchy with diameter-limit and other exploitative practices) or lack of regeneration in the Amazon or planting of monocultures, instead of a wonderfully complex tropical rainforest ecosystem, clearcutting is not only economically appropriate (it is actually more expensive than exploitation, because time is spent cutting unused trees) but an ecologically appropriate solution.

The only difference between appropriately applied clearcutting and other selection system cuttings (leaving trees in a non-exploitative manner) is that it looks ugly (which it does) and thus people dislike it. And I know that pulp and paper mills have a major impact on the waterbodies that they are located on, but a lot of it has to do with consumer preference for 'white as snow' paper, with the bleaching being a major reason for the pollution.

I guess my point is that it will mostly remain individual choice with regard to consumption, unless a motivated group of individuals (us environmentalists) changes the rules at the level of the industry, government, whatever. So here I come in: I have done a lot of ecology field work and I am now studying sustainability in forestry in the Northern Forest(even though I am not as familiar with the socioeconomic background as I should be: I am a central New Yorker). That said, I think that from the studies that I have seen and read, clearcutting and even-aged systems are a viable silvicultural prescription, if done properly (I think progressive strip clearcuts and shelterwoods are especially appropriate for nutrient management, securing advance regeneration and creation of horizontal structural diversity).

Structural diversity (two components: vertical and horizontal) is also very important for diversity of fauna. Many songbirds like vertical structural diversity with a component of evergreen conifers, but many like old fields and shrub communities. Deer thrive in edge habitat. Bears are very spread out, but thrive in younger successional series also (old field, shrubs, etc.) where they have plenty of berries and forbs to eat. But most also prefer high horizontal structural diversity, with a combination of forest, young series, etc. Grouse are especially abundant in areas with high horizontal diversity.

Even-age silviculture provides this component, while skimping out on vertical diversity. Uneven-age silviculture provides a high degree of vertical diversity, while skimping on horizontal diversity, unless doing patch cuts (which are basically tiny clearcuts) and even then does not allow for a large proportion of that. But in any case, there is a need for both of them in order to maintain diversity of fauna in our region. Also many herbs benefit greatly from having no giant cousins shadowing them out.

While I am not particularly familiar with the Pacific Northwest clearcuts, I have heard from several sources that the management out West is generally poor with regard to securing advance regeneration, at least partially because state, provincial and federal lands are being cut, with a lack of proper attention, but also because of general carelessness. That is why there are problems with that.

However, I absolutely agree that there needs to be preservation of unique features and old-growth forests. It's just that out West old-growth is so much more magnificent than it is here. Also there is more of it.

The question becomes what amounts of forests should be preserved, where, etc. and what should be put into timber management. With timber management comes a need for low-value wood markets, which was my original point.

Few more things: paper will never be 100% recycled, because the fibers become shorter with each rotation, and one piece of paper can only be recycled between four and seven times, so there needs to be some input of fresh pulp. This pulp right now is coming from Brazil and the southern hemisphere, where old-growth rain forests are cut and replaced with monocultures on really old soil, which becomes unproductive after three or four decades (about three rotations) without heavy inputs of fertilizer. Also there are clearcuts, which do not secure regeneration and convert to pasture, inadvertantly or with purpose). And for some reason (most likely due to poor soil fertility), when clearcut these forests just do not regenerate. Ricardo Carrere and Larry Lohmann in "pulping the south" do a pretty good job of covering this information, although technical and cumbersome, it is a necessary read for anyone who is concerned with the global forest problem. Around the Northeast, the problem with regeneration is very limited (yooung soils) and thus provides a much better setting for pulpwood, especially with the glut of low-value wood, which foresters don't know where to sell.

As far as acid rain goes, yes it seems to be logical to suggest that it is having a drastic effect on (for example) Adirondack soils, with their low cation exchange capacity (lack of a buffering agent for acidic deposition) due to parent material. However, the jury is still out on that with regard to the science, and I cannot flat out say that it is true (I think it is true though). Hope this provides some good information and if you are interested, I can provide more readings about the topic (a lot of this is scientific and kind of boring to most people).