Skip to Navigation Skip to Content
Decorative woodsy background

Beware of Encroaching Forests

forestgrowingpix.jpg
Illustration by Adelaide Tyrol

Last month, while taking advantage of the open winter to cut brush around the edges of our pasture, I thought back to one of my favorite lectures in college. The professor was a Maine native teaching a course on New England history. Leaning sternly over the podium, he warned us students about the dangers of living in the woods. He reminded us that the trees were constantly growing, even at night while we slept. That the forests were forever encroaching and threatening to wipe out the fragile beachhead of fields and pastures that we humans had labored for centuries to establish here in New England. That eternal vigilance was required, and that preemptively cutting trees whenever possible was the only way to protect our heritage and insure our future.

The class, tree-huggers by and large, many hailing from non-New England states, sat as if struck by a falling limb. Only those sitting in the front row, or those with a taste for this sort of thing, noticed the twinkle in the professor’s eye.

He was right, of course, ecologically speaking. We live in the woods here in northern New England; forests are the defining feature of our ecological niche. If we halted our clearing and haying, paving and grading, logging and lawn mowing, the woods would swallow us whole within a century.

In fact, over the past century, they nearly did. Vermont was three-quarters deforested in the middle 1800s; now it’s three quarters the other way. According the most recent U.S. Forest Service data, Maine is the most heavily forested state in the nation, with nearly 90 percent of its acres in woodland, followed closely by New Hampshire at 84 percent.  Vermont picks up the bronze with 78 percent, though New York would certainly be on the podium if only the Adirondacks region of the state were counted.  We live in the woods.

That’s true in another way as well: Vermont is the most rural state in the nation, with 62 percent of the population living outside of urban centers (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau) Maine is second with 60 percent. New Hampshire is well down the list at 41 percent, but if you stripped off the seacoast, it would certainly rise to the top tier of rural performers.

Many of us are surprised to learn that our states are so rural; places like Alaska or Wyoming typically come first to mind. But here’s the crucial distinction: rural means that people live in small towns, not that a state is sparsely populated. Wyoming is actually a relatively urbanized state, with only 35 percent of its population living in small towns—even while it is also among the most sparsely populated. Rural means a village green, a church with steeple, a post office, a store with a few gas pumps, in short, communities where everybody knows everybody else.

And in New England rural means people living in the woods. Not nearby the woods or within an hour’s drive of the woods, but in the actual woods. It’s easy to forget that no other part of the country is quite like this.

We also forget because, for most of us most of the time, we spend our days in the cleared areas: among the buildings, roads, lawns, and pastures where we live much of our lives. The woods can fade into the background, except perhaps during autumn foliage season, and recede from our consciousness. We’re like kids who, having grown up in inland towns without ever having set eyes on the ocean, can be forgiven for still believing, at some level, that most of the world must be dry land.

Back on our farm, a half-century of mechanical haying has allowed saplings and small trees to slowly creep in from the old stone walls, gradually extending the forest’s hold. Few farmers want to snag a sickle bar or cutting head on a sapling or stump, so year by year, as the seedlings creep in, the hay-able field is reduced. An occasional intervention is required if you want to reverse this process, and this winter, with very little snow falling in the lower reaches of the Connecticut Valley, has been perfect.

I’ve been able to cut the larger trees and saplings right at ground level, preparing the ground for brush hogging in the spring. I figure I’ll be able to push the woods back by an average of 20 feet over a 1,000-foot treeline, which will amount to just under a half acre of new field and pasture. Very satisfying work.

You might think, after all this, that I’m anti-woods. Not at all; I spend as much time in the woods as I can. It’s just that our farm is 78 percent wooded, and I’m mindful of my former professor’s advice that eternal vigilance is the price of pasture.

Discussion *

Dec 01, 2010

Thank you for all the replies.  This summer I have an excavator go in and remove the stumps and grade the area.  The contractor brought in a small bulldozer to grade the area smooth.  A local diary farmer then seeded it with TriMix (I forget the three variety of seeds) but he recommended it.  About three weeks later we went up and a very short layer of green was appearing.  That was late October.  Hopefully, in the spring, after everything drys up we’ll have a nice area to build our cabin.  Thanks again for the advice.  I love the woods.

JAMES ASBURY
Mar 20, 2010

Commendable and readable essay by C.W.. As to the question posed by Jim, I don’t have an answer, just some thoughts. I haven’t seen what a mulcher leaves behind, but landscape mulch, such as shredded hemlock, suppresses plant growth, be it trees or grass. Slash itself is a form of mulch, and it suppresses plant growth as well. In my anecdotal view, the forest floor after logging operations is inundated with duff-drying sunlight and overwhelmed with highly acidic decomposing needles, the combination of which prevents much regeneration for a number of years. So, you may not have to do anything much to maintain your forest opening for several years. If you are looking for a pasture or lawn-like effect, you may have to rototill and plant grass. This may be difficult due to rocks and residual stumps and roots. Oddly, this method could work against you as grass would be the perfect seed bed for regenerating pine, which means that unless you are going to mow or have grazing animals, the forest could return with a vengeance.

Jon Harris
Mar 19, 2010

For James in New Brunswick: a controlled burn works quite well to reduce and consume the mulched brush, and this method leaves the nutrients behind to go back into the soil: a win-win.

Kevin Beattie
Mar 19, 2010

Not only are the woods constantly growing and creeping in on us but also they have a tendency to fall down on our houses, power lines, and cars. Definitely a reason to beware the encroaching forest!

Carolyn Haley
Mar 19, 2010

I have 72 acres in New Brunswick, Canada, which was clearcut about 3 years ago. It is a back lot with a right of way. Thanksgiving last, I had a mulcher cut in a road and clear three acres. Now I would like to convert those acres to grass and pasture so that it stays open as a possible cabin site. The mulcher left some fairly large pieces from the slash that was there. Can you advise me on how best to finish the conversion to pasture? Is what I need a rake machine to pile up the cut brush? What do I plant? How do I plant it? Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you,  Jim

JAMES ASBURY

Leave a reply

To ensure a respectful dialogue, please refrain from posting content that is unlawful, harassing, discriminatory, libelous, obscene, or inflammatory. Northern Woodlands assumes no responsibility or liability arising from forum postings and reserves the right to edit all postings. Thanks for joining the discussion.