Re: More Public Feedback online

[Joseph Zorzin]

I suggest everyone read the comments by Dave Foster posted on Feb. 21.

 

Some gems which I have extracted include:

 

• The hot button issues – clearcutting, watershed management, number, size, location and total extent of

  reserves, certification – need to be addressed across all State lands.

• Significant reallocation of State staff from State land management and planning to private land

  protection, outreach and stewardship (often in partnerships with RCPs)

• Cease all patch and clearcutting in large forest blocks.

• Where the management objective is to produce abundant clean water there is no ecological

  imperative for commercial forest management.

• The science connecting management and the stated objectives, including enhanced water production and

  need for or even existence of what has been called a “protection forest”, was often thin. In contrast,

  there is ample support for the notion that forest reserves, in which natural processes prevail and forests

  are impacted by e.g., hurricanes, disease, ice and pests, will continue to produce the highest quality

  water. Consequently, if commercial timber harvesting is to be undertaken on watershed lands it should be

  clearly stated and understood that its objectives are for purposes beyond the production of abundant

  clean water.

• Bill Cronon, Steve Pyne, Bill Niering and my early writings did a disservice to conservation; they helped

  to convince many conservationists and land managers that New England landscapes have been actively

  managed for millennia by Native Americans who lived in established villages, were sustained by corn

  agriculture, and cut and burned a mosaic of forest and open lands actively and regularly. Unfortunately,

  none of these authors conducted primary historical‐ecological research to back these claims and, there

  is no evidence to support any of these well‐engrained assertions.

• There were no large open upland areas, no large fields, no evidence for savannas and every bit of

  evidence that old and uneven‐aged forests dominated most landscapes, including those deemed

  “fire prone” such as sandplains.

• Areas like Myles Standish State Forest, Cape Cod and the Islands had much more mesic forests

  before Europeans arrived. With increased fire, land clearance and logging the “fire prone” species

  (oak, pine and pitch pine) increased.

----- Original Message -----

From: Bill Logue

To: forest-futures-techni...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 5:42 PM

Subject: More Public Feedback online

Greetings,

 

More comments are now up online (http://www.mass.gov/dcr/news/publicmeetings/forestry/comments.htm) including:

·         Email comments from late on the 22^nd.

·         US mail comments

·         Index cards turned in at the forums

·         Notes from the forums

·         Responses to the survey (without the narrative portions)

·         DCR’s comments

 

Going up, I think on Monday morning, will be the narrative responses to the survey, some summaries and perhaps some other documents. I want to thank the MODR staff who have been working tirelessly all week assimilating all this information at an incredible pace.

 

Once again I strongly encourage you to review these.  Have a wonderful weekend,

 

Bill

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Forest Futures Technical Steering Committee" group.
To post to this group, send email to forest-futures-techni...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to forest-futures-technical-st...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/forest-futures-technical-steering-committee?hl=en.

[Joseph Zorzin]

I just read the DCR's comments posted to that site- lots of fluff. And, I read the comments from past Chief Forester Jim DiMaio.

 

I don't sense that the DCR has learned much from this process. They want to keep all the tools in the toolbox, even the tools that backfired on them and which have the least public support.

 

 

I notice that Jim DiMaio blasts the vision process with his:

 

I voice extreme disappointment in the report, vision, and recommendations due to the appearance of

premising the document on unsubstantiated public opinions, assumptions, and processes or not

recognizing current DCR accomplishments or processes that are aligned with the recommendations.

 

 

The bottom line is that all the state forestry agencies must never forget- that if they screw up as they have in the past several years, they'll find themselves on the front pages of newspapers, on television, and on the internet all over again and the next time the critics won't waste a year chatting at meetings.

 

So do your work ultra carefully - this might be your last chance.

 

Joe

[Joseph Zorzin]

And, I see posted on Feb. 5 interesting comments by Cinda Jones, owner of Cowles Lumber. I'm amazed that she thinks this is all about "a couple of activists"- the same words used by many others- a "couple of activists" are really that powerful? Notice her opinion that there was a deal set years ago- if the wood industry agreed to 20% reserves the rest would be open to logging. I doubt that any state official every said that in so many words- but it's clear that many in the wood industry interpreted it that way. Now they blame the state for reneging on a deal over land that neither the state officials nor the wood industry owns- strange since the wood industry never fails to remind of us of "landowner rights" and that any interference with THEIR work on private land is against those landowner rights- yet they want to claim some "right to log" on our public lands based on some back room deal?

---

I have witnessed an amazing couple of years of DCR land management evolution. The

Department of Energy and Environmental Affairs had ambitious goals for alternative energy,

compatible with land conservation. Then a couple of activists stirred up the administration so

much that all progress has seemed to stop. DCR had goals of increased forest management, and

these same activists have now achieved a halt. Two years ago, Bob O’Connor convinced the

forestry community to acquiesce to allowing 20% reserves on DCR land if the environmental

community would allow 80% to be actively managed. As soon as a deal was reached, DCR

entered new negotiations to reverse this ratio so that 80% is preserved /un-managed… and only

20% is working forest. We feel hoodwinked.

This environmental association effort to stop forest use in MA began in about 2004, when the

state (Bob O’Connor and Jack Buckley) under-the-radar engaged many of the same groups to

define and expand forest reserves and initiate these reserves’ transfer to the USDA Forest

Service. In 2004 The Nature Conservancy offered its priority habitats as proposed reserves and

the state happily accepted and adopted the organization’s direction. The coalition of

environmental organizations (most represented on the Visioning Committee) with DCR identified

today’s reserves and came up with a plan to significantly shut down use of state and private land.

I had to make a FOIA request for information to be aware of DCR’s activities, after several

requests for information and inclusion were denied. At this time, the state’s opinion was that it

was ill equipped to manage what land it had, and that all state land might be best converted to

National Forest land. Since then I was under the impression that efforts to convert private

property to reserves and to limit private land use was finished. But this Visioning process picked

up the same organizations and cause and has gained traction. It’s horrifying.

[Tim Fohl]

Joe,

There is plenty of evidence that there was extensive land management before the arrival of Europeans.

1.  The Europeans recorded the fact that the land was cleared when they arrived. They even thanked God for killing most of the Indians so they could use the cleared land. All the early explorers commented on the open nature of the landscape.

2. The Indians have historical records that go back for millennia and they confirm that the land was cleared and cultivated. Admittedly the widespread "Three Sisters": corn, beans and squash  agriculture didn't start much more than 1000 years ago in New England but it was definitely a going concern before the Europeans arrived.

3. Even where the land was not completely cleared for open fields the forests were opened out to facilitate deer harvesting.

4. The archaeological record shows that large scale burning and other clearing practices were practiced extensively and for a long time.

5. Probably mountainous areas were not intensively cultivated in New England but places like Burnt Hill in Heath were apparently burnt off to encourage blueberries as they have been until recently.

I don't know what evidence is being referred to but if you want evidence check out "1491" by Charles C. Mann. It discusses this question in detail. It is probably the most thoroughly researched book I have ever read--58 pages of small type bibliography. Despite that it is also a good read.

Best,

Tim Fohl

`

On Feb 27, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Joseph Zorzin wrote:

• Bill Cronon, Steve Pyne, Bill Niering and my early writings did a disservice to conservation; they helped
  to convince many conservationists and land managers that New England landscapes have been actively
  managed for millennia by Native Americans who lived in established villages, were sustained by corn
  agriculture, and cut and burned a mosaic of forest and open lands actively and regularly. Unfortunately,
  none of these authors conducted primary historical‐ecological research to back these claims and, there
  is no evidence to support any of these well‐engrained assertions.
• There were no large open upland areas, no large fields, no evidence for savannas and every bit of
  evidence that old and uneven‐aged forests dominated most landscapes, including those deemed
  “fire prone” such as sandplains.

Tim Fohl

tf...@tigco.com

Carlisle, MA

978 371 0194