Re: [The-L]: state forests/protection
Joseph Zorzin
From: "Whitney Beals" <wbe...@newenglandforestry.org>Date: February 4, 2010 9:46:14 AM ESTSubject: RE: [The-L]: state forests/protection
If you go to the Mass Forest Watch site highlighted in the Warwick posting, you will see that it is yet another of Matera’s predictable rants that contains a lot of half truths and much disinformation. What a disservice. Whit
From: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ted Cady
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 5:19 PM
To: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Fw: [The-L]: state forests/protectionHi all,
There is a town of warwick chat room to discuss matters of town interest. Attached below is a recent submission to the Warwick L as it is called. I have deleted the woman's name because she is an innocent forwarder of information she received and is a very sincere and honest person.
-----Forwarded Message-----
Sent: Feb 3, 2010 7:44 AM
To: Warwick's discussion list
Subject: [The-L]: state forests/protection
The location for the Forest Forum has been changed to the Amherst Middle School cafeteria. There are two sessions, an early one starting at 5:00 pm, and a late show starting at 7:00 pm. It is critical that citizens voice their concerns to the state, or our public lands will be transferred to the Department of Energy so that they can harvest our all of our recovering forests to supply the proposed super-inefficient biomass incinerators. That is the plan and it must be stopped. Only citizen outrage will have an impact. Please attend.
Written comments can also be submitted until Feb 22nd. see below
re: this forum
Please attend a public forum regarding the future fate of Massachusetts public forests and speak up in favor of protection for our state forests, watersheds and parks. Written comments are crucial to ensuring your comments are included in the record and must be submitted to: MODRD...@umb.edu. Tuesday, February 9, 2010, 5 p.m. – 7 p.m. Amherst. For info on talking points, go to http://www.maforests.org/Handout.pdf.
from ereardon
Joseph Zorzin
- it fails to provide a benefit/cost analysis of the FSC certification
- it fails to provide scientific proof that there is a need for early succession stands on DCR lands- other than lame, outdated, self serving pseudo science
- it fails to provide scientific proof that its range of reserves is best for society or that there really is a need for demonstration forests on state land
----- Original Message -----From: Whitney BealsSent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:45 PMSubject: RE: [The-L]: state forests/protection
Joe -- If one is able to read that Mass Forest Watch site page with an objective eye, there is no need for elaboration. However, since you gave me a directive, I will pose one question to illustrate my point. Do you really think that the following Matera statement is true? “1. The TSC … is dominated by timber interests and coached by state personnel who promote aggressive logging of state public forests.”
Joseph Zorzin
----- Original Message -----From: Whitney BealsSent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:01 PMSubject: RE: [The-L]: state forests/protection
Joe – Thank you. I rest my case. Regards, Whit
Joseph Zorzin
----- Original Message -----From: Whitney BealsSent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:04 PMSubject: RE: [The-L]: state forests/protection
Hi Joe – The NEFF project in Peru that you refer to achieved its desired results: the conversion of a small patch of unproductive woodland
it wasn't "unproductive"- it had a mix of "native species"- red maple, beech, white pine, red spruce, balsam fir- along with blueberry bushes, apple trees, and remnants of old field grass- by what measure do you call that unproductive?????
to species more suited to the site,
100% poplar? is that more suited to the site????? well, not 100% but mostly- and that's what they were seeking in their bad science- because this was for grouse, and supposedly grouse just LOVE poplar
it was not a plantation such that wipeing it out could supposedly return it to native vegetation- no, it was an old field with a young forest- which could for far less money have been truly restored to a very productive very diverse forest- as it was, it was a wildlife paradise- a little tender care, some light thinning, cleaning up around the apple trees and blueberry bushes- it could have been enhanced
is "return the site to species more suited to the site" some sort of automatic response???
and better suited to support ruffed grouse, American woodcock, and other avifauna that require early- successional forest types.
but, you won't find those species at that high elevation- oh, there's some around, but not many- it's at 2,200' elevation! all you're doing, Whit is spitting out little blurbs of stuff you memorized- you aren't giving this serious thought- a lot of people reading this are real scientists- they can think at a higher level than automatic responses- it's all just too obvious
The aspen probably are too young now to support grouse, so give the site time to mature a bit.
poppycock
Many apple trees and blueberry bushes remain.
no they don't - almost all the apple trees were cut- I know, I lived across the street for 7 years
I do know that when I visited the site during the spring following the harvest, I flushed a female woodcock,
oh, sure, Whit! I lived there 7 years and never saw or heard one either before or after- but you're up there for a short visit and you flushed'em out- but you said above that the stand of poplar is probably too young to support grouse....
and creating woodcock habitat was one of the project’s goals (and is a goal of the Ruffed Grouse Society and the federal WHIP program). I believe that if you were there at the right time, you still would see bear and moose there, as well.
nope, my nephew still lives across the street- a few houses down- I go by there frequently- I recently asked him, "have you seen any moose, bear or heard any grouse across the street since the clearcut" the answer is "no, way Uncle Joe". He used to have one moose that came out of the swamps behind his house walk into his yard, down his driveway and cross into the now poplar wasteland- not anymore- so keep dreaming this and maybe it will come true
You are not always a careful reader. In my e-mail to the Friends of Forests Network Yahoo group, I did not misquote Chris Matera as you allege (I was not referring to his handout), nor have I “attacked” him. Here is what I wrote on the subject of forest reserves:
Second, in point #4 the e-mail writer states that “The AGS wants 80% parklands and reserves and 20% working woodlands..” The statement is false. While some members of the AGS advocated that the TSC should recommend an 80% reserves and 20% woodlands allocation, others did not. In fact, the AGS did not achieve consensus on this issue.
I believe a majority are in agreement - is a majority a consensus? It is democratic. Who voted against it?
The TSC actually recommends that DCR make a substantial increase in the percentage of land designated as reserves.
At token increase- besides, why start with the assumption that all forest land is open for mgt.- then have people fight to get reserves- it should be the other way around- just assume that all the land is for protection purposes, not commercial harvesting- then have the harvesting industry which of course includes the state foresters argue why they should have the right to harvest. I happen to like timber harvesting too- and I could probably make a case for a modest amount of state land for this purpose- but enough is enough- it doesn't belong to the industry and it doesn't belong to the state foresters- and don't give me any silliness about how timber harvesting is a form of ecosystem services- that's too absurd for most people to swallow.
The e-mail I quoted was sent to the Friends of Forests group on Feb. 2, with no author attribution; I have no idea who wrote it. As for my “attack,” I merely was pointing out the deficiencies in some of Matera’s Forest Watch web site postings. Here is what I wrote in response to the Friends of Forests e-mail suggestion that interested readers “See Massachusetts Forest Watch for information on clear-cuts.”:
Finally, the Massachusetts Forest Watch site has no “information” on clear-cuts.
A photo is information.
Instead, it contains a series of images and unsubstantiated allegations about the supposed evils of clear-cutting, focusing on silvicultural treatments on the Quabbin watershed lands and implying that the MWRA’s water supply system is at risk. What the Forest Watch site fails to mention is that there has been zero adverse affect on the quality of the water leaving Quabbin Reservoir, despite all the incendiary claims of “chainsaw massacre.”
So far we aren't aware of damage to the water- but damage to the forest is conclusive- and that's agreed to by lots of people- which is why it's been rumored that the foresters responsible are in deep trouble.
I am heading off to the first of the public forums on the TSC report, the one in Westborough. It should be interesting. Best regards, Whit
Joseph Zorzin
----- Original Message -----From: William MoomawSent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 9:56 PMSubject: Re: [The-L]: state forests/protection
Joe,
At this point, I hope that you will allow the public to decide whether this report is a step forward or backward. I plan on listening a lot to the public, and not to overwhelm them with my own views. It is after all, the public whose views we seek and not just yours or mine!
Bill Moomaw
On 2/4/10 2:53 PM, "Joseph Zorzin" <jjzo...@verizon.net> wrote:
you made accusations, so you should back them up with your own words
yes, it is dominated by pro establishment people for the purpose of arriving at only token changes to get the public to back off their criticism- of course the average man on the street, reading the TSC report wouldn't understand that as it's loaded with all the most popular eco buzzwords
the TSC report is NOT a paradigm change as it purports to be- ergo, it's an establishment creation to serve the establishment- a real paradigm change would result in so many significant changes that the establishment wouldn't be happy with it...
I back up what I say with the following:
It's a weak document - weak in science, weak in politics. It will fail because it has not satisfied the critics who will continue to criticize the state with photos/videos/TV and radio stories, etc.- which of course is their right as Americans expressing their freedom of speech, just like the way the mega corporations now can do thanks to the US Supreme Court
- it fails to provide a benefit/cost analysis of the FSC certification
- it fails to provide scientific proof that there is a need for early succession stands on DCR lands- other than lame, outdated, self serving pseudo science
- it fails to provide scientific proof that its range of reserves is best for society or that there really is a need for demonstration forests on state land
next question?
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: Whitney Beals <mailto:wbe...@newenglandforestry.org>
To: Joseph Zorzin <mailto:jjzo...@verizon.net> ; ForestFutur...@googlegroups.com ; TSC <mailto:forest-futures-techni...@googlegroups.com>
--
Please attend a public forum regarding the future fate of Massachusetts public forests and speak up in favor of protection for our state forests, watersheds and parks. Written comments are crucial to ensuring your comments are included in the record and must be submitted to: MODRD...@umb.edu <http://us.mc632.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=MODRD...@umb.edu> . Tuesday, February 9, 2010, 5 p.m. – 7 p.m. Amherst. For info on talking points, go to http://www.maforests.org/Handout.pdf.
from ereardon
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
Joseph Zorzin
Landowners Action Alert!We are coming forward with what we consider an urgent topic of importance to all landowners, and will follow with an update in the next 10 days..we need your help now at this difficult time..Beginning February 4th, the Department of Conservation & Recreation is holding a series of six public forums to get public comment about proposed recommendations for future land stewardship of the 308,000 acres of DCR lands.The recommendations from the Technical Steering Committee are the result of a year-long Forest Futures Visioning process by DCR to determine the appropriate balance of use of the state lands. The draft recommendations are on DCR’s website athttp://dcr.env.govt.state.ma.us:81/news/publicmeetings/tsc_draft_recommendations.htm.As was discussed at the annual meeting January 23rd, the Forest Futures Visioning process was originally intended to concentrate upon resolving the conflicts and developing a plan for future management of state lands only, not those in private ownership. The recommendations that have been released for public comment, however, include an entire section proposing more and stricter regulations concerning privately-owned woodlands.Because these recommendations, if approved, could affect private lands, we urge MFLA members and other landowners to either attend the forums or send in comments concerning the recommendations. MFLA will be filing comprehensive comments about concerns we have with the recommendations as well.What is proposed in the recommendations?
- The recommendations propose to greatly increase the amount of permanent forest reserves on DCR lands from 40,000 acres to 120,000, as well as purchase another 90,000 to 130,000 acres of adjacent privately-owned, tax paying woodlands to increase minimum reserve size to 15,000 acres. The recommendations would allocate 60,000 to 90,000 acres of DCR land as Parklands dedicated to recreational uses and forbidding commercial harvesting. The amount of DCR land that would be under active forest management would be cut from 240,000 acres to between 90,000 and 150,000 acres.
- Under the recommendations, no new trails or roads could be created in the forest reserves and some trails would be closed and removed. In portions of the reserves designated as Wilderness, snowmobiles, mountain bikes, horseback riding and even hunting and fishing would be prohibited and no mechanized equipment would be allowed for use in trail maintenance.
- In those state forests where forest management would be allowed, forests would generally be managed as uneven-aged woodlands, with any even-aged management restricted to limited openings created for wildlife habitat (and restricted to no more than 5 acres in size).
- The recommendations urge the creation of a Commissioner of Forest Stewardship to oversee programs to protect forests from conversion to other land uses, promote sustainable forestry on private lands, and oversee management of publicly owned forests.
- The recommendations urge a “No Net Loss of Forest Canopy” requirement where if forest land is cleared and developed, the developer would be required to either replace the trees removed elsewhere or contribute to permanently protecting other woodlands.
- The recommendations urge the state to put forth stricter regulations governing timber harvests and requiring that a forester be required to sign any cutting plans.
MFLA’s concerns about the TSC recommendations:
- The scope of the Forest Visioning process has been enlarged to cover privately owned woodlands without adequate representation of private forest landowners. Private woodlands make up 75 percent of the state’s forests and the concerns of private landowners are very different from those of public stakeholders. Any process which would affect private lands and private landowners must include input and representation from private landowners themselves, free of competing interests. Had the visioning process initially been laid out to affect private land significantly, MFLA’s representative would have insisted on a much wider group of stakeholders.
- Besides private landowners, many other “groups” that would be seriously affected by these proposed changes haven’t been included in the process: towns with large acreages of state lands, local police/fire/EMS agencies that are responsible for dealing with emergencies on state lands, snowmobilers, sportsmen, horseback riders and other trail users. We think that more effort needs to be made to gather input from these groups before any decisions are made.
- The forums for public input that have been set up are too few in number and not spread out enough. While there are two in BerkshireCounty and two now in Amherst, there are none in Franklin or Hampden counties, none in northeastern Massachusetts and none in the north Quabbin region. There has been very little publicity for these forums by the state --- a check with local communities with large amounts of DCR lands showed that none of them had been notified, either by mail or email, of the forums, even though they would potentially be significantly affected by the recommendations.
- While MFLA thinks that forests are very important for the Massachusetts environment and economy and we appreciate the sentiment about creating a Commissioner of Forest Stewardship, we think private landowners would be better served by transferring Service Forestry, Forest Health and other parts of DCR that serve or regulate private woodlands to the Department of Agricultural Resources.
This would combine the state’s interactions with farmers and forest landowners in the same agency, reducing duplication and improving efficiency. It would allow woodland owners to benefit from DAR’s expertise in marketing and landowner assistance. It would combine efforts to control destructive invasive pests like the Asian long-horned beetle in the same agency.It would also eliminate the alleged conflict of interest that DCR has been charged with when Service Foresters have been accused of being too lenient on regulation of timber harvests on DCR land because they work for the same agency. It would allow DCR to concentrate on its public lands responsibilities and let DAR deal with private lands and private landowners.
- MFLA does not support any “No Net Loss of Forest Canopy” restriction on private landowners. Private woodland owners already provide a wide array of uncompensated benefits to the public. If the state wants to compensate landowners to encourage a no net loss policy, we have no objections, but we see no reason landowners should have further restrictions placed upon them without compensation.
- MFLA also does not support any immediate changes to the Chapter 132 Forest Cutting regulations. Massachusetts already has the most restrictive and comprehensive regulations of timber harvests in the U.S. The regulations do an excellent job of protecting wetlands, streams, rare habitats, wildlife and forests in a cost-effective and efficient fashion, and we do not see sufficient reason to revise them at this time. We need to encourage more private woodland owners to keep their land in trees, not restrict them with additional regulations.
- Timber harvests on DCR lands are important to local communities and neighboring forest landowners. A percentage of the proceeds from harvests on DCR lands are returned by law to the community where the harvest occurs – this is particularly important in towns where DCR owns thousands of acres of woodlands and the local community has limited tax base. Since 1985, the state has never fully funded the legally-required Payments In Lieu of Taxes for DCR lands – forcing local taxpayers to pay more to support schools and other town services. When harvests are done on a regular basis, those local payments help hold down the amount of taxes neighboring woodland owners must pay, reducing the economic pressure on them to sell their land.
If reserves are expanded and the amount of DCR land under forest management is cut, revenues to towns from timber receipts would be slashed 60 to 100 percent.
- Timber harvesting on state lands also supports the rural economy by producing local jobs and supporting local businesses. Without regular harvests on state lands, many local logging contractors will go out of business, making it harder for private woodland owners to find well-trained, well-equipped loggers to work on their woodlands.
This is a problem that has been reported to us frequently in southeastern Massachusetts where because of the loss of local markets, loggers have either left the business or have focused on more profitable land-clearing, leaving landowners with few options for selling timber or having woodlots thinned.
- Timber harvests on DCR lands help maintain the roads needed for people to use and enjoy the forest. Recreational uses, no matter how well-intended, create significant erosion on the roads and trails on state lands. As of 2007, DCR had a $1.3 billion backlog in repairs needed to their roads and facilities, and with the budget cuts in recent years, the backlog gets bigger and bigger. In many state forests, the only money that has been invested in roads or bridges in the last 20 years was as a result of a timber harvest. If the amount of land under forest management is cut even further, less and less money will be available to keep access open for trail users or for emergency vehicles.
- Managing more DCR lands for forest production will also provide more diverse wildlife habitat and be more adaptive against climate change. Mass Wildlife and other scientists have urged for years creating more temporary early successional forest habitats to provide greater habitat diversity for threatened wildlife species. At the same time, such management can create better conditions for oak and cherry regeneration, critical to making DCR forests more resilient to warmer temperatures and climate change. MFLA thinks that good management based on sound science should be used to manage forests and improve habitat.
- MFLA urges that as much DCR land as possible be sustainably managed to produce forest products. The recommendations propose managing at least 90,000 to 150,000 acres of DCR lands as model woodlands to demonstrate good forestry to private landowners and the public. We think that if DCR lands are to demonstrate good forestry, it should be done on as much land as possible so that both DCR and the local communities benefit from additional revenues.
- Local communities should have a say on whether DCR lands in their town are managed as reserves, and whether the state should buy additional land to increase the reserves size. It is the local towns that pay for emergency responses on state lands; it is the local taxpayer who pays higher taxes because the state fails to pay full PILOT payments; and it is the local community whose tax base shrinks when the state buys more land. The recommendations propose that the state purchase 90,000 to 130,000 acres of additional land near the 9 existing reserves to increase them to 15,000 acres each.
Can local towns afford to have another 3,000-5,000 acres of tax-paying private woodlands per town removed from their tax bases? Will they be able to provide necessary services? How would expansion of a forest reserve affect the quality of life and viability of the local community?These are important questions that haven’t really been discussed with the local communities. They become more important if the state is proposing to triple the size of the reserves.If local communities must make up the loss of taxes, they must have a say as to whether reserves are located in their towns.
- Rather than spending millions to buy woodlands for forest reserves, MFLA thinks the state should invest the money into conserving working woodlands. The same amount of money spent on buying tracts to expand forest reserves would go much further if it was spent on purchasing conservation restrictions from forest landowners. That would keep more land in working forests and keep it supporting the local tax base. It would support the local economy and conserve the local landscape.
The state will accept public comment about the draft recommendations at public forums at the following dates, times, and locations:
Thursday, February 4, 2010: 6:30 - 8:30 pm, Westborough Public Library (Snow date: February 16)
Saturday, February 6, 2010: 10 am – Noon, North Adams Public Library (Snow date: February 13)
Saturday, February 6, 2010: 2 pm - 4 pm, Berkshire Community College - Melville Hall Room 201 Pittsfield (Snow date: Saturday, February 13)
Tuesday, February 9, 2010: 5 pm – 6:45 pm, Middle School Cafeteria, AmherstTuesday, February 9, 2010: 7 – 8:30 pm, Middle School Cafeteria, Amherst
Thursday, February 11, 2010: 5 pm - 7 pm Taunton Public Library (Snow date: Thursday, February 18)Written comments about the proposed recommendations may also be submitted via email to: MODRD...@umb.edu . The deadline for submitting comments is February 22nd.If you wish to ask questions about the recommendations or process, call Greg Cox at (413) 339-5526 or email gc...@crocker.com