I appreciated David and Ted's concerns about a re-look into forestry management
during these crisis times of an over abunance of CO2 in our atmosphere. I
sought some freedback from friends more involved with the reasons to support
the bill H897, which follows. I added a cc in case anyone wants to address the
individuals directly that supplied the following information.
best regards,
Jonathan
1) DCR puts tracts of state land into various categories for ONLY 10YEARS!
After that amount of time, any tract may be transferred to adifferent
designation to make it available for commercial logging,whether it's reserve,
woodlands, parkland, whatever. This means thatnothing is preserved to reach
full maturity and full carbonsequestration.
2) The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has given humansonly 10
years to reverse the build-up of greenhouse gases in theatmosphere. Cutting our
oldest trees, such as the now-harvestedWendell State Forest 110-year-old oaks,
means we have lost our treesthat sequester the greatest amount of CO2. (These
are trees whichsurvived a tornado that blew through the state forest a decade
ago.)There is no way any trees will re-grow in 10 years to replace thatamount
of carbon sequestration. Proforestation (not cutting trees) isnow considered
the major method by which we might mitigate climatechaos -- combined with
sustainable, regenerative agriculture thatsequesters the carbon in the soil.
ProForestationis FREE! How often do we find anything that's free that could
helpsolve a problem of this magnitude??
Forestrymanagement practices have not integrated quickly evolving
climatescience. We are in emergency climate chaos mode now, and have no timeto
wait for foresters to act on the problem and change theirpractices.
Aswell, there is a huge amount of money being made from taking ouroldest and
most valuable trees which is a juggernaut difficult tostop in the short amount
of time we have left. It now requiresemerg;ency action on the part of our
legislature. PLEASE SIGN THEPETITION if you want to save humanity (meaning you,
your children andgrandchildren) and all life on earth.
____
MichaelKellett from kellett@xxxxxxxxxxx and coordinator of a related move-on
action wrote:
TedCady was a member of the citizen advisory committee for the ForestFutures
Visioning Process (FFVP) in 2009-10. http://citeseerx.ist. Iwas also a member. ;
I met him then. His comments below are consistentwith the views I remember him
expressing at the FFVP meetings.
Interms of his reasons for opposing H.897, I think he means well. Buthe makes a
number of statements that are factually incorrect andshould not be allowed to
go unchallenged. Here are my responses:
1.Contrary to Ted’s comments, the three land categories establishedby the FFVP
were “Woodlands,” “Parklands,” and “Reserves,”as detailed in DCR’s 2012
“Landscape Designations for DCR Parks &Forests: Selection Criteria and
ManagementGuidelines.” https://www.mass.
2.There is little old-growth forest in Massachusetts, but hurricaneshave
virtually nothing to do with it. The reason is that the entirestate was
deforested and it is only in the last 80 years or so thatforests have been
allowed to grow back on a large scale. There islittle, if any, scientific basis
for the claim that logged forestsare more resistant to hurricanes. One wonders
how forests survivedstorms for millennia until European colonists began to log
them. Infact, if we are concerned about protecting forests from
catastrophicdisturbances, there is strong evidence that the best
“management”approach is to “do nothing.” http://harvardforest.fas.
3.It is true that diverse forests are more resistant to disturbances.The most
diverse forests are those where nature is allowed to takeits course, providing
the full range of tree ages and wildlifehabitats with no human intervention
needed. Logging simplifiesforests and reduces their ability to resist
disturbances. In fact,logging introduces invasive species, spreads insects and
diseases,degrades soils, and increases the risk and intensity of
fires.Moreover, the idea that logging sequesters more carbon in forests
issimply not true. In fact, the opposite is true. That is why DCRacknowledges
that logged forests sequester less carbon than unloggedforests.
https://www.mass.gov/
4.Forest carbon sequestration is actually pretty simple. Loggingreleases most
of the carbon in the trees and soil. It takes manydecades, if not centuries,
for the forest to recover that carbon —far too late to address the current
climate emergency. Only about 20percent of the carbon in a tree that is cut for
wood is stored inlong-lived forest products. The rest is released within a
short timeby being burned or landfilled. The idea that wood is a
moreclimate-friendly building material than other alternatives is
highlyquestionable, with little objective scientific evidence to supportit. It
is basically an effort by the forest industry to increasetimber demand.
5.Although foresters constantly claim that Massachusetts has strongforestry
standards, they are actually very weak — like those ofevery other state, as
well as the U.S. Forest Service. Thesestandards ignore climate change, the loss
of biodiversity, and thebenefits of natural forests to human health. They rely
on a foresterfilling out a crude form for a logging job and the logger is
supposedto adhere to so-called “Best Management Practices,” which
arepathetically feeble guidelines that provide little real protectionfor forest
ecosystems. There is no system for monitoring orenforcement of even these weak
guidelines. So, there is no basis forthe claim that logging in Massachusetts
will ensure that wood is theresult of better forestry practices.
6.There are no species native to Massachusetts that require logging tosurvive.
After widespread forest clearing, populations of speciesthat prefer grasslands,
shrublands, and young forests exploded tounnaturally high levels. In recent
years, they have returned to morenatural levels as the forest has recovered. If
we protect largetracts of intact forest — as provided for in H.897 —
naturalprocesses will provide the full range of habitats and wildlife, asthey
did before 1620. The idea that we need to log to artificiallyprovide wildlife
habitats is a rationale invented by those who havean interest in logging
forests. Unfortunately, some well-meaningwildlife advocates have bought into
this idea. But there is littlecredible evidence that logging is needed to
provide wildlife habitatsand substantial evidence that it fragments and
degrades forestinterior habitats that are needed by numerous sensitive species.
7.It is true that current laws make logging a primary use of statelands. The
law that institutes this as state policy was passed in1943, in the midst of
World War II, when wood was seen as a criticalresource for the war effort. This
and other laws that mandate loggingwere written with no recognition of climate
change, the biodiversitycrisis, and the needs of a dramatically larger
population. Now,three-quarters of a century later, it is time to update
theseoutdated laws to reflect the needs and wants of Massachusettscitizens in
the 21st century. That is the purpose of H.897.
8.Little has changed in forestry in the last 100+ years. There is nomystery
about what constitutes “bad” forestry and whatconstitutes “better” forestry.
Logging on private lands isgoverned by economics, not what “model” of state
forestry tofollow. Therefore, logging techniques on public lands are
irrelevantto the decisions made by private landowners. In fact, because
publicland logging is subsidized by taxpayers, it unfairly competes in
themarket with private landowners. Regarding the claim that iflandowners are
unable to log their forest they will be more likely tosell the land for
development, there is no objective evidence thatthis is true.
Ihope this helps to explain why these objections to H.897 are based onpersonal
opinion, not documented facts.
