More on the Quabbin
While recent letters about the Quabbin read like vague PR from DCR, I’m more interested in what Jeff Lacy (“Letters,” April 26) didn’t say in his letter defending clear-cutting in the Quabbin watershed than what he did say. For starters, in the not so distant past the Quabbin was managed rather well and historic logging families like the Conkeys were probably part of that conscientious forestry. I don’t recall any clear-cutting going on there until more recently.
Lacy says the present forestry program “creates openings and edges suitable for a greater variety of species.” I guess he hasn’t noticed all the edge along the access roads, the shoreline, the power line corridors, Rt. 202, and the entire surrounding area. Given the fragmentation resulting from all the existing development Lacy warns us about, just how much edge do the critters need?? We’ve got more edge than we know what to do with in Massachusetts. Speaking of fragmentation, hasn’t it also occurred to Jeff Lacy that an intact forest might be more protective of “high drinking water quality” than a checkerboard of clear-cuts? He also says “messy” clear-cuts begin to regenerate, but fails to mention the opening left for exotic invasives, already a growing problem in the watershed. Another thing neither Lacy nor any other clear-cut defenders fail to mention in these pages is the vital importance of standing forests in sequestering carbon in this age of climate change. When you take out acres of forest not only do you release the stored carbon into the atmosphere, but you also destroy future carbon capture capability.
In closing Jeff Lacy points out that he is not involved in forestry for the DCR, but in environmental regulation and local land use planning. He then tells environmentalists where they should be focusing their attention: on real estate developers. Of course enviros confront short-sighted developers, even though they create more edge!
Don Ogden, Producer/co-host
The Enviro Show, Valley Free Radio
Florence
*
The vested interests and their apologists defend clear-cutting and logging of the Quabbin watershed that protects the drinking water for 2.2 million Massachusetts residents with the typical timber industry propaganda about logging the forest to “help” the forest. War is peace.
The only “scientifically proven principal” operating in the Quabbin is the public treasure ending up in private bank accounts.
Decide for yourselves if the foxes in the Quabbin henhouse are really acting as stewards to our public watershed forests and “helping” the forest and water quality. Keep in mind most of the logs are shipped to Quebec, and the timber program operates at a loss and is subsidized by citizens.
Here are ground and aerial photos: http://www.maforests.org/QUABBIN.pdf
Here are Google Earth photos: http://www.maforests.org/QUABBIN_Google_Earth.pdf
Inform and arm yourself against timber industry propaganda: http://www.maforests.org/Timberspeak-Timber_Industry_Propaganda.pdf
Chris Matera
Massachusetts Forest Watch
Via email
*
Repeatedly the logging interests that stand to financially benefit from this horrid policy post warped and totally false claims of the “health” that these programs allegedly achieve. Fact is, prior to 2007, the forest “management” at the Quabbin was light, with none of this horrendous work being done via clearcuts and variants thereof hidden under other titles. One of the foresters that took such great care has spoken out behind the scenes vehemently opposed to what is currently going on. So to say “the Quabbin has been managed for 50 years,” is way off base. It has only been managed in the manner it is now for about five years. The American Society of Ecologists signed a letter to Congress that flat out stated that this kind of management causes “permanent irreversible damage” to the ecology of the forests. So who should we believe, the real scientists, or the people managing the program that have direct interest in it? Its amazing how different a story you get once you sever the financial connection. Time to save what is left around Quabbin before these actions destroy it for generation. Put real ecologists in charge, not timber interests trying to hide behind pseudoscience generated by the timber industry.
Ray Weber
Via email
*
Biomass Regs, Manomet Study Flawed
The state’s new biomass regulations show a clear support for fossil fuels by focusing on CO2 emissions as outlined in the Manomet study. This flawed approach assures that we will continue to be awash in the toxins that fossil fuels spew. The study did this by ignoring the realities of the carbon cycle.
All humans and mammals function like mini-biomass plants. We all take in biomass as food and exhale CO2 which, in turn, is absorbed by vegetative life—trees, grass, etc. All fossil fuel gas is extra to the present life cycle. Fossil fuel comes from biomass that died eons ago, releases extra gas into the environment, and heats up the atmosphere causing climate change and weird weather patterns.
In addition, the Manomet study uses a woodlot for their findings as opposed to looking at a forest ecosystem as a whole. They postulate: one pine tree down, another needs to grow to complete the carbon cycle. As an analogy, imagine extrapolating information on the human population as a whole by analyzing one family. If that family fails to produce an heir and dies out, does the whole population die out? No. Neither does an entire forest derive its existence from one woodlot. Trees spring forth continuously. Cut one hemlock, and once the soil is exposed to sunlight again, dozens of seedlings will sprout in its place. The life cycle for trees, grass and other vegetative life is continuous, as is human life on the planet.
Genevieve Fraser
Candidate for State Representative, Franklin 2nd
Orange
*
Dump Incumbents
The last time the federal budget was passed before the beginning of the fiscal year was 1994. How hard can it be to make a budget when you borrow over-one third of what you spend? There are frequent reports of politicians and bureaucrats spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on trips and entertainment. Pet projects costing millions are routinely added to unrelated legislation. If you pay taxes, it is your money that is being wasted.
In each election since 1964 over 80 percent of House incumbents were reelected. If we keep re-electing the same people, how can we expect different results? If your representative has been in office more than six years, they are likely part of the problem. Do your research and vote for the challenger that you think will act in the best interest of the country instead of voting for someone whose name you recognize.
Irving B. Welchons III
Via email
