Robinson Park   Ray Weber   Feb 13, 2007 22:47 PST  Well, we met again with DCR tonight, and showed them the documents where they stated that the harvest was extended beyond the red pines because they could not get enough revenue from the red pines to cover taking them down. Simple, the harvest is money. Documents are posted on our web site if anyone wishes to view them, email me privately.  There are other enlightening documents posted there. They then started misquoting Bob Leverett, since he wasn't there, and called me a liar again since I told them they were incorrect. They stated that Bob agreed with DCR, that red maple will be an issue in the forest if they DO NOT cut, and will dominate the forest. Several people on the list here commented on that. There is no red maple issue, and again, so what if it does? Its a native species. Not real valuable for timber though.... They stated that Bob was in agreement, fire was the natural cause for the tulip poplar population propagating , not wind, not flood. I'm relatively sure that isnt the case, but they insisted. I know these not to be true, but again, this is DCR. They refuse to let go of doing some kind of timber harvest in there, and we are not going to agree to one that is not necessary. His other claim is that these timber harvests promote "biodiversity". Eh? Robinson is a tough one to improve the biodiversity at, and sorry their arguments are not real convincing. Ray Weber Re: Withdraw from Robinson   Gary A. Beluzo   Feb 15, 2007 07:59 PST  Ray: Liriodendron requires mineral soil to germinate and this can happen because of fire, flooding, etc not windblow or logging although the latter can provide the necessary canopy opening for the once established saplings to surivive. Red maple dominates many sites BECAUSE of timber harvest, particularly highgrading. Biodiversity is an umbrella term that includes: genetic diversity species diversity species richness and eveness community diversity ecosystem diversity Diversity is created, maintained, and diminished by a complex of factors and simply saying that "timber harvesting increases biodiversity" is simplifying and misleading. Yes, timber harvesting creates more diverse macro-habitat (fields, edge, etc) but it eliminates many micro-habitats, microniches, etc. Depending upon the nature of the cut, timber harvesting also: destroys the finely developed infrastructure of the forest through compaction flatttens the landscape and therefore greatly diminished habitats and niches for many species opens up canopy, dries out the ground, allows for the export of N/P in particular changes the hydrology of the site (less water retention, more drought, etc) may significantly decrease the genetic diversity of the tree species there may decrease the species diversity of the tree species there (micro-climate lost, soil fertility diminished, etc) The reality is that too many folks are making statements about BIODIVERSTIY in a very simplistic, misleading way. Forest fragments like many of our State Parks are already at a disadvantage ecologically, but compound that with timber harvesting and it allows further diminishment of forest "interiority", "autopoietic processes", and the opportunity for invasives to become established through increase edge. I'll post some essays about biodiversity on the site when I get a chance. The statement "Timber Harvesting Increases Biodiversity" is very misleading and suggests a very simplistic view of natural ecological systems. Gary Gary A. Beluzo Systems Ecologist Holyoke Community College Holyoke, MA 01040 Re: Withdraw from Robinson   Fores-@aol.com   Feb 15, 2007 15:30 PST  Gary: As you know a good part of my work has always involved the harvesting of timber. I can say with a large degree of exuberance, that by simply stating that "harvesting of timber increases biodiversity" is as complete a thought as "carpet bombing a jungle makes better farmland". Diversity in all of its forms takes time to develop, especially in the woods. As much as I can personally try to speed up Mother Nature as a forester working with individual trees, time is what is really necessary to allow the breadth of diversity that is possible to fully express itself. An old woods can contain unique features that logging rarely enhances and even more rarely improves. Russ Red Maple Discussion   Ray Weber   Feb 20, 2007 06:31 PST  FYI all, I received an email from the State Forester. Looks like he is not very open minded on this issue, and is bent on harvesting no matter what. This was one of dozens of "issues" he brought forth to justify harvesting a fine mature forest in our local park. The others were shot down, and we produced documents with them admitting they were harvesting the mature forest to pay for work on pine plantations. Their other claims also had no credibility whatsoever, namely "without fire the tulip poplar will not propagate".  It is our groups position, and past studies, that demand it be left in its natural state as much as practical. Its also state law.  Tulip poplar, etc, may need some type of silviculture, and that is what Bob and Gary are studying. Red maple is a native species here, and if they indeed "took over" in the future, so what? They are not a bad looking species for an urban park. The forester claims his motivation is for "diversity". We have observed along with the green certification people that its more for timber value. How is the harvesting of oak, all the early successionals, etc going to lower the chances of a "red maple invasion"? He claims it would happen in 70 yrs. Here is his email: (the pine really refers to the red maple) "For information: I have studied the red pine situation and observed its rapid establishment and aggressive response to lack of management and disturbance specially fire. I have personally been highly successful and have seen the work of other foresters in ensuring biological diversity through treatment. Ray, this is not a vote. Jim Jim DiMaio Department of Conservation and Recreation RE: Red Maple Discussion   Greenaway, Elinor   Feb 20, 2007 11:05 PST  " without fire the tulip poplar will not propogate " ...is simply an incorrect statement. I am not sure what this discussion is predicated on, but I'd suggest you contact the School of Forest Resources at the University of Massachusetts and ask some of the foresters there to chime in. There is quite a bit of fire ecology expertise there and perhaps the folks in the state's own public university can have some sway with the state forester. I assume from this is the state forester's attitude that Mass. is not green certified? Lin Greenaway Forester (from state forest that IS green certified) RE: Red Maple Discussion   Ray Weber   Feb 20, 2007 12:38 PST  This state IS green certified, but this is an urban park, an island in the middle of suburbia thats in a relatively natural state since 1860 or so. A member that is relatively ambitious brougnt a petition not to harvest up to the UMASS forestry, and many of them signed it, so I guess they agree :)) This is one of a line of items put forth for public consumption by this forester, also including the usual "health of the forest", and "overmature trees with large limbs will fall and injure people". They cannot understand why the citizens are now trying to get green certification removed from state parks. They have 2 catagories under green certification here, "managed" forests with timber harvesting, and "reserves" which are wild and relatively untouched. Unfortunately many of these urban parks need something in between for them to be managed best. Right now, clearly nature is leading in credibility. Ray Re: Red Maple Discussion   Fores-@aol.com   Feb 20, 2007 13:49 PST  Yellow poplar may need fire to regenerate in Massachusetts but I do not think it would be as easy to perpetuate with fire in West Virginia as fire would be in a tool to promote oak regeneration. Sometimes yellow poplar will appear on an oak site but oaks will always grow on poplar sites. Russ   Home