Robinson

Robinson - Some info past and present	Ray Weber
	Oct. 05, 2007

Ents

Hi again all. We have been asked to attend a meeting with the DCRchief forester... again....
He wishes not to reveal what is in his latest proposal ahead of time.However, he has shown it to his foresters and the commissioner.

The big issue that he keeps bringing up Id like some comments onif anyone has any insight. Its been discussed before, and Dr. Frelichhas seen the forest first hand, and already given a very detailed opinion.Harvard also did an article on this very topic.

The claim:
"Robinson has great species diversity, but poor age diversity" "We need to increase the age diversity for the health of the forest".

I did a presentation for DCR on storms, and wind events that have affected Robinsonsince it was last "managed" in the mature forest area. Robinson had in the area of 50wind events of 50mph or greater. Derecho's, Microbursts, and throw in an F3 tornado
for good measure. Result: One of the most bio diverse forests in New England.
Now, what is the fear here? The individual stands arent that large, and the whole park is only 800 acres. So like Dr. Frelich stated, it would appear too small to even consider that issue.

Comments?
Ray

The claim:

"Robinson has great species diversity, but poor age diversity" "We need to increase the

age diversity for the health of the forest".

Certainly diversity on the large scale is good- but not every 800 acre block must have diversity. Most of the forest in Northeast has been clobbered over and over- so retaining an 800 acre block as essentially uncut- actually ADDS to the diversity.

And, the idea that diversity within an 800 acre block makes THAT block healthier is absolutely without foundation.

Having said that, personally, I can imagine that some judicious silviculture, focused on aesthetics might be a good thing in that park- but it isn't about the health of the forests, it's about improving aesthetics- and as all art lovers know, aesthetics is in the eyes of the beholder. Some people hate to stumps. Some people think that only huge trees are beautiful. I happen to like true old growth- and I have shown a few such stands to Bob Leverett and Gary Beluzo- but, there is also great aesthetic beauty in fine silviculture.

So, there is no one scientific answer- there are many correct ways to "manage" such a property- though if it's true that by law such parks are not supposed to have any mgt.- then that's the answer, but if that's not the case- then perhaps through dialogue some solution can be found to satisfy all- but for the state to claim this must be done to enhance diversity and for forest health- give me a break- that sounds like something George W. Bush might say if he were a forester- though I don't think he smart enough to graduate from even the most mediocre forestry school. <G>

Joe Zorzin

The claim:

"Robinson has great species diversity, but poor age diversity" "We need to increase the

age diversity for the health of the forest".

Certainly diversity on the large scale is good- but not every 800 acre block must have diversity. Most of the forest in Northeast has been clobbered over and over- so retaining an 800 acre block as essentially uncut- actually ADDS to the diversity.

This 800 acre block abuts a National Wild and Scenic River, is close to a large urban center, and exhibits probably the best tulip tree regeneration in the Connecticut River

And, the idea that diversity within an 800 acre block makes THAT block healthier is absolutely without foundation.

The whole notion of forest health is really kinda silly...forest health means that biodiversity is maintained through autopoietic processes...this won't happen with MANagement.

Having said that, personally, I can imagine that some judicious silviculture, focused on aesthetics might be a good thing in that park- but it isn't about the health of the forests, it's about improving aesthetics- and as all art lovers know, aesthetics is in the eyes of the beholder. Some people hate to stumps. Some people think that only huge trees are beautiful. I happen to like true old growth- and I have shown a few such stands to Bob Leverett and Gary Beluzo- but, there is also great aesthetic beauty in fine silviculture.

Actually, it really isn't about aesthetics (an anthropogenic and utilitarian value) at this point, it really IS about forest health (ecocentric characteristic)! To me, complexity of form and function is beautiful. I want to see fractal geometry, I want to see microtopography and microniches to support that biodiversity.

So, there is no one scientific answer- there are many correct ways to "manage" such a property- though if it's true that by law such parks are not supposed to have any mgt.- then that's the answer, but if that's not the case- then perhaps through dialogue some solution can be found to satisfy all- but for the state to claim this must be done to enhance diversity and for forest health- give me a break- that sounds like something George W. Bush might say if he were a forester- though I don't think he smart enough to graduate from even the most mediocre forestry school. <G>

There may be many ways to MANage a property but there is only one way to maintain natural processes- do not give all the control to one species with very conscious, egocentric desires.

Gary Beluzo

Joe,

DCR is stuck on a theme - force Green Certification to fit, regardless. That is the bottom line. For DCR to spend so much time and energy on an urban park like Robinson is a travesty. Talk about misapplied effort. I think that they think they are in a battle, which they must win or Green Certification is in trouble. It is their hang-up.

Bob

Ray,

If a system has great species diversity, then what difference does it make if it currently has poor age diversity (which I take issue with). Great species diversity and its continuance IS forest health. Cutting down old, dying trees of "trash species" so that 1 person in a million doesn't get struck by a decaying limb once again demonstrates a very simplistic view of a complex system. What I see is a futile attempt to rationalize doing what a minority group of people want to do. It is amazing to me that with all the science we have, that such poor, uninformed decision making can take place. It speaks to the fact that scientists are publishing lots of peer-reviewed papers in arcane journals but the information/understanding/wisdom doesn't ripple down to the decision makers. We live in a scientific society. Science should inform politics, politics should not dictate the application of science.

Gary Beluzo

Ray,

The Connecticut River flooded most of West Springfield sometime in the 40’s – 50’s, do you know if the Robinson flooded too? That’s another disturbance that may have affected the species diversity of the forest.

They are worried about a lack of age distribution? Don’t they manage their forest in relation to the surrounding landscape? I grew up in that area and know that the region hasn’t got many contiguous forests that size – of any age. It was highly fragmented even 17 years ago and I am certain has gotten more so over the years. If they manage within the landscape, it would seem to me more important to keep the park in the one age class that is sorely missing from the local area; mature diverse forest.

I would be quite alarmed to think that the park’s management was trying to create a diverse age structure in one 800 acre piece when, if they just look around the local area, they will see that they already have a diverse age structure in the surrounding community, fragmented though it may be.

Lin Greenaway

Bob,

OK, now I am confused. The company that did the PA state forest system green certification was SCS (http://www.scscertified.com/) and one of their MAIN points was to manage our forests within the landscape. Which to our understanding meant to take into account what kinds of forests there were adjacent to our stands, regardless of ownership, when we were considering what to do with it. SCS was much more interested in diversity across the landscape than having each finite, arbitrary unit being diverse within its own boundaries. Perhaps other certification companies are different, but SCS’s approach made sense to me. Is Robinson such an island of vegetation that it alone must provide all forest types for all the animals remaining in the Westfield River? Surely it has some interactions with surrounding fields and younger stands, or have they paved over the rest of Agawam?

Lin Greenaway

SCS is also the reviewing group for Robinson and MA Green certification.

Dr. David Capen did the 2006 review,and visited Robinson, albeit for only

an hour or two. He didnt really feel the approach was exactly correct.

However, they do want to get timber, and must be rather desperate

to even consider that kind of landscape, as Gary has described, to convert

to sustainable forestry.

This harvest, according to the contract and cutting plans, is a first stage shelterwood

harvest. Stage two might be even more disturbing based on what I know of that

harvesting methodology....

Ray Weber

Gary:

The hardest thing to deal with in forestry is that most decisions are based on money, very little thought is given to actual application and the anticipated results are often little more than a biological crap shoot....especially when the people who characteristically implement the actual effort (the technical side of the science of silviculture) are the youngest, least experienced and insecure in their positions enough to be at least uncertain about asking questions.

Your last sentence read well.

Russ Richardson

Floods affected this land in 1938, and 1955.

Im sure they contributed to the biodiversity, but they arent the only

process at work there.

Preliminary research is showing that the tulip poplar stands are older than

those two events, and likely from some other event. Still trying to pin down

the possible events in the age range. So far, no large events are in the range

of years they appear to have come from. The regeneration taking place is resulting

from very small scale events that open small pieces of canopy it appears. Gary and

Bob are still in the research stage.

There are still however, biodiverse portions of the park that were not affected

by the floods as well.

The westfield river is the river that flows through Robinson.

Ray Weber

Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 4:43 am
From: "Joseph Zorzin"

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

From: Gary A. Beluzo

To: entstrees@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:47 PM

Subject: [ENTS] Re: Robinson - Some info past and present

Ray,

If a system has great species diversity, then what difference does it make if it currently has poor age diversity (which I take issue with). Great species diversity and its continuance IS forest health. Cutting down old, dying trees of "trash species" so that 1 person in a million doesn't get struck by a decaying limb once again demonstrates a very simplistic view of a complex system. What I see is a futile attempt to rationalize doing what a minority group of people want to do. It is amazing to me that with all the science we have, that such poor, uninformed decisionmaking can take place.

And I'll tell you why- state government does NOT have a functioning civil service system- hiring is more often than not based on nepotism, cronyism and patronism- they do NOT look for the best people for the jobs. Then, regardless of who has the job, state government's policies are influenced by whichever special interest group spent the most money on state politicians. In conclusion, the system is a fraud- or as Mike Leonard has said- it's one big Mafia racket.

It speaks to the fact that scientists are publishing lots of peer-reviewed papers in arcane journals but the information/understanding/wisdom doesn't ripple down to the decisionmakers.

Real science journals are seldom if ever read by the DCR decision makers. At best, the "forestry leadership" simply read the Soc. of America Foresters Journal, which is almost worthless in terms of solid science. I've often asked them if they even bother reading Scientific American and they don't- never mind the higher level journals focusing on conservation biology. Policies tend to get made by committees- but the committees are appointed by guess who, those top people who are uninformed- the appointments are political plums- the blind leading the blind.

Some years ago it became politically correct within top forestry circles to get Certification- it was a way of proving to the world what a great job you're doing- but in many cases, such as the state of Mass.- they got certification before they did anything right- with a list of things to do in 5 years in order to keep it- but as soon as they got it- they started bragging to the world that they are Certified, as if they had already done everything right. The Certifiers now have a highly profitable business- they made a fortune certifying the state of Mass.- which has had a reputation for generations of doing almost nothing. All their failures should have been exposed to the world- then give them the list of things to do in the next 5 years- THEN certify them based on solid science, not forestry pseudoscience. Getting certified is like getting Sanctified- as if the forestry Holy Mother Church has anointed them.

Meanwhile, they have huge state forests, especially in the Berkshires- much of that land has never seen any silviculture- instead, there they seem to be focusing there on huge clearcuts- also with the idea that this how you improve biodiversity.

I've been feuding with this state agency for over 30 years over such issues and many others- and mostly ignored until a decade ago with the rise of the internet.

And, the state of Mass. is not alone- many states and the feds aren't that much better. The USFS should easily be able to practice a very sophisticated ecoforestry and make a huge profit for the owners, us. Not doing this sets the wrong example for the states and for private property.

We live in a scientific society. Science should inform politics, politics should not dictate the application of science.

But, unfortunately, it doesn't happen. What runs society is politics informed by money- so the way to change things is- by politics informed by money- and for those who don't have money to do so, a little revolution now and then is a good thing- Thomas Jefferson said this once.

Joe Zorzin

== 2 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 4:56 am
From: "Joseph Zorzin"

It was SCS that certified the state of Mass. They had a meeting in Northampton with anyone interested in expressing an opinion- I, Karl Davies, Mike Mauri, Glen Fredon and several other foresters went- we expressed strong reservations (no pun intended) about the state deserving certification. We brought facts and figures and a long history. Of course, in our opinion, they ignored us because it had been determined ahead of time that a rich entity like the state of Mass. would get certified- otherwise, SCS might not get other states calling them. Karl and I started challenging one of the owners of that business via email. We asked some very difficult questions which he avoided or just brushed off. Then Karl slammed him with some major items and they guy then threatened to sue Karl.

The state should have gone with Smartwood- which had LEGITIMATELY certified the Quabbin Reservoir, which at the time was an independent forestry entity- and which had a fabulous record of great forestry under the direction of Bruce Spencer. Bruce didn't leave a lot of old growth- he believes in intensive management- the stands look intensely managed, but they were examples of very good traditional (meaning good in this context- based on good science) silviculture. Bruce and his several foresters did a great deal of work, far more than the state Bureau of Forestry. I'm not a great fan of Smartwood either, but I think it's a much better organization for offering Certification- I doubt that they would have certified the state BOF.

Prior to getting FSC certified, the state of Mass. got "certified" by (I forget its name)- the entity set up by corporate forestry which didn't even go out and look at the work- it was an honorary system- no third party reviews. The state was so proud of itself until a few of us started slamming them- a few years later they turned to SCS- and spent hundreds of thousands of our dollars. Since the taxpayers had been paying certain people to lead that state forestry agency, why should they need to pay this money to get certified? Rumor was that the certification was the only way to get passed all the bickering- because of course, the paid leadership didn't have real leadership talent.

Joe Zorzin

== 3 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 5:04 am
From: "Joseph Zorzin"

Good point Russ- I recall arguing this with Bob Lear, service forester in the Berkshires, back in '78, when I had a temp appointment with the state under the old federal CETA program. I could see that that the state had some grade school dropouts who did much of the timber marking on state land- seriously - they were "forestry technicians". Actual field forestry is seen as entry level work. Everyone is supposed to do it for a few months, then move up to shuffling paper for the rest of their lives. But this is crazy. It should be the other way around- when you get out of forestry school, since you've mostly been shuffling paper, you should start out doing paper shuffling, then when an opening comes up for a REAL FORESTER JOB IN THE WOODS, then you might get so lucky as to get it- and the best benefits. The field forester work should be the pinnacle of the profession, not entry level work. Field forestry work gets no respect, which is why, by and large, consultants get little respect in the forestry hierarchy. This must be turned around- and it will take a revolution to do so.

To do great field forestry work takes an immense knowledge and skill- you need to understand forest ecology, silviculture, forest engineering (that is, harvesting), business practices and many other subjects.

Joe Zorzin

== 4 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 5:38 am
From:

Gary,

Alas, you have nailed down a real problem. Science performed in areas of the vital public interest yields little in the way of practical returns when an infinitesimal percentage of the human race knows of the results. DCR is trying to ram green certification down the throats of the public - come hell or high water. That is what Robinson is really all about.

Bob Leverett

== 5 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 5:42 am
From:

Lin,

In fact, the Park isn't anywhere close to one age class. Yes, there are areas of mature forest with little understory regeneration because of an over population of deer, but overall, there is regeneration and multiple age classes. The whole issue is about ramming green certification down our throats. DCR is nowhere near clever enough to do it in a convincing manner. They're approach is very transparent.

I gave them every benefit of the doubt to begin with, but was forced to conclude that they have a single agenda in mind - green certification. They think they have their reputations on the line.

Bob Leverett

== 6 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 5:46 am
From:

Lin,

DCR is trying to protect what they regard as their turf. They do not take a big picture approach, but a myopic bureaucratic one. If they thought as you describe below, there wouldn't be a problem. But they don't think that way. It is really hard for me to hold my tongue. Their abilities and foresight leave much to be desired.

Bob Leverett

== 7 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 6:00 am
From: "Ariel"

I can speak to this a little bit. At least in PA, the problem that federal forests are having is that they can’t do any kind of forestry, eco- or not, because they have had their hands tied by special interest groups that think they know more about forestry than foresters. I have toured the Kane National forest and a better managed site I have rarely seen. It is predominantly cherry, which requires clearcuts or shelterwood cuts to regenerate, but many of these stands are being left sometimes for years while the managers try to get clearance for a harvest.

Personally I think the play of management against public interest is a good thing and results in a more mature forest overall, but in the end it must be science and foresters who decide how to manage a forest, not the politicians OR well meaning conservation groups.

Lin Greenaway

== 8 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 6:07 am
From: "Ariel"

Well, you are exactly right, that is the main problem with certification. Until there is an outside, nonprofit and unbiased entity providing the certification, these labels will always be suspect. I mean, what company is going to refuse to certify a forestry program that is paying it for certification? OK, maybe they would not certify an outfit or two, just to show that they don’t always, but a big outfit like a state? Doubtful.

Lin Greenaway

== 9 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 6:35 am
From: "Ariel"

I am still unclear how cutting more timber in a park like that is going to obtain green certification. I’ve looked at the aerial photos and the place is a little patch of timber inside urban and ag lands, but with a great deal of open land to the west of it. While SCS undoubtedly has different criteria for the two state forests, it has made such a point of managing forest land within the landscape to us that I wonder why it seems to not be doing this with MA. I suspect there is much more to this decision than I am aware of and I have probably already said more than is prudent.

Quabbin? Certified? Hmmm…. I have my own thoughts about that. And they don’t tend to lend towards the credibility of the certification systems.

Lin Greenaway

== 10 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 7:34 am
From: "Ray Weber"

Another thing to note on the map, the park is along a scenic river.

The majority of it slopes down to that river. Cutting on slopes, on land

that is biodiverse in my view at least isn't very smart.

There are quite a few people emerging in the green certification process

that don't really like this project, or its concept, or the deception that has

taken place.

Ray Weber

== 11 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 8:56 am
From: dbhguru

Lin,

The Bureau of Forestry within Massachusetts DCR (previously the DEM) has always been a weak. They see their place in the sun through green certification - which they use to market their desire to make 80% of the state forestlands open to fairly intense and not very imaginative timber harvesting. It doesn't take very long for grassroots environmental organization to start smelling a rat. The larger environmenatl groups may smell it too, but have to move more slowly.

It is so unfortunate. As Joe Zorzin and other private consultants have so often pointed out, if the job were done right, the mainstream of the environmental organizations would support the State's efforts. But, alas, DCR engages in a mass media effort and misstates threats to the forest and what their ultimate intentions are. They then lose support. That is what has started to happen.

Bob Leverett

== 12 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 10:28 am
From: "Ross, Keith"

Joe, Bob, et al,

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to develop an opportunity for the knowledgeable and experienced folks who write on this list to meet with the knowledgeable and experienced folks that direct and manage the public's forests on some type of regular basis to exchange ideas and experiences in an effort to achieve the best forests possible in Massachusetts. This process has worked very well at Forest Guild meetings to share silviculture knowledge and experiences. In my experience, third party certification, (so called green certification) has proven to be a great opportunity for forest managers to explain their thought process and silvicultural techniques to others in a field and classroom setting. This can be very valuable for managers of public lands where there is a broad range of public values trying to be met from the same plot of land. It seems to me that all the parties involved share an appreciation of the diversity of benefits and beauty provided by these forests and creating a regular opportunity for dialogue in the field as well as indoors could provide a better avenue for change than what I have read in this forum. Perhaps the upcoming Forest Forum at Harvard Forest on November 15th could be an opportunity to establish some meeting dates and times for the next year or so. I am willing to help set up these opportunities if others on this list want to contribute more than written comments. Any volunteers? (If not, you can use this suggestion to tee off for your next set of comments !!)

Keith Ross
Warwick, Ma
kross@landvest.com

== 13 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 11:54 am
From: "Ray Weber"

Keith, this would be a great idea, and I commend you for those thoughts.

The only issue is the chief forester, who will listen to absolutely no outside

suggestion as to how to properly manage or not manage communities.

In this case, there was an outstanding stand of tulip poplar. He insisted he had

to manage it, and stated "Fire is needed for them to propogate". I asked for

input, got it, and he stated back "This is my call, its not a vote".

They are bound and determined to shoehorn every corner of land they can

into green certification. In this case, a shelterwood harvest in a small

public park, desguised as "forest health".

Ray Weber

== 15 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 12:17 pm
From: ForestRuss@aol.com

Ray:

Yellow poplar is the most common tree species in West Virginia and comprises nearly a quarter of the trees in the forest. It is not uncommon to find stands that are over 90% yellow poplar and older stands of poplar can rival white pines for sheer cubic foot volume per acre.

In many ways poplar has characteristics similar to white pine as both a pioneer species in old fields and it's ability to regenerate naturally.

However, where there has long been some thought that a controlled ground fire can help prepare a site for white pine regeneration, there is no such line of management being discussed or even considered for yellow poplar. I would strongly argue with the head forester that he knows not of what he speaks and less about the resource he lords over but what the heck...I'm only a dirt forester with no political connections.

Russ Richardson

== 14 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 12:35 pm
From: "Joseph Zorzin"

Forestry schools cause brain damage.......

Joe Zorzin

== 16 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 1:01 pm
From: "Ariel"

“He insisted he had to manage it, and stated "Fire is needed for them to propogate". “

Not that I have ever seen, nor that I have ever heard. I would wonder where he gets his info.

Lin Greenaway

(who noticed Russ’s reply just a moment ago and now realizes this reply is unnecessary, but sends it in agreement.)

== 17 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 1:08 pm
From: "Ray Weber"

The forester quoted Bob as saying it anyway (which he did not), so I guess

you are in with some good dirt :))

He obviously didn't know, its not a common species up here, but put forth the

best plan that of course involved cutting something.

Ray Weber

== 18 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 1:10 pm
From: "Ray Weber"

Well the following meeting he simply denied he said it, and

changed it to "disturbance" instead of fire.

But.... We have a tape of the meeting.....

Ray Weber

== 19 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 3:06 pm
From: dbhguru

Keith,

I am willing to participate and I thank you for your willingness to become involved. As you know, the vast majority of communications on this list are not about forestry or silvicultural prescriptions. When we stray into that arena, it is usually in response to a bitch that one of more of us have with forest practices as they are occurring on some piece of property - usually public. Once the genie is out of the bottle, a lot spills forth that does little good - certainly not when limited to this forum. So, again, I am willing to participate if you can set something up.

We shouldn't allow the Robinson SP situation to so dominate our attitudes that we can make efforts at finding common ground. Perhaps, green certification has some positive impacts that more of us need to witness to enable us to balance our views. The DCR approach to Robinson SP is a problem that can be treated separately from the broader objective of finding common ground among different forest stake holders.

Bob Leverett

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 3:11 pm
From: Bob Leverett

Lin,

There are large, handsome, mature northern red, white, and black oaks and white pines in Robinson. I think their existence and the turf issue of who controls what happens to Robinson's woodlands shapes DCR's intentions for the Robinson property.

Bob

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 3:45 pm
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"

Once again, we shouldn't be debating Green Certification in this
instance because Robinson is a PARK and as such should be preserved
for the benefit of the public (if we must use utilitarian reasons
although I prefer a more ecocentric point of view) with absolutely no
timber harvesting (regardless of how DCR is playing with the
definition of "commercial"). Of course DCR hopes that we will
continue to be embattled with timber harvesting and what level of
MANagement should take place, they are counting on wearing us down.

Gary

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 3:59 pm
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"

Keith,

I absolutely applaud your suggestion. However, the reason that the
Guild can meet with the DCR foresters is because the Guild members
ARE foresters. Ecologists have tried and tried to meet with DCR
folks and to approach problems logically, rationally by presenting
the data without a hidden agenda. Time and time again though, a very
large chasm develops between the two groups because of differences in
world view, education, and personal agenda.

The public no longer trusts SILVICS because of the way the DCR
foresters have been deceptive. I have suggested in the past that we
begin using a new term "ECOLOGICS". ECO-LOGICS would be a new branch
of forestry that seeks to use the latest ecological theory and
understanding to make truly informed decisions about forested
ecosystems; maintaining the integrity and diversity of the system
would be the priority, economics and other anthropogenic values
second. If we put it out all there and the public could see good
decisions being made about special places then forestry would once
again have credibility in the public's eyes.

So, the real challenge is to have a group of DCR foresters,
professional foresters, forest scientists and others approach the
table with openess and a genuine interest to solve problems logically
without EGO; then perhaps we could make some progress.
Unfortunately, my experience has been that many folks push their
preconceived notions and don't really listen carefully and without
bias to the other side. Case in point were the Robinson State Park
meetings. I think there was an honest attempt at the beginning to
reach an informed consensus. Deception and ego disabled any progress.

Gary

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 4:02 pm
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"

Russ,

I continue to find much in common with your stand on many issues on
this list. I have come to know you as a sincere, thoughtful, and
enlightened forester when it come to what to cut and what to leave
alone.

And, we can all use some dirt time to put some substance behind the
rhetoric.

Gary

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 4:06 pm
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"

The notion that tulip trees in the northeast (particularly in the
northern hardwood forest) need fire for them to propagate is absolute
nonsense. Most of what I have seen personally on these
Liriondendron sites, as Bob Leverett and I continue to stalk the
tulip tree in Massachusetts, is quite the contrary. The trees
regenerate wherever three conditions are met:

1) The climate and site conditions will support them
2) There is a seed source
3) WInd disturbance opens up the canopy

Gary

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 5:02 pm
From: "Ray Weber"

Russ and others:

I need to make it real clear that our group does not oppose green certification, if its
implemented on the appropriate lands, by the rules.

DCR has not been doing either. No site specific management plans, no public input,
totally ridiculous choices of sites, deceit, misuse of terms, etc.

We have found a lot of common ground with many foresters on this issue, including many
in DCR. It turns out a good percentage of the DCR foresters also do not agree with the
methodology and tactics being used.

This is a case of BAD forestry, like someone mentioned a while ago. There is nothing
whatsoever wrong with GOOD forestry.

Ray

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 3:11 pm
From: dbhguru

Lin,

There are large, handsome, mature northern red, white, and black oaks and white pines in Robinson. I think their existence and the turf issue of who controls what happens to Robinson's woodlands shapes DCR's intentions for the Robinson property.

Bob

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 4:06 pm
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"

The notion that tulip trees in the northeast (particularly in the
northern hardwood forest) need fire for them to propogate is absolute
nonesense. Most of what I have seen personally on these
Liriondendron sites, as Bob Leverett and I continue to stalk the
tulip tree in Massachusetts, is quite the contrary. The trees
regenerate wherever three conditions are met:

1) The climate and site conditions will support them
2) There is a seed source
3) WInd disturbance opens up the canopy

Gary

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 6 2007 5:02 pm
From: "Ray Weber"

Russ and others:

I need to make it real clear that our group does not oppose green certification, if its
implemented on the appropriate lands, by the rules.

DCR has not been doing either. No site specific management plans, no public input,
totally ridiculous choices of sites, deceipt, misuse of terms, etc.

We have found a lot of common ground with many foresters on this issue, including many
in DCR. It turns out a good percentage of the DCR foresters also do not agree with the
methodology and tactics being used.

This is a case of BAD forestry, like someone mentioned a while ago. There is nothing
whatsoever wrong with GOOD forestry.

Ray

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Robinson - Some info past and present
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/0a0f1c0dcf79c622?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 5:07 am
From: "Mike Leonard"

I hiked the length of Robinson State Park a few years ago. It is an
interesting state park in an urban setting that could use some forestry
work but I don't think it should be considered for intensive management
because of its setting.
The biggest threat to the park is the spread of non-native invasive
plants. If logging occurs in the snowless months when the ground is not
frozen, then the invasives will surely spread. DCR says they have a plan
to monitor and control invasives but I don't trust them. On a lot they
own next to client of mine in Petersham, Oriental bittersweet has
enveloped their forest and they haven't done anything about it. Of
course the bittersweet that began on their property has spread to my
clients' lot. In the Quabbin watershed, they brush cut invasives but
can't use herbicide so they'll resprout.
A few weeks ago I did a management plan for a small 40 acre lot in South
Hadley that has been thinned lightly over the last 20 years. In the
lower red maple wetlands invasive honeysuckle now choke the understory
along with some scattered multiflora rose and barberry. The upland oak,
hardwoods are mostly invasive free. So our plan will be to contain the
invasives since total eradication would now be virtually impossible
without brush hogging, burning, and herbiciding the whole understory
which would cost a fortune.

My suggestions for Robinson would be to scale back the harvest. First
identify and eradicate all invasives. Use volunteers too. For the
smaller harvest use a small farm tractor or other small machine to thin
some stands (in the winter on frozen ground) using the selection system
rather than the shelterwood. It's very important that all invasives be
eradicated PRIOR to any timber harvesting as the lesson on the South
Hadley lot shows. The purpose of the harvest would be to improve growth
rates on crop trees and stimulate tree regeneration in the understory.

Mike Leonard, Consulting Forester

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 5:26 am
From: "Mike Leonard"

I have been actively campaigning for the dismissal of DCR's Chief
Forester James DiMaio for a few years now. He has shown he is
incompetent, unprofessional, and lacks the skills needed to be a field
forester never mind a chief forester!
He believes that anyone should be allowed to practice forestry as long
as they don't call themselves a forester. Well then is it OK if I call
myself Chef Forester from now on? He sympathizes with the high-graders
and believes in "landowner rights" as in a landowner has a right to be
ripped off by a fast talking timber buyer.
At a "Diameter Limit Conference" in Amherst a few years ago, I asked Dr.
Nyland if species composition should be considered by DCR's foresters
when they are making a determination whether a Forest Cutting Plan is
for good forestry or is just another high-grade. Dr. Nyland referred the
question to DiMaio who proceeded to cop-out by saying "we've talked with
Mike Leonard for a while and we'll continue to talk with him but this is
not the place for that question". In effect DiMaio was suggesting that I
had a problem! No the real problem is that him and his agency continue
to issue permits for destructive high-grade cuttings when it is against
the Forest Cutting Law to do so! He's a disgrace to the forestry
profession and an insult to every taxpayer in the Commonwealth.

I'm not surprised by his response to you Ray. His dictatorial behavior
is well known to us consultants as well as to his employees.
The bottom line here is that any public official works for us and needs
to show us respect. And all public lands belong to every citizen and we
should all have a say in how it's managed. And it shouldn't be too much
to ask that our public officials enforce the laws they are supposed to
regulate! It's long past due that we threw the bum out!

Mike

Home