Bob, stances taken after long consideration are usually the most rational ones. I always wince when the term "destruction" is used for tree removal or forest clearing. Nobody does that when a cornfield is harvested. It is only truly destruction when it is followed by development, which you pointed out is not the case here. When it comes to the environment, good individuals with the best of intentions too-often take knee-jerk stances on issues. We've all been taught for a long time that trees and forests are good, just as Smokey has taught generations that fire is bad. While many here have differing opinions on how prescribed burning is implemented by the state, most of us agree that fire in the pine barrens is not a bad thing. That comes from the higher level of knowledge and experience spread across the members of this forum, compared to the average letter to the editor elsewhere, for example
My feeling is that acceptance of the benefits of limited forest clearing and thinning is just lagging behind that of fire by a few decades. Your knowledge of botany tells you that an open bog is going to have a totally different plant and even animal component of species than a dense cedar stand will. Not better, just different. The same is true of upland forests. A clearing such as suggested around the tower might be too small to establish a wild quail population but would certainly be good habitat for birds such as bluebirds, as well as invertebrates such as butterflies. Many of these species have become rare and listed as T&E species due to a decrease in their preferred habitat.Various grasses and sedges will flourish if the site is maintained as an open habitat, providing food to numerous animal species. If trees are allowed to grow back, a different habitat will result, gradually changing until perhaps needing to be cut again a century from now. Each stage of that habitat will have a slightly different value to plant and animal species as succession progresses.
If this was being done purely for habitat management reasons, I'd be among the first to suggest choosing a nearby site that was not inhabited by what is now considered a historic and charismatic stand of trees. But it is being done for a more pragmatic reason and rather than not seeing the forest for the trees, I just try to make lemonade when life offers lemons. The acreage of remaining CCC-planted trees will be far larger than the suggested clearing at Bass River. There are far bigger environmental fish to fry elsewhere.
Last edited:
And you are right Bob, in that thinning or other types of harvesting isn't the answer on every stand, nor did I claim it was. I was recently privy to a management plan put together by a consulting forester for a large tract. The area was broken up into several blocks based on conditions of the stands. The recommendations ranged from prescribed burning, to thinning, to doing absolutely nothing at all. That type of plan is the result of months of intense field work rather than armchair suggestions made with little experience in forest management. Plans then have to be approved by the Pinelands Commisssion, rather than implemented with carte blanche. As I already said, mistakes can be made and lessons can be learned as science advances, but I'll take scientific management over the alternative every time. My experience has been that pleasing everyone when managing public land is impossible, and only seems simple to those who have never had that responsibility.