Logging of State-Owned Forests

dogg57

Piney
Jan 22, 2007
2,912
377
Southern NJ
southjerseyphotos.com
In what they called a violation of the public trust, conservationists yesterday railed about a pending bill that would open up state-owned forests to logging, a step they argued would pose a threat to hundreds of rare plant species and worsen New Jersey’s deer management problem
The bill (S-1954), expected to come up in the lame duck legislature, pits the environmental community in a rare public dispute against two of its biggest friends in the Statehouse, Sen. Bob Smith (D-Middlesex), the chairman of the Senate Environment and Energy Committee, and Assemblyman John McKeon (D-Essex), the chairman of the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee. They are sponsoring the bill in each house.
“If you go to the doctor with a pain in your chest, you don’t expect your leg to be amputated! That’s how this bill treats restoration issues facing our forests, said Emile DeVito, manager of science for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation. “Overabundant deer and alien plants, animals, and pathogens threaten our forests; logging makes these problems worse. We need careful restoration work, with baseline data and monitoring, species surveys, and deer reduction, not logging plans based foremost on timber value.’’
Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, called the bill part of an effort underway to privatize public lands. The logging of public lands will deny access to the public of those forests and threaten environmentally sensitive areas, Tittel said.
Smith, who has held seven meeting with environmentalists over the past two years in an effort to reach a compromise, said the bill tries to rectify a situation that has allowed more than 800,000 acres of state-owned forests to deteriorate in the past few years.
“You’ve got to clear out the undergrowth and every once in a while, you’ve got to cut down a tree,’’ Smith said, a fact some environmental groups are unwilling to communicate to their members. Otherwise forest conditions will continue to degrade increasing the potential of forest fires and a lack of habitat diversity will occur, he said.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/11/1222/0114/
 

PINEY MIKE

Explorer
Jan 30, 2009
707
25
Bamber Lake
That's ridiculous. The state parks already have the home-owners firewood program to thin out old growth. The spots fill up every year and thousands of trees come down that need to, and it serves a dual purpose for forests and wood burners. This bill is just another money laundering scheme. Sometimes this state makes me sick.
 

ecampbell

Piney
Jan 2, 2003
2,865
1,005
That's rediculous. The state parks already have the home-owners firewood program to thin out old growth. The spots fill up every year and thousands of trees come down that need to, and it serves a dual purpose for forests and wood burners. This bill is just another money laundering scheme. Sometimes this state makes me sick.

When I participated in the firewood program we were only allowed to take oak, this did not thin out the pines which is much needed.
 

Boyd

Administrator
Staff member
Site Administrator
Jul 31, 2004
9,747
2,930
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
Thanks for that link. I just read through quickly but I'm not completely sure that I understand. I am skeptical about any commercial logging myself. However we have one or more other threads here where people are lamenting that fact that the cedar and other forest product industries have dwindled to next to nothing in NJ.

Maybe Mike can explain how this bill is a "money laundering scheme", because I can't figure that out myself...
 

Gibby

Piney
Apr 4, 2011
1,644
442
Trenton
I don't think anything will change that much as far as logging in the Pinelands. The bill states that any logging will fall under the "Pinelands Protection Act" and the comprehensive management plan.
 

PINEY MIKE

Explorer
Jan 30, 2009
707
25
Bamber Lake
Maybe Mike can explain how this bill is a "money laundering scheme", because I can't figure that out myself...

Where does the money end up? Before Dogg posted the link to the bill, I was under the impression that this was more state-wide. For that we have the homeowner's firewood program, where people are allowed to sign up, pay $20 a cord, and cut selected trees down for firewood (oak). Sometimes you are only allowed a cord, or you are simply turned away because of the large amount of people who participate. After reading the bill, the area seems to be focused more in the Pinelands and pine trees. In that regard, I guess it might not be a money scheme, but all the same I'd love to follow the cash in a project of this magnitude. I am still not sure how I feel about this, since it is within the Pinelands and things like this usually open the door for more to come down the road. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but this should be a concern for everyone who enjoys the pines. That is, a concern to make sure if it does in fact become law, the logging process be carried out in an evironmental-friendly manner with much oversight from the right people, not those with a pocket in the project.

I will add that the bill states "obtaining the best price for the harvested wood." My question is where does the revenue go? Same place as sales tax and lottery money does? Who's lining their pockets on this project? These are just some of my concerns. I agree with what Devito stated in Dogg's 1st post.
 

manumuskin

Piney
Jul 20, 2003
8,643
2,559
60
millville nj
www.youtube.com
That's ridiculous. The state parks already have the home-owners firewood program to thin out old growth. The spots fill up every year and thousands of trees come down that need to, and it serves a dual purpose for forests and wood burners. This bill is just another money laundering scheme. Sometimes this state makes me sick.

It;s great to know I'm not the only one that routinely wretches when exposed to what passes for politics in this state.
 

manumuskin

Piney
Jul 20, 2003
8,643
2,559
60
millville nj
www.youtube.com
When I participated in the firewood program we were only allowed to take oak, this did not thin out the pines which is much needed.

Most people don't want pine because the smoke is toxic indoors and the pitch causes chimney fires, it also burns hotter and don't last as long as oak.It's great for an outdoor fire but not a wood I'd want to burn in the house.
 

woodjin

Piney
Nov 8, 2004
4,342
328
Near Mt. Misery
Most people don't want pine because the smoke is toxic indoors and the pitch causes chimney fires, it also burns hotter and don't last as long as oak.It's great for an outdoor fire but not a wood I'd want to burn in the house.

Which works out well since all we want is the oak cut anyway in a effort to encourage pine dominance jeopadized from lack of fire.
 
Top