Protecting Communities from Wildfire

[Teegate]

I do not have both of your writing skills but I will give it a try.

I have mentioned this before but lets review. Logging in large qualities did take place in the pines as recent as 25 years ago. Whether it still does I am not certain. But it is a non issue as far as I am concerned. The same woods that were logged years ago, are walked through and enjoyed by people today with no knowledge that this even occurred. The same goes for back fires. Both of these have no long term major effect...

About 25 years ago I had crossed the JCRR tracks and reached Apple Pie Hill from that direction. I climbed it and noticed large fires in the distance. I raced out to 532 and all of the woods along that road were on fire from back fires. Completely burned out. Would you know that today? I see no trace of it. What was the harm?

Here is the real problem:

Recently I visited someone who had just purchased a new home in a development on a rural road. They had just moved in and were complaining that there were new developments near them being built destroying the woods. Did they ever think what their development did to the woods? I am sure there were local residents who felt the same when theirs was built.

The same goes true with the new school in Tabernacle. I am willing to bet that many of the people who are opposing that school live in new developments. For some reason they think that their home is ok, but a school is not. Their kids are why that school is being built.

My house was built in 1950 on a farm. The farmhouse was kept, but the property is lost forever. Am I happy about that...no but I had no control of it. If I had bought it when it was new, and then opposed other homes, I would be a Hypocrite..

So we are all in a dilemma as I see it. The pines primary problem is building and nothing else. When a solution is found for that, then we can address the other issues. For if we don't solve the building problem, we will be left with a small area that is presently owned by the state and other ventures. And when that is all that is left, the pressure to build there by the population explosion will be tremendous. I think I know what will happen.

Can someone else weigh in with their opinions?

Guy

 

[JeffD]

You're right, Guy, development is the big threat to the Pine Bar rens. I'll have to follow your directions to Forked River Mountains to see how much the area was developed from that end and to see if the Pine Barrens commissioners speak with forked tounge. The population explosion is a good part of the problem. I don't advocate zero growth, but I think we should avoid a repeat of the baby boom, which created alot of problems. I think it's ridiculous for people to be rewarded by the government to have more kids. I just have one, which partially makes up for my sister's excesses (I think she's up to 7 or 8).

Your post was clear to me that you understand that the forest is dynamic, that trees grow back. Areas get reforested, of course faster when they are proactively managed. Patrick Moore points out the difference between deforestation and reforestation. Other environmentalists who refute him try to muddy the issue by confusing the two. Moore explains this somewhere on his site.

Been there, done that, Barry. I'm familiar with the PATRICK MOORE IS A BIG FAT LIAR, as well as eco-nut sites such as X COMPANY SUCKS FOR USING LUMBER FROM OLD GROWTH FORESTS. I would no sooner believe these groups than I would the magazines I see at the supermarket checkout counter. Moore debunks the charges from his detractors somewhere on his website. Moore is one of my mentors because his is a scientist who knows what he's talking about. He is an example of one of the two camps in the environmental movement which formed at some point. The one camp is strickly preservationist and subscribes to the Henry David Thoreau philosophy. Moore is in the camp which believes nature is dynamic and needs to be managed. I've heard the arguement before about Dr. Moore working as a consultant for lumber companies means he's a Judas. As Moore says on his website, these people see industry as inherently evil. There has been a net gain of forests since they began to be managed after the lumber barons of the late 19th century mismanaged them.

We need to promote the Pine Barrens, as we have, to help keep the developers from encroaching on it. As I've said before, you can't in all cases just set large tracks of land aside and do nothing with it. I'm not talking just about the health of the forests. I'm talking about providing jobs, helping the economy and the tax base. Lumbering would accompish this. Which would you rather have in the Pine Barrens, a scad of ugly new developments littering the landscape, or some timber harvesters, who take wood from an area and move on? Long before they could return to the harvest area, it would be reforested. But isn't even field better than a housing development! Hummmmmmm? Chances are, you probably wouldn't even see or even hear the folks cutting the trees.

As you pointed out, Guy, there was alot of tree harvesting in the Pine Barrens during the 70's. At some point, overly strict regulations and other factors caused it to dramatically decline. Now the regulations have eased up, giving timber harvesters a opportunity to help the forest and the economy and keep the developers out. There seems to be a movement nationwide to strike a sensible balance between conservation and the economy.

By the way, congress has been holding hearings to reform the Endangered Species Act, which it desperately needs to do.

 

[BarryC]

Don't bring me into this. I haven't said a word. I'm just reading it. I'm keeping my mouth shut on this string.
Barry
"Been there, done that, Barry. I'm familiar with the PATRICK MOORE IS A BIG FAT LIAR, as well as eco-nut sites such as X COMPANY SUCKS FOR USING LUMBER FROM OLD GROWTH FORESTS. I would no sooner believe these groups than I would the magazines I see at the supermarket checkout counter. ..."

 

[German]

Too bad I haven't checked into this part of the forum recently. Now this place is really getting interesting! Way to go! Just try to keep the arguments intellectual and not get personal. I've seen other sites go downhill real fast due to that.

Anyway, you guys have made some good points. Leaving the forests "natural", whatever that means, is impossible in a small state like NJ that has a long history of manipulation of its natural resources. The best we can do now is protect not only the land from developement, which is our biggest enemy, but also protect the animal and plant species diversity. Much of this diversity is due to disturbance by man in the first place. The orchids, insectivorous plants, and other rare species that the barrens are fampous for are mostly sun loving plants that will not be found in mature climax forests. They are most often found on sites that have been burned, logged or otherwise cleared by man's activities. But then, is this better? Maybe nature never intended for certain species to be numerous. I would not presume to think that I have all the answers. I also don't think we should be trying to decide which species deserve our protection and which do not (Timber Rattlesnakes, for example). They where put here by Mother Nature, God, Buddha, or whoever it is you put your faith in, and I don't think any of us know better. To say animals are not more important than people is an argument often used by developers and industry spokesmen, but looking at the human population explosion that has occurred on this planet in the last few decades, and what it has done to the planet's environment, I'd say the humans are holding their own pretty well. At this point in the game I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the animals.

 

[BobM]

The below is an example of the state doing something dumb and unnecessary based upon suggestions from hunters and timber companies. Note who is benefitting from doing this; the timber companies, who are making computer paper and hospital gowns from the pulp.

Note also that suppression of wildfires appears to have started the problem (if it really is one) in the first place.

An idle mind is the devil's workshop.........

STATE RAZING 400 ACRES OF TREES TO ASSIST BIRDS

Date: 020328
From: http://www.courierpostonline.com/

By Lawrence Hajna, Courier-Post Staff, March 28, 2002

You probably never realized New Jersey has too many trees. But this
concept could lead to the clearing of thousands of acres of state-
owned woodlands.

Savannas - grassy areas interspersed with some trees - once spread
across many parts of the state, providing habitat for a variety of
wildlife. However, that was centuries ago, before fighting forest
fires was necessary to protect property.

Now more than 400 acres of pine and oak woodlands at the state's
Buckshutem Wildlife Management Area in Cumberland County are being
cleared to re-create this ecosystem.

This pilot project will provide habitat for bobwhite quail, the red-
headed woodpecker, the American kestrel and numerous other bird
species whose numbers are declining because of habitat loss, officials
say.

Thousands of more acres of forest could be re-created as savannas if
the pilot project is successful, officials said. But the NJ Audubon
Society and the state's chapter of the Sierra Club contend wildlife
managers should leave woodlands alone.

"If you want to create savannas, create them in existing fields.
Don't destroy the forest," said Sierra Club director Jeff Tittel,
arguing clearing will displace squirrels, chipmunks and bird species
that live in forests. "Here's a novel idea: Tear up a parking lot at a
strip mall instead."

Steve Quesenberry is a project director for the South Jersey Resource
Conservation and Development Council, a private nonprofit group based
in Hammonton. It acted as a go-between for the state Division of Fish
and Wildlife and a timber company.

"I know cutting down trees sounds ungodly, but you have to imagine
what you're going to see out here," Quesenberry said as heavy
equipment shredded tall pines at the project site. "It's going to be
an improvement for all wildlife."

The state is saving about $2.5 million by allowing South Jersey
Timber and Chip Inc. of Elmer, Salem County, to shred the bark for
sale as mulch and the wood for pulp, used to make computer paper and
hospital gowns.

The Division of Fish and Wildlife will leave between 20 and 40 trees
per acre, simulating savannas that were common before European
settlement. The division hopes grassland birds will return naturally
once this habitat is created.

Biologists may burn the cleared areas periodically to encourage the
natural return of prairie grasses, a process that could take at least
five years. If federal funds become available, biologists will
accelerate the process by planting switch grass, Indian grass, broom
sedge and other species that provide food and cover for grassland
birds.

"You still find these (grass) species in New Jersey; they' re just
not as prevalent because of our fire-suppression practices," said
Laurie Pettigrew, a Division of Fish and Wildlife biologist.

Before European settlement, wildfires ignited by lightning would
sweep through forests from time to time, clearing them of dense
undergrowth and keeping them much sparser than they are today. Lenape
Indians also set fires to improve their ability to hunt and move
around the forests.

The state agency is developing a similar management plan for the
Greenwood Wildlife Management Area in Ocean County. Pettigrew said
savanna restoration "has the potential to encompass thousands of acres
(across the state). Whether we end up doing that, I don't know."

Stuart Chaifetz, founder of the League of Animal Protection Voters,
argued the project's real aim is to improve deer habitat and
populations to improve hunting, even though the state already has
problems with too many deer. The budget for the Division of Fish and
Wildlife is largely subsidized by fees for hunting and fishing
licenses.

"What are we saying now, that trees are bad?" said Chaifetz, a Cherry
Hill resident. "What about the oxygen they create?"

Deer will likely use the savanna, and hunting of game species will be
allowed on the land, Pettigrew said. But she insisted the project is
designed to restore bird populations.

"Just about anything you do aside from completely devastating an area
will improve deer habitat," she said," but this is certainly not being
done to improve deer habitat."

The savanna will provide open fields for the kestrel, the smallest
member of the hawk family, to hunt rodents and other prey, she said.
Some dead trees will be left behind to provide nesting areas for the
woodpecker, while quail and other grassland birds will be able to nest
in tall grasses, she said.

Quail Unlimited, a South Carolina-based hunting and conservation
group, approached South Jersey Timber and Chip Co. about the project
several years ago.

"There are pockets of quail here and there (in New Jersey)," said
John Battistini, Quail Unlimited's state chairman. "If you make the
habitat, they will come."

Robert R. Williams, a forestry consultant for the timber company,
said creation of savannas may displace some animal species, but their
overall populations should not be greatly affected.

"Land needs to be managed," he said. "If people think you can have
all this land and just let it go, you're losing all kinds of species'
diversity by allowing an unnatural situation to continue."

* * *

Copyright 2002 Courier-Post.

 

[JeffD]

This IS getting interesting, German. Wow! The woods are really opening up to timber cutting. The project, and following projects, are an excellent example of wise management! Species which needs some open woods will benefit, gaps to help fires from spreading are being created, and the state is saming money. What was it -- 2.5 million?

One person in the article mentioned that trees provide oxygen and that cutting them down will lesson that effect. The opposite is true. Growing trees absorb more carbon dioxide and exhale more oxygen than old, mature trees.

Another thing I took note of is that some trees are being left as homes for wildlife. Timber harvesting is compatible with the other uses. In the pacific northwest, wildlife biologists found scads of the alleged endangered "spotted owl". This is an example of multiple use.

I wasn't surprised that the Sierra Club is against the timber harvest, but I was a little surprised at the NJ Chapter of the Audubon Society. The Sierra Club is against ANY tree harvesting on public land (private if they could get its way). The Audubon Society's stance and reasoning in this matter seems a little inconsistent with princples underlying the view on Phagmites written by a higher up from the society in the article I posted.

Before humans entered the picture, fire was the means to weed the forest. With civilization coming, fire was suppressed to keep it from running through homes, etc. Without anyone around, it didn't matter, so fires could burn. The Indians emulated this, as mentioned in the article, by purposely burning forests. So, in any case, the forest needs weeding. For the bigger stuff, isn't it much better to use it and help the economy and provide much needed revenue. The folks in this operation believe so. And so do I. They did mention using controlled burning, which compliments the tree harvest, replenishing nutrients in the soil. Also, the guy I talked to in the Apple Pie Hill fire tower this past summer said that burning and area that has been cut removes debris which is a fire hazard.

Humans do and should have the right to decide what plants and animals will exist in a given area. Wise management is consistent with nature's laws. The problem isn't that the model of man having dominion over the earth is flawed; the problem is the irresponsible use of that power, as in the case of Frankenstein or Frankenstein's archetype, Prometheus. This is analogous to the institution of marriage. It's not the institution that's bad; it's a matter of picking the wrong mate. Frederick Engels, Karl Marx's sidekick, was wrong. Marriage is not legalized prostitution.

I am not taking Captain Planet's advice and protecting the housefly by not swatting it but gently letting it out of the house.

In this case, the forest is being managed wisely. I'm glad to hear that people in charge are beginning to see the light!

 

[Teegate]

Just to lighten the tone, I want to say that if you have ever worn a hospital gown, you would agree with me that they need to cut more trees to make it bigger and one piece.

You can complain about the joke, but not about the tree cutting in this post.

Guy

 

[BobM]

Jeff,

Your continuous argument that this project and other timber projects are needed to keep our economy strong and provide jobs is nonsense. This is New Jersey my freind. There are plenty of job opportunites without resorting to working in the woods chopping up pitch pine trees. How many people do you think are out of work now because their saws have been silenced by people like me? I hope their tears don't rust their blades before this project really starts to fly.

 

[JeffD]

Was that a retorical question, Bob? How many people do you think were put out of work because of "people like you?" The answer is LOTS.

Here's a sample of what environmental extremists do to society. Forunately, the tide is turning, as evidenced in the report of timber harvesting in the Pine Barrens. I tried also to post a link about support for wilderness(leave it alone keep people out) areas waning as people learn they really are. I got one of those things that pop up on the screen that asks if you want to open it or save it on your computer. As in many other cases, I clicked to open it and nothing happened. Anyway, here's the report on the damaged done when policy is driven by environmental extremists.


http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/press/2000/20001109admincoststaxpayers.htm

This land is your land. This land is my land. It doesn't belong to the environmental extremists. The Pine Barrens is an example of basing public policy on an informed concensus, not the wins of extremists. I do agree that we need to keep the developers from encroaching on the Pine Barrens natural landscape. I believe we're all on the same page on this. I look foward to reading your post on wildflowers, as I do other posts here that share knowledge, experiences and general appreciation for the Pine Barrens, after I post this.

Hey Guy. Short hospital gown? Why use one when you could just be natural and go al naturale?

###

I just found another link. It adresses the problem of the polorization between the environment and the economy, which is brought on by the eco-extremists, who pitt "us against them" is a war against people who want to balance the environment and the economy and wisely manage resources. The article explains how extreme environmental politices are causing job loss and destroying the economies of small towns and rural America.

http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/fg/edi899c.html

 

[BobM]

So with you it comes down to cost does it Jeff? And you have tagged me as an environmental extremist have you? For the record I am not totally against timber harvesting or lumber jobs in the Pacific Northwest.

But all right, maybe I misunderstand you. I'll assume you are very knowledgeable on the pine barren landscape and ecosystem. I'll assume you know all about cedar swamps and uplands, cripples and spongs, savannahs and bogs, pygmy plains and orchids, ghost towns and historic sites. Let me ask you this. Where would you start to harvest timber in the pine barrens? What is your plan?

 

[German]

Timber harvesting is not always as bad as people think it is. The most valuable species in the Pine Barrens is Atlantic White Cedar. This is an early successional species that requires open, sunny areas for new stands to regenerate. Few cedar seedings will grow in the dense shade of their own "parents". Like all early successional vegetation stages, cedar stands will eventually be replaced by more shade tolerant species like Red maple, Blackgum and Sweetbay Magnolia. Clearcutting reasonable size stands of cedar has usually resulted in new stands replacing them in the past. Only in the last half century or so have the stands not always regenerated as cedar. Experiments have given reliable results that indicate that the record deer populations, that browse heavily on young cedar, are mostly to blame. Fencing in stands, applications of deer repellent, and increased hunting are all methods that have been used to help new stands get established to the point that individual trees are beyond the reach of deer. During the time immediately following harvest, orchids, insectivorous plants, as well as many other sun-loving herbaceous species and the animals that feed on them will thrive in these areas.

Is this better or worse than the conditions that would exist if the stands were left alone? I don't think there is a right answer. It will just result in different natural communities that will change over time. But we do get the benefit of having a renewable resource such as cedar to use for many products. I, for one, will always prefer a wood product over a plastic or other type of synthetic one.

I agree that many areas should be left in their "natural" state, if any plant communities like that even still exist in the state. But we are part of the environment too. We can't live here and not leave footprints. The best thing we can do is learn as much about the natural environment as we can, and make our management decisions based on science, and not emotion or environmental knee jerk reactions.

 

[BarryC]

Unfortunately there is no old-growth or virgin timber in the Pine Barrens that I know of. But the fact that it has again become wild, after much cutting for charcoal and after the rise and fall of towns, is great. We are lucky to have a lot of forest in a somewhat natural condition, even if it wasn't always that way.
For me, the worst thing to come upon while driving a dirt road in the woods (other than a housing development) is a plot of ground that has been cut. Yes it will grow back, but it won't look like woods again for at least 20 years, or probably more. Another thing that pisses me off highly when I come across it in the woods is trash from partying, or truckloads of stuff dumped there and so forth. But that's a whole different discussion.
Anyway I was shocked and saddened when I came upon a large piece of ground clearcut, or nearly so, along the Friendship-Speedwell road last year, and along Bremen Avenue between Egg Harbor and Galloway Twp. last month. The one along the Friendship-Speedwell Road is 100% approved but the other one the Commission wasn't sure of when I wrote.
I've been complaining about what they've done to some of the sections of woods on the property of our Pines Course, at the Marriott Seaview Golf Resort where I work. I've been there for 12 years and have enjoyed the trees and sections of woodland on the Pines Course.
A year ago they cut all the lower branches off of every tree along the fairways and throughout most of the sections of woodland on the property. (But they weren't told to do the woods, just the trees along the fairways.) They cut the branches off all the way up to 8 feet off the ground. Plus they removed all standing dead trees and all logs on the ground, and also every Sassafras, Black Cherry, Black Gum, Dwarf Sumac, and trees of other species that were as small as the Sassafras. (They were also never told to remove small trees, just to cut off the lower branches of the full-size trees!) The idea behind all this cutting was to allow more airflow over the fairways for better grass growth.
Then, for some unknown reason they took a 6-foot wide lawn mower and mulched up all the Huckleberries and everything else that size in the woodlands and all the leaves too.
This all happened 1 year ago. Before that there were literally THOUSANDS of Indian Pipes in the woods on that property and HUNDREDS (or more even) of Pink Lady's Slippers in the woods on that property.
Last summer I saw maybe a few dozen Indian Pipes over the entire property and just 2 or 3 Pink Lady's Slippers!
And now we've got a new problem: the leaves on the ground in the woods keep blowing out, and onto the fairways. We never had this problem before. But I saw it coming. I kept saying it would happen, but nobody would listen. Now we have a new boss and he doesn't even know how things were. The guy that thought up the project in the first place left after 3 months.
Also, while they were cutting down all the dead trees, Flying Sqirrels and other creatures that were living in the dead trees were running for their lives and also had no place to live after that.
On the Bay Course they removed almost every Wild Cherry, simply because they didn't like Wild Cherry Trees. On the Bay Course there were a few small tracts of woodland that are swampy. They have Swamp Maple, Black Gum, Magnolia, Pitch Pine and in one of those tracts of swamp there is some Atlantic White Cedar. They cleared out all but one or two of those swampy tracts of woodland, taking out all dead trees, all young trees, most leaning trees, and cut the lower branches off trees that were too small to do that to. There was never a reason given for this, except maybe for aesthetics. But to me a woodland doesn't look natural if someone has attempted to manicure it. I think woodlands look better when left in their natural state. They just don't look right after they've been messed with.
Unfortunately, my co-workers who did all this tree cutting and trimming can do no wrong. Whatever they do is fine with the bosses (even when they go ahead and do things they weren't told to do), bosses who could care less about the trees anyway.
By the way, this resort goes back to about 1914 or 1917.

 

[JeffD]

It appears that responsible, competent people already have a good start on where to begin timber harvesting in the Pine Barrens.

I don't claim to know all the details about the forest areas in the Pine Barrens. That's what the people running this project do. Are we to conclude that because the project didn't get the endorsement from the annointed environmentalists it is not a valid project? I say no.

You ask, Bob, that for me it comes down to cost. Yes it does. Why should we waste tax money, lose jobs, etc, based on the whims of certain environmentalists. Someone once tried to tell me that environmentalists are just a bunch of regular people who, like many of us, have to struggle to pay our bills. That may be true of many if not most of the members of environmental groups. The people running groups, such as the Sierra Club, have lots of money, which they use to force their agenda town our throats. For example, the Sierra Club dumped one-sided propaganda into public schools. Many people in extemist environmental groups may genuninely care about being good stewards of the earth, and are ignorant of the way their leaders alledgely accomplish this end.

Of course it's about money, but, as the one link I posted pointed out, it's not a choice between the economy and the environment. If done sensibly, the two should compliment one another.

The doom and gloom alarmist environmentalists are all about money. Remember Ira Einhorn, the New Age Guru who tried in abstensia and was found guilty of murdering his girlfriend. He was the architect of the first Earth Day. Of course Earth Day led to awareness of the environment and much good came out of it, but it was started by this convicted New Age Guru, who, with other extremists, used it as a springboard to launch their agenda. We cannot, in the words of Rodney King, just get along with extremist environmentalists. Just ask Patrick Moore or the other Greenpeace exile, who was forcibly detained by eco-nuts from going to a forum to give a lecture.

Einhorn was the Bronmann's, the gang that took over the Dupont company for awhile, personal New Age Guru. This gang promoted the ozone depletion scare, which called for banning CFC's. A replacement had to be found, and Dupont, with it's enormous resources, was in a position to find a replacement for CFC's and greatly profit by getting a monopoly on the replacements. This information is found in the book THE HOLES IN THE OZONE (SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THE SKY IS NOT FALLING)DEPLETION THEORY, in the chapter CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTALISTS.

You see, everyday people need the woods to make a living. People who live in Ivory Towers just don't get it and take the attitude, like Marie Antonette, to "let them eat cake." As we all know from our history lessons, Ms. Antonette lost her head. And "off with her head" is what may Americans are figuratively doing to the elitists who think that by devine right they can impose their agenda on us. Well, with this project in the Pine Barrens we are cutting off their heads as well as the trees.

Let me conclude this post with a parody:

GREAT BALLS OF WILDFIRE
[parody of Jerry Lee Lewis' GREAT BALLS OF FIRE]

I shake my head and it rattles my brain
Bill's environmental policies are really insane
He forced their will
Oh what a pill
Goodness gracious great balls of wildfire!

Leave it alone baby
Whe-eeeewew!
There goes the neighborhood
Don't cut the trees baby!
Here's what happens when tree huggers manage the woods
One little spark and there goes the neighborhood
I'm not lyin'
They're lyin'
When they say "the trees out there are MINE MINE MINE MINE!"

They expect us to sit and twiddle our thumbs
By divine right plans to manage public lands they should run
They forced their will
Oh what a pill
Goodness gracious great balls of wildfire!

Leave it alone baby
Whe-eeeewew!
There goes the neighborhood
Don't cut the trees baby!
Here's what happens when tree huggers manage the woods
One little spark and there goes the neighborhood
I'm not lyin'
They're lyin'
When they say "the trees out there are MINE MINE MINE MINE!"

They expect us to sit and twiddle our thumbs
By divine right plans to manage public lands they should run
They forced their will
Oh what a pill
Goodness gracious great balls of wildfire!
Goodness gracious great balls of wildfire!

 

[JeffD]

Great analysis of the ecological details of the project in question, German. Good forest management does not use a one size fits all approach but relies on applying sound scientific principles to a specific area and situation.

Barry, I agree that in an area such as the Golf Course, it would be better if more trees were left and the groundcover was not stripped bare but kept so certain flowers and vines were left in the area surrponding the golf course. And of course it would be nice if more big trees were left. I don't see why some old logs and other things that provide habitat should not be left outside the playing area. In fact, it seems to have a practical value. The brush may have trapped the leaves that are blowing onto the playing area. It sounds to me that this is the other extreme to the leave it alone philosophy of managing woodlands. I think golf courses tend to be overly manicured. There must be a happy medium!

 

[BobM]

German,

Its not that I would wish to see the abrubt cessation of existing timber operations. But I would definitely not like to see new outfits come in with their sole purpose being to make a buck and leave.

My motto is; don't encourage timber harvesting in the pine barrens. Jeff's motto is; "lets cut some wood men, after all, its there for the taking, and we are such good scientist we know what we are doing. Besides, it will piss off the tree huggers, whom I detest".

Truth be known, when I moved into Bamber in 1982 the cedar sawmill at Double Trouble was still operating. I overhauled my living room with a cathedral ceiling buttressed by 8" by 8" cedar beams cut right in front of me out of that mill (what a great smell!).

These cedar operations, of which you well know since one is still operating on the North Branch of the Forked River, are run by well- rooted families, who have learned to take and regenerate responsibly. What I fear most is some jerk at the state level getting the idea in their head that the operation should be expanded more on a commercial level. Would you want a lumber company based in, say, North Carolina, to be allowed to come in and take some for resale in another state?

Another scourge is jacking of cedar. It happens. And if no one knows where it occurred, there will be no attempts to ensure it regenerates.

I don't happen to trust the state completely right now to manange things. They are liable to wink at an infraction like they did when our Chatsworth friend cut down (30 acres?) of wetlands to expand his cranberry bogs. The state attorney general had to get involved with that one because the DEP was too lax on the guy, and showed favoritism.

Jeff talks about using our resources to help the economy and provide cash for the state till. Why not take the water out of the pine barrens then? What is wrong with that idea? Lotta money in water you know. Am I a knee jerk environmentalist if I think that is a bad idea?

Barry; Lebanon State Forest has a brochure that touts a virgin stand of cedar at Shinn's Branch, which runs into MacDonald's Branch and on to the Rancoacas Creek. I have been in the middle of it...nice.

 

[German]

Don't get me wrong. I don't consider anyone wanting to protect the environment as a knee jerk environmentalist. I consider myself an environmentalist and chose to make a career in the environmental field at the loss of considerable financial security to my family because I wanted to make a difference. The trouble is there are so many extremists who form their opinions without being informed and weighing the pros and cons on each issue. In this group I include members of PETA and (on some issues at least) Greenpeace. The policies on individual issues within other groups are likewise based on no ecological reasoning, in my opinion at least.

As for the logging issue, our national forests were created, not for recreation or aesthetics, but to conserve our forest resources at a time when the immense availibility of new forest lands were causing a "cut and run" policy with the private loggers. The government wanted to make sure that we had enough timber reserves to use in perpetuity, which was not going to happen at the rate the loggers were eating up the forests. That situation and subsequent management rationale is part of what shaped the current federal laws regarding use of resources on federal lands. State laws were often modeled after the federal ones. And don't get me wrong again, I do not have total trust in government and all their decisions. But I would rather have then regulating logging than have a capitalist free-for-all. Like it or not, capitalism has its faults, and the destruction and degradation of the environment that would occur without government regulation is one of the best examples of that. But banning "new oufits" does not seem to have any fairness to it. The old loggers don't live forever. And Steve Frazee's kids don't seem to be planning on following in their father and grandfather's footsteps. The parcels of state land and the logging techniques used on those lands are determined by the state, not the loggers. And if the state chooses to wink at violations, then that is the fault of the enforcement arm of the government, not the management policies. Mixing things up only clouds the issue.

Logging, as well as other uses of public resources, needs to be carefuly controlled, no doubt. But we can't lose sight of the bigger problems, which are the land use laws which are causing such rampant loss of our remaining forests to developement that it seems almost silly fret over management of lands that are already protected while the bulldozers are grinding away down the road.

And lastly, by selling off the water, I assume you mean selling it out of the area, as in Joseph Wharton's plan. Virtually all of us already get our water from the aquifers of the Pine Barrens, wether we have our own wells or rely on "city water" which comes from wells owned by private companies or utility authorites.

Boy, my wife is right. I am getting long-winded as I age!

 

[BobM]

German,

Speaking of bulldozers grinding away down the road, did you see that sign announcing a new senior citizen community on the road out of Whiting towards route 70 (Manchester blvd?)? It is called Meadows at Lake ridge West.

That is sad. I really thought they were done building in Whiting. That traffic light at the intersection by the liquor store is going to be more of a nightmare.

 

[Teegate]

Bob,

I am probably older than most of the visitors to this site at 44, so as the senior citizen I want to comment on you hoping that they were done building in Whiting.

Just take a look at my website at the link below, and you will be unfortunately seeing the future of Whiting and all the towns in that area. Look in the bottom right of the top photo from 1955, and you will see the first modern development being built in Marlton just before I was born. At the far bottom is the Marlton Circle when it was still a circle without a thruway through it. Now notice between the development and the circle is the farmhouse the development would eventually destroy complete with silo and horse track.

Now look at the bottom picture looking at the same area just 40 short years later. You are now viewing Whiting's future..

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/teegate/mh/aerialview.html


Guy


In the top photo at the link, just ignore the area in black. That unfortunately came with the photo.

 

[German]

I'm glad I'm not the oldest you old fart! I'm only 41.

Unfortunately, there is little to be done once a developement has been proposed. I have been an the Little Egg Harbor Environmental Commission for over ten years and naivly thought I was going stop all development in town. I sure got a lesson on that one! I often hear how we don't need another this or that in town, but development is not based on need, it is based on profit. If a developer owns the land, it is zoned for what he wants to build, there are no wetland or endangered species concerns, then the plan moves ahead. I am not even sure we should try to stop him in that case. After all, we all live and work on land that was once good habitat. And environmentalists have fought long and hard for the laws we now have. For a developer to meet all the legal environmental criteria, and then be turned down (which would not hold up in court anyway) simply because we just don't want more development would only serve to erode our credibility. The time to protect the land is well before anyting is proposed for it. Once it is purchased by the state or other goverment or private environmental entity, it is protected permanently, regardless of the absence etlands or endangered species. But we need to help this along. Vote for referendums funding these land aquisition programs. Write your representatives (something few ever do) and inform them of your support of these programs. They want to get re-elected and do tend to listen.

 

[BobM]

Guy,

Every picture tells a story don't it? (Rod Stewart, 1970).

I am 48. Graduated 1972, Pemberton Township High School.