Amusing analogy Jeff the forestry corporate apologist makes with the hawk swooping in for the kill on the unsuspecting meadowland species- in fact that is a perfect analogy for the dishonest and disengenuous attempts of the forestry industry in their attempts at partial deforestation of the Quabbgin watershed. Jeff chooses his words quite carefully, and while they are loaded with the same emtional content he disdains, they just as much as the previous commenters on the topic are still far far from being accurate or based on independent scientific analysis. First, clear cutting is not a specific term limited to a geographical area, it can be done on any size forestry plot and is often done for scientific as well as commercial reasons. In fact, it's a less emotionally laden word than it's true name: Slash and Burn agriculture. This is quite common amongst apologists for industries that attempt to profit off the common wealth and resources of state and local governments. It lends an appearance of substance and legitimacy but fails to offer even a single salient point or scientific fact to the discussion.

Don't let those who seek to profit from extracting the resources of the commonwealth confuse and obfuscate the scientific facts of the discussion. Nothing but true independently funded and controlled research should be used by scientists to set the best conditions (if any) for renewed timber logging in the area.

With his own greenwashed "bile", Jeff Lacy, who works for DCR (the Department of Cut and Run) makes more apologies and unfounded excuses for forcing the public to subsidize clearcutting the Quabbin forests which protect the drinking water for 2.2 million residents.

Decide for yourselves if hacking down these public forests is really being done to "help" the forests, water quality, and wildlife, or wether it is occurring to subsidize the bank accounts of private interests.

Here are ground and aerial photos: http://www.maforests.org/QUABBIN.pdf

Here are Google Earth photos: http://www.maforests.org/QUABBIN_Google_Earth.pdf

Inform and arm yourself against timber industry propaganda: http://www.maforests.org/Timberspeak-Timber_Industry_Propaganda.pdf

A "patch cut" is a clear-cut by any other name. Jeff Lacy puts me in mind of a used car salesman who would sell you an old beater with bad valves with claims that it just needs a little work. Apparently, Lacy has so welded himself to the gradual trashing of the Quabbin watershed that he can't see the forest for the trees.

While there may be a finer point to the differance between edge by a road and edge by a so-called "successional forest", readers will note that Jeff failed to address the issue of climate disruption I addressed in my previous letter. As noted: there exists the "vital importance of standing forests in sequestering carbon in this age of climate change. When you take out acres of forest not only do you release the stored carbon into the atmosphere, but you also destroy future [and existing] carbon capture capability". To support the loss of that existing carbon capture, as Lacy does, could be considered an ecological crime. History will not look fondly upon these clearcutters and their supporters.

I do not hawk in this fight, and I have been following it only from the sidelines, but I appreciate Jeff Lacey's comments and thoughtful approach. He is stubstantively accurate and correct in his statements, and these other commentors, Ogden, Matera and tiedyeguy are not.

The forestry that does and generally has occured at the Quabbin is not classified as "clear cutting" by any objective definition (and it is certainly not "slash and burn" or "hacking" and "clear cutting" cannot occur at any scale of forest plot.

Matera suggests that Lacey's comments are somehow "propaganda." I suppose he should know, he is the master of propaganda. He uses inflammitory and unfounded statements, uses photography misleadingly, and mis-represents both others' statements and facts.

It is true that Environment Mass has shamelessly used the Quabbin issue for fundraising, and mislead their own canvassers who have come to my door. Matera himself is either using this issue to fundraise for himself, or at a minimum using it to build his career and reputation.

The "Barons" and "Propagandists" here are not the foresters or loggers.

PJ attempts to propogate the newest argument, that these "are not clear cuts they are only 2 acres."

However, if you look at aerial coverage, the quabbin in areas now looks like a patch quilt. If they arent clearcuts, then why did DCR and others attempt to change the regulations to expand the allowed size to 5 acres? Science doesnt back up the claims made about these either. Lacey, who does work for DCR and clearly has a timber interest slant, picks on the conclusions of the best ecologists in the world. Again, we see timber industry connections trying to dispute what the worlds best ecological experts say. Sorry Jeff, we are on to you, find someone else less obviously connected to the timber industry and feed him some of this propoganda. Maybe that person will be more convincing.

Posting this for Claudia, who is having issues responding:

it was independent forest auditors for FSC who found the forestry at the Quabbin wanting. If DCR is seeking certification, or clarification on some of the conditions, that is news to the auditors who have not heard from the state of Massachusetts since the resolution of 5 appeals of the conditions on April 8,2010. (Please see attached where they specifically refer to the clearcutting of mature forests on DWSP properties). Scientific Certification Systems (the auditors) spokespeople have told me that they do not expect MA to seek certification again, and if they do, they must submit to a complete recertification assessment because they have run out of time to comply with the conditions of the 2009 audit.

And this is what the auditors put in their review. Note the PROFESSIONAL FORESTERS challenged the validity of the clearcuts, and THEY called them clearcuts:

The team observed several harvest sites where the management goal is to create early successional habitat by clearcutting mature forests not experiencing widespread mortality. Given the relatively intense biophysical impact of clearcutting along with the clear social concerns expressed by Massachusetts citizenry, there is a need for a thorough environmental assessment per Indicator 6.1.e. The informal environmental assessments that were done for these treatments do not cover all the requirements of 6.1.e. (which requires covering all topics listed under Criterion 6.1). In particular, the DWSP should address whether these treatments are consistent with the natural pattern and scale of

Basically, the auditors disuputed the claims and reasoning used for the clearcuts, which even they say are ecologically an issue. They then asked MA to provide written reasoning to justify them, and support of their claims. They didnt get a response, so the certification was pulled. So now, we have professional foresters auditing this fiasco, and they agreed, there is an issue. So spout away there Jeff, but the jig is up. The facts are there.

Mr. Lacy criticizes Mr. Kaiser with the pronouncement that "subjective, quasi-religious argument has no place in what should be a scientific critique of DCR's watershed management practices." How ironic. The truth is, there is no scientific basis whatsoever for logging in the Quabbin. It is all based on pseudo-scientific rationales made up by foresters who are looking for opportunities to cut down trees, by state agency employees who are trying to justify their taxpayer-funded jobs, and by private forestry firms that benefit financially.

I have worked on public land issues for almost 30 years. I was a member of the citizen Advisory Group of Stakeholders for the DCR's recent Forest Futures process. Over the years, I have heard every possible argument from industrial forestry advocates trying to justify their desire to cut down our public forests. They always claim that logging provides a multitude of ecological, scenic, watershed, and recreational benefits. The advocates of Quabbin logging make all of these same claims. In fact, there is no credible scientific evidence to support any of these claims, and there never has been. They are pure hogwash.

The only thing the Quabbin logging program provides is timber and fiber. That would be fine on private lands. But these are public lands, which we depend on to provide habitat for endangered and sensitive wildlife, carbon storage to fight climate change, natural scenery, clean air and water, and opportunities for low-impact recreation. Logging in the Quabbin degrades all of these values.

The Quabbin logging program was conceived, planned, and continues to operate under the control of a small group of industrial logging advocates. There has never been any meaningful public involvement or accountability to the people Massachusetts. The Advisory Group of Stakeholders for the DCR's Forest Futures process, which was meant to re-evaluate how our public forest lands should be managed — was not even allowed to include the Quabbin logging operation in our discussions.

If there is anyone guilty of using "subjective, quasi-religious arguments," it is Mr Lacy and the other people responsible for continuing to butcher the Quabbin forest. A more credible authority is Gordon Robinson, a forester and longtime advocate for responsible forestry. In his book, “The Forest and the Trees: A Guide to Excellent Forestry,” he wrote:

“Anyone can identify destructive forest practices. You don’t have to be a professional forester to recognize bad forestry any more than you need to be a doctor to recognize ill health. If logging looks bad, it is bad. If a forest appears to be mismanaged, it is mismanaged.”

The logging in the Quabbin looks extremely bad. The Quabbin forest appears to be grossly mismanaged. The time has come to end the wasteful, destructive, and costly Quabbin logging program. We would not only save the Quabbin forest, but also save the taxpayers a lot of money. If the people of Massachusetts knew what was happening to this beautiful and unique landscape, I am certain that they would want to preserve, not log, the Quabbin.

I'd like to make a call for the editors to take a direct role on an issue too significant to be relgated to the letter column. Given the intensity of the debate and the vitriolic tone of many letter writers, I think that the Valley Advocate should dedicate serious investigative reporting time to the matter of forestry practices at Quabbin. Clearly, there is a need for objective and professional journalists to research the matter and to interview abutters, foresters, Directors of local Land Trusts, representatives from DCR, and those who have opinions and interests on all sides. The public can benefit more from a dispassionate and balanced review of the facts and history than from partisan reparte which has descended to name calling and scurilous accusations.

Stephanie N. Selden

Stony Lane Farm

Petersham

Stephanie not a bad idea. But keep in mind, there was an audit of DCR's forest cutting practices already, that the state paid for in an attempt to keep green certification. That makes the wood sold more valuable as "green". Well they found issues with these clearcuts, and the justifications being used for them, and failed them. They then asked for corrective action, including justification and scientific data that supports this work. In short, the state didnt supply it because there isnt any, and they lost green certification. The document related to this has been published and is available. So, their peers in forestry have called names, not us lowly citizens that just pay their salaries.

There should not be patch-cuts at the quabbin. I understand it is not "clear cutting", but this small 5acre cut policy does not work either. There should be thinning of forests not these patches with no trees standing. Thinning of weaker trees and forest thick areas is much more sustainable practice.