Mass. Forest Watch is right. So is National Wind Watch. Most of these so-called "green" initiatives are predicated on violating our most fragile lands in the name of "saving the planet" (and garnering as many patronage jobs as possible, of course). Wind turbines or biomass incinerators, they are bad news for western Massachusetts: for the environment, for our economy, and for residents' quality of life, which happen to be all intertwined. Here's one environmentalist that hopes Patrick won't be reelected, and who hopes more concerned people become aware of the shallowness of his "green" rhetoric.

In addition some of the proposed biomass incinerators and industrial wind plants like Cape Wind are handing over PUBLIC resources to private profiteers. Corporate privatization is NOT the answer to the climate crisis. Such schemes simply turn the Commonwealth into private wealth.

The renewable energy industry has a lot on its plate these days. Not only is our industry charged with reducing the nations dependence on foreign energy and helping to save the environment, but now were being asked to carry the weight of creating millions of new jobs too. Personally, I think this industry is up to the challenge. The Obama administrations stimulus package earmarks more than $20 billion for green pursuits. Sure, the goals are lofty  doubling the nations renewable energy output over the next three years, for example  but thats the point. When you combine very aggressive goals with a significant investment in renewable energy, logically one could deduce that this would spark the creation of a large number of jobs in this sector. In addition to the financial commitment from the stimulus package, the new Middle Class Task Force (led by Vice President Biden) has indicated that renewable energy job creation is a pillar of the nations economic rebuilding program. Mr. Biden highlighted that investing in green job creation would provide three key benefits: "More jobs  and better paying jobs  to keep up with 21st century needs "Lower energy costs "A cleaner environment Because renewable energy and energy efficiency markets represent a major, new industrial sector, green technologies will drive job growth at local, national and global levels. For example, countries like Germany and Spain have made huge investments in renewable energy, so it stands to reason that these countries will become similar hotbeds for job creation. I work with a company by the name of Fat Spaniel Technologies -- www.fatspaniel.com -- in San Jose, CA. San Jose's Mayor Chuck Reed has touted green tech as a major driver for San Joses economic rebuilding program (including in his State of the City address back in January), and he highlighted the fact that clean tech companies created more than 1,500 jobs in San Jose alone last year. He expects that trend to grow this year, and he has even called out Fat Spaniel as one of the companies helping lead this trend. We definitely have faith in the ability of this industry to not only create, but also to maintain, jobs well into the future.

Consider the Connection to: Environmental Communication Please Google Search: CTC123GREEN & greenwashing

You, Robb Henshaw, may have faith in the "green" tech industry, but you will pardon some of the rest of us if we remain skeptical in light of plans like Deval Patrick's. We understand the need for green tech to be economically viable. But the track record so far in Mass. is not so good. The state fast tracks stuff like a small wind farm in the Berkshires, acres get clearcut, roads put in, money made on the sale of energy credits, and NOT A SINGLE kilowatt in six years and no real plans in sight. Wealthy business men speculating on the prospect that green might be viable someday in the future, happy to take government subsidy and toss a few bucks on test towers and preliminary infrastructure. Cynical shit, man. A Potemkin Village. Biomass is similarly being pushed without addressing the true impact on the environment in terms of its demand on state forests, its impact on air and water, the wisdom of having huge trucks haul in wood to burn. Please don't misread us skeptics. We're all for green tech--so long as it's really green. Alas, true believers and partisans tend to allow themselves to be hoodwinked by clever industrialists and their politician toadies. Energy conservation, decentralized solar generation, a radical reformation of the grid system, regional wind planning--these are the responsible environmental priorities of today. Building wood-fired electrical plants, raping the woods to fuel them and calling it renewable? Just doesn't sound green to me.

The main problem is that MA DCR is one of the most corrupt and dysfunctional agencies in the state. They refuse to enforce our forestry laws by continuing to issue permits for destructive liquidation cuttings on thousands of acres of private forest land every year. DCR also allows any unlicensed idiot to pretend they practice forestry by approving Forest Cutting Plans from any moron. On our state land, all we've gotten was lie after lie and when you expose their lies they say hey we're green certified! Well that green stamp that they wasted $2 million on is a good example of greenwashing. For example, DCR says there is little age class diversity in our public forests and a dearth of early successional habitat but that is false. I've filed 6 forestry bills to the State Legislature this year to correct DCR's malfeasance and promote good forestry. But DCR is in bed with the highgrading lobby and it will be another tough fight. I've been a forester in the private sector for over 25 years and I've seen DCR waste millions of dollars on useless programs that only padded their bloated bureaucracy while most of the money was used to justify their existence. One of my bills will examine all of DCR's operations. A top to bottom audit of DCR is long overdue as is the termination of their Chief Forester James DiMaio who has shown himself to be totally incompetent for that position. It's time for a change! MIke Leonard, Consulting Forester Petersham, MA

Only 10 percent of Massachusetts is publicly owned  one of the lowest proportions of any state. In contrast, Massachusetts is the third most densely populated state in the union. This makes the proper management of the states public lands critically important to every Massachusetts citizen. The recent decision to open 80 percent of our state lands to intensive logging operations was made without any serious public involvement. There is good reason to believe that most Massachusetts citizens are unaware that logging is even occurring on state lands. Moreover, it is likely that many, if not most citizens of our state would be very concerned if they knew about it. We need a comprehensive review of state logging programs, with full public participation. Until such a review is done, there should be a moratorium on logging of Massachusetts state lands. Michael Kellett RESTORE: The North Woods Westford, Mass

I'm disappointed that the Advocate has chosen to provide yet another soapbox for Mr. Matera and his extremist new organization without giving any space for rebuttal by the state agency that Matera and Vannah are so critical of. Would it have not served your readers well to hear the DCR's side of the story? Might it be that there are legitimate reasons that they are doing the type of logging that they are? Might you have discovered that DCR does seek public input into their planned harvest operations, but (at least until Mr. Matera recenty burst onto the scene) seldom received much? Or maybe you would have discovered that part of DCR's mandate is to support our local wood products industry. Ah, but I guess a more balanced type of reporting would not have been in keeping with the Advocate's sensationalistic nature. I remember now why I generally don't bother reading your publication any more.

Jay, mine is an opinion column that looks at the politics and the growing dissatisfaction with Patrick's environmental framework by people like Chris Matera. DCR is welcome to rebut anything I'm saying and, going forward, as the Advocate gets deeper into the story, we will ask DCR many questions about its plans, many of which can be found in PDF format at DCR's webpages. That said, I hope you check out Mr. Matera's website and follow some of the points he's trying to make. Please note the many signed letters above; clearly Matera is not the only citizen with concerns about DCR and the environmental agenda of Ian Bowles and Deval Patrick.

Who are Mr. Metera and Mr. Leonard ?? Check up on their past resumes before you pay too much attention to them !! We can preserve all we want in MA, but the fact remains we consume enormous amounts of resources in MA and if those resources aren't being sustanably harvested here in MA and the US, they are coming from foreign lands in more fragile climactic zones with few if any environment regulations or controls. We may smugly pat ourselves on the back for our preservation efforts but in effect we are promoting serious environmental destruction on a global level. How do you suppose foreign lands will react after we have trashed their homelands and consumed their resources. Do you think they will just sit back and die quietely and watch us live the "good life"?? Finally "clearcuts" are a valid silvicultural treatment when used properly. Do away with clearcuts and you are doing away with the most useful wildlife mangement tool we have at our disposal. Wildlife experts will tell you we are most lacking in early successional habitat (fields, seedling and sappling age classes) in New England and as a result wildlife species who depend on this young age class are in decline and most at risk. 10-15% of state land acreage should be in this age class; in no way are we anywhere's close to those numbers. You should be very suspect of anyone who tells you differently...

Does Mr. Richard sound like a vested interest smearing activists and changing the subject? Isn't Mr. Richards a forester for the state agency that is planning and carrying out the illegal clearcutting on our state lands? NOTICE first that he does not clearly and fully explain why the mere 10% of land in Massachusetts that has been set aside for conservation, recreation, and habitat NEEDS to be clearcut up to 80% of certain parks and forests. NOTICE please that he does not dispute or try to defend the rate of clearcutting his agency is planning - no, this has to be about smearing people and changing the subject. Okay, fair enough Mr. Richard: what is the terrible history of Mr. Matera and Mr. Leonard that we should know all about? Do tell. Then please explain to us how clearcutting public lands and burning whole trees in biomass power plants is going to save the rainforest and international relations. These kinds of posts are always long on apoplexy and short on substance. Do tell Mr. Richards, tell us all about it. We're listening. SInce Mr. Matera's report addresses all of the issues in depth, please reply to that work substantively, point by point.

I commend the Governor's ideal of reshaping the MA economy to take advantage of the growth in demand for sustainable renewable energy and energy conservation. However, biomass incineration for electricity is not a sustainable or renewable at the levels proposed for western MA. What is proposed for biomass incineration plants right now is way above the theoretical maximum annual forrest harvest, which would also leave no forest for the lumber and woodworking industries. Burning wood locally, on site, for cogeneration of heat and electricity on the scale of 50kW or less may be appropriate under proper management, however these smaller systems are not nearly as profitable, and are not what is being proposed. Incinerators were outlawed in MA because of the harmful pollutants, the best biomass incinerators will put out more than one and a half times as much CO2 as the worst coal burining plants. This will not help us in the reduction of green house gasses, air pollution, asthma, and quality of life. Yes a few people will get jobs, and an even smaller few will get rich, but the rest of us will suffer. Pursue something more sustainable like conservation, and onsite distributed solar renewable generation, wind, or geothermal.

Hey Dave Richard- you say, "Who are Mr. Matera and Mr. Leonard?" Well, who are you? I know who you are- you are a state mgt. forester. So, why didn't you identify yourself? I suppose you haven't heard that you're not suppossed to even be posting such stuff whithout approval froom the higher ups- so you might be getting yourself in trouble- unless you have that permission- if you do, please let us know right here. If you don't, I expect you'll be hearing from the bosses.

Here is Dave, the managing forester that prescribed a 200 acre even aged management plan for Robinson State Park, that would essentially have ruined one of the most biodiverse parks in the Northeast. Trees were marked in vernal pools, all the flowering dogwood and laurel to be "grubbed out", and other desireable things for your neighborhood park. Small clearcuts (an acre or less) do home some liimited wildlife value. its a bit of a stretch to carry that to 50-80 acres and say thats good for wildlife. For what Buffalo? The save americas forests act spells out with the help of 600 of the worlds best scientists that the exact practices taking place here in Massachusetts cause PERMANENT IRREVERSABLE damage to the forest ecology. Good harvest techniques don't, but thats not what is planned here in Massachusetts. So who do we listen to, the tained timber industry slanted claims of DCR foresters, or 600 of the worlds best conservation ecologists? Lets take our forests back for the people, not for the timber industry's use. Extremist? Ive never had to protest anything in my life until they tried to destroy, and succeeded in destroying two forests I studied in my younger days. I guess anyone that dislikes the work thats destroying our public lands must be an extremist.

From an essay in his book, Wilderness Comes Home; Rewilding the Northeast, University of Vt. professor Christopher McGrory Klyza, writes: "Given the relatively small amount of public forest land in the Northeast compared to the West, these lands are not major suppliers of forest products. Hence, a move away from timber management on these lands will produce minimal economic problems. Indeed, by reducing the supply somewhat, private landowners may receive increased stumpage for their trees. At the same time, wild lands advocates must support those working to advance ecologically sustainable forestry on private lands." [p. 103] The author goes on to say that in the Northeast it is imperative that state wilderness programs be established; he writes that currently only New York state has such a program. For this to occur in states like Mass he says that state public lands must serve as the wilderness cores. Instead of protecting the small amount of conservation and recreation forest land we have in Mass. Dave Richard argues that there is a commercial imperative to aggressively clearcut it, which he claims will do wonders for wildlife. But according to Connecticut ecologist and land trust manager Harry White, "It is not a good time to be creating large open habitat in forestland(at a time when non-native invasive plants threaten the regeneration of (the future forest by both taking up growing space and by secreting (substances in the soil that inhibit native plant regeneration...many people ((falsely) believe that forests are not intrinsically self-perpetuating, (when in fact, nature does just fine without clearcutting and other (timber harvest activities."

I fully support alternative energy production for wind, hydro, geothermal and especially SOLAR. I do not support burning forests - ours or any one else's - to produce power. I do NOT believe that clearcutting is any form of valid forest management - it only promotes the growth of invasive non-native species. Our forests were once vast networks of old growth, massive trees, with healthy, robust ecosystems supported beneath their massive and majestic branches. Before we came along with hydraulics and technology capable of laying waste to hundreds of acres in no time flat, there was no such thing as clearcutting. Natural processes cleared out the deadfall, but the healthy strong trees remained standing, and strong healthy ecosystems flourished en-masse without our ideas of "forestry management" and "silviculture". Just because it's possible to make eloquent sounding words to describe a process doesn't make it any different than what it is, in this case, "the end-result of natural mammilian bio-genetic processing of nutritional intake"... see how the description doesn't change the smell? In short - I do not support biomass plants - never will, nor will I support those who do. Humans are creative, and we can find FAR better ways to produce power than to burn off one natural resource, polluting another in the process, to feed our insatiable need for power. Furthermore - attacking the messenger in no way detracts from the value of the message, it only distracts, which is a sure sign that the attacker hasn't got the real goods. Dave Xanatos

The DCR has yet to respond with any sort of explanation of how the clearcut "mistakes" occurred. The citizens of the Commonwealth deserve an explanation. Thank you to RESTORE The Northwoods for sharing their perspective on this. I support a moratorium on logging in state forests: the whole concept defies common sense.

Have to state here that clearcutting with heavy mechanized forest cutting machinery doesnt mimic the natural disturbances that create such openings well at all. The compaction of the soil, increased runoff, and other side issues make it highly unlike natural occurances that create early successional openings. By the way the ice storm created more of these in a far better manner than these horrible clearcuts done as excuses to create habitat. Easy to tell who works for the state or benefits from these practices, read back.

Jay, Extremism is in the eye of the beholder. Our public lands only make up 10% of the lands in Massachusetts, so protecting them from aggressive commercial logging is not extreme, it is prudent and logical and completely in step with the 99% of Massachusetts residents who do not work in the timber industry. What is extreme are DCR plans which open up 80% of these public lands to heavy, industrial type logging and set aside only 20% in reserves, thus protecting only 2% of Massachusetts land area from commercial exploitation. There is rarely a legitimate ecological reason for clear-cutting, it is lazy and destructive but the type of logging that is being promoted by the state, to the point of even paying landowners to clearcut their property through the Landowner Incentive Program. This change in logging methods and amounts has everything to do with supplying huge biomass power plants huge amounts of wood to burn. In fact if they build the 6 proposed Biomass plants in Western Massachusetts, logging will have to quadruple, and we will see clearcuts spread across the landscape. This is the future that DCR is preparing us for with their clearcuts and corresponding propaganda justifying them. Public input and responses from DCR are a sham public relations event that accepts no responsibility that their policies are the problem, instead of just needing to better communicate. In fact a distribution notice of Berkshire management plan development meetings were sent to about 90% wood products and timber industry people. DCR will only send out its bid notices on timber sales to loggers, and keeps this information secret from citizens. Additionally, the commissioner has promised he will provide a comprehensive status list of public timber sales to the public, but has not, despite repeated requests for this very public information. The DCR mandate on wood products you are talking about applies to a 1943 law written during the war to increase wood products on all Massachusetts lands, not specifically public lands. You have conveniently ignored: M.G.L.c. 132A, Section 2B (1958) states: Nature of use of acquired lands. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Commonwealth that all such sites acquired or developed by the commissioner shall in so far as practicable be preserved in their natural state; and they shall be in so far as possible collectively self-supporting; and that no commercial activities except those essential to the quiet enjoyment of the facilities by the people shall be permitted I suspect that the fact that you commented on this board means you have been reading the Advocate! What is your profession by the way? Thanks Chris

Mr. Richard, Thank you for attacking me personally, it lets us know we are making some progress. Please elaborate on your resume comment. Also, I think you need to identify yourself as a vested interest in chopping down our public forests in your position as a Bureau of Forestry management forester, one who would have cut a huge amount of trees in Robinson State park were it not for the heroics of local citizens in a 2 year battle to keep DCR from logging their PARK. I see you are reading off the forestry industry party line propaganda sheet. We need to cut the forest to save it and the animals. Forests and wildlife did fantastic, even better than now, for thousands of years before man was around to cut them to save them. Come on Mr. Richard, people cut forests for wood and money, not to help nature. Just because they slaughter forests in foreign lands, doesnt mean we should do the same here or that it would stop other countries from continuing to do it there. Maybe we should stop building 4000 sf houses or tank the ridiculous idea of burning the forest for energy. In fact most of the trees cut on Massachusetts public lands are going to Quebec, so please stop feigning concern for foreign lands. Clearcuts are rarely necessary but they do however make lots of money. The early successional habitat argument is an industry sponsored, focus group tested sham meant to justify heavy logging and clearcutting. If you scratch below the surface, however, it is just more of the same old timber industry propaganda meant to confuse well intentioned citizens into giving up their public treasure for private gain. Early successional habitats have declined in Massachusetts because the forest has recovered from the widespread clearing that occurred in the past. Early successional species levels are unnaturally high due to that clearing and are returning to their natural levels. These species are not endangered. Additionally, due to ongoing disturbances, early successional habitats will never reduce down to the pre-European levels which were small in size and caused by temporary openings created by very rare natural disturbances. Clear-cutting does not even provide the best habitat for early successional species. It usually results in dense thickets of sapling-size pin cherry, gray birch, white birch and quaking aspen. Clear-cutting and even-aged logging is very destructive to the forest ecosystem and also degrades the habitat for species that require significant areas of un-fragmented and undisturbed forested landscape. The return of the forests has allowed the return of moose, black bear, fisher and eastern coyote among others. Futhermore, according to 600 scientists including Harvards world renown E.O. Wilson, Clearcutting and other even aged silvicultural practices and timber road construction have caused widespread forest ecosystem fragmentation and degradation. The result is species extinction, soil erosion, flooding, destabilizing climate change, the loss of ecological processes, declining water quality, diminishing commercial and sport fisheries and should be replaced with selective logging methods for the following reasons: - Cause significant deleterious effects on native biodiversity, by reducing habitat and food for cavity-nesting birds and insectivores - Disrupt the soil surface, compact organic layers and expose the soil to direct sunlight and precipitation - Deplete the habitat of deep-forest species of animals, including endangered and threatened species - Reduce habitat and food supplies which disrupt the lines of dependency among species and their food resources and thereby jeopardize critical ecosystem function, including limiting outbreaks of destructive insect populations - Render soil increasingly sensitive to acid deposits by causing a decline of soil wood and coarse woody debris which reduces the capacity of soil to retain water and nutrients, which in turn increases soil heat and impairs soils ability to maintain protective carbon compounds on the soil surface - Disrupt the run-off restraining capabilities of roots and low-lying vegetation, resulting in soil erosion, the leaching of nutrients, a reduction in the biological content of soil, and the impoverishment of soil - Increase harmful edge effects, including blow-downs, invasions by weed species, and heavier losses to predators and competitors. - Limit areas where the public can satisfy an expanding need for recreation and decrease the recreational value of land. - Replace forests with a surplus of clearings that grow into relatively impenetrable thickets of saplings - Frequently lead to the death of immobile species and the very young of mobile species of wildlife - Aggravate global climate change by decreasing the capability of the soil to retain carbon, and during the critical periods of felling and site preparation, reducing the capacity of the biomass to process and to store carbon, with a resultant loss of stored carbon to the atmosphere. - Increase stream sedimentation and the silting of stream bottoms, causing a decline in water quality and the impairment of life cycles and spawning processes of aquatic life from benthic organisms to large fish which in turn causes a depletion of the sport and commercial fisheries - Cause harmful and in many cases, irreversible, damage to forest species and forest ecosystems So Mr. Richard, why not get back to more Conserving and Recreating rather than spreading industry propaganda and defending clearcutting of our scarce public lands? Thank you Chris Matera, P.E.

Dear Mr. Dave Richard, Who are you? Who do you work for? Oh yes you work for DCR. Were you involved in any of the atrocities on state land? If so, you should have your forester's license revoked and you should be terminated from your position. By the way, I did check out the Forest Cutting Plan you prepared for Robinson State Park with the Friends of that Park. I was stunned at all the mistakes I found. I wrote a report and used it for some of my continuing forestry education credits which are required to renew our forester's license. So in that respect thanks Dave you gave a great example of what not to do in a State Park! As for me, well I'm a practicing forester in my own business. If anyone wants to check my work you can visit my website (northquabbinforestry) or you can attend a tour I'll be giving of some of my forestry work to Harvard Forest and other distinguished college professors. I'll be showing them how to practice forestry the right way. If anyone is interested in reviewing my work anytime give me a holler. Finally I agree with everything Joe Zorzin, Chris Matera, Mike Ryan, Ray Weber, and Jana Chicoine wrote. Now, I don't agree with everything Mass Forest Watch supports. For example, I support Harvard Forest's Wildlands and Woodlands Vision which advocates setting aside 50% (or 250,000 acres) of our public land as reserves while protecting another 1.5 million acres of private forest land. I also support reasonable biomass with plant size capped at 20 MW. We need biomass to provide a market for all the low grade junk timber we have on private forest land as a result of widespread DCR approved liquidation cutting over the last 1/2 century. However, I do realize that it is much more efficient to use biomass for heat rather than for power production and there are other operational and silvicultural limitations to biomass as well. In addition, I would never say that burning biomass is "carbon neutral" because it is not but it can reduce carbon emissions by substituting for other fossil fuels (like heating oil). But the state's plans to license 3 or 4 huge 50 MW plants like Russell Biomass is extremely irresponsible. We should be building biomass capacity slowly and wisely to make sure the chipwood supply comes from well managed private woodlots. So my main interest is helping landowners improve their forests and having a market like this is critical for us practicing foresters to sell improvement cuttings. But we need to be careful in how we build capacity. The state is not thinking this through enough. First we need to stop DCR from issuing permits for liquidation cuttings then we can go from there. But Chris Matera and Mass Forest Watch have done a great public service by exposing these hideous and illegal clearcuts on our state land. Dave Richards and DCR need to understand that the public lands do not belong to any agency but they belong to all citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mike Leonard, Consulting Forester North Quabbin Forestry

Thanks to the Advocate for bringing the forestry issues to the attention of the public. What bothers me is this green certification stuff: the FSC green certification isn't protecting our lands.... it was meant for big logging operations where the sole purpose of the land is timber extraction. It was not meant for multi-purpose public lands. They don't focus on the social aspects : aesthetics, scenic values, recreation, educational values, historical importance....I was part of the citizen group that stopped the state sponsored timber sale at Robinson State Park that was planned by Dave Richard. Think about it: there must have been something wrong with the proposal if we were able to stop a contracted sale. The short and sweet of it: a long narrow urban park, along the Westfield River is no place for a commercial timber sale. And there were many violations of good forestry practices. We need to have a full evaluation of our lands, designate where we will set aside lands for people to enjoy for their mental and physical health. We should stop all cutting on public lands until we can solve these problems. And we should not allow these huge biomass plants. There is no way they have adequately studied their potential negative impact on our forests, rivers, air,climate and trucking routes. The cons outweigh the pros. Claudia Hurley

Note that Dave used one of the standard lines, we dont produce as much wood as we use in MA, so we are contributing to some third world countries demise. Well, look at commodities as a whole. There are many many things we dont produce enough of in Mass. There are also many we export, particularly farm products. So why should one of the sixth most densly populated states in the US start cutting down PUBLIC forest to satisfy this need? That line used by Dave usually follows one about "forest health", and "needing to cut to keep the forest vigorous and healthy". Fact is, the most healthy, biodiverse forests are those left alone! (Harvard Study, Common Sense). Matter of fact, they changed their "need reason" for doing the harvest at Robinson over 12 times. That was made into a document by the Robinson Friends group, its quite the interesting bit of propoganda. The facts on the species that are allegedly in decline were warped by them to say the least and used to justify clearcuts. Basically, the declines they are citing are normal and do not affect any endangered or listed species. However, the clearcuts DO threaten other species they arent talking about that ARE listed. Major double talk ALA timber industry.

Vannah  I suppose youre right that you have no obligation to present both sides of an issue when youre writing an opinion column, but I just find it unfortunate that with an issue as complex and controversial as logging  in which it is so important to understand the whole picture before forming opinions  you would choose to be so one-sided in your reporting. I hope you follow through with your stated intent to ask DCR many questions about its plans, because its important for your readers to hear other sides of this issue. You might also talk with local loggers, sawmill owners and lumber yards  i.e., our neighbors and fellow residents who depend on local logging for their survival, but none of whom represent the industrial-scale logging that you refer to in your column. As for me, I am certainly not a blind supporter of DCR, and from what Ive read, seen and heard, I think theyve made some poor management decisions in some places. However, Ive also spent lots of time recreating in state forests that were actively managed, and to me at least, they often look healthy and attractive. So, Im not yet willing to paint the agency with the broad brush of criticism that Matera and others seem so eager to do. And by the way Mr. Matera, you referred me to MGL 132A, which I did check out. Im no lawyer, but it appears to me that 132A refers to state parks and recreation areas, and not state forests (which are covered in Chapter 132, in which Section 40 talks about such lands providing an increasing supply of forest products for public consumption, farm use and for the wood-using industries of the commonwealth). But at Vannahs urging, I did look at Mr. Materas website and his 50-page report, and while I admit that he makes some good points and has some valid concerns about DCR, I also believe he has grossly exaggerated some of his claims, has leveled some very unfair criticisms, and is attempting to link legitimate and appropriate forest management activities with what he perceives to be a grand conspiracy to support a large-scale biomass industry at the expense of our state forest lands. I simply do not see this happening. Massachusetts has some of the strictest environmental laws in the country, including its forest management regulations. If they are not being enforced properly, then by all means, we the public should pressure our state agencies and legislators to see that they are. But overall, I believe they are having the desired effect  why else would there be so much concern on the part of businesses and industries in the state that environmental regulations are much too strict? Logging is not always attractive, and like many others, I do not like the appearance of an area that has been recently logged. However, over the years Ive attended guided walks by foresters and wildlife biologists who have explained why certain areas were cut, and demonstrated how similar areas that had previously been cut were now full of healthy and diverse new growth. Why doesnt Materas report show any of those areas? I suspect its because they wouldnt elicit the shock and awe impact that hes trying to achieve with unsuspecting readers. The bottom line for me is that when I read such scathing criticisms of the management of our state forests, wildlife management areas, watershed lands, environmental organizations, environmental regulations, and an internationally-recognized forest certification organization  all of which had pretty good reputations around here until Mr. Matera showed up  I get suspicious that perhaps there are some hidden agendas and ulterior motives at work. And those criticisms are mainly coming from a relative newcomer to this area, whose main frame of reference seems to be the large industrial-scale logging of the Pacific Northwest. Well, I choose to take those criticisms with a hefty grain of salt, and I would encourage you and your readers to do the same.

Jay, M.G.L.c. 132A, Section 2B refers to acquired lands, state recreation areas outside of the metropolitan parks district. It is unspecified which public lands they are talking about because recreation lands are mixed amongst State parks and forests, but in any case they have clearcut State parks as well as forests. Also, Section 40 is referring to all forests, not specifically public lands, and in any case, you cannot have an infinitely increasing supply of anything, so the 1943 statute which was meant to help secure wood during the war, is only one piece in a pile of conflicting legislation. Massachusetts has some of the strictest environmental laws in the country, including its forest management regulations. That is exactly what they say in Oregon, and now they say Where have all the trees in Ore-gone? DCR plans outline a 400% increase in logging over the 1980-2006 historical levels with 74% clearcutting type logging. That is a fact. A DOER report targets State lands for 532,000 green tons of wood for biomass plants while the historical logging average is about 50,000 tons. That is a 1000% increase. That is another fact. So you can stick your head in the sand and trust your government to do a good job, or believe that since things have been quiet around here, they always will be, or alternatively you can wake up and realize what the timber industry has in mind for Massachusetts. I promise you it is not a pretty site, or a situation most Massachusetts citizens will tolerate, and if my experience in the Northwest can be put to use to head off a mess here before it has to occur, that seems like a well spent use of experience. Your apologist remarks for so much inexcusable heavy logging of public lands makes me wonder what your hidden agenda and ulterior motives may be, especially since you keep your identity and profession hidden. My agenda is to keep this area a livable place with an intact environment, and I have spent 9 months working countless hours each week on a report hoping to alert citizens without a penny of compensation. (meanwhile maintaining my regular job) My agenda is nothing more than I dont feel like moving again, and if they build all these proposed biomass plants, currently bucolic western Massachusetts is going to become logging and burning central. If anyone wants to go on a tour of the area to see for yourself what the state is doing to your public lands, there will be a tour on April 24th by a forester with 36 years experience. Contact me for details. christoforest@maforests.org This forester is one of the few foresters with a conscience. In fact, most foresters are not in business of protecting the forest, they are in the business of procuring the best wood at the cheapest price, and that is another fact. Also, if anyone would like to see the protection provided by the internationally-recognized forest certification organization, please see: www.fsc-watch.org/

Mr. Richard, Are you going to elaborate on your - past resumes - accusation or just run and hide?

Hmmm&getting a bit testy there, arent we Mr. Matera? You can pick and choose portions of state statutes that conveniently appear to support your contention that DCR lands are meant to be protected and not managed, but the bottom line is that, even if it is in the midst of a pile of conflicting legislation, it still is clear to me that state forest lands were intended to be managed. And I still contend that you cannot equate the situation in the Pacific Northwest (where large corporations have historically owned and heavily logged huge tracts of land, often with little regard for environmental impacts) with the situation here in Massachusetts, where land ownership, environmental regulations and public attitudes are very different. I also suspect that you are just too new to this state to fully understand the situation here. Otherwise, you probably would not have criticized and alienated the states environmental organizations  who have done more to assure the long-term protection of our valuable forest resources here than you ever will. And you probably dont realize that the one industrial-scale operation in this area is the Cowls Company, which most people agree has been a good steward and protector of thousands of acres of Massachusetts forestlands. But the irony here is that if you had just stuck with your concerns about large-scale biomass plants and lax enforcement of existing environmental regulations, you would probably have been much more effective and successful in your efforts. But you chose to launch an attack on forest management in general, and on specific individuals, environmental organizations, and in your latest posting  most foresters. Thats when your true agenda became evident, and when you lost a lot of potential support from people like me. And by the way, since you seem to be obsessed with knowing who people are and what they do, my name is Jay, and Im a scientist, environmentalist, and an outdoor recreationist. And since I have no interest in having you or anyone else harass me, or judge my qualifications to express my opinions in this forum, theres no need for you to know anything more about me. And besides, given the obvious philosophical differences that we appear to have, I have no interest in continuing a dialogue with you anyway. I do look forward to hearing more from Mr. Vannah, however.

Well, Jay the more you attack me personally, hide your identity and job, and avoid talking about the issues, the more you raise questions about your own, as you like to say  agenda. Also, when you are ready to speak directly what is the agenda of Chris according to Jay, instead of just cryptic accusations, feel free to elaborate. If an environmental group endorses an increase in logging of 400% on Massachusetts public lands over 25 year historical levels, with 74% even-aged logging, a.k.a. clear-cutting type logging, they should be called on that, and their well intentioned members need to know their leaders caved to commercial interests when it was time to stand up for these public lands that only make up 10% of our state. These lands belong to all current and future citizens, especially to the 99% who do not work in the timber industry. By the way, my efforts are just that, my efforts. But the issue is not about me, or how long it has been since I moved back to Massachusetts, or whether I have stroked enough the egos of the established environmental community that has its head in the sand and would not even visit the clearcut sites before giving their endorsement to the States aggressive logging plans. The real issue is whether Massachusetts citizens want to live in logging and burning central. I doubt it, but that is their choice, all I am doing is raising the issues, which is what we should really be talking about. One of the critical issues affecting the protection of our forests happens to be the select environmental groups who for, pick a reason, either stunning naivete, a corporate takeover of there governing boards, receiving payments from the State, or a vested interest in FSC certification, have dropped the ball (at best) on protecting these lands and are providing cover for the State. Additionally, these particular groups were all contacted multiple times and asked if they would work for and endorse selective logging at historical rates on public lands, and none would even respond to this question. Clearly this is not an extreme position as it is what we have been living with all century. Have a nice Easter.

Well Ill tell you this, at least Chris has been out and seen these atrocities, and reviewed them with both foresters, and ecologists. Fact is, none of the enviro groups have been, and I'd bet none of you that are not DCR foresters have been either. To try to say this is "a few", and "extremists" isnt gong to work, sorry. We have a petition signed by over 2500 people that were disgusted by the handling of Robinson State Park alone, never mind the other atrocities. Get real, this is not any kind of sustainable management, its industrial scale massaceing. I've seen harvesting done all my life in the berkshire forests. They were careful, selective, and paid attention to aesthetics. This ongoing "managment" is of a far different calibur. Its just plain disgusting. You may be able to attack Chris, but again over 600 of the worlds best scientists agree with his position, these practices are harmful, and permanently so. Where did Dave go did he hide when real science quotes came out? Ray

Well look here. Seems the FSC people agreed with using the dreaded norway spruce, like I stated, to replace hemlock. So why then are they clearcutting them? It couldnt possibly be due to the sudden spike in the value of Norway Spruce? NAW.. By the way Norway Spruce really isnt an "exotic" but they wanted to use it nonetheless. This is what they said: "Use of exotic species should be forbidden from MA forests With the possible exceptionof Norway spruce to replace hemlock, exotics are not used nor being considered for use." Its on page 43 of the SCS 2002 audit of Mass. Be happy to provide a URL to the report. There are a ton of other issues in that document. So why are they being clearcut? To restore native species? With the current rubbish vegetation present in many of these stands, thats going to take decades to centuries to happen. Ray

There are upcoming hearings in Greenfield on the proposed (in process) 47mw Biomass facility on 5/7 at 8:00pm at the Police Department Meeting Room and 5/14 at 9:00pm (9pm? Anyone other than me think these meetings are scheduled to reduce attendance?) at the same location. The developer of the proposed plant, Pioneer Renewable Energy / Madera Energy maintains the 'carbon neutrality' pitch that accompanies these facilities, as well as easy access to biomass materials. I urge anyone with an interest in protecting our environment, lifestyle and forests to attend these meetings and make your voices heard.

- Cause harmful and in many cases, irreversible, damage to forest species and forest ecosystems So Mr. Richard, why not get back to more Conserving and Recreating rather than spreading industry propaganda and defending clearcutting of our scarce public lands?

thanks admin good post