My suggestion may sound extreme, but I suggest we cut down "old" towns instead of old forests.
The Hudson Valley, and more so New York State, have no lack of old towns that are failing economically. Buildings, bridges, and human lives are crumbling.
I recommend a program in which a series of triple towns be selected. For each one town that would be revitalized, two would be returned to trees and all of nature to take its course.
10
I’m confused. The reporter claims these animals, who currently exist in these older forests, are “in decline” because of the loss of young forests, and “to create forest diversity, most biologists maintain that clear-cutting acreage is necessary.”
Certainly, young forests were “once plentiful” BECAUSE our ancestors arrived and cut down the old trees. Now that we no longer harvest these forests and they have rebounded, are we claiming that they need to be cut down again? Really?
Another claim by the reporter: “Studies find that mixed-aged forests make the environment more resilient against pest outbreaks, weather events, even climate change. That’s in addition to sustaining species that do best in young forest areas.”
So, which is it, new forests or mixed-age forests? There is a huge difference.
I live in Washington (state) where we have sadly cut down most of the old growth forests (ones that have NOT been logged…EVER). The few that remain have been studied extensively. Clearly northwest and northeast forests are different, but I bet the basic ecological principles are similar. One thing we know, old growth forests ARE mixed-age forests, the kind the reporter claims are beneficial. Old trees fall down and make room for young trees. Old growth harbors great biological diversity. And everything is interconnected. Even the most noticeable organisms (the trees) are quite literally connected to the invisible (the fungi).
I hope the powers that be will proceed cautiously.
7
Yet another example of voyeurism.
@Smotri
"Yet another example of voyeurism"
Oh, rubbish. Look up voyeurism in any dictionary. It will not include anything about ecology, preservation of diversity or respect for Other.
3
Darn, no Bigfoot!
2
@Brian33
Funny but true. We would love to find a glorious monster. A unicorn, maybe or a Martian. And then we would do what?
And then we would ...
1
@Blake Watch "The Shape of Water" for your answer...
1
So cool
It is worth remember that for years nobody would allow a forest fire with the result that the forests aged too much and also became a tinder box fire trap. Forests are living systems and they go through changes. All of natures goes through changes. Trying to stop it is nuts.
3
No doubt the forest products industry is fully onboard. Sounds like the Northeast has been newly infected with the same bug that's been ailing the Northwest since at least World War II -- the notion that logging is always the answer to any ecological problem.
Logging roads will damage aquatic and riparian health, while acting as vectors for invasive species. And yes, cutting down mature trees will yield significant carbon emissions. Natural disturbances will create the desired conditions far better than logging, but humans aren't known for their patience.
6
Growing up in Northern New Jersey I spent a lot of my times in the woods and swamps there. This was 50 years ago as of now. At that time it was rare to see even a deer in the woods let alone any of these animals.
Fast forward 50 years and I had to go back to NJ to sell my Mom's house after her death. I was blown away with the wildlife. There were deer everywhere, bears running in the yard, turkeys strutting in back yard. Good going East coast!
13
I certainly hope the resurgence of wildlife is a good sign but was recently taken aback by a friend's despair she was seeing more animals on her East coast family farm (which has been in the family for 2 centuries) than when she was a child 50 yrs. ago. My friend explained wildlife sightings were likely because of extensive nearby development, resulting in loss of habitat and sheltered paths. Thus animals were flushed out into the open.
2
Calm your concerns, readers! For reference on the success of large-scale well-meaning ecological modifications, see, for the best example, how the Aussies fared with their many experiments. Cane toad and bunny stew, anyone?
2
A wonderful project. My neighbor has a security camera video of a coyote stealing her newspaper, and another of a family of raccoons knocking over her concrete birdbath.
3
Actually, you should really look at the numbers of wildlife being hunted and trapped each year. Trapping and shooting of all these species is a state-by-state disgrace. Young forests are healthy for wildlife and warblers, it’s true, but mature forests have great value too. Better for people to wake up and stop the cruel slaughter of wild animals first, before cutting down the mature forest.
11
@Chris McClure Look at the number of permits for trapping etc in NY State then determine if numbers are down. I know someone in Massachusetts who drives to New York with a pickup full of traps on a constant basis aiming at coyotes. He thinks they are evil and will not look at the real research or leave it to professionals. Who knows what else he gets in his retirement hobby traps including your pet or you for that matter. Does he register by region? No. Is there an effort to do blood work or determine other health issues? No. This is not 1775 and it is time to take a look at the whole picture.
And if you want rabbits come to my way overpopulated backyard on the Cape. Not enough coyotes or foxes thanks to a contest by a gun store to see who can shoot the most. Too many cats too. Sad for the birds.
10
What an incredible project! Congratulations to Dr. Cheeseman on this useful and engaging work on complicated ecological issues.
75
Thanks for letting people know about this. What a great idea.
73