The recent op-ed by Mike Mauri in the Recorder, “When done properly in state, forestry can help birds” got me thinking about where we place our priorities in the natural world. I know Mike as a forester and a poet and respect his sincerity. I also understand he makes his living through forestry even though the Climate Crisis changes everything we’ve known in the past. With that in mind, I feel compelled to take exception to some of Mike’s remarks. Mike states: “local forestry is not part of the [decline in bird population] problem. Instead, forestry is part of the solution.” However, a new report titled State of the World’s Birds: notes, “Agriculture has the biggest impact of all human activities on birds, threatening 74 percent of the 1,469 species at risk of extinction. Logging impacts 50 percent of the threatened species, invasive species 39 percent, hunting 35 percent, and climate change and severe weather 33 percent….”
Obviously, business as usual needs some rethinking. Mike also points out “young forests constitute less than 5% of our forest landscape, down sharply from over 20% in 1970” apparently to bolster his case for logging in older forests, even though recent studies show older forests store more carbon than younger ones, and thus are most valuable as carbon reserves. The commonwealth could easily increase younger forests by reforesting land already clearcut or fallow for some reason. For these same reasons Mike’s comment: “a habitat policy (such as H. 897) that broadly prohibits logging on public land would shortchange birds out of critical young forest habitat” completely overlooks the need for mature forests both as carbon sinks and as habitat for birds and other critters that older forests to survive.
Don Ogden
Greenfield