I also know Don Ogden as a local poet and modern-day rugged individualist, and I thank him for devoting himself to the future of our planet (Letter: “On Forests”, Nov. 16).
It seems we agree that looking critically at forestry practices is an important part of re-examining our total lifestyle in the effort to translate knowledge of climate change into concrete actions.
But I would like to correct Don on one point. The comments I made on logging (“When done properly in state, forestry can help bIrds,” My Turn, Nov. 5) were very specific to Massachusetts forests. The report Don cites (“State of the World’s Birds”) refers specifically to tropical forests and the “deforestation and unsustainable logging” that occurs there. Let’s not confuse the two. For example, a recent study showed that, since 2002, over 47 million acres of mature tropical forest have been lost in Brazil alone (Source: “Ongoing Primary Forest Loss in Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia”). That’s more than 100 times the entire size of Franklin County!
I bet Don and I would agree, though — speaking now specifically of Massachusetts — that we are best served if maturing and mature forests are the dominant forest type.
Where we might differ, perhaps, is in how nicely sustainable forestry fits in among the positive, local climate change actions we might take at this time. Appropriate types of forestry will allow us to grow and keep lots of carbon-capturing wood in the forest while — without reducing our relationship with the forest to purely a question of carbon — providing the full mix of forest benefits we all rely on. And in doing so we can also support the range of bio-diverse habitats that forest birds need as well.
Michael Mauri
South Deerfield forester