At a recent legislative question-and-answer session hosted by Franklin County League of Women Voters, Sen. Adam Hinds spoke casually about the destruction of Ashfield Hawley Wildlife Management Area, a site where recent state management has begun that he often mountain bikes on.
Was it true that state biologists would recklessly destroy the land? I decided to reach out to MassWildlife with questions and was promptly responded to. This is what I found out.
Before the land became state-owned, it was heavily cut to maximize return without consideration of ecological implications, a term commonly referred to as “high-grading.” In order for this particular area to recover on its own to a self-sustaining and biologically-dense interior forest, it could take centuries. In the meantime, poor forest health would limit browse for deer and insect prey for migratory birds, and reduce the soil/fungal associations that interconnect individual tree species in a healthy stand. The management intends to do something about it, allowing for a much healthier and varied forest to grow. Call it affirmative action for plants.
The presence of many diseased beech trees (a result of this land use history) further compromised the biodiversity and health of the forest. Of the site’s 285 acres, approximately 60 were selected for active management. The management prescription could be described as “low-grading,” removing the worst and leaving the best to set the stage for recovery while providing a drastically underrepresented habitat for some of our most vulnerable species such as mourning warbler and golden winged warbler.
As a pregnant mother of a toddler, who works from home while parenting, I was able to learn these specifics. I expect that our elected state officials, especially those who submit legislation on the matter, should do the same.
Hinds’ recently-introduced bills “An act promoting and protecting Massachusetts’ forests” and “An act reducing unnecessary destruction of forests” seek to limit cutting on state lands. These bills have the unintentional consequence of restricting important habitat work. I say unintentional because the reasons why cutting occurs on state lands were clearly disregarded in the bills’ formation, as language around this issue is noticeably missing.
According to Harvard Forest, Massachusetts loses 7,000 acres of forestland to development each year, a rate that is higher than neighboring states. Let’s remember that the (human and layperson) aesthetic affront of management is not proportionate to the benefit to our most vulnerable species. Let’s remember what truly matters here, which is biodiversity and long-term forest health along with promoting a more nuanced understanding of our forests and an acknowledgment that all species have an intrinsic right to exist.
If we seek to truly counteract climate change and land abuse (rather than fall into traps of NIMBYism) we need to reorient ourselves as part of a larger ecosystem. While Hinds’ mountain bike rides may be less enjoyable for a time, the obligate species supported by that early successional habitat will be much happier. I would argue that knowledge of habitat needs may perhaps even make the rides more enjoyable in that it would position recreation in the sphere of ecology and therefore would create a feeling of being connected to, and humbled by, our vibrant ecosystem.
There is the knee-jerk idea that “leaving things alone” will heal our natural spaces but this statement doesn’t apply to all scenarios (just as most simple statements don’t) and disregards the far-reaching effects we have on the landscape, where we have built homes and whole cities in floodplains, dammed rivers, constructed roads and other infrastructure, limited beaver activity, and prevented fire. Everything we do affects the natural world and the ecosystem we are a part of. We cannot excuse ourselves from that equation. We must remember that the infrastructure of our daily lives often actively prevents young forest from occurring on the landscape. Ignoring this fact in favor of an idealized worldview that imagines our injustices need nothing other than avoidance in order to heal is dangerous and misinformed. It is akin to denying the accident victim surgery because “the body knows best” all while driving recklessly down the road oneself.
Next time I vote, I know that I will consider heavily the fact of whether or not those running have a track record of cooperating with state scientists, researchers, and practitioners and whether their intended legislative efforts reflect these partnerships.
Kate Lindroos Conlin is a resident of Buckland.