I am writing in response to several letters arguing either management or no-management as the best path to protect Massachusetts’ forests. It seems more reasonable to think that both approaches need to be taken into account. In fact, this was the conclusion of a “Forest Visioning” process led by the state Department of Conservation and Recreation and Harvard Forest in 2009-2010 who put together a science-based recommendation for protecting forests and maximizing carbon uptake. The link to the study, “Wildlands and Woodlands” is here: https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/HF_WandW.pdf.

A recent paper (2022) commissioned by The Highstead Foundation very clearly lays out what is needed to maximize carbon uptake and protect forests in New England: 1) Reduce destruction of forests through development. 2) Designate 10% of forest land as forever wild. 3) Allow more trees to grow old. 4) Improve forest management. 5) Replace steel/concrete building materials with timber. 6) Increase forest cover in cities and suburbs. Both managed and unmanaged approaches are recommended. A summary reference is here: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/11/new-report-shows- forests-have-big-role-to-play-in-climate-change-fight/.

In 10 years time, so much new understanding of forest ecology has been gained, it seems a repeat forest visioning process is once again needed. The very last thing we should do is invoke a moratorium on current forestry practices and then codify it into law. It is not hard to imagine in 10 years time we’ll be faced with another crisis which requires all the scientific and practical forestry expertise we have ... expertise which has been continually improved by doing. If we’re locked into a one-approach law we will be unprepared. Governor Healey’s time would be better spent directing the DCR to repeat the forest visioning process using everything that has been learned in the last 10 years as a starting point.

Jeff Knox

Conway

]]>