The call to ensure sustainability and to always have a canopy of trees on
the site sounds good, but is it ecologically sound? Before a call is made
for this, we need to consider the effects of such a forest stand situation
on the species assemblages (fauna and flora) that would be present in these
areas.
Several early successional wildlife species are declining in the United
States, and contrary to popular belief, there is a drastic reduction in the
amount of early successional habitat in some parts of the U.S. For example,
bobwhite quail typically inhabitat early successional habitat and nest in
2-year roughs, which occur following clearcuts and other natural
disturbances that totally remove the forest canopy; quail numbers have been
declining for at least the past two decades. Other avian species such as
the yellow-breasted chat are declining because of a decrease in suitable
early successional habitat. What will happen to the small mammal species,
the invertebrates, the herbaceous plants that can only grow in disturbed
situations? And, if your proposal under the environmental call to arms is
accepted, there will be even less early successional habitat. Trees are
good, but so are openings in the canopy (natural or manmade) -- speaking
generally.
When God created the natural environment, He didn't make a static system
comprised of an unbroken expanse of trees. Natural disturbances such as
wildfires, tornadoes, major storms, etc., combine to create a natural mosaic
of different habitat types across the landscape. If man's activities mimic
natural disturbances, what is the problem?
Just my opinion and a call to arms for a reasonable consideration of the
preservation and conservation of ALL habitat types across the landscape.
Gregory Lee
gregory.lee@moody.af.mil
{Note that the above comments are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect
the opinion or policy of my employer or of any other agency or entity.}
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0