Wildlands and Woodlands...

[edfrank]

Don't know how many are familiar with following webpage:
http://www.wildlandsandwoodlands.org/
but it would I imagine be of interest to New Englanders.  

Their vision?  Protect 70% of New England's forested landscape. Sound good? Check it out!

[dbhguru]

Don,

   David Foster will give a lecture on Wildlands and Woodlands at our OCT 14-16 conference. I'm very well acquainted with the project and its details, and basically support the concept. The vision calls for 70% forestland. Of that 70%, 10% owould be Wildlands and the other 90% would be woodlands - working forests as they are called. So to cut to the chase, 7% of New England would be Wildlands. David had to practically sell his soul to get the timber faction to sign on to 7%. Still, he succeeded and that is a big victory in states like Maine. How would the vision fit Massachusetts?

   Mass has about 5,050,000 acres not including coastal waters. Well, 5,050,000 x 0.7 x 0.1 = 353,500 acres for the whole state, which includes all classes of landownership. What do we have now? Hard to compute, but taking what I know, to include municipal conservation lands, we probably have 150,000 acres. So, Wildlands and Woodlands would more than double the Wildlands. It's a good deal. I'll take it.

   If I could have my wish, what would I want for Wildlands? Well, I'd like 10% of the land area, which would give use 505,000 acres, but there is absolutely no way that many acres would be permanently protected as wild forestlands. Consequently, I'm happy to settle for 7%. Some of the more extreme environmentalists probably think I'm a sell-out, but I suppose my military background induces me to be more a realist than an idealist. Besides 7% gives rise to the number 7, and isn't 7 suppose to be lucky. How more objective can you get than that?

Bob

[Don]

Bob-
I suppose the devil's in the details...which seven percent of the land gets the 'wilding'?

[dbhguru]

Don,

  Good question. The 7% would include the important parks and wilderness areas. I have no doubt of that. Many interest groups would insure the crown jewels are protected. The remainder would likely be inaccessible places and those with low timber value if one party gets its way. If the conservation arm gets its way, we would have some contiguous blocks of woodlands cutting across many habitats. I would guess the battles and differing opinions would go on just as they do today. However, Wildlands and Woodlands is just a vision. Its proponents are attempting to get a broad group of supporters. But the vision has no force of law.

Bob

[Joe]

Don,

   David Foster will give a lecture on Wildlands and Woodlands at our OCT 14-16 conference. I'm very well acquainted with the project and its details, and basically support the concept. The vision calls for 70% forestland. Of that 70%, 10% owould be Wildlands and the other 90% would be woodlands - working forests as they are called. So to cut to the chase, 7% of New England would be Wildlands. David had to practically sell his soul to get the timber faction to sign on to 7%.

Bob

Bob, since W&W is a "vision", why on Earth did Foster need to get approval from the timber beasts? Doesn't it make more sense for visionaries to have their visions regardless of who signs on? 7% is a pittance.
Joe

[dbhguru]

Joe,

  I can't answer the question. I assume David Foster was trying to build a coalition of forest stakeholders so that the politicians would ultimately support legislative initiatives. I'm guessing.

Bob

[Joe]

Joe,

  I can't answer the question. I assume David Foster was trying to build a coalition of forest stakeholders so that the politicians would ultimately support legislative initiatives. I'm guessing.

Bob

Sure, no doubt- but, it is presented as a vision- and a vision is not a coalition. As one of the intellectual leaders in the natural resource world and as a huge fan of Henry David Thoreau, I'd  think he'd be able to present a real vision- thinking out of the box, not something that would get approval by anybody but the gods. Thoreau didn't worry much about writing books that people would like - which is why in his lifetime he sold so few. Like Van Gough with his paintings.

That's not to say that I dislike W&W- it's pretty good- but it could have been even better.

What happens is that when you negotiate with some industries- they only pretend to go along- in reality, they'll continue to fight every progressive step. First, somebody must present a vision- then others do the negotiating.
Joe

[dbhguru]

Joe,

   My guess is that David Foster is looking for practical results in the near term, hoping to save what precious little wild forest we have left. I'll ask him at the conference, but I'm pretty sure he errs on the side of pragmatism. You know what he's up against.

Bob

[Joe]

Joe,

   My guess is that David Foster is looking for practical results in the near term, hoping to save what precious little wild forest we have left. I'll ask him at the conference, but I'm pretty sure he errs on the side of pragmatism. You know what he's up against.

Bob

Well, I don't know- what's he up against? He has tenure so they can't bust him for presenting a truly far out vision. If the "woodchucks" don't like it- so what? The woodchucks fought and lost in the clearcut war and the biomass war. The critics won those battles, more or less- a handful of nobodies- outside the natural resource estabishment and outside the big enviro groups. If Foster gave it his best- he'd find support amongst the same people- and win- after all, the woodchucks never give an inch anyways so it's better to aim for the sky and settle for low clouds, rather than a mediocre solution.

Again, I think W&W is pretty good- when I first saw it a decade ago i didn't like it but it grows on you- back then I was pushing the state to cut far more timber- to ramp it up - because I assumed they'd do ideal work, after all, why shouldn't they, they're on salary---my buddy Dave Gafney jumped on me for encouraging them- he was right and I was wrong- and, back then I probably would have supported biomass because I didn't know how brilliant the critics have been- orders of magnitude smarter than the forestry party liners....

Whatever, happy birthday John Lennon!

Joe

[Joe]

Today's Boston Globe's magazine section on the Wildlands and Woodlands: http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/a ... the_trees/