Letters to the Editors: Winter 2007
Alternative Ways to Maintain Fields
To the Editors:
The article by Chuck Wooster in the Autumn 2007 issue regarding justification and methods for maintaining openings is very timely and useful.
I suggest that folks consider an alternative method: periodic application of fire. Even avid proponents of burning would agree that this is not a course to be undertaken lightly without careful preparation and competent application (don’t try this by yourself at home). It is noteworthy, however, that federal and state agencies and land protection organizations throughout the Northeast regularly use prescribed burning to maintain openings on public and protected land. There are historical accounts that suggest fire use by Native Americans was relatively common, so perhaps the method is not as “unnatural” as first impressions might indicate.
This forum isn’t the right place to describe techniques and specific advantages and disadvantages, but it should be recognized that there are permitting processes in place in the various states to assure that prescribed fire is correctly and safely applied.
Landowners who wish to be as green as possible in managing their resources might wish to look at fire with respect to the environmental tradeoffs.
The application of fire uses small amounts of fossil fuels in comparison to mechanical methods for cutting hay or brush. Burning does emit smoke, which includes particulates as well as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is useful, however, to consider the fate of vegetation that is mowed and left to decompose – total emissions are probably not much different from burning. The difference is that burning can involve the planning of emission release at particular times under prescribed atmospheric conditions.
If openings are to be maintained by providing food for livestock, then the tradeoffs involve the methane produced by the animals that eat the vegetation. Methane is reputed to be an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Perhaps a future issue might feature an article that describes in depth the various applications of prescribed fire in the Northeast.
Dick Weyrick, Lee, New Hampshire
↑ top
Alternative Ways to Maintain Fields
To the Editors:
I just read Chuck Wooster’s article in your Autumn ‘07 issue regarding keeping open land open. I would like to know the benefits of using a bush hog versus a cutter bar. My husband bought a tractor and bar in order to keep our old, all-grass pasture open. He leaves the cut grass in place. He thinks that using a brush hog would be detrimental to the fields, although I am unsure why. The cutter bar requires almost constant maintenance – broken teeth, and so on.
Rachel Hexter, Greensboro Bend, Vermont
The Editors respond:
The disadvantage of the bush hog (rotary cutter) is that it tends to pile all the cut grass along one side of the row instead of distributing it evenly. This can end up suppressing re-growth under the windrow for a week or two. But the stripes of cut grass break down quickly, and the pastures are no worse for wear afterwards.
The advantage of the bush hog is that it’s close to indestructible. You can run over rocks, fences, stumps, irrigation hoses, laundry on a rack, and all manner of equipment without harming it (the cutter, that is.) The bush hog is also nice because you can both mow the grass in the pasture and the woody re-growth that creeps in from the fencelines.
The cutter bar has just the opposite characteristics – it lays the grass down neatly but is prone to fouling and breakage. It also seems to suffer from the mulching effect when thick grass is laid down. The grass isn’t windrowed like it is by the bush hog, but it also isn’t chopped into small pieces.
The best solution is a flail mower, which chops up the grass very finely and distributes it evenly across the sward. These machines don’t come cheap, however, and will set you back a few thousand dollars.
↑ top
A Few Gems
To the Editors:
It is rare that I read a magazine cover to cover. An exception was your Autumn 2007 issue. I found an amazing number of articles that appealed to me. Some I read a second time.
That was especially true for the Long View article by Stephen Long on land trusts. As a result of reading that article, I plan to restructure my property in Holland, New York, to something similar, thus assuring that the woodlot is forever wild.
The article on raptors was fascinating. It was well written, concise, and very informative.
The fine article on Mike Greason prompted me to think about inviting him to speak at our New York State Forester Owners chapter meeting.
Thanks again for a great issue. Keep up the good work! Looking forward to your next issue.
Robert E. Preston, Williamsville, New York
↑ top
What Makes a Leaf Drop?
To the Editors:
Michael Dannehy’s letter to the editor entitled “Temperature, Day Length, and Leaf Fall” in the Summer 2007 issue was not an accurate nor a scientifically correct description of why the abscission layer of the leaf is formed. The following passage from the Ecology of Eastern Forests, by John Kricher (professor of biology at Wheaton College) and Gordon Morrison, describes the natural processes that create the formation of the abscission layer: “Early cool weather brings early fall colors. The combination of decreasing day length and cooler nights triggers activation of cells in the abscission layer between the leaf and stem. These cells eventually cut off the leaf from the leaf stem, essentially by depriving it of water and minerals.”
As a result, global warming could have an impact on when this process occurs.
Gail Coffey, Hollis, New Hampshire
↑ top
Batten Kill Needs Further Study
To the Editors:
I am writing regarding Stephen Long’s story “Rebuilding a Trout Stream” in the Autumn 2007 issue’s Knots and Bolts section. Two of my fishing cronies and I have been fishing the Batten Kill since the early 1960s, and have seen the changes that have occurred in the fish populations. By populations, I mean not only brown trout and the native brookies but also the common sucker, and the sculpin, which is a tremendous forage fish for browns.
Back in the good old days, the small brookies would rise to the tiny mayflies that were hatching all day long, all summer long. And in the evening, the bigger brown trout would begin to feed. The Batten Kill 40 years ago was a place where the finest fishermen from all over the East showed their skills. There were no catch-and-release regulations that prevented fish from being killed, and many fishermen killed many fish and still the river was able to sustain the fish population.
This is not the case nowadays. Hardly anyone fishes the Batten Kill anymore. This is due to the fact that catch-and-release rules are in effect, which discourages fishermen who like to eat trout, and the trout populations of the past are no longer available to those who just like to catch trout.
It seems to me that the area of the major focus of concern is on the highly visible Manchester area of the Batten Kill. This section of the river is slower-moving than the Arlington section and has banks that are more susceptible to erosion. In Arlington the river is the classic free stone stream with its characteristic cobble and gravel bottom and no boulders. A person, as you say, can wade a free stone stream blindfolded. In both sections there is, in my humble opinion, plenty of cover for trout, and in fact there are many large brown trout living in both places. Along with the two fishing cronies that I mentioned earlier, we make an early season pilgrimage to the Batten Kill to fish the famous Hendrickson and Red Quill hatches. My fishing diary reveals that they each catch and release 10 to 12 large trout in the 18” to 22” range in the 8 to 10 days that we spend on the river.
Many of these large browns probably would not be in the river if the waters were not regulated by the catch-and-release program.
The point is that there are still big brown trout in the Batten Kill, but where are the brookies, sculpin, and suckers? The biologists say that the major reason is that there is no cover and that this cover or “structure” must be artificially restored to the river. My observations tell me that the structure today is quite similar to the structure that existed 45 years ago when there were plenty of trout in the river. About all that has been done in the time since then was the placement of some ugly, non-native stone rip-rap in some sections and some root wads placed in some flatwater sections in Manchester.
It is hard for me to believe that structure alone is the problem, if indeed it is a problem. From Manchester to the New York state line there are plenty of deep runs and other good holding water with structure. There are places in the “Jungle” in Manchester were the streamside vegetation is so dense that it is nearly impossible, if not totally impossible, to fish it.
Studies have shown that the chemical and physical properties of the water in the Batten Kill are ideal for trout. To place the blame solely on “lack of structure” doesn’t add up, in my opinion. The biologists decided to hang their hats on the lack of structure hypothesis in order to relieve the pressure. Unfortunately, this answer to the root cause of the problem will discourage further analysis and delay the discovery of the real problem. I have a suspicion that the biologists really have no idea or decided not to tell us what the real problem is.
Bob Frey, Johnson, Vermont
↑ top
Bonsai Candidates
To the Editors:
There is a group of us around northern New England who read Northern Woodlands to learn more about cultivating native trees such as northern white-cedar, eastern red-cedar, pitch pine, juniper, and birch, among others, for conserving them and cultivating them as bonsai trees, putting a New England spin on the Japanese art of growing small trees. They can be up to about four feet tall with trunks of three inches to a foot or more. The trees are often found in bogs or out on very exposed areas where they get weathered or eaten by deer or moose. We go into the woods, only with permission, from landowners, to find stunted, sometimes half-dead, often grotesque, gnarly trees that would usually be cleared, and dig them in early spring or fall and grow them for many years. There is even a great book called Wild Collected Trees for Bonsai, by Nick Lenz. We travel all over New England to collect, as long as the area is accessible, and we are always looking for new opportunities to find such trees. Larix (larch) trees are most appealing. If readers might know of areas where we can get permission to collect, or just want to discuss cultivating wild collected trees, email me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Rodger Kessler, Stowe, Vermont
↑ top