Letters to the Editors: Winter 2008
Waste Not, Want Not
To the Editors:
I am writing to respond to Stephen Long’s Autumn 2008 “The Long View’’.
As a child, I lived in Norwich, Vermont, pre-interstate and its current gold-town status. We were a family of eight, and resources were scarce. I grew up with the “use it up, wear it out, make do, or do with out” and “waste not, want not” daily mantras. My dad worked for Dartmouth College as a buildings and grounds maintenance man. He would sometimes haul wood home in his old Studebaker truck. The wood was usually scraps from a building that had been torn down. I can remember spending Saturdays unloading the wood then cleaning the boards. Sitting beside a flat rock with my hammer, one by one I would straighten the nails and sort them into a muffin tin. Once cleaned of all the nails, the boards were sorted into piles by type and size. Later, the boards and nails would be re-assembled into animal shelters for the menagerie of animals we raised for food.
I admit that, while not always true to my family values, I have adapted the old “never throw any thing out” pack rat mentality into a more modern version: “re-use or recycle!” For instance, we keep a supply of canvas bags in our car for use as shopping bags at the store. We keep water in the fridge to refill a re-usable bottle. We seek out yard sales, thrift shops, and local auctions. This is the ultimate in recycling; buying things that are gently used not only saves items from the landfill, it is great fun! We get things we need or want, save money, save our planet, and keep our dollars here in the community all at the same time. When an item we have can no longer be re-used, we recycle it at our local waste management facility.
Polly White, Wheelock, Vermont
↑ top
Waste Not, Want Not
To the Editors:
I always enjoy reading Stephen Long’s The Long View. In his Autumn 2008 column, in which he discussed the consumption of natural resources, he mentioned that we can mine farm and forest land by depleting the soils. If he had had more space to write, he would have most likely gone on to say that the by-products of consumption, such as air pollution, can also poison the soils, thus degrading the health and productivity of our forests and farms.
Gerry Hawkes, Woodstock, Vermont
↑ top
Waste Not, Want Not
To the Editors:
The Autumn issue’s reference (The Long View) to the outlawing of gravel removal from rivers because of the damage done raises an issue I think should be addressed.
In my part of central Vermont, our small rivers are so full of mud flats, islands with vegetation, and stretches of gravel and stone that banks are eroding and water flow is impeded. There are some spots where water isn’t even visible. This is not improved river dynamics and habitat.
My nonprofessional view is that the rivers and fish habitat would be better served by careful removal of gravel at specific troublesome sites. If such removal also benefits taxpayers by saving their towns from having to pay more for gas, trucks, and material, all the better.
Kathryn Jorgensen, Tunbridge, Vermont
The editors respond:
To get a professional’s take on gravel extraction, we contacted Kari Dolan, who manages the fluvial erosion hazard initiative of the Vermont River Management Program. She said, “There is a common perception that gravel bars in a river are a problem and need to be removed. Our studies and those from across the country conclude, however, that gravel extraction destabilizes the stream channel at the site of the mining and downstream. Channel instability causes accelerated property loss and structural damage to bridges and roads, as well as degradation of water quality and habitat. Gravel extraction is such a well-documented problem that you can’t use federal funds to repair bridges if there’s been gravel extraction upstream.
“There is an important connection between rivers and their floodplains, and removing gravel severs that connection. Agencies across the Northeast responsible for managing rivers are attempting to bring rivers into stable “equilibrium” conditions, where the stream flow and the sediment load are balanced. A river in equilibrium is connected to its floodplain, which can dissipate the excess energy of flood conditions with minimal damage to the surrounding property and infrastructure. It will take time for our streams to return to stable conditions, and re-establishing their access to floodplains is crucial to that process.”
↑ top
Break Out the Lye Kettle
To the Editors:
Love your magazine and always look forward to your Main Events Calendar.
Just a brief comment on your Autumn 2008, September, first week, information on the false Solomon’s seal. From what I’ve been led to believe in reading many field guides, false Solomon’s seal roots should be first soaked in a lye solution (made by combining ½ to ¾ cup of wood ashes with 1 gallon of water) for up to 24 hours. After thoroughly rinsing, the plant can be cooked in the manner of potatoes.
The regular Solomon’s seal can be cooked without the lye process.
I have tried yellow pond lily roots and found them distasteful even after changing the boiling water many times. Maybe these would benefit from a lye treatment?
Pete Rudin, Island Pond, Vermont
↑ top
Who’s the Invader Here?
To the Editors:
Seeing the photo accompanying Tovar Cerulli’s article on invasive species (David Paganelli with chain-saw in one hand and bottle of poison in the other standing in front of the autumn olive thicket), I immediately had to ask myself: “Who is the invader here?” I will agree that working to manage for or against certain species in one’s woodlot is worthwhile, since many of the so called “invasive” species can compete with and reduce the value of growing timber. However, I find it shocking how many of the most ecologically minded people and organizations have very quickly joined in the “battle with non-native plants.” How many readers of Rachael Carson’s Silent Spring are now walking through fields and forests with bottles of herbicide in their hands? This least harmful of herbicides is undeniably poison, and a product of Monsanto Corporation, which is currently pioneering genetically engineered trees. I personally am more comfortable with any species that has evolved in a complex ecosystem than one that has come from random collisions of genetic material in a lab.
The language around the whole topic of native or non-native species is so loaded with rhetoric that there has been little or no space for dialogue or real research. The often-quoted statistics around invasive species, for example, “the U.S. spends $120 billion per year,” are rarely, if ever, fully explained or backed by solid scientific evidence. Cost figures often include damages caused by household pets (non-native species), or weeds in lawns and agricultural fields (talk about your threats to biological diversity). Introduced plant species have in most cases actually lead to increased biological diversity.
These plants are taking advantage of previously non-existent niches created by our own actions. The ecologies of the Northeast are no doubt reeling to restore some stability following the trauma caused by our historical and current land-use practices, clear cutting, overgrazing, mono-cropping, and spraying of agricultural chemicals; compounded with climate change and pollution of the air and water, we have created a context the likes of which the earth has never seen. The plants best suited to restore ecological balances may not be the natives alone. Natural processes of succession and ecological change in the landscape take place over a longer time frame than we are accustomed to looking at. Many “invasives” spring up quickly, but the reality is that we do not know what the long term ramifications of the spread of these species will be.
Finally, even when we work to remove these species from our forests, the last thing that we need is another wedge between ourselves and the natural world. Going out into the woods to “do battle” with “alien invaders” will not lead us to a greater understanding of what is happening in our forests and will never lead us to healthier woodlands.
Nicko Rubin, Plainfield, Vermont
↑ top
Faith, Forestry, and Selection
To the Editors:
The article “A Damaging Tradition: Diameter-Limit Cutting Diminishes a Woodlot,” by Irwin Post (Autumn 2008) was timely, welcome, accurate, and well written. Actually, it’s probably long overdue. A few thoughts follow.
Post makes a strong case for ecological forestry aimed at “the long-term availability of high-quality logs.” Economics is the home of assumptions, spoken and unspoken, and there is an assumption here worth keeping in mind. That is, in the future, “high-quality logs” will remain desirable and valuable. That may be, and I hope it is, but styles change, and in the face of fickle wood-users, ever-developing technology, and increasing use of wood substitutes, it is an assumption. It’s part of the “faith” involved in long-term stewardship forestry.
I was particularly pleased that Irwin called out “selective cutting.” For too long, foresters have allowed loggers and lay people to play off the legitimate silvicultural “selection system” in order to make the usually harmful practice of selective cutting seem a good thing. Properly applied, the selection system will lead to those high-quality logs, whereas selective cutting, as Post writes, usually means “the most valuable trees are harvested; it is often characterized as ‘cut the best and leave the rest.’” Leave the rest – the slow growing, defective, twisted trees – to grow into what?
This co-opting has even spread to presumably sincere forest consultants who advertise that they can help via “selective harvesting” Have they sacrificed their silvicultural education on the altar of expediency?
As a retired professor of forestry, I guarantee more could be said. I’ll close by saying that, in my humble opinion, the Autumn issue was great, stimulating, informative, beautiful, and timely. Thanks.
Jim Coufal, Cazenovia, New York
↑ top
Hunting Camp
To the Editors:
I enjoy hearing, reading about, and being involved in “hunting camp” and have done so since childhood. Dave Mance’s article on “Hunting Camp” in Northern Woodlands is the best-ever description of exactly what draws us to camp. It is the essence of how I feel and have been unable to accurately describe (even to my own wife). I applaud your excellent writing job and your near-perfect description of “Deer Camp.”
On another note, I have made a 20-plus year business of selling land and camps and have helped create hundreds of new family/camp traditions in upstate New York. While my intent when I started with our land company and our forestry company was to make a living by stumbling into the unique niche of promoting a “back-to-camp life” culture, our business has grown dramatically. While my life is busier now, I have remained rooted in my love for the woods, hunting, and forestry, and can justify and embrace a business that has promoted the opportunity for others to have the same.
Dan Christmas, Camden, New York
↑ top