Logging bill is about hunting

http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2012/06/logging_bill_is_about_hunting.html

By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist

on June 23, 2012 at 6:00 AM, updated September 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM

By Sue Russell

New Jersey’s controversial Forest Harvest bill (S1085), rechristened the Forest Stewardship Bill, will allow commercial logging, or “thinning,” in state forests. The euphemism-rich measure raises questions of transparency, ripe conflicts in policy and interest, and the public trust.

In state legislatures, control over public lands, wildlife and funds is concentrated in alarmingly few partnered hands, each washing the other. Vague “stewardship” and “science” nostrums too often serve commercial agendas.

The logging bill’s sponsors — Sens. Bob Smith (D-Middlesex), Donald Norcross (D-Camden) and Steven Oroho (R-Sussex) — are members of the Angler and Hunter Conservation Caucus, an arm of the National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses.

Logging supporters do not disclose the fact that S1085 will increase the population of white-tailed deer. That’s why Smith has reintroduced legislation — derailed last session — to permit killing deer on forest stewardship lands by poaching methods long deemed unethical, unsporting and unsafe: killing animals directly over bait, any time of day or night, and stunning deer with lights.

The organizations advocating for S1085 are part of Teaming With Wildlife, a partnership among hunting advocacy groups, conservation organizations and hunting equipment manufacturers.

The TWW national steering committee is teeming with firearms manufacturers, including ATK Ammunition Systems, Remington Arms Inc., SigArms Corporation, the Archery Trade Association, as well as state game agencies, hunting groups, the Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy. The latter was the subject of a

Washington Post series on its corporate associations.

Googling “habitat development” for deer will confirm that logging or thinning forests is a long-standing game management staple.

Forty scientists who signed a letter against the original legislation noted that commercial logging would “grow the deer herd even more.” The original bill — the result of “three years of stakeholder” meetings — was criticized as damaging and commercial.

Commercial logging supporters prefer to say that the bill will benefit “nongame” warblers. Warbler protection does not require commercial logging. The rub: The self-appointed TWW stakeholders relentlessly pursue deer-killing programs they claim protect “forest systems.” Now, they are lobbying for commercial legislation that “grows the herd.”

Mature, contiguous forests do not support large numbers of deer. In 1977, the Journal of Wildlife Management reported that “deer herds are being managed with ever-increasing intensity ... directed at increasing the productivity of the white-tailed deer through habitat manipulation and harvest regulation.” Nationwide, from 1975 to 1985, millions of acres were logged, burned and defoliated for commercial hunting. The majority of acreage burned and logged, wrote the Department of the Interior, benefited deer.

The public disapproves of killing animals “over bait,” a poaching practice by the Division of Fish and Wildlife for deer since the late 1990s, and ironically supported by those who decry deer damage to forests. Baiting changes tree species’ composition and holds back forest regeneration, as it concentrates deer, who continue to feed on natural browse in the area. In eastern deciduous forests, ground-nesting birds were less abundant in baiting areas. Baiting concentrates coyotes, raccoons and opossums near ground-nesting birds. It increases car accidents and the spread of wildlife diseases.

The basic fact is: Logging creates more deer. There is virtually no public demand for logging our state forests. Maximizing deer for hunter-clients, baiting and trapping beavers, and wiping out beneficial birds are examples of how the combine helps cause forest degeneration and profits from the results.

The Public Trust Doctrine establishes government as trustee over natural resources “too important to be owned.” TWW is bent on perpetuating the cozy misalliances, mismanagement and attitudes of the past century. In New Jersey, the only missing stakeholder is the public.

Sue Russell is wildlife policy specialist for the Animal Protection League of New Jersey.

VOTE NO - Grim Package of Companion Bills

VOTE NO – COMMERCIAL LOGGING (S1085), POACHING (S1848), AND PRESCRIBED BURN (S368) BILLS

There is virtually no public demand for a grim package of companion bills—commercial logging of our state forests (S1085), the Poaching-Baiting Bill (S1848), and the Prescriptive Burn Bill (S368), currently promoted in the Legislature. The Kill-Cut-Burn legislation is the product of national timber, gun, and game commercial associations under Teaming with Wildlife. (See below).

Logging by FSC-certified forest company in Sweden.

Photo: Olli Manninen/Protect the Forest 2009.

S1085: will permit commercial logging of our state forests, primarily for hunted species and timber. As noted by the 40 scientists who signed a letter against the original version of the legislation, logging will “grow the deer herd even more.” [1]

The scientists also stated there was no need to turn mature forests into early successional landscapes, which are already “plentiful.” Contiguous forests, which do not support large numbers of deer, are not plentiful. The scientists also pointed out that the claim that a “healthy forest” must be logged and managed “is based simply on outdated, unscientific folklore.” The late addition of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards to placate opponents changes none of the above, key objections.

The rub: the self-appointed Teaming with Wildlife (TWW) “stakeholders” relentlessly pursue deer killing programs they claim protect “forest systems.” Now, they are lobbying for commercial legislation that “grows the herd.” And more killing of the resultant deer.

Logging reduces forest canopy cover, causing more sunlight to reach the forest floor, which results in rapid growth of flammable brush and creates hotter, drier conditions.

Among rationales offered to justify commercial logging is fire prevention. Earth Island Institute’s John Muir Project reviewed Forest Service abuses of the National Fire Plan (NFP). The portion of all new National Fire Plan-funded commercial logging projects in the Sierra National forests within 200 feet of homes? None. What portion of all new NFP-funded commercial logging projects on Sierra Nevada national forests focus on the removal of flammable undergrowth? None. What portion of all funds proposed for new NFP projects on Sierra Nevada national forests are being used for commercial logging projects? Answer: 97%.[2]

The newly added FSC standards are not a panacea. The prestigious Swedish Society for Nature Conservation left FSC in 2010, stating that “FSC-certified companies violate Swedish forestry law and the FSC standard. Numerous forests with great importance for nature conservation are being logged at an alarming rate, even by companies certified by Forest Stewardship Council… We refuse further greenwashing under the FSC logotype.”[3]

S1848 Poaching and Baiting. S1848 will extend poaching practices long deemed unethical, unsporting and unsafe, on forest stewardship lands. That S1085 will create more deer is indisputable fact. That is why Senator Smith has reintroduced last session’s distasteful S2649, which permits killing animals directly over bait, jacklighting, or stunning deer with strong lights, and shooting from vehicles.

Baiting: By large majorities, public disapproves of killing animals “over bait,” a poaching practice by the Division of Fish and Wildlife for deer since the late 1990s, and, ironically, supported by those who decry deer damage to forests. Baiting changes tree species composition and holds back forest regeneration, as it concentrates deer, who continue to feed on natural browse in the area. In eastern deciduous forests, ground nesting birds were less abundant in baiting areas. Baiting concentrates coyotes, raccoons, and opossums near ground nesting birds. Baiting increases car accidents and the spread of wildlife diseases.

Fires top out trees at the (“controlled burn”) blaze near Reynolds

Ranch, Colorado.  March 26, 2012.  AP Photo, Denver Post.

S368 “Prescribed Burning”. Authorities report that burning, a longstanding game management practice and the present rage, releases particulates and pollution that can affect humans with respiratory problems.[4]

“Controlled” fire can and does get out of control. In March 2012, the 3,000-acre wildfire in Colorado resulted in 900 homes evacuated, and one fatality. The fire was caused by a “prescribed burn” the week before that “sprang back to life on a windy day.”[5] At a public meeting, a New Jersey Audubon staffer made the starkly absurd point that if the 3,000-acre fire, caused by a prescribed burn and responsible for the evacuation of 900 homes and a fatality, hadn’t been prescribed burned in the past, the (prescribed burn) fire would “have been worse.”

Teeming with Gun Manufacturers

The TWW national steering committee is teeming with firearms manufacturers, including ATK Ammunition Systems, Remington Arms, Inc., SigArms Corporation, the Archery Trade Association, state game agencies, hunting groups, the Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy. The latter was the subject of a Washington Post series on its corporate associations. For the full list of participants, please see Teaming with Wildlife National Steering Committee www.aplnj.org/TWWv2.pdf.

TWW refers to firearms trade associations as “nature related businesses.” The co-leader of the New Jersey TWW Coalition, which includes timber interests, is New Jersey Audubon.

In 1931, zoologist William Temple Hornaday, who saved the American buffalo and fur seals from certain extinction, identified the National Association of Audubon Societies, gun manufacturers, and government wildlife regulators as the “Combine” or “Interlocking Directorate” that “savagely” blocked efforts to set bag limits for decimated migratory birds.

The author of a recent book on conservation “hellcat” Rosalie Edge described Edge’s battle against Audubon and “professional conservationists corrupted by trophy hunters,” timber, ranching, developers, manufacturers and government regulators. The Combine decided which lands and animals would be protected or increased based on their own “personal interests and profit motives.” Déjà vu, all over again. With TWW, the Combine is back, controlling wild land, wildlife policy, and public funding nationwide through State Wildlife Action Plans. In fact, the Combine never left.

Susan Russell

Wildlife Policy Specialist

Animal Protection League of New Jersey

League of Humane Voters of New Jersey

-------------------------------------

[1] “40 New Jersey Biologists, Ecologists, and Forest Scientists OPPOSED to S1085 ‘Forest Harvest

[2] Chad Hansen, “Getting Burning by Logging: Forest Service Abuse of the National Fire Plan in the Sierra Nevada,” John Muir Project, Earth Island Institute. Undated. 5-7. http://www.landsinfo.org/ecosystem_defense/science_documents/Hanson_undated_b.pdf (accessed 1 June 2012).

[3] FSC-Watch, “Swedish Society for the Conservation of Nature Resigns from FSC Sweden,” 22 June 2010. www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2010/07/11/_Swedish_Society_for (Accessed 1 June 2012).

[4] “Simulation of Air Quality Impacts from Prescribed Fires on an Urban Area,” Environmental Science and Technology, American Chemical Society, 2008. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es071703k  Accessed 1 June 2012).

[5] Associated Press / March 27, 2012. Colorado wildfire: 900 homes evacuated, and one fatality. www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0327/Colorado-wildfire-900-homes-evacuated-and-one-fatality (Accessed 1 June 2012).

Opinion: Logging in N.J. forests would grow deer population

http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2012/05/opinion_logging_in_nj_forests.html

Published: Thursday, May 17, 2012

Times of Trenton guest opinion column

By Susan Russell

The controversial Forest Harvest Bill (S1085), recently rechristened the Forest Stewardship Bill, allows commercial thinning, or logging, in our state forests. The measure raises questions of transparency, coherent policy and the public trust.

In state legislatures, power over public lands, wildlife and funds is concentrated in alarmingly few hands, many of them corporate and public-private partnerships, each washing the other and dominated by the gun trade. Vague claims of “stewardship” and “science” too often serve commercial agendas.

Logging supporters do not disclose the fact that the bill will increase the number of white-tailed deer. Logging and prescribed burns are classic game management methods that stimulate deer breeding for hunting purposes.

The endearing bobwhite quail, whose tenuous numbers are faltering, is another target of the bill. Struggling to survive, this beneficial bird is shot for recreation. Only recently has the Game Council restricted its kill. In 1931, conservationist William Temple Hornaday described the bobwhite as “the most useful, social, trustful, and the most lovable” of birds. In vain, he implored hunters to “spare his life.” In 2012, we are asked to log forests not to protect the birds, in any real sense, but to enable a sharply shrinking minority to keep killing them.

Logging supporters prefer to say that the bill will benefit “non-game” (does nature discriminate?) warblers. Others have observed that warbler protection does not require commercial logging.

Forty scientists who signed a letter against the original legislation noted that commercial thinning of forests would “grow the deer herd even more.” The bill — the result of “three years of stakeholder” meetings — was criticized as damaging and commercial.

Those who stand to benefit from logging our forests are the principal “stakeholders” behind the original bill: timber, hunting, firearms and archery manufacturer front groups; state agencies; conservation groups partnered with all of the above; and private consultants and grant brokers.

Here’s the rub: The self-appointed stakeholders relentlessly pursue deer-killing programs they claim protect “forest systems.” Now they are lobbying for commercial legislation that grows the herd. Proposed amendments that would include Forest Stewardship Council guidelines will not change the fact that logging, or thinning, creates more deer.

The link between cutting trees and deer reproduction is fact. Googling “habitat development” for white-tailed deer will confirm that logging and thinning forests are long-standing game management staples. Mature, contiguous forests do not support large numbers of deer. Their dense canopies prevent the growth of plants that deer like to eat. State game departments create deer breeding range by mowing, logging, burning and planting deer-preferred crops.

Lest there be any doubt, in 1977, the Journal of Wildlife Management reported that “deer herds are being managed with ever-increasing intensity. The primary management plan has been directed at increasing the productivity of the white-tailed deer through habitat manipulation and harvest regulation.”

Nationwide, from 1975 to 1985, millions of acres were logged, burned and defoliated for commercial hunting. The majority of acreage burned and logged, wrote the Department of the Interior, benefited deer by providing food and breeding range.

It was all the more remarkable, then, when, during an April 26 public meeting, the bill’s sponsor — hunter legislative caucus member and Senate Energy and Environment Chairman Bob Smith (D-Piscataway) — would not acknowledge that thinning forests, or logging, creates more deer, and said that there was “disagreement with that premise.” At best, the chairman is ill-advised by those who stand to benefit from more deer.

To the stakeholders, the resulting “farmed” deer are utterly expendable. Partnership-backed legislation S1848, defeated last session, would have permitted killing deer on forest stewardship lands by egregious poaching methods long deemed unethical.

The public disapproves of hunting animals “over bait,” a poaching practice legitimized by the Division of Fish and Wildlife for deer since the late 1990s, and supported, ironically, by those who decry deer damage to forests. Baiting is counterproductive: In multiple studies, baiting changed forest composition of tree species and held back forest regeneration. Why? Bait sites concentrate deer, who continue to feed on natural browse in the area. In eastern deciduous forests, ground nesting birds were less abundant in baiting areas.

Baiting lures and concentrates coyotes, raccoons and opossums near ground nesting birds.

Maximizing deer populations for hunter-clients, widespread baiting, and trapping of the beaver, one of nature’s most industrious agents of forest health, are yet other examples of how unseemly gun trade and government partnerships help cause forest degeneration and profit from the results, and why S1085 should be shelved. Excluded from the stakeholder club is any organization that does not support, or opposes, commercial hunting and trapping. Less than 0.6 percent of New Jersey residents hunt. By hook, or by crook, and even as hunter numbers plummet, the ammunition, timber and gun alliance, which includes

cooperating conservation groups, is bent upon perpetuating not only their power, but the mistakes and attitudes of the past century.

The Public Trust Doctrine establishes government as trustee over natural resources “too important to be owned.” Could have fooled us. As diverse people have commented at hearings, the only missing stakeholder is the public.

Susan Russell is wildlife policy specialist for the Animal Protection League of New Jersey (aplnj.org).

Written Testimony: Presented to the New Jersey Senate Environment and Energy Committee

Susan Russell, Wildlife Policy Specialist

League of Humane Voters of New Jersey, Animal Protection League of New Jersey

January 30, 2012

“You have to watch what they do, not what they say.” (“A clear-cut controversy: Some logging halted after outcry over Mass. forestry mistakes,”  Boston Globe, March 4, 2010, appended)

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony related to S1085, an act to permit commercial timbering on state-owned lands, with certain exemptions.

A disputed tenet of the legislation is that commercial timbering operations will essentially replace or mimic natural and/or historical human disturbance – and prudent, non-commercial stewardship.  Its proponents claim that contract logging is necessary to ensure the continued health and biodiversity of New Jersey’s public forests.

Our state forests should remain off-limits to commercial logging interests.  S 1085 and similar legislation and/or policy in other states coincide with the growing economic value of re-growth stands, and relatively recent national and state commercial-conservation partnerships and coalitions.

Natural disturbances – wind and ice storms – create openings over time. Natural events, augmented if and when necessary through non-commercial stewardship, should suffice.

S1085 sets in stark relief our state’s incoherent white-tailed deer policy (and beaver policy:  beavers create natural forest disturbance, yet are trapped for fur) and commercial-conservation coalitions that too frequently transmute closed arrangements into public policy.

Not least among the legislation’s consequences:  a stimulation of white-tailed deer reproduction and a possible increase in predation on forest-interior birds. New Jersey Audubon, a principal advocate of the legislation, simultaneously works for the systemic destruction of deer and hunter-partner access to protect “forest systems” and forest-interior birds, and classic enhancement of deer breeding range.

The resultant deer are expendable, justify even greater hunter access, and are dispatched under vague, stewardship nostrums. Ethical and humane imperatives remain unaddressed.  On S 1085, New Jersey Audubon writes:

“Deer herbivory [a direct result of commercial timbering promoted in S1085] and invasive species are two of the challenges that will always be a concern in New Jersey but, recognized as such, can be addressed in a quality forest stewardship plan before practice implementation begins.”

Translation:  Last session’s S2649, which would have expanded depredation practices to lands under the Forest Stewardship or Woodland Management Plans.

The practices included poaching and banned marketing hunting practices long considered unethical, unsporting, and unsafe:

New Jersey Senate Bill 2649 permits killing animals at point-blank range over food, with “a firearm or weapon of any kind,” to “kill, destroy, injure, shoot, shoot at, take, wound, or attempt to take, kill, or wound, a deer, or have in possession or control any firearm or other weapon of any kind for such purposes.” Participants may “utilize an illuminating device or devices, including but not limited to a spotlight, flashlight, floodlight, or headlight, whether portable or fixed to a motor vehicle or any other kind of vehicle, to locate and stun deer,” and shoot from vehicles.

The national Teaming with Wildlife (TWW) Steering Committee  includes all facets of the shooting industry, including ATK Ammunition Systems and the Archery Trade Association (“nature related businesses). New Jersey Audubon is the TWW co-director. The New Jersey Forestry Association is a member.

Working with the Legislature, the animal protection community has obtained several landmark wildlife protection laws, among New Jersey’s statutes banning steel-jaw leghold traps and the importation of wild-caught, exotic birds for the pet trade. National and state humane organizations represent the interests of well over 700,000 of New Jersey voters. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on legislation affecting wildlife and wildlands held in trust for all citizens. The chasm between commercial timbering contracts, the potential for abuse,  and bona fide stewardship in state forests is wide. We urge the committee to act accordingly.

Logging Bill Exposes Incoherent Deer Policy and Unseemly Partnerships

With good reason, legislation to allow commercial logging of state lands has divided conservation groups. Cutting within forests is routine game propagation practice to enhance deer range and stimulate reproduction.

Describing the benefits of clear-cutting, authorities note that habitat has a major influence on deer reproduction. Clear-cutting forces earlier breeding. At higher numbers, deer may not be bred until the 2nd or 3rd estrus.[1] As the number of females increases, births decline, because there is less food available per deer.[2] The percentage of fawns and yearlings who breed early depends on their physical development, which is based on food supply. [3]

Conversely, more mature forests mean fewer deer. As of June, 2011, Virginia’s hunters were concerned over a decline in national forest deer. The deer herd and kill had plummeted, especially on national forest land.[4] The understory that was the result of timber harvests and game management had matured, explained state biologists.

Whitetail deer did not spontaneously irrupt; the species was pushed. In 1977, the Journal of Wildlife Management reported that “deer herds are being managed with ever-increasing intensity. The primary management plan has been directed at increasing the productivity of the white-tailed deer through habitat manipulation and harvest regulation” (Mirarchi et al 1977).[5] Far from limiting the herd, commercial hunting served to force peak reproduction.

New Jersey Audubon, which promotes the systemic killing of deer to protect “forest systems,” is the major supporter of a bill that will create more deer -- in state forests. The resulting deer are expendable, and will justify Audubon’s commercial partner’s coveted hunter access to public and private land.

Moreover, the cutting proposed by New Jersey Audubon and its commercial partners, including logging interests, will exacerbate any long-term impact of deer grazing. National experts report that there are particular points in time when the direction and speed of forest succession is sensitive to deer browsing. In the absence of large-scale disturbances the forest canopy is resistant to change despite large amounts of under-story herbivory. (Cross and McShea 2003). Commercial timbering is such a disturbance.

Ornithologists studying the aftermath of Bureau of Land Management forest cuts for deer report that birds associated with mature forests declined.[6] Experts report that forest management for deer “may not hold for other organisms, such as forest interior birds, salamanders and wildflowers.”[7]

With hunter-client numbers plummeting and in pursuit of public cash, the government-firearms manufacturer partnership that has controlled U.S. wildlife policy for a century has ‘partnered” with cooperative conservation groups, primarily Audubon, national and state.

The Teaming with Wildlife Steering Committee is teeming with commercial interests, including the Archery Trade Association, ATK Ammunition Systems, Taurus International (“nature related businesses”). New Jersey Audubon is the group’s New Jersey co-director.

Senator Smith and Audubon also proposed legislation to expand poaching practices long deemed unsporting, unsafe, and unethical -- killing, with any weapon, directly over bait, shooting from cars and trucks --to destroy deer on forest stewardship lands, many managed and leased by hunting clubs to propagate deer. 

Enough with vague “stewardship” nostrums, commercial deals, and hidebound policy that repeats the mistakes of the past. New Jersey’s wild lands and wildlife are held in trust for all of its citizens. The latter are not in on this deal.

---

[1]Voight, D. et al, “Forest Management Guidelines for the Provision of White-tailed Deer Habitat,” Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Aug. 1997)

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Cochran, B. Hunters concerned over decline in national forest deer. Roanoke.com. June 2011.

[5] Mirarchi, R., Scanlon, P., Kirkpatrick, R. Annual Changes in Spermatazoan Production and Associated Organs of the White-tailed Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 1977. 92.

[6] Varble, Bill, “Study: Birds flee thinned areas,” Mail Tribune (21 Sept 2003)

[7] McShea, William J. et al, The Science of Overabundance, Smithsonian Institution Press (1997)