[NatureNS] Crown land forests - suggestions for ground-truthing

To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
References: <CAD_MH0PDaftBSeq5efKT+YT2_Q6F_qABn8D2Ospn0RmrPsZ6yA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donna Crossland <dcrossland@eastlink.ca>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 22:16:07 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

ing very substantial -- or at least that has been the case in
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------562EE452F785F4202D307699
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The Migratory Bird Conventions Act most certainly has been ignored in 
the woods, and the Act needs to be amended in my humble opinion. We are 
long past the feather trade and hunting threats. It hasn't protected 
birds from the newest threats of harvesting, and of course when it was 
written ~ 100 years ago, they had not envisioned the clearcutting, and 
chipping machines that produce ~ 2 million or more tonnes of 
biomass/year in NS, much of it quietly shipped overseas -the latest scam 
that falsely declares that our chipped up old growth sugar maples and 
other hardwoods are 'green electricity', preying upon the naivety of us 
all.  As many are aware, the problem is that a nest actually has to be 
found in order for the Mig Bird Act to kick in.  This wouldn't be such a 
big deal if birds were not so crafty at hiding their nests.  We are 
going to need skilled birders and otherwise very patient folk to seek 
out nests this spring in order to stave off some additional bird decline 
(and perhaps save some forests).

I should explain my statement below that David Simpson commented on.  I 
am truly struggling with envisioning forest harvesting proceeding at 
Corbett Lake during nest season, adding insult to injury after a clearly 
inadequate public consultation process for that location.  The stands at 
Corbett Lake were never posted for comment on through Harvest Plans Map 
Viewer (instead they were posted under the old 2014 process that reached 
very few people and used a much abbreviated comment period), and the 
harvest prescription was derived from using the earlier versions of the 
Forest Management Guides which set up nearly all forest stands, 
regardless of forest composition or seral stage, to be clearcut (using a 
variety of clever terms that all meant 'clearcut' in plain speak).

Since the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, one can 
assume that the Department could actually allow harvesting of this stand 
this spring, despite the whole landscape being over-harvested already, 
and despite presence of large, old scattered sugar maples and other late 
successional trees, now so rare in that area.  Even if they delay 
harvesting, they will simply harvest somewhere else during nest season, 
but perhaps in less mature forest (since we now see ~30 year old stands 
flattened).  In some desperate measure to find some solace in all of 
this, I believe harvesting the young, early-successional forest during 
nest season may be slightly better (though they may kill thousands of 
birds, depending on the size of clearcut or two-stage clearcut, and 
progression of nesting-estimating ~4 young hatched in each nest that 
could get put through the chipper), than harvesting mature 
late-successional forest patches during nest season.  How could one 
scenario possibly be better than the other when both of them are terrible?

In an effort to triage the horrors I see in the woods (where woods used 
to be), I am most concerned about forest songbirds that require 
unfragmented, closed canopy, mature and generally late-successional 
forest (e.g. Blue-headed vireo, Blackburnian warbler, Black-throated 
green warbler and other neotropical migrants- nearly all of them in 
decline, that fly all the way here to nest, seek food and shelter in the 
unique habitat offered by the Acadian forest).  The more common birds 
may be of less concern because they can nest in a broader range of 
habitats, including young forests that now comprise the majority of our 
remaining stands, though of course they deserve protection as well (e.g. 
Common yellowthroat, Goldfinch, etc).

In any case, it will be helpful to find nests of ANY migratory species 
this spring in order to slow cutting during nest period. Many of us have 
sensed that industry is making a mad dash to cut all they can before 
they are forced to conduct more ecological forestry on Crown land.  
There is perhaps also a dash to feed Northern Pulp before it closes.  I 
believe this year truly matters for naturalists to watch over our 
forests.  Industry may return to cut the habitat later, and so the 
location will be added to the growing number of hectares unsuitable for 
many spp to nest for decades to come, but at least we may have saved 
some birds and their food and shelter for this year.   Perhaps the 
adoption of Lahey recommendations will improve management to the extent 
that we won't have to be concerned about this next year.  Let's hope.

It may be strategic to approach Bev's project with a narrower list of 
species (e.g. rare lichens, plants, birds, etc) so as to allow more 
naturalists and less experienced folk to help zero in on certain 
species.  The database may be less cumbersome, too.

I sound like a "Debby Downer" this evening so will end here.

Donna Crossland


On 2019-02-26 11:24 a.m., David Simpson wrote:
> Please add my name to the list of willing naturalists. I've done a 
> fair number of bird surveys, particularly for songbirds, and I'd be 
> very happy to partake in the data collection and promulgation efforts. 
> I'm in Hants County, but willing to travel. If a similar undertaking 
> is happening in my neck of the woods I'd be happy to know about it; 
> the number of loaded logging trucks I see coming down the Chester Road 
> is alarming.
>
> Further to what John Kearney said, it might behoove us to be pointed 
> in our searches and search for predetermined targets. I say this 
> because in a bioblitz, the aim is to record every species in an area. 
> *IF* it is the entire flora/fauna assemblage that could be a deciding 
> factor, then yes, a bioblitz could be the means to an end (the end 
> being stopping a clearcut). But it could be that the means to that end 
> is a much simpler, easily determined piece of evidence, for example, 
> the presence of a species at risk. A bioblitz takes much more time and 
> effort than searching for one or several target species. Either way, 
> as I see it, the key to being effective here will be to determine 
> exactly what piece of information comprises a means to the end, and 
> then go look for evidence of that specifically.
>
> Donna Crossland said "The harvest at Corbett Lake will surely NOT take 
> place during nesting season". Is this a fact? I know it's illegal to 
> disturb nesting migratory birds - which are present in virtually any 
> stand of trees in the Spring - but I was under the impression these 
> laws were ignored when it comes to forestry. I could be wrong.
>
> Thanks for getting this going.
>
> /Dave in Curry's Corner/
> /
> /
> David Simpson
> (902) 580 8007
> david.sonsimp@g