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