In discussions about exploitation of Norfolk’s natural resources, we need a deeper understanding and relevant context rather than a focus on short-term profits from beaver pelts or timber.

Cutting all the ash trees in Haystack Mountain State Park in an attempt to stop the emerald ash borer (EAB), as reported in the March issue of Norfolk Now, is an outdated management strategy that will adversely affect the future of ash trees in the region and could do more harm than good. Recent research from the Midwest – ground zero, where EAB started – informs us that white ash survival in any given stand is up to 100%, and 75% of trees showing prior evidence of EAB infection had healthy canopies. If a tree retains 30% of its canopy, it is likely to survive, and these “lingering ash” are the resilient trees we need for the future and for ongoing research. (see Robinett and McCullough (2019) “White ash (Fraxinus americana) survival in the core of the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) invasion.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0320.)

The CT Department of Energy should use the best and most current research and first do no harm with our public natural resources. According to Susan Masino, Trinity College professor and a recent Charles Bullard Fellow at Harvard Forest, “Forests have been dealing with bugs for millions of years…and cutting down ash trees will not stop the emerald ash borer. It does of course salvage the wood, and private landowners may need that specific resource or that income. But salvage logging has major costs in erosion, soil compaction, loss of stored carbon, and loss of trees that might have been the resilient survivors. We might still have American Chestnut now if we weren’t so aggressive about cutting it. We should not make the same mistake with the ash trees in the region.”

Who or what benefits from cutting these trees down in a state park? Areas of dead trees become successional habitat and dead trees themselves provide habitat and store carbon for decades. Masino’s work shows that intact forests have quantifiably greater long-term benefits in terms of biodiversity and carbon storage than managed forests (see Moomaw et al. (2019) “Intact Forests in the United States: Proforestation Mitigates Climate Change and Serves the Greatest Good.” Frontiers in Forests and Global Change https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00027. A large international consortium of scientists concluded that “salvage logging is not consistent with the management objectives of protected areas” (Thorn et al. (2018) “Impacts of salvage logging on biodiversity: A meta-analysis.” Journal of Applied Ecology https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12945)

Beavers also provide essential ecosystem services. They are intelligent mammals that create and preserve successional habitat and wetlands, which protect us from flooding and erosion while sequestering large amounts of carbon. Beaver deceivers can be an effective way to keep these benefits if a beaver is creating problems. Many individuals and organizations have worked for years to advocate for responsible trapping and repeal the cruel leg-hold trap laws that Massachusetts and Rhode Island have abolished. Although the method for trapping beavers described in the Norfolk Now article (Feb. 2020) is not a leg-hold, it is nevertheless barbaric as the helpless and defenseless animal will die slowly by drowning. 

No one is suggesting that we stop responsible forestry or trapping. But sometimes our actions and our laws are wrong. It’s time to revisit and change them to better serve the public good and align with our morality. 

Martha Klein