The New Jersey Audubon is NOT The National Audubon
The New Jersey Audubon is NOT The National Audubon. Far From It.
In fact, they are on different sides when it comes to supporting logging interests. The New Jersey Audubon supports logging. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.njspotlight.com/2017/04/17-04-17-state-audubon-hoping-to-move-forward-with-logging-at-sparta-mountain/amp/ The National Audubon opposes logging. https://www.audubon.org/news/legal-victory-tongass-national-forest-goes-unchallenged-department-justice
Logging became unpopular after we realized the harm it does. Haven’t we learned anything from our past mistakes? Or are we doomed to repeat them. Is logging coming back to New Jersey? Well it is already here. Take a look at what Sparta Mountain looks like today as a result of logging what in New Jersey, thanks to the NJDEP. In New Jersey it’s called clear cutting to create young forests. It’s true, we need young forests to maintain biodiversity. So what’s the problem with clear cutting, aka logging, to create young forests?
The problem is we also need contiguous forests in order for many species in New Jersey to survive. Defragmenting our forests (or clear cutting) will result in the lack of habitat for much of wildlife creating an unbalanced environment. Clear cutting forests in New Jersey is especially ill advised. We are the most populated state in the nation based on per capita per square mile. We need every tree we can get to counter air pollution. New Jersey’s extensive highway system supports thousands of trucks per day bringing products and services to Manhattan and our ports spewing carbon dioxide into our air. We need trees to reduce the effects of CO2. Clear cutting could also introduce invasive species into our forests endangering our native species. Our water quality could suffer. Erosion and flooding is more likely to occur.
So, how do we create the young forests. In some cases nature does this for us. Forest fires will result in the creation of young forests. Planting thousands of young trees along our river beds as is currently being done in Sussex County. Or create a program to plant young trees on abandoned farmlands. We can be creative in solving this problem without destroying a healthy mature forest.
The National Audubon Society has fought to preserve The Tongass National Forest in Alaska They took their battle to court and won. The courts favored Audubon’s case by rejecting clear cutting in the Tongass National Forest. Here in New Jersey, the New Jersey Audubon supports logging in the name of clear cutting. New Jersey needs more trees, not less.
The New Jersey Audubon is NOT The National Audubon. Far From It.
NJ Audubon should be on the side of protecting public forests. Instead they are huge cheerleaders in chopping them down. Why? I suggest that you follow the money, just like Deep Throat said. There is corruption at the heart of this, and money. Someone is being paid-off to come up with excuses and try to fool the public that their recovering forests now need to chopped down. The people and critters of NJ deserve to have the lands that they already paid to protect, kept intact. I also suggest no longer supporting NJ Audubon, until they change their tune. Money speaks, shut off the flow of their funding and they will squeal. Get a clue NJ Audubon!
Glen – the corruption is right out in the open. As is the money.
NJ Audubon and the NJ Farm Bureau are supporting proposed legislation to log NJ forests. During prior testimony on similar legislation (that failed) The Farm Bureau openly stated that their objective was to re-establish a commercial logging industry in NJ. DEP Forest Plans openly support commercial logging. This logging creates habitat for game species, like deer and grouse that hunters desire. DEP is captured by hunters, who fund their Division of Wildlife Management. Affiliated hunting and outdoor groups generate revenue from guns and ammo, ATV, and other destructive “outdoors” products.
NJ Audubon receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in government and private grants for this work. That money funds a large logging staff an NJA. Google NJA “IRS Form 990”
NJ Audubon has a “Corporate Stewardship Council” where, among other things, they solicit funds from corporations that destroy the landscape and then NJA receives money for mitigation of this damage.
The corruption is hiding in plain sight.
Are you really that misinformed? Hunters are not pushing this agenda. The Division of Fish and Wildlife permanently closed the hunting season for ruffed grouse. Partly because the birds are nonexistent here and partially because hunters had no reason to pursue a bird that was absent for years. They were eradicated by loss of habitat, not hunting pressure. It boggles the mind that you prefer a tree over an iconic bird like the grouse. Shame on you.
Ross – No need to take my word for it, just listen to DEP Director of Div. of Fish and Wildlife. He openly admits that hunting revenues drive management:
Episode 15: A Conversation With Dave Golden
https://njaudubon.org/coffee/
BTW, I haven’t been in NJ for almost 5 years.
I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how an eradicated species that nobody in NJ hunts is driving hunting-based management decisions. No way. If they were it should be applauded, not attacked. And, again, someone who has not lived here for years is telling us what is happening in our own back yard. I suggest you start addressing natural resource issues in a place you actually know.
Ross – listen to Dave Golden of DEP DFW. We are not talking about ONE SPECIES. Dave admits that hunting and fishing license revenue drives management of NJ’s WMA’s under DFW jurisdiction. PERIOD.
And “Young Forests” provide significant new edge habitat that deer (and hunters) love, and at a time when deer browse is one of the biggest threats to forest health.
This is so obvious to virtually everyone, that your denial is embarrassing. Any reasonable person can only conclude that you are not engaged in good faith.
New Jersey Audubon Society used to be the premier bird conservation organization in New Jersey. Historically, they embraced the preservation of natural areas and near wilderness. They were proponents for protecting our natural heritage that maximizes our biodiversity. With the passing of Tom Gilmore, the former President NJAS from 1984-2012, the organization is unmoored and adrift from their rich legacy. Now they purport to represent the interest of conservation by advocating for the creation of young forests for a suite f dependent species. All the while remaining silent on the wealth of NJ Endangered and Threatened Species that need large patches of unfragmented forests such as Barred Owl, Red Shouldered Hawk and Cerulean Warbler. NJAS President Eric Stiles has a department of foresters that are more important than the naturalists they used to have. Supporting legislation that requires that all public lands in the Garden State have a forestry plan is morally and ethically repugnant. This has nothing to do with conservation but to become an insider in becoming the forestry consultant in as yet to be created industry that was for all intents and [purposes dead in New Jersey. Conservation is a science. Forestry is not! Monetizing public lands of the State of New Jersey to create income at the expense is naked violation of the public trust. NJAS is a modern age robber baron in sheepskin!
Absolutely right!
Absolutely wrong.
It is a shame so many people have a knee-jerk reaction to the creation of the young forest NJAS promotes. You need only look at the list of endangered and threatened species in NJ to see how many of them need this kind of habitat. Birds such as the kestrel, horned lark, golden winged warbler, northern harrier and many others require open country or young forest. And if you are an apt student of our forests, you soon realize how little of it there is. In our misguided “any tree is a good tree” philosophy we have created a monoculture of second growth trees, which can be a real desert, devoid of many birds and animals. In this day and age we cannot rely on forest fires or floods to create the openings these species need. I urge the folks who are mired in their tunnel-vision approach to smarten up and broaden their thinking. As a conservation advocate my entire life I fully support NJAS in their intelligent approach. New Jersey is not Alaska. One size does not fit all.
kross – It’s shame that people don’t seem to understand the facts or the science and assume good faith by corrupt organizations (i.e. NJ Audubon and NJ DEP).
One only need read the US Forest Service study of NJ Highlands forests to see how many interior forests species depend on intact forest canopy and large blocks of unfragmented forest. One only need read the Highlands Act to understand why the NJ Legislature sought to protect such forests. One need only read NJ Audubon CEO Eric Stiles’ own published papers to understand all this too.
I provide links to all this on my blog Wolfenotes.com
Your claims are false: NJ forests are not “monocultures”. The tunnel vision is from NJ Audubon and DEP, who are destroying magnificent diverse forests for money. There is abundant habitat in NJ for the young forests species you note – and utility ROW and storm blowdown provide abundant openings in the forest canopy.
Finally, as a NJ Audubon loyalist, are you are of their “partnership” with Trump at his Bedminster golf course? That they take money from Wall St. billionaire Peter Kellogg to log forests so his hunting buddies benefit? Are you aware that NJA received a $830,000 COVID PPP forgivable loan, despite not touching a $28 million endowment or seeking funding from their wealthy members?
NJA is a fraud.
I doubt anyone knows more about the Highlands Act and related studies than I do. In fact I am looking right now at the award presented to me by the Highlands Coalition for “outstanding grassroots activism”. And I have been around you enough to recognize your typical agenda.
Sorry, Bill. You are widely recognized as a bitter person who takes pleasure in attacking anything and everything, regardless of right or wrong.
My claims are based on a thorough understanding of our woodland dynamics. The evidence is there even if you choose to ignore it. If there is indeed “abundant habitat” for those species that need young forest, why are all those species in trouble? For one example, in NJ, mature forest loving birds like wild turkeys are hugely successful. Species that prefer young forest, like ruffed grouse, or golden winged warblers, are almost nonexistent. These are not opinions.
Your ridiculous attempt to drag politics into a wildlife discussion is only a distraction. Where NJAS draws funding is beside the point. Almost every conservation group in NJ gets its money from just a few sources, like the Dodge Foundation. It would be better if there was more diversity, but wishing won’t make it so.
My “loyalty” to NJAS is derived from honesty and respect, not spite and prejudice. You should definitely try it.
Proponents of “forest stewardship” should produce an inventory of RTE species and habitats, probably one each for north, central, and south Jersey. Then an analysis can be done. I don’t see any interest in such a systematic approach. The “stewardship” proponents certainly don’t claim to have done this. Instead, they write plans for oddly-shaped WMAs (because Green Acres purchases what it can get), disregarding habitat possibilities in regions as a whole, and alternate means of protecting habitat on private land, such as conservation easements.
If NJ Audubon is so concerned about habitat, why don’t they simulate bad storms by cutting down trees and leaving them in place?? That’s what happens in nature. Downed trees are habitat for an incredible variety of living things. Further, removing the logs for sale on the commercial market removes nutrients from the area. Will the next step be to apply commercial fertilizer??
NJ Audubon is not honest. If you had studied their plan for Sparta Mountain, you would have discovered that they falsely describe the contents of some of the journal articles they cite. Details available on request. Some moderators don’t like email addresses in these comments, but you know where to find me. Further, the Sparta Mountain plan deliberately misleads unsuspecting readers, by willfully failing to define “healthy forest”.
I’d like to know if you’re up to date on all the abuses that have occurred in SMWMA: Ray Bukowski lied to a reporter, telling him that only firewood was removed in the 2019-2020 season. Deep ruts were dug into Rock Lodge Road, in violation of best management practices, which the loggers are supposed to follow. “Deep” means literally big enough for a grown man to lie down in, his whole body below the top of the ruts. We have pictures. Amphibian eggs were laid in standing water in the ruts, the unsuspecting mothers having been confused by the ruts being so near to a vernal pool. And NJ Audubon’s partners at DEP purported to close Rock Lodge Road, which happens to be a public right-of-way. Again I say, details upon request.
Ross – that’s what’s known as an ad hominem.
I was on McGreevey’s Highlands Taskforce and the small team that drafted the Highlands Act (I wrote the DEP and environmental provisions). As I recall, the “grassroots” activists at the time were backing Tim Dillingham’s campaign to designate the Highlands as an “special area” under the voluntary toothless state plan. I think your activism was focused on that weak effort, right?
No, my activism was devoted to adjusting their land use map based on resources rather than the past deficient land use patterns. My god, Bill, its always some political subterfuge with you. Get back on your meds.
Once again, you go ad hominem without any response to the substance I’ve put out.
But, since you mention political subterfuge, actually there was.
Candy Ashmum was orchestrating it. She joined Sierra ExComm when I was Policy Director, at the manipulative invite of Tim Dillingham. Tim was working with Jeff Scott of CWA 1034 and in the first Whitman term, they created the original Green mafia coalition known as the Environmental Summit for purely political reasons. I was in the room. It was totally cynical.
At the same time, Tim directed me to not work on opposition to the Merrill Lynch development in Hopewell, despite the fact that I lived in Hopewell at the time. I strongly believe, but don’t have evidence, that was because Candy viewed it as an attack on her State Plan and a violation of the deal she cut, which traded preservation of the west side of Scotch Road for Merrill Lynch approvals.
As soon as Tim left Sierra for NJCF (and his fake Highlands campaign), me and Bill Neil of NJA launched a very effective campaign on all that, by teaming up with Hopewell local activists.
When you spend your time doing technocratic BS, you can be easily manipulated.
The NJ “conservation” and “environmental leadership” communities are a snake pit.
BTW, I need to respond to your comment that “Nobody has yet found a way to keep you from blathering on”.
Many have tried. It began, ironically, with DEP Commissioner Bob Shinn, who, based on the advise of the head of DEP Division of Fish and Wildlife Bob McDowell, covered up. major mercury freshwater fish problem. McDowell did so because publicly releasing the science and telling the truth would hurt his fish license revenue. I have this in sworn testimony by DEP Assistant Commissioner Sinding at my administrative hearings.
Others found ways to eliminate my Foundation funding (I was told by someone in the room that I was blackballed by a major NJ Foundation).
Despite this, I’ve managed to keep on telling the truth about the NJ snake pit.
Curious, you agreed with me on issues in Pompton lakes.
You don’t know jack Ross, and it’s obvious.
Senator Lesniak is basing National Audubon’s stance against forest management, which National Audubon has never stated, just because they opposed logging the Tongass. The fact is that Audubon encourages bird friendly forest management, especially in the Northeast. Read the article they promoted a few months ago from the CT state chapter: “Banding Confirms Birds Depend on a Healthy and Diverse Forest Habitat – Bird-friendly forest management can help birds that nest and raise their young in the woods.”
Sharon – you should identity yourself, your training, who you work for, who you have worked for, how that income relates to logging NJ forests, and your role in this disaster and scam called “Young Forests”. Be specific. Or I will be. Readers deserve to have full information.
Former Senator Lesniak sponsored legislation that would block the logging of State forests. He clearly understands what is going on at DEP and NJ Audubon.
NJ Audubon is the only NJ State “conservation” group that is currently supporting legislation to promote commercial logging of NJ’s last remaining forests. All other conservation and environmental groups and many biologists, ecologists, and birders OPPOSE that legislation.
I can go into great detail and have written many essays on NJ Audubon corruption, on the sham “Young Forest” initiative, on DEP failures, etc on my blog, so I would urge anyone to visit and word search (I wrote a detailed series critiquing NJ Audubon and DEP logging on Sparta Mt. Wildfife Management Area. My blog includes a link to my bio, Google “Wolfenotes.com”
More shoes are about to drop to expose NJ Audubon corruption and the sham known as “Young Forests”.
See Dennis M.’s comments below, with which I completely agree.
Yes, Sharon. Please list all the things about you that Bill failed to list for himself. And ignore the fact that none of it has any bearing on whether you are right or wrong. NJAS is not “promoting logging of NJ’s last remaining forests”. If they do create a small amount of diversity it will be on only a tiny percentage of our woodlands. Bill, repeating your lies doesn’t make them true. Yes you have written “many essays”. Nobody has yet found a way to keep you from blathering on, no matter how wrong you are. Again, that doesn’t make them correct. I urge you to get a grip and let honesty rather than jealousy get the upper hand.
Ross – here’s some data from you from NJA own Forest Stewardship Plan for Sparta Mountain. Too bad I caught NJA John Cecil flat out lying about them. Look at the numbers Ross:
http://www.wolfenotes.com/2016/03/nj-audubon-is-misrepresenting-facts-science-and-regulations-in-defending-their-sparta-mountain-logging-plan/
And NJA and DEP and foresters lie repeatedly about the weak DEP Forestry Wetlands BMP – look at the regulatory facts Ross:
http://www.wolfenotes.com/2016/01/environmental-damage-of-dep-sparta-mountain-logging-plan-largely-unregulated/
I post a blog with my name and comments with my real name. You do not (kross)
I’m sorry. I tried reading your posts in wolfenotes but they are rambling and nearly incoherent. And they prove nothing. No thanks, You have a blog. Great. And I have a facebook page with my name on it. But this is this and that is that. Get it? My name is Ross Kushner. I already posted that here.
Funny, DEP Commissioners, Governors, Gov.’s Office staffer, OLS aids, and legislators never found my writings incoherent, over a 30 year period.
NJ Courts upheld my allegedly “incoherent” writing of regulations that protected over 2,200 miles of 300 foot wide stream buffers – as well as upholding the Highlands Act “septic density” standard for land use, 1 unit per 88 acres in forested lands, the strongest in the Country.
Please don’t try to equate your local pissant career with my Statewide achievements.
While you’re not responding to facts, perhaps you’d like to defend NJ Audubon for:
1) forming a “partnership” with Trump National Golf course;
2) taking PSE&G money for mitigation on the Susquehanna-Roseland power line through Highlands forests (and Delaware Watergap NRA);
3) taking a $830,000 of COVID PPP “forgivable loan”.
BTW, I’ve criticized NJ Conservation Foundation as well as NJ Audubon.
Bill, I’m surprised you have not dislocated your shoulder patting yourself on the back. Sadly, people who know you, can identify your BS pretty quickly.
It is no surprise to anyone that you ended up working for “Wolfenotes” as a last resort, since it is the only organization where the board, staff, and members could tolerate you. Because there aren’t any. You have alienated just about everyone who has had to work with you. Word gets around. As to your writing incoherence, your blog is what it is. Although you may have many skills, I assure you writing is not among them.
But all this has nothing to do with the status of our forests.
Many point to species like barred owl and red shouldered hawk as T&E birds that will be impacted by NJ Audubons work. Yet, these are wetland associated spcies more than interior forest birds. In addition, they are predators who would actually benefit from the expansion of prey (rabbits, mice, voles, birds) that would accompany the creation of young forest.
But foremost is the fact that I could lead you today to places in my area where we could listen to, and probably see these birds, despite their relative scarcity What we would not hear is the drumming of ruffed grouse, a sound that once heralded spring across New Jersey. Why? Because the young forest they need as habitat has vanished. And all the misquoting of studies, misguided attacks, and pious hand wringing in the world won’t change that.
NJ Audubon is one of the few organizations to try addressing this problem. Despite the fact that it is difficult to convince supporters of our environment that cutting trees can be a good thing. They call us tree huggers for a reason! I applaud NJAS for their heroic stance. So should we all.
Ross – I don’t “work” for Wolfenotes. I receive no pay or any other form of compensation for what I do. I enjoy it and di it out of a commitment to the public interest. I know that’s difficult for Green Mafia folks – who follow the money – to understand..
So there is some equity in the world. Wolfenotes is valued precisely as what it is worth. Nothing.
From the guy who opened a line of spin with this boast:
“I doubt anyone knows more about the Highlands Act and related studies than I do.”
Shameless.
NJA is even wrong about the science of the golden winged warbler. The regional plan to protect GWW specific states that places like Sparta Mountain are to be AVOIDED, due to presence of blue winged warbler, elevation, and migratory pathways, all of which contribute to risks of hybridization. Ad Climate change has moved the small piece of GWW habitat north. Look at the science, Ross:
DEP’s Sparta Mountain Logging Scheme Conflicts With Golden Wing Warbler Recovery Plan It Allegedly Is Based On
http://www.wolfenotes.com/2016/01/deps-sparta-mountain-logging-scheme-conflicts-with-golden-wing-warbler-recovery-plan/
I urge readers to chase the links, then decide.
Bill, perhaps you should ask the state’s golden-winged warbler expert on what the latest science says about golden-winged warblers. I’m sure she can reference peer-reviewed literature indicating that golden-winged warblers are negatively correlated with elevation in higher latitude states like NJ and PA, or provide a link showing species-specific climate change models and how the centrum of the golden-wing population will actually be moving into the Northeast, including NJ, as a result of climate change (they don’t like boreal forests), as well as how golden-winged and blue-winged warblers have persisted “despite extreme genomic similarity” and “a protracted period of hybridization” and, as such, how both these species should be managed as a warbler complex. But you already knew the latter… Dave Toews responded to your inquiry about this hybridization and pointed out that “One important finding: hybridization has likely been ongoing for a long period of time. In fact, we think that hybridization is a pretty common phenomenon across a range of species and not always associated with negative consequences. In these warblers hybridization has generally been viewed through a negative lens, however our data suggest this might not necessarily be the best way to think about it.”
You need to provide links to these claims.
I provided links and excerpts of the GWW management plan science and finding and recommendations I relied upon.
Do you disagree with my excerpts or interpretations?
Dave Toes never respond to me.
Dave Toews did indeed respond to you. And you replied back to his response. Here is the link and transcript: https://www.allaboutbirds.org/news/mixed-wing-warblers-golden-wings-and-blue-wings-are-99-97-percent-alike-genetically/
Wolfenotes • 5 years ago • edited
I was under the impression that BWW was dominant, outcompeted, and outbred GWW.
If so, and if hybridization is not of concern to USFWS, does that mean that GWW is effectively on the brink of extinction and that’s OK with USFWS?
Would such a genetic based approach have implications for regulation and management of other species and habitat?
Full disclosure: I’ve raised the hybridization risk issue as a basis to oppose a “Forest Stewardship” (i.e. logging, ironically by NJ Audubon) plan on Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area (NJ).
I am not a birder or expert, so appreciate thought of the experts and birders out there.
Dave Toews Wolfenotes • 5 years ago
The issues you raise are very important and get to the challenges of the on-the-ground application of these kinds of data. First off, the USFWS was not involved with this paper, so there will surely be important conversations going forward about how this might influence their management of the taxa. One important finding: hybridization has likely been ongoing for a long period of time. In fact, we think that hybridization is a pretty common phenomenon across a range of species and not always associated with negative consequences. In these warblers hybridization has generally been viewed through a negative lens, however our data suggest this might not necessarily be the best way to think about it.
Wolfenotes Dave Toews • 5 years ago • edited
Thanks Dave – the story quoted Tom Will, the USFWS Midwest Region Migratory Bird Coordinator, so it looks like USFWS is familiar with the study and has done some thinking about the implications.
Where is the science and policy discussion and process you mention taking place? Is there a way to participate in or monitor it?
Dave Toews Wolfenotes • 5 years ago
Ah yes! I was thinking specifically about the Current Bio article, but you are correct there was some input from USFWS about the article in this piece for the Living Bird. As for participating in the discussion moving forward, I think one of the best points of contact would be the golden-winged warbler working group. Feel free to send me an email and I can send additional information if you would like!
Sharon – I stand corrected. Perhaps a senior moment. I forgot that 5 year old exchange – a casual comment on an article is hardly the kind of “response” I assumed you meant.
And it doesn’t resolve the GWW or many other issues I’ve raised.
So Wolf, first you say that Toes never replied to you, then you got caught lying when Sharon documented that you did converse with him – then you ignore it. That kinda deceit seems to be a pattern in your narrative that demonstrates the type of manipulative hack you really are. A legend in your own mind, but really nothing more than a disgruntled ex-civil servant who was let go because of incompetence, and has been relegated to writing a blog of conspiracy theories. Maybe you should try and get a job with the Trump organization – 2 peas in a pod.
Jim – I used the wrong word “respond”. (I have reached out to NJA press office and gotten no response. I must have been thinking of them when I typed “respond”)).
For the record: I don’t know who Dave Toes is. I never spoke with or corresponded with him. He never corresponded or spoke with me. PERIOD.
If you really care about the truth, you can contact Mr. Toes and ask him.
You can ask Sharon too.
But you don’t care about truth, you merely want to attack me personally as a diversion from the content of what I’ve written and documented.
And the name is WOLFE.
Look at some of the folks who support my work and judge its competence – scroll down this link:
http://www.wolfenotes.com/about/
Jim – notice that you joined as a commented on March 24, 2021.
So exactly who is the lying manipulative hack?
Hey WOLF, what makes me a lying manipulative hack because I joined this site to post a response to your nonsense? Sorry that unlike you, I have a life and don’t have myself registered as a commenter for every news outlet that I come across or has been shared with me – so if I want to comment I have to register for doing so. Get a life. And frankly, I saw how you spell your name and I don’t give a crap how you spell your name – I’ll say it however I want. Crawl back into your van and drive off into the sunset.
I live in a bus now. You are a NJA troll. You joined this site just to attack critics of NJA. It is obvious.
So you attack NJA and that is righteous (because you’re always right), but if I attack you because I also support the management of the state’s land for biodiversity, it makes me a troll for the people you are attacking in the first place? Don’t you see the hypocrisy?
I criticized NJA based on substance and experience, that’s not an “attack”. I’ve long written about the issues involved and have walked Sparta Mt. and observed the logging there.
In contrast, you jumped into a debate, ignored the substance, and attack me in ad hominem fashion. There is no evidence that you’ve been involved in or aware of anything that’s going on in the forest. Get bent. I’m done. The truth will out, NJ Audubon will be publicly humiliated, but will they change?
What you perceive as “substance and experience” doesn’t make something a fact, so in effect your own version of ad hominem is nothing more than an attack, but its clear that you lack enough self awareness (or perhaps mental stability) to see or understand this. Taking this approach has really gotten you far in life hasn’t it? Your claim to fame is having a blog…. yes the truth will prevail
In terms of accomplishments, you can check my bio – look:
http://www.wolfenotes.com/about/
I’ve posted many photos off NJ Audubon’s “stewardship” and cited the criticisms of numerous scientists, conservation groups, and others who care about forests over NJ Audubon’s organizational interests and revenues (I’ve also posted NJ Audubon’s IRS 990’s if folks are interested in following the money.)
Jim – for facts, ask NJA CEO Eric Stiles about how much $ NJA received from Donal Trump (as a donor), from Trump National Golf Course, and from that COVID PPP $830,000 “forgivable loan” and how he certified that NJA qualified for that loan.
I looked at the 990 you referenced, but it doesn’t actually say anything about timber revenue, donald trump or forest stewardship for that matter. Making statements based on your assumption of where the money comes from and implying that the report says those things is disingenuous – but know one is surprised by this tact.
I don’t know why you think its inappropriate for NJA to apply for and receive a PPP loan – the government was giving them out to help business and organizations avoid financial hardship during a global pandemic when revenue and philanthropic giving might be down. NJA has like 100 employees, so why wouldn’t they be entitled to the same PPP opportunity as any other organization? While I haven’t personally looked into it, I assume that their accounting is on the up-and-up, otherwise they would loose their non-profit status – no? There are laws about what they are entitled to, just like the rest of us. Stop trying to make something out of nothing.
You are a liar. Heres’ just one example of forest “stewardship” (logging) in NJA IRS 990: See Schedule O page 2:
“IN THE FORESTS OF NORTHERN NEW JERSEY, FOREST STEWARDSHIP FOR SPECIES SUCH AS THE GOLDEN-WINGED WARBLER, RUFFED GROUSE, BOG TURTLE AND SO MANY MORE WILDLIFE CONTINUES TO BE A FOCUS. THESE SPECIES BENEFIT FROM THE CREATION OF YOUNG FOREST HABITAT, A SUCCESSIONAL STAGE THAT IS CONTINUING TO SHRINK FROM THE LANDSCAPE AS NEW JERSEY’S FORESTS MATURE. WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH NEW JERSEY AUDUBON CORPORATE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL MEMBERS JERSEY CENTRAL POWER &LIGHT, PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS, AS WELL”
https://njaudubon.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/990-For-NJA-Website-17.pdf
The Trump donations and the Trump National Gold club money and the COVID PPP “loan” is in NJA published financial reports. Wall St. billionaire gave NJA over $400,000I for the Sparta Mt. logging plan. It’s on his Hudson Farm philanthropy website too. I’ve documents all that too, with links and text. I don the work.
Please STOP lying.
I stand corrected – I just saw the exchange I had with Toes, 5 years ago. I forgot that. Senior moment. My apologies.
What specifically do you or the State’s expert on GWW disagree with in this post? Be specific:
DEP’s Sparta Mountain Logging Scheme Conflicts With Golden Wing Warbler Recovery Plan It Allegedly Is Based On
http://www.wolfenotes.com/2…
I did chase some of the links on your site and was quite surprised to find that some of your links redirect to a pornography website, LOL. Porn can get you into trouble Bill, you know that right?
NJ Audubon has taken down almost all the links, especially the ones to the Trump partnership. If there are other problems with links, contact my server/host. Ad hominem is all you got pal. All you got.
You might want to check the links on this one (and the Update):
http://www.wolfenotes.com/2019/12/waist-deep-in-the-big-map-and-the-big-fool-says-to-push-on/
Bill, I am writing this on my own time and from my own personal account. But here’s a glimpse of who I am: I was born and raised in NJ. I always loved wildlife and wanted to save endangered species, so I went to college and grad school to do just that. Just about 20 years ago I began my career working with endangered and nongame wildlife in NJ, and that is what I continue to do now.
Sorry, this is not good enough;
“I am writing this on my own time and from my own personal account”
Surely, you have freedom of speech rights. I spent a decade of my career defending those rights as Director of NJ PEER and I suffered loss of my DEP career for exposing and criticizing DEP management.
You chose to inject yourself into a currently ongoing legislative debate and criticize a former NJ Senator, and without disclosing your DEP affiliation.
That would have gotten you demoted, suspended or fired under former DEP Commissioners.
But worse, you are defending logging of State lands in the Highlands core forests that has been discredited by numerous scientists and strongly opposed by not only local residents but virtually the entire conservation and environmental communities (with the exception of NJ Audubon).
That rises to behavior of a political hack,
Yes, that is the error in this article, National Audubon is sold out too. Here they (and a few other members of Gang Green) are in bed with some of the most rapacious timber and biomass companies on earth asking for a handout for more logging and burning subsidies from Congress.
See page 14:
http://www.maforests.org/Bedfellows.pdf
Ms. Petzinger has gone from dignified civil servant to undignified political hack and sophisticated proponent for logging on public lands. She hired me in the early 2000’s to monitor the declining Golden winged Warbler population for the NJDEP. From hybridization with the Blue winged Warbler to the onset of climate change, the Golden winged Warbler was for all intents and purposes extirpated in NJ. As the primary contributor to the Landscape Project, Ms.Petzinger knows all too well that creating clearings in former contiguous forests threaten the viability of other NJ Threatened and Endangered Species such as Barred Owl and Red Shouldered Hawk. These clearings will attract the more common Red tailed Hawk and Great Horned Owl which will chase off the former residents of these forests. Sharon knows this because she contributed to this piece https://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/landbro.pdf. In 2009, The whole of Sparta Mountain WMA has ample habitat for the Golden winged Warbler; clearly 1/4 of the 3500 acres. Their decline is unrelated to the present available habitat. Creating more clearings will not change the outcome. She knows this. The trojan horse approach may very succeed but the irreversible loss of the NJ Highlands’ Biodiversity makes all New Jerseyans poorer. Can someone please bring back Larry Niles!
Dennis, I must say I am not surprised by your comments, but I am surprised to learn that you know exactly what I’m thinking. So tell me, what am I thinking at this moment? Let me clarify a few things, for the record: 1) You have no scientific basis (or training) for your arguments but you do have a history of shooting off at the mouth and being disrespectful to those who don’t agree with you, 2) Not only does the link you provided have no mention of your claim, but I did not contribute to that piece, 3) Most golden-wing experts agree that habitat loss is the primary driver in the golden-wing declines – within the GWWA breeding range in NJ, 45% of the shrubby habitat in 1986 was lost to succession alone by 2012, and 4) I hired you in 2003 to help find golden-winged warbler nests and spot map territories, not to monitor declines. The project went on another 4 years but I did not hire you back because you did not produce results – no nests found and only 19 spot maps in the 22 hours you billed me for. Funny how you don’t mention that…
Sharon – since you have such a clear memory of the specific terms of 18 year old DEP contracts, please provide links and a summary of all the DEP contracts with NJ Audubon.
Be specific.
See how that works? And you have the gall to cal, people hypocrites?
State documents need to go through OPRA. I thought you knew that. Also, I did not call anyone a hypocrite.
Correct you did not call “anyone” a hypocrite, you generalized and called everyone commenting but yourself and Ross a hypocrite.
You yourself relied on a DEP document in your attack on Dennis. So, can the OPRA crap, another diversion.
I’ve noticed that you tend to draw conclusions based on assumptions before determining whether those assumptions are correct. In this case, for example, you are assuming I relied on a DEP document to respond to Dennis. I can assure you that I can clearly recollect, without any document, the first year I started the project and hired Dennis. I remember meeting with him on the powerline on Sparta Mtn to discuss the job aspects. He spoke about the nests he’s found in the past, and even heard a female GWWA while we were chatting. I remember being relieved that he was helping out. I also remember feeling disappointed, almost to the point of feeling cheated, when he finally handed in his spot map sheets and lack of nest data, thinking, I paid him for all these hours for this? Now if you ask me how much I paid him, which days he worked, etc., I would have to look that up. But the rest I remember.
Go and read the DEP and State Ethics Law and Code. You just violated it. It prohibits the public release of information “otherwise unavailable to the public”. Personal information on Dennis you obtained as his employer is confidential.
Here’s applicable text:
XIV. DISCLOSURE OR USE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
(a) No Department employee shall willfully disclose to any person, whether or not for pecuniary gain, any information not generally available to members of the public which he or she receives or acquires in the course of and by reason of his or her official duties.”
And with such a good memory, I assume you recall all this:
S3043
https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2016/Bills/S3500/3043_I1.PDF
Battle Against Logging NJ Highlands Picks Up Powerful Ally
https://www.njspotlight.com/2017/02/17-02-27-battle-against-logging-nj-highlands-picks-up-powerful-ally
Me reminiscing about Dennis is just that. But for the record, this info is available to the public. Ask around and you’ll find out who opra’d it.
Sharon – you attacked Dennis’ qualifications and character – he was a DEP contractor. This is totally unacceptable. You wrote:
“You have no scientific basis (or training) for your arguments but you do have a history of shooting off at the mouth and being disrespectful to those who don’t agree with you,”
Take it back or I will proceed.
If it will make you happy, Bill, I will edit it out, even though the basis for all the statements I made has been made public (not by me) and I was not a DEP employee at the time he did this work. And as real as this has been, it’s kinda getting old so I’m done checking comments here.
Take it back and say you made a mistake.
No editing out BS. Own it. Fix it. Just like I did when I made a mistake about Toes.
Translation: Sharon is winning the argument so lets figure out some other BS way to shut her down. Ad hominem in spades.
Sharon attacked Dennis M personally and called him unqualified. No facts offered to support those attacks either.
You support that?
“The project, pending before the state Department of Environmental Protection, has caused a sharp rift between New Jersey Audubon and most of New Jersey’s environmental organizations, who view it as undermining one of the key provisions of the Highlands law, preserving mature forests.
“It’s something that shouldn’t happen in the Highlands,’’ said Lesniak, referring to the plan to allow trees to be felled at the Sparta Mountain. He added the bill might prevent the project from moving forward.
It is designed to do that, for sure,’’ said Lesniak, a candidate for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination this June. “We’re hoping it will send a message to the DEP to slow down what they are doing.’’
Battle Against Logging NJ Highlands Picks Up Powerful Ally
https://www.njspotlight.com/2017/02/17-02-27-battle-against-logging-nj-highlands-picks-up-powerful-ally/
The “logging for wildlife” line is manipulative propaganda meant to confuse the public into handing over their public forest treasure to timber, biomass and hunting interests.
The State and Federal agencies and their staff scientists, as well as the “wrong kind of green” groups like NJ Audubon who push clearcutting forests to allegedly “help” nature have lost their minds, and souls. For their slice of the money pie they have sadly devolved into ethically empty lackeys for commerce masquerading as conservation. See:
http://www.maforests.org/Timberspeak.pdf
To see what the Audubons and some other money chasing “Gang Greens” of the world have degenerated to, see the following. (Note: not all “green” groups should be lumped together with sellouts such as NJ Audubon, the Nature Con$ervancy, Appalachian Mountain Club)
http://www.maforests.org/AUDUBON.pdf
http://www.maforests.org/TNC.pdf
“kross1957” rather then making diversionary personal attacks, why not respond to the specific conflict of financial interests at NJ Audubon mentioned by “Wolfenotes” ?
NJ Audubon, a supposed “conservation” organization who hires foresters (whose principal duty is facilitating logging), cannot take money from corporations and State and Federal agencies pushing logging, and then greenwash clearcutting of public forests and be surprised by raised eyebrows and financial inquiries. The only surprise is that it has taken this long to come out.
Frankly, anyone who claims that clearcutting forests is done to “help” nature either has a stake in the matter or has had their brain eaten by corporations.
“There is no conservation reason for creating more early successional habitat. There is much more of it nowadays than there ever was in pre-Colonial times. It’s a bogus argument, ginned up as an excuse for more logging. But their argument could work with a gullible public.”
John Terborgh, Worldwide Leading Conservation Biologist
“What is the recipe for getting people to accept unsightly practices like clear-cutting?Give them plausible sounding reasons: tell them that the forest is unhealthy, that red maple is taking over, that alien species are invading, that trees will fall on people, that there is an unacceptably high fire danger, that a hurricane will blow everything down. Sound familiar? Presumably, clear-cutting is needed to help avert such impending catastrophes.
But if people aren’t buying, what then? Push the “early successional habitat” argument. Win support from a naive public by insisting that we need more cottontails and game bird species, suggestive of a mid-1800s landscape. Have I missed any of the arguments?” “By the way, I’ve been told in private by foresters that these are the standard talking points that State and Federal forest agencies routinely use to soften up the public prior to an unpopular action.”
Robert Leverett, Forest Ecologist & Executive Director Eastern Native Tree Society
I guess when Bill Wolfe attacks someone like Sharon Petzinger, that’s OK. It’s only when the situation is reversed that you complain I’m sorry, but folks have a right to know who they are dealing with.
I ran an environmental group for decades. You find funding where you can and are happy to get it. But you maintain your values. I see nothing in the actions of NJAS to suggest otherwise. Please tell me all the things YOU have done for the fish and wildlife of New Jersey.
I find it funny that a group like the New Jersey Conservation Foundation conducted clearcutting to benefit certain species and none of you people complained. Why? Because they were on the inside with you. But when NJAS does the exact same thing – horrors! These complaints have NOTHING to do with conservation. You should be ashamed.
You want a quote? “Mid-successional forests now account for more than three-quarters
of forested land in New England and half of forested land in the Mid-Atlantic region, making early successional habitats critically scarce in much of the eastern United States… … Populations of many wildlife species that are dependent on early successional habitats are in decline”
– National Resources Conservation Service
Let’s be honest. Both arguments have some merit. You do not want to turn our entire landscape into early successional habitat or sacrifice true old growth. You should also not let our forest become an endless landscape of 75-year-old maple. Balance is key. In your arguments I see none.
As far as having your brain eaten, your comments speak for themselves. Bon appetit!
Nonsense 1: You are the only one on this list attacking anyone’s personal traits. which is not the same as attacking someone’s positions and actions.
Nonsense 2: Young forests naturally only covered a few percent of the landscape, and today there is already many times more than that, and due to ongoing disturbances the amount will always remain above natural levels which were small in size and caused by temporary openings created by rare natural disturbances.
Nonsense 3: The species in “decline” that we are so concerned about and allegedly need more “young” forest, are just returning to natural levels as the forest has returned from earlier clearing. They are also impacted by many types of human insults and many are hunted! Maybe if we really cared about them, we might shoot them less?
Nonsense 4: What we really need are old forests, which once covered about 80% of the landscape, and now essentially cover 0 percent. However, if we follow the plans of NJ Audubon, and “environmentalists” like yourself pushing clearcutting on our best and slowly recovering forests, that will never improve.
Nonsense 5: I am not any “you” or on any inside. I work on this as a volunteer, and don’t even live in NJ, but I grew up there (exit 82!) and am horrified by so called “environmentalists” pushing clearcutting of NJ’s best public forests in the most population dense State in the country and pretending this has nothing to do with business plans and is just done to “help” nature.
Nonsense 6: Anyone with a brain realizes who pays the piper to a large extent calls the tune and it is delusional to claim otherwise. I guess all those billions $$$$ going to politicians for their campaigns doesn’t affect their decisions and the corporations just give them all that dough from the goodness of their hearts.
I was called disingenuous and an undignified political hack, neither of which had anything to do with my comment.
That criticism was accurate and valid, based on your role in the DEP and NJ Audubon logging projects criticized here.
You didn’t disclose any of that.
Worse, you insinuated yourself as a public employee in a legislative policy debate.
Have you cleared your position and involvement in this debate with your Supervisor, the DEP Offie of Legislative Affairs and the Commissioner’s Office?
Those approvals were required when Iw as at DEP (1985-95; 2002-2004) and I worked in DEP’s Office of Legislative Affairs so know exactly what the policy and procedure is.
I’m tempted to file a complaint myself.
Again, I commented representing myself on my own time from my own personal account. No legislation was mentioned – this article is about NJ Audubon and National Audubon. I am allowed to comment about that as a citizen and point out an error in the premise of the article about the Audubons.
Sharon – surely you KNOW that former Senator Lesniak sponsored legislation to block logging and surely you KNOW that there is pending legislation to authorize more logging under exactly the same false premises. Surely you KNOW that NJ Audubon supported that legislation.
Please don’t try to deny all that by faux technical diversions and claims that there was no specific legislation mentioned.
At best, your failure to disclose your DEP affiliation and involvement in the controversial Sparta Mt. logging plan is unprofessional. At best.
I think it’s worse and is an unethical violation of DEP ethics rules.
Given your intransigence, I will file a complaint with Acting DEP Commissioner LaTourette.
I had to read through 5 paragraphs of your BS before I found the nugget of gold. “I… dont even live in NJ…”. Of course you don’t. If you did and had an ounce of sense you would know the status of our woodlands, which you clearly do not.
As I wrote elsewhere, I could lead you today to places in my area (of NJ) where we could listen to, and probably see birds like barred owl and red shouldered hawk, despite their relative scarcity.
What we would not hear is the drumming of ruffed grouse, a sound that once heralded spring across New Jersey. Why? Because the young forest they need as habitat has vanished. That is a fact, not nonsense.
As Aldo Leopold once wrote “the first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces”. We must not follow misguided policies that protect some birds and animals while letting others disappear. All are important.
In the pre-columbian era, forest fires opened thousand of acres in NJ regularly, moving unchecked over the landscape. Today this is never allowed to happen, with good reason. Any natural process that would alter miles of woodland is prevented. It is surely not the same.
In addition, NJ is not MA or AK or anywhere else. Discuss the dynamics of this place, not others. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand anything.
You are clearly wedded to your position that taxpayers should subsidize clearcutting their best public forests to “benefit” nature. Good luck with that worldview in your “environmental” career.
Citing logging industry specious excuses and manufactured propaganda that opportunistically plays up logging to create “young forests” (how convenient), a habitat that already exists at far higher than natural levels, at the expense of older and undisturbed forests, a habitat desperately needed and which once covered most of the landscape, to boost numbers of a species we shoot, does not help your case.
Feel free to cling to that position while the most important science and scientists say otherwise…. that we desperately need to protect 30-50% of forests and other landscapes free from human “management” if we are to have a livable future.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/science/e-o-wilson-half-earth-biodiversity.html
Don’t take it from me, take it from E.O. himself:
“Clearcutting and other even aged silvicultural practices and timber road construction have caused widespread forest ecosystem fragmentation and degradation. The result is species extinction, soil erosion, flooding, destabilizing climate change, the loss of ecological processes, declining water quality, diminishing commercial and sport fisheries. There is no better way to save biodiversity than by preserving habitat, and no better habitat, species for species, than wilderness.”
Edward O. Wilson http://www.maforests.org/TS.pdf
Too bad I live a whole 2.5 hours from the lovely Garden State, or it would be great to meet you in person, you seem like such a pleasant human being.
Did you even bother to read what he wrote? Or just cherry pick the parts that agree with you?
The New York Times piece discusses places like the Congo and New Guinea. Not at all comparable. But he does write “Except for exceptionally rare and specific cases, if we genuinely want “forest health”, we need to stop “managing” and “improving” forests by cutting them down…”,
Precisely. Here in NJ, wildlife like ruffed grouse and golden winged warbler are exceptionally rare and their needs are very specific. What part of that don’t you get?
They are not proposing cutting our “best forests” but those that are actually quite marginal. And they are using commercial interests because the dollars for this cutting are simply not available from the public sector. There is NO public subsidy.
I’m not sure if meeting me in person was intended as a threat, but I would welcome the opportunity to show you what is going on here and why you are so dead wrong.
Yes indeed, the plan is to clearcut our best forests (which coincidentally fetch the best dollar) and yes this is being heavily subsidized by the public.
Your militantly myopic thinking posing as informed opinion, but which misses the big as a barn picture and willfully tosses contrary or inconvenient information, is boring and literally a threat to the future on this planet as we overload the atmosphere with carbon.
Fortunately, most people are not so blind and realize that clearcutting our critically important public forests at the expense of so many critical ecological processes and other values to allegedly “help” a handful of species that are declining from so many other human insults, including shooting them, is insane. About as intelligent as cutting off ones leg because a foot hurts from a tight shoe.,
Thanks for the offer of a visit, but I would rather sort my sock drawer than spend time with such a miserable and misguided grouse as yourself. Adios!
Saying something over and over doesn’t make it true. At least I offered to show you what I am seeing on a daily basis. But your mind is made up. Why confuse it with facts. Sorting your sock drawer is as much as I’d expect from you. We must all operate at our level of capacity.
Cutting literally a few acres of trees out of thousands in NJ to manage for biodiversity (or even in your state of MA), will have zero impact on the worlds atmospheric carbon but may sustain some rare species that are equally important to this world as carbon. Those miniscule carbon losses from these projects (which may not even be a carbon loss if that wood is used in durable products) are more than offset by annual ingrowth occurring on the remaining trees. Additionally, the cut areas regrow to sequester even more carbon. Sustainable forest management is among the adaptation and mitigation strategies for carbon recommended by the IPCC – you know what that is right?
https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/
This is not at all about just “cutting a few acres of trees”. Saying so is either incredibly naïve or disingenuous (see below).
The recent logging is a symptom of a much bigger push to accelerate logging and burning in the Northeast, commerce masquerading as conservation to confuse the public, and using the same industry “young forest” spin and propaganda word for word in whichever State you may find yourself. (“early successional” was too confusing)
The [logging] controversy is occurring as logging and preservation interests increasingly collide in the Northeast’s forests, most of which were once abandoned farmland. The trees are maturing and becoming more economically valuable at a time when increasing numbers of people treasure the woods for walking, hiking, and recreation.”
http://archive.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2010/03/04/a_clear_cut_controversy/
New Jersey has plenty of cutting examples, with lots more planned, but here is just one example of logging 250 to 345 acres. That is more than 200
football fields of forest. A few acres of trees??
https://www.nj.com/news/2016/06/nothing_clear-cut_about_sparta_mountain_logging_co.html
For a look at how this is already playing out, here is a small sample of the clearcutting now occurring here in New England.
White Mountain National Forest clearcutting in New Hampshire:
http://www.maforests.org/WMNF.pdf
Massachusetts Clearcutting of State Forests:
http://www.maforests.org
Vermont clearcutting and huge clearcutting projects coming to Green Mountain National Forest:
http://www.maforests.org/VERMONTCLEARCUTTING.pdf
All of this horrid commercial clearcutting was sold with the meaningless buzzword “sustainable” and claimed to be “helping” nature. That is a Big Fat Lie. War is peace.
I am expecting a flood of nonsense excuses for all this horrid clearcutting of public forests, but none of them will go near the truth…. captured governmental agencies giving the keys to our public forest treasure to well-connected timber, biomass and hunting interests at the expense of nature and the public interest, all greenwashed by compromised “wrong kind of green” groups like NJ Audubon.
Arrivederci
Using NJ as an example out of the examples that you offered (because that is the one I am most familiar with) – yes 200 acres is a mere drop in the bucket when viewed as a percentage of the whole 750,000 acres that the NJ wildlife management area system covers. Or more precisely, it is 0.046% of the land that NJ Division of fish and Wildlife is tasked with managing to ensure that the state’s wildlife resources are protected. This is the ONLY place in the state being managed that way, so this figure doesn’t include the remaining half a million or more forest acres within the administration of parks and forestry and local government entities. So my comment was neither naïve or disingenuous – it is a fact. In the context of NJ’s 2,000,000 forest acres, 200 is very clearly just a few acres.
We can go through this same exercise for each state and look at the total forest area vs. what is being cut, but the reality is that land cover patterns are generally the same throughout the northeast, which is why this habitat type is in short supply and a focus for wildlife management agencies throughout the region. Your bogus claims about being driven by money are silly, as any small amount of timber value produced as a by-product of these projects barely covers the administration and staff costs for doing the work – never mind filling the state coffers. Look at the factual acreage numbers and its hard to dispute that this type of work is occurring at a scale that is detrimental to other resource values that are already more abundant because older forests are more abundant. Just like everything else we need diverse forests, and young forests are part of that matrix
I just mentioned one logging “project” of many intended in the plans for greatly expanded logging in NJ. The logging for this forest type is also much higher percentage than you state by including all NJ wildlife lands and forest acres, instead of just apples to apples NJ Conservation forest areas with marketable hardwoods open to cutting or not. Most importantly there is no legitimate excuse for clearcutting any of these “conservation” forests.
So you say we are only talking about cutting a few acres of trees, are you willing to say after we cut these “few” 250 to 345 acres we should stop? So where does it stop then?
How about we put all future logging plans of NJ Conservation forest on hold now while we let forest ecologists and biologists, with no connection to the logging or the state, survey the sites and see if clearcutting these forests is truly benefitting nature and the public trust? Maybe even ask the public what they think of clearcutting their conservation forests?
In any case, the whole point of this article was that NJ Audubon has lost its way.
Many of us say that is because NJ Audubon has gotten in bed with logging interests and their business model now includes boosting their budget by facilitating logging of NJ conservation forests. In fact they now have foresters on staff to do so, and have been receiving handsome fees for this “service”.
I dont know you, but you seem to have some connection or stake in the clearcutting NJ conservation forests, so maybe you are connected somehow with NJ Audubon or the State agencies working with NJ Audubon to clearcut NJ’s conservation forests and have their ear?
If so, or even if not so, how about we put this NJ Audubon financial interest in logging question to the test by asking NJ Audubon to open their books?
They are a “non-profit” claiming a noble mission, so they should have no problem listing all of their donors and donations, from corporations all the way to State and Federal agencies. This way we can better decide for ourselves if NJ Audubon is simply misguided in promoting clearcutting NJ’s best forests in opposition to most of NJ’s green groups, or instead possibly corrupted by financial interests? How about it???
By the way, again, and again…there is already much more “young” forest across the NE than natural levels. What we truly need is mature forests which once covered most of the landscape, but that would not fit in so well with the logging plans.
Ill continue playing.
So, exactly what is a NJ Conservation forest? I mean what is the exact legal definition that makes a NJ Conservation forest different than another forest that is owned by a public entity? I have lived in NJ my entire life and been involved with the conservation community and never heard this fabricated term before – because there is no such thing, just more nonsense to deflect reality. The acreage figures I provided are real, and you saying there is already much more young forests in NE than natural levels is inaccurate. If I am wrong, then provide some data for NE based on each states Land Use Land Cover data set or something else similar that has been produced by a university or the states themselves – don’t cite some BS grassroots lobbying organizations article, link us to real data showing the abundant young forest acreage across the NE.
My personal opinion is no, we shouldn’t stop at 250 acres, because as I’ve shown with actual figures, the current percent being managed for young forests is not even close to one percent of our public lands, which is not even close the the minimum acreage needed to sustain many types of plants and animals that depend on these habitats – so no, I want 2500 acres cut – but I do understand compromise and that not every will find that agreeable, so I will take what the state can manage at this point as being better than nothing.
And since I live here and have been following this topic for 10 years now, I have visited these site that have been cut (guessing you have not) and they are serving their intended purposes – diverse vegetation and young forest habitat. Biologists and ecologists alike have not disputed these areas are functioning as designed – this isn’t an argument if the science actually works (that is indisputable), this is a philosophical debate about cutting trees – period.
My stake in this is being a life long conservationist who is watching biodiversity disappear because there is a lack of diversity in NJ forests – period. I wish I had influence with the state because I would encourage them to cut 10 times as much as they currently are – which by the way, still wouldn’t get us to 1% of the land in our state wildlife management system being young forest habitat. That’s how dire this situation is.
Lastly, because I have been following this issue, I know that the state’s logging contracts are OPRA’d every year and show that the timber revenue is minuscule (on the order of a few thousand dollars – I think 3 of the years they even didn’t make any money at all and had to pay the contractor to do the work). Since these contracts go through the state’s treasury, there is no room for the financial fraud being alluded to by opponents of this work – so exactly how is NJ Audubon getting rich off of this work. So what if they go raise outside funds from donors to pay their costs for assisting the state? Isn’t that what non-profits do to meet their mission goals?
You people have a distorted and myopic view that the world must align with your personal philosophy otherwise there must be crookery involved. Instead, how about considering that forward thinking groups and individuals can look for alternate ways to meet their goals that may be a divergence from how they operated in the past, but that doesn’t mean they sold out. Those groups just aren’t stuck in there ways – I wish our elected officials were as open minded and flexible to change over time, we would all be in a better place.
Jim – you diminish the logging by typical efforts to argue “tiny percent of the whole”.
This logging is happening in the Preservation Area of the Highlands. Perhaps you are not familiar with the science and public policy objectives that drove the Highlands Act (full disclosure: I wrote major portions of it). But no need to take my biased word for it.
You can read the science and analysis and advocacy of NJA CEO Eric Stiles – I excerpt, link to and critique his published work here:
NJ Audubon Supported Preservation of Highlands Forests, Not Logging – What Explains The U-Turn?
http://www.wolfenotes.com/2016/03/nj-audubon-supported-preservation-of-highlands-forests-not-logging-what-explains-the-u-turn/
Wolfe
Right on Wolfe…You don’t cut down your best, healthiest forests in the Highlands when there are plenty of other places in NJ where you can create this supposed “young forest habitat”. It is a ruse to convince people that logging their pubic forests is ok. Meanwhile, NJ is one of the states hit hard by climate changes, with flooding, sea level rise, poor air quality, etc., It is baffling how there are those who think even logging a mere 200 acres is ok? What is wrong with people?
What is not being taken into consideration is the fact that NJ’s forests are experiencing quite a bit of natural succession, such as with blowdown, invasive pests, bacteria, etc., So we as humans do not need to interfere. By the way, a mere 200 acres equates to almost 264 Football fields of deforestation and that is just too much with the average temp increase of 2.9 F. We all should be advocating for more forest protections and not deforestation. Also, I think the point Wolfe was making is that the wrong areas are being selected. You don’t cut down your best, healthy forests in a preservation area where there are documented endangered forest interior dominant species present, numerous vernal pools and C1 streams.
Ross – this is NOT an “attack” on Sharon:
“Sharon – you should identity yourself, your training, who you work for, who you have worked for, how that income relates to logging NJ forests, and your role in this disaster and scam called “Young Forests”. Be specific. Or I will be. Readers deserve to have full information.”
Readers need full transparency. They need to know that she works for DEP and is directly involved in the logging on Sparta Mountain and that her work has been savaged by many scientists and local activists. Her salary depends on revenues from logging, directly and indirectly. DEP Director of Division of Fish and Wildlife recently did a podcast with NJ Audubon where he specifically admitted this revenue issue (without seeming to have any sense of the conflicts of interest involved).
Facts and criticism are not “attacks”.
Your fact free ad hominem BS is.
You need to stop this. Exchanging personal attcks is not a winning method for you. Trust me. If you have an opinion on our forests, share it. Feel free to point to any links you like. But the personal assaults, the adamant requests for apologies, the pretended affront, the threats, even the patting of your own back, should end. This always happens with you, Bill. I truly believe you require medication. It’s sad.
From the guy who initiated the ad hominem here.
Beyond chutzpa.
I was only suggesting that character arguments are not your strongest suit. Glass houses. Is “ad hominem” your new word for the week? If so, bravo, but its time to move on.
I appreciate the point you’re making and agree that there is a lot of hypocrisy going on in these comments (not from the two of us). I’m still waiting for most of them to address the comment I made instead of attacking me or trying to set me up to then be attacked. I am also waiting to see the evidence to back up their statements. Most of it so far is baseless conjecture bordering on slander, or libel in this case.
I’ve posted several links with facts, evidence, and scientific opinions of many scientists. These posts include links to not only scientific e, but regulations and my own expert opinions.
To describe all this as attacks and baseless conjecture just illustrates that you are a hack and have not supported your false claims with anything.
You just called me a hypocrite.
That can not stand. Apologize now.
awww did poor baby Wolfey have his feelings hurt? lolz
Another NJA hack who joined on March 24, 2021.
Bill, I did not call you a hypocrite. You seem to be a bit sensitive about this and taking things personally.
Just so you know the project you mention that NJ Conservation Foundation did, had NO removal of trees, and no logging equipment and hence it is nothing like the projects that have been occurring on Sparta Mtn- a High Conservation Value Forest in the Highlands! So your statement is false and you can not compare the work between the two organizations – they are completely different. You should also know that here has been significant ecological damage and destruction on Sparta Mtn. from the logging and the logging equipment. Some of the documented problems have been; severe rutting in excess of 3 to 4 feet, new roads have been created, vernal pools and the amphibian species compromised, soil inversion and compaction, and supposed “keep” trees were cut down and so on. The real issue is in the selection of where to promote young forests. We need to also ensure that our rights-of-way are properly maintained and not chemically treated, as I have seen. Killing all the insects and plants with Roundup or other chemicals creates a whole problem for our pollinators and up the food chain. Let’s advocate for only mechanical treatments and no chemicals in the rights-of-way.
So much crap; where to begin. Bob Moss wrote that the ruts were “…literally big enough for a grown man to lie down in, his whole body below the top of the ruts. We have pictures.” Now you report “…severe rutting in excess of 3 to 4 feet,” My body lying down is a foot high. If yours is 4-foot high you should contact the Guiness folks . Amphibian species were “compromised”?? What does that even mean? Did someone hack into their computers? Finally, I know what happened in both places. Many trees were cut to enhance habitat. The main difference was that Audubon’s work received an ungodly level of scrutiny, while the NJCF project was completely ignored.
Dear Ross, it’s not “crap”. In the area of stand 18 , the logger got his equipment stuck -literally , and when a team of Forest ecologist measured those ruts -they were in excess of 3 feet -in one area it was so deep a person could have fallen in. Hence the 3-4 feet comment. It’s based on actual record of the damages. Additionally, pictures of spotted salamander and wood frog eggs have been documented that were found in the ruts on Sparta Mtn on Stand 8 . In those spots alone, 8 inches of water was pooling in the road. So before you say it’s “crap”. It is you that is full of it!
Ross, first of all it is NOT”crap”! Pictures don’t lie, only liars do! First of all, the severe rutting of in excess of 3-4 feet comes from the cut on Stand 18 , where literally the logger got his equipment stuck and caused 3-4 feet huge gaping holes in the area. The soil was dispersed and remember much of Sparta Mtn is in severe slope area and so several Forest ecologists measured this area of soil displacement. Secondly, on last years cut, spotted salamander and wood frog eggs were rescued from pools of ruts on the road. In some areas the ruts contained as much as 8 inches of water. There are numerous vernal pools on Sparta Mtn and so logging shouldn’t occur here -period. Ecological harm to the current residing species is happening and it won’t be tolerated. This is a High Conservation Value Forest that already has a documented 130 Rare/Threatened/Endangered and Special Concern species -somebody has to defend their home since the DEP and Audubon won’t.
So you see it is not “crap” but it is you who is full of it !
Ms Petzinger and the whole of NJ Audubon are being disingenuous. They make money through grants derived from logging as well as accepting funds from hunting orgs that favor game birds over native species. As a resident of Hardyston I have witnessed multiple caress actions sanctioned by the NJ Audubon (and our DEP).
Audubon cares nothing about the fact that trees unmarked for logging have been felled. They are complicit on the destruction of vernal pools during the egg laying season. I personally have been threatened by the hired,, out of state loggers as I observed the violent rutting of the forest floor. Nor has NJ Audubon decried fuel oil pools left in the clear cuttings’ wake.
The organization is too entrenched in forestry. It should be aligned with scientific environmentalism
I want to thank former NJ Senator Ray Lesniak for opening up this important debate about the future of NJ’s precious forests.
As you can see from the comments below, it is intense and the science supports Lesniak’s views.
And for anyone that wants to understand the ad hominem and vitriol behind some of the comments, please read this post:
Mission Accomplished In The Pequannock Watershed?
http://www.wolfenotes.com/2016/04/mission-accomplished-in-the-pequannock-watershed/
For those who want context and background on Mr. Kushner’s absurd attacks, see this 2008 article I wrote on my column at the Star Ledger’s NJ Voices page. I praised Mr. Kushner for his criticisms and integrity – how far he has strayed from that!
Water Wars
https://www.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/02/water_wars.html
Ad Hominem much? I make a simple factual comment, backed with evidence, about National Audubon’s stance, and the response is me being accused of being “disingenuous” and an “undignified political hack”. Please dispute my point based on merit.
I suggest that you consult the DEP ethics officer.
Sharon – You involved yourself in a public policy debate involving pending legislation, initiated by a former NJ Senator, to criticize the Senator’s Op-Ed, without any factual support and without any disclosure of your own personal and institutional conflicts of interest.
Back in my days at DEP, the DEP Ethics Officer would have ruled that totally unprofessional and unethical and forced you to stand down and apologize.
But, that was back in the day.
The Commissioner’s Office would have been aghast and retaliated in some fashion.
DEP employees now seem to think anything goes. You are way out of line here, so you only compound that error with self serving pushback on critics.
I commented representing myself on my own time from my own personal account. No legislation was mentioned – this article is about NJ Audubon and National Audubon. I am allowed to comment about that as a citizen and point out an error in the premise of the article. No need to clutch any pearls here.
Sooo… This is (former) Senator Lezniak’s takedown of NJ Audubon because they believe in logging the Tongass??? Oh, wait… they don’t!!
If one is an advocate of supplying fishing licenses in NJ, does that make them proponents of netting dolphins whilst sipping shark fin soup?
This masterclass in false equivalency is brought to you by our illustrious (former) state senator. My hat is off to you, sir. If you drafted any of this, you should really take a bow.
I guess a (former) NJ Senator is not a National Senator. Far from it.
Battle Against Logging NJ Highlands Picks Up Powerful Ally
https://www.njspotlight.com/2017/02/17-02-27-battle-against-logging-nj-highlands-picks-up-powerful-ally/
“The legislation is designed to close a loophole in the original law establishing protections for the Highlands and also to shut the door on a pilot to allow limited logging on hundreds of acres of land at the Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area.
The project, pending before the state Department of Environmental Protection, has caused a sharp rift between New Jersey Audubon and most of New Jersey’s environmental organizations, who view it as undermining one of the key provisions of the Highlands law, preserving mature forests.
“It’s something that shouldn’t happen in the Highlands,’’ said Lesniak, referring to the plan to allow trees to be felled at the Sparta Mountain. He added the bill might prevent the project from moving forward.
“It is designed to do that, for sure,’’ said Lesniak, a candidate for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination this June. “We’re hoping it will send a message to the DEP to slow down what they are doing.’
After 4 years, what stage of Schoolhouse Rocks’ “How a Bill Becomes a Law” are we now? How is this relevant to the original article and its logical fallacy? Or are you just trying to retrofit legislation into the narrative? Is there time to amend the bill to rename “Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area” to “Sparta Mountain Tree Preserve”? Better Hurry!
Readers might enjoy some context:
“The land owned by the Audubon Society, whose mission is ‘to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds and other wildlife for the benefit of humanity and the earth’s biological diversity'” – https://njskylands.com/pksparmt
Readers might enjoy some context.
Here is the news coverage, by NJ Spotlight, of Senator Lesniak’s introduction of legislation to block logging in Highlands forests and “send a message to DEP”. Note that NJ Audubon is criticized. Note how the comments from readers reflect the same obfuscation and ad hominem attacks we see here today and by the same individual:
Battle Against Logging NJ Highlands Picks Up Powerful Ally
https://www.njspotlight.com/2017/02/17-02-27-battle-against-logging-nj-highlands-picks-up-powerful-ally/
To all the birders out there who are unable to figure out what view is correct, consider this from the US Forest Service:
“The Highlands serve as a major migratory flyway for many neotropical bird species, many of which populations are in decline. Of particular concern to ornithologists are the 70 to 75 species of interior nesting neotropical migrants such as the red-eyed vireo, American redstart, Kentucky warbler, and eastern pewee. These species require large undisturbed forest patches.
Fragmentation and alteration of habitat continue to pose the greatest threat to the biological communities in the Highlands. The rapid expansion of urbanization encroaches on and fragments habitat, destroys individuals as well as populations, and potentially threatens the continued existence of many biological communities. Degradation of habitat by direct destruction or indirectly through pollution,erosion, introduction of invasive species, or fragmentation threatens the existence of species, diminishes natural
communities, and reduces genetic variability. ~~~ NJ/NJ Highlands Regional Study (US Forest Service, 2002”
Link:
http://www.wolfenotes.com/2016/03/nj-audubon-supported-preservation-of-highlands-forests-not-logging-what-explains-the-u-turn/
hahahaha! Jus re-read some of these comments. I suspect that Senator Smith’s sham Forestry task Force is now facing the same BS from the same people and organizations.
Wolfe 9/27/22