The Wildlife Watch Binocular
Spring 2005 Issue
MOHONK
PRESERVE MEMBERS SHOULD SAY “NO” TO CONTROLLED BURNS
By Ron Baker
At a meeting at the Mohonk Preserve, it was stated
that there was some concern about wildfires if there should be an extremely dry
summer, and that these fires could be exacerbated by some of the blowdowns caused
by wind and ice. The touted cure was “controlled burning.”
 The
truth is that “controlled
burning”, like wildfires, can be very destructive. Even low-level ground fires
can kill insects, toads, salamanders, mice and voles who are in burrows close
to the
surface. Low-growing bushes that can
provide food for many species of birds and mammals are often killed. Since much
burning is done in the spring, the smoke-producing fire can drive away nesting
birds. Those that return will find a dramatically
altered environment and a diminished food supply. Moreover, a charred ground
surface is far from an ideal habitat for any animal. Even burning fields in late
autumn (as is presently being considered at
the Preserve) destroys the seeds of frost-killed tall grasses and late blooming
flowers. These would otherwise be eaten
by some species of wintering birds.
Regular burning results in the
depletion of soil quality by destroying microorganisms essential for healthy
plant growth. The result is inferior,
low-grade plant life, as is found in Albany’s (NY) Pine Bush. Since plant eating animals are only as
healthy as their food supply, this principle applies all the way up the food
chain.
Moreover, it isn’t uncommon for
“controlled burns” to become uncontrollable. There have been many news stores about these.
An Excerpt from the Reno News in
2000:
“The National Park Service’s controlled
burn near Los Alamos N.M.,
is the most deadly example… So far it has scoured some 50,000
acres, historic structures at the old atomic-bomb site, hundreds
of homes and tribal land. At last count, 405
families had been burned out. Businesses suffered too, being cut off from
customers.”
Several
years ago a “prescribed burn” in the Pine Bush raged out of control after
a sudden strong wind sprang up. A
specially assembled fire-fighting crew and a DEC helicopter were needed to
extinguish the blaze.
Since “fire management” is
an environmentally destructive practice, one would be justified in asking
how it
became fairly widespread. As you
probably know, it was first proposed some 70 years ago by Aldo
Leopold, who was much less of an ecologist than the historical revisionists have
led many people to
believe. Today, many of Leopold’s
contentions are anachronisms.
Nevertheless, they are still quite widely accepted by forest and
wildlife managers.
The use of fire to manage wildlands
didn’t come into general use until the mid-1970s. Prior to that time, a policy of complete fire
suppression was usually pursued. The
period between 1973 and 1978 was a time of severe economic recession. In New York State
unemployment bottomed
out at 11.3 per cent, the highest state unemployment rate since The Great
Depression. The federal and state
governments sought ways to balance budgets by saving money. Forest and park rangers and
fire wardens were laid off. The
belt-tightening increased during the Reagan presidency.
Since
fire-fighting funds were cut, it became common policy to allow fires to
burn themselves out on wildlands
where homes were not threatened. Likewise, some forestlands were burned, ostensibly to prevent serious
fires later. This was like throwing the
baby out with the bath water, but it was good dollar diplomacy.
Forest and park officials now
began to claim with increasing certitude that was the use of fire was an
ecologically sound practice. (Naturally,
when people engage in an activity, for whatever reason, they will usually try
to justify it.)
The myth that fire is
environmentally beneficial became incorporated into ecology textbooks used in
colleges and universities, and is advocated by many professors whose programs
are funded in part by groups such as the American Forestry Association. The primary problem with these programs is
that no emphasis is placed upon an empathy with life and a reverence for Nature. But this is consistent with most forest and
wildlife management practices, which are designed to produce
sometimes-illusionary short-term benefits, usually at the cost of long-term
hazards for the rest of Nature. That is
a problem inherent in most commercial enterprises. There are responsible ways to manage natural
lands, but they are benevolent and constructive, not malevolent and
destructive.
The most basic problem is the
prevailing cultural view that human beings are superior to the rest of
Nature. Therefore, according to this
philosophy, people have an inherent right to use, abuse, or manipulate it in
any way that suits their interests. Otherwise good people can often be influenced by bad ideas, especially
if these are presented in a seemingly logical fashion and if there would appear
to be some benefits that result.
It’s true that some ecosystems, such
as pine barrens<, have arrived at their present state
as a result of periodic fires. The
question is why these fires occurred. In the vast majority of cases they were a result of carelessness, or
were caused by deliberate fire setting by mentally disturbed people. This was true for many years in central New Jersey and in the Pine Bush. Simply because fires have burned over an area
on a regular basis doesn’t mean that fire is beneficial to the natural
world!If these lands were to remain
undisturbed by human acts and destructive natural forces they would evolve
toward a climax state. Some forms of
life would slowly disappear but many others would move in to take their
place. Many pine barrens
have become so scarred by fires that they are essentially sick
ecosystems that support limited numbers of plans and animals.
Today, some forest and wildlife
managers seem to be in competition with careless campers, irresponsible
hunters, and deliberate match throwers.“Fire management” is a principle that, in many parts of the United States, has become
increasingly irresponsible over the years.In parts of the West and Southwest napalm and chemicals are used to
start major fires, even crown fires, to destroy insect infestations or for
other land or wildlife management purposes.
The use of fire to mange woodlands
and open spaces is short-sighted, unscientific, morally questionable, and can
be very destructive to plant and animal life.It is my opinion, based on much experience elsewhere, that if fire is
allowed to be used in Mohonk Preserve, it will be employed with increasing
frequency and in increasingly irresponsible ways as time goes on.Invariably, Nature will be immeasurably
diminished.
The problem at Mohonk Preserve, and
on natural lands elsewhere in this region, is not droughts and blowdowns.The problem is with people who are careless
with fire, since lightning-set fires are extremely rare in this part of the
country.The time, money, and effort
should be directed toward public education which might help to foster true
ecological awareness.
I
would like to voice my strong opposition to the seriously misguided plan for
burning on Mohonk Preserve.
Ron Baker is a naturalist who
homesteaded in the Adirondacks for 27 years.The only way to his handbuilt homestead
was to cross a beaver pond and hike for 40 minutes uphill through a rugged
forest.Mr. Baker was editor of the Backwoods Journal, a publication through
which homesteaders shared the knowledge they’d accumulated over the years
living in the woods.It was read by
homesteaders, and aspiring homesteaders or those who could only homestead
vicariously. In 1985, Mr. Baker
published The American Hunting Myth. The
book was a well-documented condemnation of wildlife management for hunting. After
moving to the Hudson Valley a few years
ago, Mr.
Baker joined the Mohonk Preserve in order to hike and explore the beautiful
preserve area.
Back to the Article Index
|
