Massachusetts Soap Box

By Cinda Jones, State Coordinator and 9th Generation / President of W. D. Cowls, Inc. Land Company

It feels like Massachusetts landowners are stranded on a bizarre and foreign planet these days.  A place where the noise made by a small, but passionate, part of the public is more compelling to forest policymakers than fundamental principles of natural resource management, a place where a narrow band of scientific data is trotted out to justify hasty and drastic policy changes. Massachusetts landowners are reaching out to regional and national like-minded organizations and corporations for advice and help, and we’re getting it. If some of the policies proposed for Massachusetts forests and forest landowners take hold here, a bad precedent with possible national implications would be set.

Some recent Massachusetts state forest policy actions:

-     The Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) essentially disregarded years of previous work on public lands management in favor of a hastily compiled “Vision” that proposes to remove 60% of state forest lands from the possibility of commercial timber harvest.
Responding to the public furor generated by activists who claim to be “speaking for the trees” and NIMBY activists, Massachusetts EOEEA commissioned the Manomet Center to study the environmental impact of biomass power vs coal and other alternatives.  When voluminous and complicated results were released, the state put out a simplifying press release that misrepresented the study’s results as being strongly against biomass.  This propagation of misinformation required Manomet to produce a clarifying press release insisting that the conclusion that “wood is worse than coal for GHG emissions or for the environment is an inaccurate interpretation of our findings.”

Meanwhile, after years ago promising financial incentives for biomass plants to be built in Massachusetts and several developers spending many millions of dollars in start-up funds, the state may now eliminate the incentives that made these plants financially viable. This would further solidify the state’s reputation as unfriendly to business.

EOEEA is not only limiting forestry on public land, but may well have its sights set on additional regulation on private forest land management.  The credibility the administration is giving to the opinions of a segment of environmental activists leads landowners to fear for the economic future of their woodlands. 

State-employed land managers have been blatantly, and possibly criminally, harassed because top agency personnel have failed to distinguish between excellent and subpar work, providing no defense of their own natural resource managers.

None of the candidates for Governor has thus far been willing to take a remotely pro-forestry position.

Massachusetts landowners are eager to cooperate with forest products interests and alternative energy folks, national and regional organizations, and other potential allies to explain and advocate for the scientific rationale for managed forests to provide biodiversity, protect water quality, provide recreational opportunities and a variety of wildlife habitats, and supply wood products.  The Forest Landowners Association (FLA) has been an excellent resource and advocate and you should talk with Scott Jones, the Executive Director of the FLA, about any ideas you have for helping us. You don’t want what’s happening here to travel to your state.