They do, but FSC objected in Massachusetts because they clearcut public forest to the tune of 50 plus acre lots, rather than do thinnings over time and allow native species to take over.
This was "justified" in the cutting plans by claiming there would be "advanced regeneration" quickly coming in, and claiming "wildlife enchancement". There is some bogus science to that end floating around they used. The auditors report and the citizen complaints noted the regeneration was extremely sparse and insufficient. FSC's auditors noted that the Norway Spruce was providing valuable overwintering habitat, and that they had not justified their removal for "wildlive enhancement" with enough science. (In the FSC auditors report). They also ran over wetlands, and exempted wetlands in some cases based on this "emergency" need to remove them. They also had claimed they were diseased, which also was hit by the FSC report as false. These were public forests in some cases scenic areas, and the removal via clearcut left a very unpleasant looking scene. This kind of surprised the citizens who had pointed this out to the auditors, and provided FSC with the science they noted in the report. Prior to that, FSC had said all was just fine with all of it. Ray On Sunday, January 10, 2010 3:40pm, "Lee Frelich" <[email protected]> said: > Gaines: > > Doesn't FSC require or at least strongly encourage removal of exotic > tree species to get certification? I don't know if thats involved in > this case. > > Although it is often a good thing to get rid of non-native species, that > is not always the case. After the adelgids (hemlock and balsam fir) work > their way through, it may be desirable to replace the ecological > function of those species with species such as northern Japanese hemlock > or Norway spruce. I have occasionally inserted comments about such > things in reviews for FSC, but I don't think it has much effect. > > Norway spruce has such a huge variety of provenances available, from > short, fat and bushy to very tall with branches only 2-3 feet long, and > from closely spaced branches to widely spaced branches, with and without > pendant twigs, tolerant of low nutrients, or not etc. You can get a tree > to fit almost any circumstance. > > Lee > > Gaines McMartin wrote: >> Bob: >> >> Do you know anyone there that I could call? I might be able to get >> help from Edwin White, Dean of Research at SUNY Syracuse. He is a >> very, very nice and helpful person, and the people at SUNY Syracuse >> know more about NS than anyone. As I pointed out earlier, NS stands >> can, at a particular stage of their growth, look a bit ugly to the >> untrained eye. The trees express dominance very well, but that means >> that the vast majority of the trees in a stand will be overtopped and >> die. As you know, these stands overall are not dying. One of the >> studies produced at SUNY S.begins with the statement that NS is a >> "long lived" tree. Something should be done. These stands are a >> treasure--at age 100 they will have trees 140 to 150 feet tall and >> will still be growing. They will be towering forest cathedrals! >> >> Of course if it is just hate for something non-native, then maybe >> nothing can be done. >> >> --Gaines McMartin >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> On 1/9/10, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Gaines, >>> >>> >>> Super information! Thanks. Please keep it coming. It is good to get really >>> reliable information about Norway Spruce. DCR's Bureau of Forestry (here in >>> Massachusetts) is targeting every Norway Spruce plantation established in >>> the 1930s for elimination, claiming that their all dying, which they aren't. >>> I want a T-shirt that say's "I'm Bullish on Norway Spruce". >>> >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >
