MassWildlife Looking to Revamp Habitat Management
 Two centuries ago, most the heavily wooded areas we see today were open fields and shrub lands. |
The 1830s marked the height of agriculture in Massachusetts, as well as the rapid decline of species that utilized forestlands. Thankfully, according to Tom O’Shea, assistant director of wildlife for the state Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, the farm boom didn’t last and the forests came back. Maybe too much forest.
“There are fewer areas of young forest,” O’Shea said on Thursday evening at Town Hall, the first of three public meetings the Fisheries and Wildlife Board has scheduled across the state for input into wildlife habitat and management policies. “Less than 5 percent of our lands are grassland and shrub land habitats. There has been a significant decrease in native species, especially birds, in these types of habitats.”
In 2006, MassWildlife along with at least 10 special-interest groups devoted to maintaining native plant and animal species (such as the cottontail rabbit) conducted a study to indentify habitats and species with the greatest conservation needs.
“We need more grassland, shrub land and young forest,” O’ Shea said. “Ideally, we would like 28 percent of our lands to be these habitats. It’s going to be a long way to get there. It takes nuance in management to get it right for the species. We’re going to see continued wildlife decline on state lands until we get it right.”
Ironically, the very conservation efforts that have been in place since the 1990s may be partly responsible for the decline in those grasslands, shrub lands, young forests and their relative species.
“The Smoky the Bear campaign worked very well, almost too well,” said MassWildlife Director Wayne F. MacCallum. “Many of the natural disturbances that these habitats rely on have been altered.”
.jpg) Tom O’Shea, assistant director of wildlife, says we may have gone too far in conserving forests. |
Natural disturbances include fire, water, beaver development and wind. In each case, human intervention (often in an attempt at conservation) has interfered with the natural process. Some 3,000 dams have been erected across the state, fire suppression has been successful, and forest cutting has been very selective, perhaps too selective, according to O’Shea.
“Bird species are very sensitive to changes in structure,” he said. “They do better with larger patch sizes of land; 30 to 40 acres would be perfect. Actually, anything greater than three acres is really good.”
But how do you convince the public that clear cutting is good and fire is helpful, Bill Peters of Northborough wanted to know.
“It’s hard to watch clear cutting and say ‘my god, that’s good for wildlife,’” he said. “The salamanders and woodpeckers need these old-growth forests to survive.”
Robert McCarthy, Williamstown's tree warden and a sportsman, was concerned that the clear cutting was not enough and that bureaucracy and lack of coordination among multiple wildlife agencies is getting in the way of successful, sustainable management.
“Not enough is being done,” he said. “The woodlands are like a garden; if you don’t tend it, it turns to garbage. We need to keep the ticks out. I’m not talking about bugs, I’m talking about politics. Keep it out of our lands and leave wildlife management to the experts.”
