Return
to Musings main page
|
“The
second clearing.”
a
version of this was published in the Plough
and Star
One hundred and
fifty years ago, the landscape of
our county would have looked only vaguely familiar to us. True, land
form – the
hills and valleys – would have been little different, but the covering
draped over
those contours would have been radically different. Where trees now
block our
vista, views that we can hardly imagine would have spread out before
us. The antique
landscape was around ¾’s open with less than ¼ in forest. It was the
product of
about 100 years of extensive clearing for agriculture and other uses
such as
charcoal manufacture, hide tanning, and potash production, what I dub
the First
Clearing. (European settlement began earlier, and indigenous people
also
cleared some lands, but prior to about 1750, human clearing was likely
minor.)
The First Clearing was a profound and rapid change. It ensured that
European
settlers could grow food, hastened the demise of the indigenous
peoples, and no
doubt caused substantial changes in local ecology, accompanied as it
was not
only by clearing but by increased hunting, trapping, draining, and
other
resource use.
The
First
Clearing largely went unchronicled because few of those who knew the
landscape
prior to this wave of settlement spent time documenting its nature. The end point (i.e., the
mid 19th
century) however finds better documentation, and we can safely surmise
the
disappearance (or looming disappearance) of such species as wolf,
mountain
lion, beaver, passenger pigeon, fisher, bobcat, turkey and other less
conspicuous members of our flora and fauna. These disappearances were
mirrored,
in part, by the spread of openland- or disturbance-favoring species,
such as
our grassland birds, ground hogs, and certain butterflies. Obviously,
such vast
ecological changes were due not only to the land use changes that
occurred here
in our county, but also to the similar changes occurring throughout our
region.
The next chapter
of the story is enshrined in the
Northeast’s ecological and environmental mystique: between about 1850
and the
present extensive reforestation has occurred. Currently, for example,
the
surface of our county is roughly ¾’s forested
and ¼ open, the reverse of conditions 150 years ago. Such reforestation
extended throughout the Northeast as farming moved west or “downhill”
to the
industrializing centers and as extensive logging swept through and then
was
largely curtailed. This reforestation has hidden many of the most
conspicuous
traces of our past clearing, has heralded the return of such species as
beaver,
turkey and bobcat (coyotes, interestingly enough, were not native here
prior to
European arrival; to some degree they may take the wolf’s ecological
niche),
and has deeply flavored environmental debate in our region. Granted it
has not
been an untarnished path to ecological glory, with water and air
pollution
providing sharp reminders of our tread, but we have, almost uniquely on
this
globe, witnessed a forest resurgence that in many ways makes our
homeland a
greener place than it was a century and half ago. This fact has perhaps
made us
somewhat complacent when considering the future of our landscape.
As the above
narrative already suggests, we cannot
discuss ecological change without discussing human socio-economic
change. The
biological change sketched above is the by-product of change in human
economics.
In particular, it largely reflects the rise and fall of regional
agriculture
and, subsequently, of regional industry. While we may pat ourselves on
the back
for having lived in a greening landscape, to a large degree that
reshaping was
not the result of a conscious ecological ethic, but rather of profound
economic
change, no doubt tainted by painful individual struggles to make ends
meet. Powerful
economic forces are again
beginning to reformulate our landscape, and, I believe, they herald a
Second
Clearing, perhaps less immediately conspicuous, but no less
ecologically
intrusive than the First.
Several
economic conditions are the precursors of this Second Clearing. Wildly
fluctuating
milk prices have battered dairy farming the most recent mainstay of our
agriculture; recent Wall-Street driven urban affluence has created a
young,
well-moneyed class; the gradual extension of high speed road and rail
service
has favored commuting; the advent of the Internet has created the
possibility
of ‘telecommuting’; and 9/11 and its aftermath have driven some to
leave cities
and move to the nearby countryside. While these factors have probably
influenced much of the Northeast, they are particularly powerful in
counties
such as ours where failing farms are making lands available within a
convenient
distance for urban dwellers just as they, with thick wallets, are
looking to
settle in the country. A service economy where real estate sales,
construction,
and landscaping are major engines is replacing the agricultural and
semi-industrial economies, and is helping to push development.
Notably missing
from this narrative is increased
human populations, a factor that was central to the First Clearing.
Regional
population has increased much more slowly than housing, a pattern
accounted for
by the rise of second homes and, over the longer term, perhaps also by
shrinking family sizes (meaning that the same number of people now
spreads out
over more households or houses).
I believe that
the beginnings of this Second
Clearing are largely hidden from us, and that our history of
reforestation
lulls us to overlook them. The signs are inconspicuous for several
reasons.
First, the Second Clearing is incipient; while much of the groundwork
is
already laid, most of the effects are yet to come. Second, to the human
eye,
the change is perhaps subtle, many of the new houses are surrounded by
trees,
leaving a landscape where the density of settlement is more evident on
a
winter’s night when house lights shine through than on a summer day
when much
is hidden by foliage (unfortunately, the ecological effects such as
fragmentation are less subtle than the scenic ones). And finally, much
ecological change occurs with a lag – most species spread into new
areas only
slowly as they build demographic momentum; they likewise disappear
gradually as
the delicate balance between births and deaths tips into the red. Using
the
presence of conspicuous plants and animals to gauge landscape changes
is rather
like looking out the window in winter and trying to judge current
temperature
solely from snow depth – there’s a relation, but snow depth is not a
thermometer.
Evidence that a
Second Clearing is underway comes
from a variety of sources. Perhaps most telling are recent statistics
on
forested area in the Northeastern States. While such statistics are
estimates
open to interpretation, seven of the eleven states are showing
downturns in
forested area after, in most cases, almost 75 years of reforestation. This new drop in forest is
not due to
agricultural clearing but rather to non-agricultural development. In
addition,
as we learn more about the demographics of native species, it is
becoming evident
that clearing the land of wild organisms can happen in a variety of
ways short
of complete denudation. (See figure below)
When we picture
our surroundings, we think first
perhaps of the trees. They are, however, only part of a much bigger
ecological
picture. A multitude of animals and less conspicuous plants share the
landscape.
Published research has shown that changes in a forest can effectively
clear the
land of some of these organisms while leaving many trees standing. For
example,
roadway or driveway construction may fill in inconspicuous forest
puddles thus
excluding vernal pool amphibians; pet cats may roam the woods preying
on baby
birds; attracted by the fruits of forest-edges and protected from
hunting, deer
may destroy smaller forest plants through browsing and Brown Cowbirds
may
decimate forest bird populations through nest parasitism; increasing
traffic on
regional roads may cause increased turtle and frog mortality during
migration –
there is a sad litany of effects which mean that a forest may become a
relative
biological desert long before the last tree falls. Some plants and
animals may
survive but they are likely to be the least picky, generalist species,
those
able to survive and even flourish in the human-altered habitats.
Ecologically,
a forest is an entire community evidenced most prominently by trees
but, in reality,
much more than just the isolated trunks or groves which may impart a
forested
impression. In a real way, we sometimes cannot see the lack
of forest for the trees
Not only are
forest organisms being excluded from
the land, but so too are “forest people”.
By “forest people” I do not mean only the indigenous
people who
disappeared in the immediate wake of European settlement, nor only
people who
like forests. Rather, I mean those who are on the land as farmers,
hunters,
foresters, wanderers. The
effects of the
Second Clearing are being exacerbated by social conditions, and this,
in turn,
is further eroding our natural landscape. People are losing contact
with their
surroundings. In part, perhaps, this is due to technology’s draw on the
young,
but it also derives from a culture that does not value public access.
As second
homes proliferate, POSTED signs appear to also. Year-around residents
are
disappearing from the woods not only because they own less of the land
outright, but because neighbors may be less willing to tolerate
trespassers,
or, at the least, it may be more difficult to ask for access.
Simultaneously,
fewer and fewer residents of our area make their living in a manner
that
requires day to day contact with the land (e.g., farming and forestry).
Hence,
both leisure and professional activities may be less connected to the
land. If
this is true, how can we expect such people (and the children of such
people)
to care about conservation? In defining the overall ecology of our
landscape,
we need to consider not only the ecology of the wild plants and
animals, but
also the people – where do they feel they
live? Which places do they care about?
If one looks at
an aerial view of Wisconsin, a dark
green, suspiciously square patch of land is visible in the west central
portion. The Menominee Indian Reservation has been spared the clearcuts
that
have pockmarked much of the remaining forestland. Instead, the tribe
has tended
the forest based on a long-term, selective harvesting plan that
recognizes that
patch as the only forest they’ve got and may ever have. The story is
more
complex, the tribal decisions have not always been popular nor
profitable, and
yet here is a story worth heeding. If we love our landscape, a love
which the
promise of mobility may dilute, then we need to ask not how much can I
make
from the land today, but how can my descendents live here tomorrow?
As
outlined
above, the landscape of the County is facing threats but it should also
count
its blessings. Our county covers beautiful land from the Hudson to the
Hills;
accommodates both farmland and forest; is within marketing distance of
NYC – a
boon for farming; physically if not economically, still has plenty of
soil for
farming; and is a place where urban affluence and business acumen
coexist side
by side with a practical, rural knowledge of the land. There is an
identity and
a potential here which a lack of foresight can make us miss and a lack
of
connection can sabotage.
Solutions are
not easy for they will only come if
people work together, always a messy activity. This is hindered by the
threat
of polarization based in part on differences in social background and
economic
status. Relatively well-to-do urbanites tend to approach the landscape
with
relief and fear, finding the solitude and space they have sought but
carrying
with them a concern for personal security and sometimes ‘sharp elbows’
derived
from their lives in the City. Many long-term residents see the prices
of
houses (see figure below), taxes and services rise beyond their means,
and so are encountering
in-your-face relegation to a second economic tier. At the same time,
some
residents who own land see an opportunity to sell for a good price,
niche
farmers see new markets, and those servicing the new arrivals find new
possibilities of surviving. Still
others
who neither live here nor plan to, are riding the moving wave of
money-making
possibilities formed by the urbanizing frontier (e.g. real estate
speculators).
Finally, in the background, there is a majority group of residents
whose work
is often detached from the land and may even be, physically, outside of
the
County. Many of these people lack day-to-day contact with the landscape
and,
consumed by the rush of everyday life, are passive spectators of the
Second
Clearing. The
result of this juxtaposition
is a land where the most powerful voices are imprinting, not always
consciously, a more urban face on the landscape in both attitudes and
structures.
Individual
attitudes run a spectrum and attempts at
categorization, such as those presented above, will always fail to
honor that
diversity. And yet, differences in attitude, income, and experience are
real,
and we need to recognize them, not as cause for anger, but so that we
know
ourselves and can work together more consciously.
Oddly
enough,
this all reminds me of bottled water. The bottled water craze in this
country
has occurred because a populous with honest if ill-informed concerns
about
personal health is being exploited by corporations looking to make a
buck in a
manner facilitated by retailers willing to sell whatever the market
says it wants.
Instead of devoting the time and effort needed to ensure that our
land’s waters
maintain their quality, we settle for using water from elsewhere in a
process
which can only damage our environment overall (through lack of
environmental concern
and the by-products of packaging and pumping).This year the New York
State
Department of Health issued advisories that no
one should eat more than one meal per month of fish caught in any NY
waters and
not more than two meals per month of waterfowl. Certainly this is
evidence,
albeit at a large scale, of the Second Clearing. And yet more citizen
thought
has surely gone into considering what brand of bottled water to buy
than has
gone into considering the implications of such a stark warning. Will
our
landscape be bottled and sold to those who can afford it (and who may
buy it
with the best of intentions), or will it be seen as a common resource
that
needs to be safeguarded for the appreciation and use of us all?
.
|
