Plum Creek’s threat to lynx without scientific merit
10/11/08 | 6 comments
guest column

Plum Creek’s threat to lynx without scientific merit


Daniel J. Harrison

I am writing to rebut the misinformation and pseudoscience that is being circulated by two prominent nongovernmental organizations that oppose the Lily Bay development proposed by Plum Creek. Their assertions are that the proposed development would eliminate critical lynx habitat and compromise the viability of lynx in the Moosehead region. I strongly disagree with those assertions.

Our research in combination with extensive radio telemetry studies being conducted by Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife suggest that no more than a few lynx could occupy home ranges that intersect the Lily Bay development as proposed. In fact, the excellent soil and site conditions adjacent to the development area would typically support mature deciduous and mixed forests in an unmanaged stand condition. Those conditions would result in stem densities of saplings well below the thresholds needed by snowshoe hares, which are the required food of the lynx. Home ranges of a single lynx average tens of square miles, thus the proposed development area could comprise only a small part of the home ranges of a few lynx.

The current habitat condition for lynx in Lily Bay is well below optimal. The good hare habitat that is present today originated from clear-cut harvests, followed by application of herbicides to shift the species mix towards conifer trees. Without active forest management this area would support few hares and, perhaps, no lynx.

Densities of snowshoe hares are about 10-fold higher in regenerating clearcuts dominated by evergreen trees compared to uncut broadleaf and mixed stands. Thus, in the absence of aggressive forest management, the proposed Lily Bay development area would naturally progress to a mature broadleaf and mixed stand condition that would provide poor habitat for hares and lynx.

Our satellite imagery from 1975 indicates that the area in question represented very poor snowshoe hare and lynx habitat at that time. In fact, if established as a reserve tomorrow, the proposed development area would likely transition into poor lynx habitat by about 2035.

The key to maintaining a viable lynx population in Maine is to maintain large, functional, diverse, intact and interconnected landscapes spanning millions of acres. Thus, the proposed Lily Bay development would have potential impact on a few individual lynx relative to the significant, broader scale positive benefits to the statewide lynx population of conserving and maintaining the functional forest landscape via the easements and conservation acquisitions associated with the larger Plum Creek proposal.

The proposed large-scale easements associated with the Plum Creek development proposal would interface with existing easements (e.g., West Branch), state lands and existing conservation lands to provide a level of protection for lynx habitat that is unprecedented east of the Mississippi river and south of Canada.

Thus, I strongly encourage the Land Use Regulation Commission to avoid protective measures in Lily Bay that would threaten the economic viability of the larger conservation benefits provided in the Plum Creek Plan. The assertions that Plum Creek's proposed development in Lily Bay would threaten the state's federally threatened lynx population are without scientific merit.

Daniel J. Harrison, Ph.D., is a professor in wildlife ecology and a cooperating professor of sustainable forestry at the University of Maine.

Not registered? Click here
E-mail this
Print this
Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

Bangordailynews.com is pleased to offer a forum for readers to react to our stories, discuss them and provide additional information. We are reluctant to delete comments, but do reserve that right for those who abuse our forum. For more on using this site, please see our terms of service.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. What does that mean specifically? Here are some guidelines (see more):

Comments
6 comments on this item
On 10/11/08 at 3:10 AM, Johninphilippines wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Listen, Mr. Harrison, first, I doubt that it is the lifestyles and densities of snowshoe hares and the lynx that bothers people. These animals do not really bring tax dollars into Maine and the hunters really don't think these animals are too viable or critical to Maine's hunting and fishing environment and future. I can see that your mindset coincides with the rest (some) of the University of Maine's professors, and that really does not make for too much credibility, does it? At least not to me. Plum Creek's proposals have been nothing but smoke and mirrors for the past years, and still, what has happened. Nothing. Isn't it time that Plum Creek developers and carpetbagging attorneys just bow-out completely and go someplace else to hawk their wares? Are the Maine woods the only place on earth that Plum Creek can put up a development plan and destroy the forests in that region? I don't know the answer...because I do know that no other place will have them, either, sir! Isn't it time that people like University of Maine professors who seem not to have any real respect for the Maine woods and the Maine people and the natural environment of the world, for that matter, and also for the wildlife and the future of Maine's environment, just to back-off and go back to their little classrooms, adjust their damned glasses, comb their mustaches and beards, and do their work on the spongebob minds of the kids in their class! Get out of the issues, too UM professors...your real interests are showing...and your possible vested interest too, just maybe.

Report abuse
On 10/11/08 at 6:20 PM, Mainecommenter wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Johninphilippines: Your desperation is showing...personally attacking a UMaine professor when you don't agree with him. Your strategies in this regard are, unfortunately, par for the course by the radical environmentalists (NRCM, RESTORE, Audubon, etc). Those that weigh in on the side of economic progress and mitigated development are considered somehow "bought out" by the company.

I'm glad the Professor Harrison spoke out and am glad that the Plum Creek plan has been given proper attention by LURC.

Report abuse
On 10/11/08 at 7:16 PM, Johninphilippines wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

I'am glad he spoke out, also. However, it is not "my desperation"...it is yours. I don't live in Maine. I don't hold property there anymore. It is just that I was born there and love Maine and do not want to see out of state companies come into Maine and run the people around by their noses and then made to believe in something so costly to Maine's environment, that certain individuals are upholding the very concept and planning, the company that will cause the destuction in the first place. Apparently you do not want me making my comments, either. I will begin to triple my efforts, then.

Report abuse
On 10/14/08 at 8:45 PM, Rick711 wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Dan left off several important relevant details in his opinion piece. Plum Creek is a member of the Cooperative Forestry Research Unit(CFRU) at the University of Maine. As a member of CFRU, Plum Creek is a major contributor to CFRU's operating budget each and every year. CFRU in turn funds a lot Dan's research, including lynx studies. Additionally Dan's research areas have included large swaths of Plum Creek land. Where would Dan be without Plum Creek's largess? It's unfortunate anytime a scientist has to prostitute oneself for research funding. It always throws a cloud of suspicion over their findings. Full disclosure of one's connections is always the best policy in scientific research so that everyone knows where they are coming from.

Report abuse
On 10/15/08 at 7:31 PM, KurtJLane wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Hmmm, according to your reasoning, the state of Maines Lynx studies are flawed as well, since part of the funding comes from animal rights extremest groups.This explains alot

Report abuse
On 10/16/08 at 7:58 PM, Rick711 wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Good point KurtJLane. Anytime a state agency or state institution accepts private money to fund its operations, one should question the results. It doesn't matter which side of the issue one is on. As far as I'm concerned, state agencies have about the same trustworthiness as the dishonest politicians who oversee them.

Report abuse
You must be logged in to post a comment. click here to log in.

Powered by: Creative Circle Advertising Solutions, Inc.