Re: “Forest preserve or prairie preserve?” (TRRT Jan. 4-10, 2012)
The article raises numerous questions to which it appears that no one in authority is willing to respond.
There appears to have been no public hearing regarding the tree cutting, and if there was, I do not recall reading any public notice regarding such meeting.
The article indicates that trees involved in the procedure allow for a total clear cutting of native and non-native species.
With all the park-like activities currently allowed within the preserves, they are more accurately described as parks, not preserves.
Apparently, the taxpayers are not receiving full value for their assets, which are being sold at below-market prices. A bundle of firewood costs considerably more than the prices reported as being received for the “biofuels” of $1 to $4/ton. Even wood mulch cannot be purchased at these low prices.
Succession and/or evolution are terms that are used to describe the natural changes that occur within the environment. Yes, past human intervention many times has a profound effect on these naturally-occurring changes, and this is quite possibly one of those times.
It seems as though the word “preserve” has little meaning to those in power.
I had the great honor to work with Ray Schulenberg of the Morton Arboretum, and I believe his response to the bulldozer system of prairie restoration would be frowned upon.
From the Jan. 11-17, 2012, issue
Print This Article