Housatonic — I read the other day where the dispute about clear-cutting a large area of forest adjacent to Long Pond, the water supply for village of Housatonic, has morphed into a lawsuit.
The main disagreement here apparently involves two homeowners who clear-cut trees not only from their property but also from abutting neighbors’ properties as well, including a wildlife preserve, in order to get a view of the pond – never mind that regulations forbid clear-cutting near a municipal water supply.
It looks like the whole thing has descended into a war of semantics over what seems to be a clear flouting of established regulations.
“Intentionally,” as in ”I didn’t intentionally trespass on my neighbors’ properties,” seems to have taken the fore as part of the clear cutters’ defense of their scalping land next to theirs. “Intentionally” or “unintentionally” has no status as a defense for breaking the law, but instead has significant weight in its prosecution. For instance, if I drop a brick on the mailman’s head while I’m fixing my chimney, my carelessness, though not intentional, must, at the least, be regarded as reckless, and at worst be the subject of litigation. I might try apologizing and hope to defuse the whole situation.
Another interesting view of the matter is the homeowners in question insistence they were clearing the land for agricultural purposes. I’ve read “all species attempt to tip the balance in their favor; humans are no different in this regard. But, humans alone are a willful species. The rightness or legitimacy of agriculture is determined by its purpose, by why humans attempt to tip the ecological balance in their favor, and concurrently, how far they are willing to tip it.”
The purpose of agriculture has primarily been to meet the demand for agricultural products, mainly food, but also raw materials for fiber manufacture.
What became of all those trees? Were they cut into saw logs for lumber? Although I don’t think this justifies the destruction of the stand of trees in question, at least their being chopped down may have served some useful “agricultural” purpose. I suppose their being split up for firewood or ground up for mulch might fit a narrow niche as an agricultural purpose. And if the cutting indeed was done to produce forest products, what trees, grain, or any other plausible product is in the future plans for the clear-cut land.
Or is it possible the trees were simply gathered up and shipped off to some wood dump?
By my lights, the clear-cutters bought some lake-side property and, regardless of any consequences or precautions against polluting a water supply, decided it was their right actually to see the lake.
In my back-road travels I’ve seen several instances of people who lived along the Williams River slashing trees for no other reason than to create a pleasant view of the water. These clear-cuts, however, look even more disturbing since the homeowners simply left the trees to rot where they had fallen. And much of the land along the river is thin and rocky and therefore not really fit for agricultural uses.
Let’s not forget in this whole debate that clear-cutting “can have major negative impacts, both for humans and local flora and fauna. Also clear-cutting engenders erosion,” a significant factor when the land borders the town water supply.
The talking and finger-pointing may go on for years until one or both combatants collapses from exhaustion. But all I can know right now is trees are gone forever, and it’s not looking too good for their being replaced anytime soon. And that’s too bad.
