Sedrick the cat is missing

He jumped out of his companions' car on Pinch Road sometime in late July, and was seen in Mt. Gretna (by the tennis courts) on Aug 6 (Thursday). Please call his "mom" at 717-566-1439 if you see him. If you like, scoop him up and call for mom. Or, scoop him up and call us at 964-3089 and we will help reunite him with his family.

Now, the picture his NOT him, but it gives you a good idea of what he looks like-just add a year and a red collar.

See, we were scooping up our fiesty little Philly strays that escaped from our abode last Thursday, and found what we thought to be our little Pluck down by 202 Pennsylvania Ave. However, upon moving in for the scoop, it was determined that this cat had on a collar, which is a device our cats find to be a very easy contraption to break free of. We did not see the "missing" posters until the next day, but, suffice it to say, that our boys look a lot like Sedrick. A lot.

So the picture is our guy from a year ago, when he was still a kitten and would visit the Gretna theater during intermission to be fondled by his adoring fans.

Another Forestry Practices lesson

Because I am sure that our local (and maybe even state) game commission officials may use these terms in any of their statements to the public, I want to share with you some information on the difference between slash and coarse woody debris.

Both types of woody debris are found naturally in forests and are created via humans' timbering operations. Both terms are used in the forestry/woodlot management industry and, more importantly, both types of debris provide benefits to the ecosystem--if used appropriately.

Slash is typically woody debris with a three inch diameter, or smaller.

Coarse woody debris is debris that is larger than three inches in diameter.

Decomposition of both, but especially slash, is important in returning nutrients (especially nitrogen) back to the soil. And, coarse woody debris is important habitat for the smaller creatures of the ecosystem.

Too much slash in an area of course increases the chances of the ignition and continued burning of a fire. Too much coarse woody debris, not enough variety in the diameter and length of the logs, and irresponsible placement of this debris (for example, in piles rather than scattered across the site) also causes problems, like the attraction of pests, soil compaction, and the mechanical blockage of regeneration. It can, of course, also contribute fuel to a fire.

So, in another visit to our favorite block, it is easy to see the presence of both slash and coarse woody debris. The argument the Game Commission will likely use is that they were left intentionally to create habitat. The response is that the condition of the block and the physical evidence left there are wholly unsupportive of their claim.

Raising revenue and protecting Gretna's character

Here's a story on NPR this morning about how a small town in Ohio addressed its traffic violation issues AND raised a boatload of money:

"One municipal government seems to have solved some of its budget problems by writing extra traffic tickets. In the small town of Heath, Ohio, the local police typically issue about 100 tickets per month. Then they put in some traffic cameras. Suddenly, in the first month, the police issued 10,000 tickets."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111527478


That's a million bucks for them! What a great idea for Mt. Gretna--instead of paying a police officer to patrol one road and rarely, if ever, issuing tickets, why don't we install ticket-issuing cameras. Then we can pay Cornwall by the incident response.

Now, I have in mind to go to the Borough office and read through all our Borough meeting minutes to read the Cornwall Police reports. Why? Well, because, at each meeting, they are supposed to submit a report of their services and activities in their 10 (or 15) hours of providing police services to us. And, never, in any of the police reports to the Borough, have I seen them state that they gave out ANY speeding tickets or tickets for other traffic violations. So, I figure I can estimate their ticket issuance at, oh, NONE. But, in fairness, I will check the record and get back to y'all on the findings.

Even if the number is greateer than one, I think we can all agree that the actual number is going to be extremely small, and here are some reasons that I think that situation will never change. First, Cornwall PD has a very limited contract with us in terms of provision of actual services. If they write a ticket that is contested, that police officer will have to spend many hours in court. Our contract with them doesn't seem to include that. Second, why issue the ticket in Mt. Gretna and not 100ft. away, in Cornwall. Cornwall won't see the revenue generated from the fines if the ticket is issued in another jurisdiction.

So, it seems to me that we really need to reconsider what we are paying for, especially since responsibility for police services will default to the state police if we do not have a contract with another police department. Yes, response time may increase, but we have to ask ourselves what services we really use here. Our emergency responders service (fire, ambulance) would not change, and why is a quicker response to, say, a couple of noise complaints a year, worth tens of thousands of dollars--especially when we are suffering a budget shortfall, have a poor capital improvements "bank" right now, and the overall economy is in the pits.

Shouldn't we at least consider using those funds to purchase "service" that better addresses our community's real issues AND is a revenue generator, instead of a revenue burden.

Letter to local conservation office

Has anyone gotten any real data on the amount of regeneration occurring in that block?

Pasted below is a copy of my recent letter to our local conservation agency.
My two basic contentions in my response are that:

1. Government officials responding to our concerns have acknowledged a fire hazard risk on that block. But by denying the new presence of large amounts of fuel, they are unilaterally assigning us the burden of the increased risk of catastrophic loss.

2. The Game Commission has a limited mission in its service to the residents of the Commonwealth, and, via their enforcement of these timber harvesting contracts, they are either failing or are acting outside their mission of providing game and habitat.

Here's my actual letter:

Hello,

Thank you for following up on my initial contact with you.

I find Henry's response to be incredulous and non-responsive. Given the size of the logs left behind, I ask Henry to provide a 3rd party inventory and measurement data on the regeneration that is occurring in that block--as I suggest that the actual numbers will be egregiously low given the diameter and numbers of large logs and such piles.

Further, I also find it incredibly difficult to believe that the actual regeneration occuring there, as minimal as it may be, conforms with their regeneration plan for that area. Maybe you have an email address for him, and you will forward him my response?

More importantly, is it your response or Henry's that the risk of fire is low because of the wet summer that we have experienced? Please allow me to point out that that government official's response acknowledges the present risk of fire hazard, yet attempts to mitigate it by using mother nature's graceful provision of much rain this summer.

The response further acknowledges that there is a risk of lightning strike in that area, but mitigates the risk by suggesting that historical strikes have never produced a known fire. Please understand that that is our point as well--except that our concern acknowledges the new presence of large amounts of fuel. Your (or Henry's) response does not. Why is it, that in all of the government generated responses to our concern, nobody has acknowledged the actual slash on that block, and nobody has provided data to show that the actual amount there conforms with industry practices, organizational practices, or with the timber contract and enforcement practices? Could it be because the actual amount does NOT conform?

Let's be clear about our assumptions: "risk" is an affirmative number suggesting the likelihood of an event occurring--AN AFFIRMATIVE NUMBER. By definition, it precludes the possibility of forever eliminating the occurence of the event.

Here, it is apparent that we all agree that a risk of fire exists on the block and that the weather has been particularly helpful to us in reducing that risk. We also all may agree that we DISAGREE as to the level of risk--Mt. Gretna property owners acknowledge the new presence of large amounts of fuel, while no one from our local or state governments has acknowledged the significantly increased risk of catastrophic fire presented by the actual slash on that block. This is very disturbing to many of us.

So, it seems that local government officials want us to believe that large diameter slash presents no increased risk of catastrophic fire. However, I dare say that there is no licensed forester, probably throughout the U.S., that will deny the increased and enduring risk of catastrophic fire when the slash of this size and amount is left after a harvest operation in this type of forest. So why is a government organization allowed to put us in that kind of risk--at an increased risk of a catastrophic fire? Does Henry have arrangments for moist weather with mother nature for next year? or the year after? or the decade after?

And, given Henry's passive denial about this "catastrophic fire" fuel, how does he explain the existence of that thing called a "fire watch tower" just across Pinch Road from this block of forest? I am sure our previous generations would have experienced no comfort, as we aren't, from his responses.

Another assumption is that the Game Commission is an entity that was "born" to serve the residents of the Commonwealth, as the local conservation office was created to serve county residents. As such, the Commission's responsibility is solely to us. By its own failures on this block, it is extremely difficult to see how the Commission is fulfilling its mission of providing game and habit for us. No animals of any significant size can even traverse the block it is so obstructed with harvest debris!

The reality is that this government organization is acting with the brazen attitude of a Chevron in some South American country, extracting the profit from our common resources, leaving behind an ecosystem significantly damaged by human intervention, and leaving the locals at increased risk of certain life-threatening and property damaging catastrophies. Just what point is the game commission trying to make to its abutting property owners when it allows one contractor to leave the un-merchantable large diameter "fuel" slash, and enforces the timber contract and best practice standards on all other nearby contractors EXCEPT the one abutting Mt. Gretna homes?

It is of no relief to abutting property owners that it appears to be a relatively small area impacted by this slash. And, absolutely no hard evidence has been given to us to support the repeated statements of government officials that "there is nothing to worry about." In fact, the physical evidence on that block contradicts these "official" representations of the conditions of that block. Thus, local residents are growing increasingly frustrated by these "vaporous" statements being thrown back at us.

Show us the unbiased data, and maybe from there our conversation can reach mutual agreement as to the risk and who is assigned that risk.

Further, in reference to your response, as should be apparent, it is not the large logs "starting" a fire that we are worried about, as your response suggests. It is their contribution as large amounts of fuel to a fire that may get started in a whole myriad of ways. There is still an abundance of other ignitable material on that block (as with the other blocks). And, fire-suppressing regeneration will be egregiously hampered on that block as the large piles of large logs will remain present for years to come. Further, as regeneration is hampered, limited presence of new root structures will contribute to soil erosion on that block.

Lastly, what possible regeneration plan and site preparation technique are actually being used here? The Game Commission made a lot of assertions about its plan and techniques on this block (and the others nearby). Yet, the Commission has provided NO physical evidence of actual engagement in their own stated plan or methods. In fact, the pictures of this block again provide evidence CONTRADICTING their asserted "plan." And, as the local conservation agency, why is this not a concern of your organization?

END