Habitat preservation

[Michael Gochfeld]

John Grehan poses a question (a rhetorical question I presume) about 
whether agencies find it easier to regulate collecting than protecting 
habitat. 

The answer is clearly YES.  In NJ where there is an active, 
sophisticated and well-trained non-game/endangered species group, there 
is a landmark, landscape preservation project. The emphasis here is 
clearly on protecting habitat (and even improving habitat), preventing 
fragmentation, all to support New Jersey's biodiversity.   

BUT----No TEETH. 

There is no regulatory authority to prevent habitat degradation or 
development, whether a piece of land is part of the landscape plan or 
not. 

Even the State's new open space initiative, allows habitats to be 
seriously fragmented, and then developed into ball fields, golf courses, 
etc. 

Even on public lands the situation is not much better.  Somerset County 
owns the beautiful Sourlands Mountains Preserve (yes, we know these 
aren't really mountains), which is surrounded by broad 
butterfly-friendly meadows.  The meadows are viewed as wastelands by the 
Board of Chosen Freeholders, which is planning to make it useful (and 
even lucrative) by building a golf course, tennis courts, etc. 

NJ has a wonderful Wildlife Management Area system, but preserving 
butterfly habitat is not a management priority. Deer and pheasants are. 
Meadows get transformed to corn fields which are then sprayed. 

NJ has a fairly good State Forest system, but timber management remains 
a priority (opens up space for Pine Snakes and some butterflies). 

NJ has a fairly good State Park System, but a prime State Park habitat 
is being considered for a swap with a sand quarrier who offers to trade 
a larger area (former sand pit, now flooded) for the prime and varied 
habitat which has the most diverse butterfly fauna in central NJ. 

It's hard to think of a wetland more desolate than an abandoned NJ sand 
pit, but the part of the State Govt responsible for land deals is not 
the part responsible for biodiversity. 

So, John, I think the answer is YES (hopefully we haven't forgotten the 
question). 

Happy Millennium (which the dictionary  defines inter alia as a great 
period of "peace and prosperity: a golden age".)

Regards  MIKE GOCHFELD