Darby Tract is not a preserve!

I do not believe, for one moment, that the Darby Tract somehow qualifies as a “preserve”.

In fact, it is an insult for certain individuals to put that statement out to the Bridgewater public.

I would lay good odds that the land “the Darby” sits on was active farmland, from the time the township was settled in the 18th century, until about 1950. (From the looks of those trees, most of them are under 50 years old.) Therefore, the Darby Tract was a giant field at some time in the early 20th century — probably lined with corn. Maybe dairy grazing land.

I get tired hearing the “ancient forests” argument in Bridgewater. The land was farmed —- any acre that could be. Sure, there are 100-year old trees, etc. But most of these “eternal woods” that people point to are only 40 or 50 years old.

It’s nice to keep woods, sure. But let’s be realistic about what the alternative uses are.

In most parts of Bridgewater—even “Green Acres” Bridgewater—the woods disappears.

Flannery’s proposal only touches 10% of the primordal nature’s field there off Van Holten Road (with the high tension electric lines running through it . . . )

One thought on “Darby Tract is not a preserve!

  1. How long the trees have been there is completely irrelevant. There are plenty of animals, some threatened and endangered living back there which the plan could kill off. Not to mention you can use the land as is there’s no need to knock a bunch of trees down.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s