> "Listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, the
> northern spotted owl has gained tremendous public attention in recent
> years. In 1988, it was estimated that only 1,500 pairs of these owls
> existed in the Pacific Northwest. It was also believed that the owls
> nested almost exclusively in undisturbed, old-growth forests. Biologists
> feared that this diminished population was dropping rapidly, possibly
> approaching extinction.

...

> "However, during the past few years, an increasing number of owls
> has been discovered. In fact, today, after almost six years of extensive
> landowner research and monitoring, the total owl population is now
> estimated at more than 10,000 owls in Washington, Oregon, and northern
> California.

I need to make a couple of comments on this disingenous article.
Thanks for typing it in, Joe.

Biologists never claimed that more owls would not be found. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist to understand that increased effort will
lead to increased identification of owls.

On the other hand, there is some evidence of decline even in the
last five years, though my favorite wildlife biologist (David Marshall)
warns that the one study cited when we talked about it at Audubon
was not necessarily representative of the owl's range as a whole.

And five years isn't really long enough...

While biologists have claimed that spotted owls need large tracts
of forest with the characteristics of old-growth, the claim that
owls are found almost entirely in virgin stands has ALWAYS been
understood to be largely an artifact of replacement of such stands
with even-aged stands managed for harvest long before the structural
characteristics of old-growth begin to develop.

The Clinton plan maps out a cautious path towards some harvest in
parts of the old-growth forest designed to harbor the owl. Conservation
groups like Portland Audubon properly fear that the "timber tail" will
wag the "owl habitat dog" and that "the cut" will end up being the
priority in these stands. Thus we quite properly, in my opinion,
oppose such harvest plans - the track record of the USFS & the
industry just gives us no reason to believe that development
of harvest techniques will be cautious, done experimentally on a
small scale with effects being measured by owl experts over a fairly
long time-frame, etc. More likely the USFS will just say "this
is how we'll do it", apply it large-scale, and we'll be forced
to live with the results.

Of course, the Clinton plan goes further than owl protection, and
setting aside no-cut old-growth reserves is not, in the strictest
sense, being done to protect the owl. Rather, it is hoped that
the reserves will not only harbor a stable owl population, but that
they'll be sufficient to maintain stable populations of other
old-growth or late-successional dependent species - and therefore
avoid listing of them. Patching together a couple of dozen independent
recovery plans for old-growth dependent species is a hassle
no one should wish for.

Though the industry seems intent on forcing us down that path (assuming
they fail in their attempt to gut the ESA).

Thus far, the industry ignores the fact that the plan does allow
development of harvest techniques in a portion of spotted owl
habitat, and the fact that the plan is designed to provide
protection for all sensitive species in one fell swoop.

By doing so, they can continue to make the owl the scapegoat.

I won't get started on salmon, other than to mention that fishing
industry is notably absent from the lobbyist committee hired by
Congress to rewrite the ESA and NFMA...



-Don Baccus-