Subject: Re: Old Nests Don't Count...
Date: Aug 3 14:28:18 1995
From: Don Baccus - donb at Rational.COM


Chris Hill:
>This is the final week of the season for them. As for being
>able to find nests by organizing a "search effort," well, I don't
>think it works that way. Finding nests *is* a major priority, and its
>still nearly impossible.

In case it isn't absolutely clear to everyone, the point is that
the Senators are intentionally setting out a criteria they know
is impossible to meet, as a way of ensuring nearly all the sales
are scheduled for harvest by the end of the year. Once harvested,
of course, it doesn't matter if a future Congress decides this
is extraordinarily stupid. And it is, standing out even in the
context of a suite of extraordinarily stupid actions by this Congress.

>Using documented
>nests from the past year as the only acceptable criterion for Marbled
>Murrelet nesting in a given stand makes no sense.

They are banking on the fact that if they blandly state, "oh,
stands with nesting Murrelet weren't harvested, those whacko
enviros are lying again when they say we raped and pillaged
Murrelet habitat" that folks will be unable to see past the
dodge.

So, from that point of view, it makes sense. You can see it in
the rest of the letter - the statement that behavior clues
overestimates the habitat being used in this year is a
smokescreen. Of course, they make no claims as to the
magnitude of this overstatement. And, they of course don't
point out that the approach they're assisting on GROSSLY
underestimates the habitat being used.

And, of course, even if all nests could be found, to decide
to harvest a stand after it is unused for one season is
insanity! After poor production years due to conditions
at sea, the number of nesting adults will drop, leaving
vacant territories, which will then be logged and vacant
in perpetuity!!

>> Slimy in the extreme.

>Indeed

This action is so blatantly obscene I'm having trouble staying
lucid, I'm so pissed. The Oregonian ran their report buried
deep inside the paper, which pisses me off, too - the "pre
Sandra" days (the current managing editor) would've seen
Kathie Durbin whip out an in-depth report on this within
days and they'd've run it right out on page one.

Most of the public won't find out about this one, damn.

I used to think monkeywrenching was the wrong approach, but
at times I wonder if perhaps it's time to just get mean...

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>