> I've recently spoken with a friend who attended an environmental activism
> seminar. One of the issues raised there was a concern that one of the results
> of the infamous "timber rider" is that the Marbled Murrelet could be put in
> danger of extinction.

Local extirpation, possibly. Extinction? There are still large
populations in Alaska and Canada.

> I was not aware that we even knew enough about the
> murrelet's nesting habits to make such a prediction - or perhaps the full
> argument is because we don't know it's nesting habits we don't know the
> impact of yet more old-growth logging.

Well...we actually know quite a bit more than we did a few years ago.

> Does anyone know if this has any legitmacy, or if it's hyperbole to get
> folks goaded into action?

It depends on how you read the politics.

The problem is that the rider says stands harboring nesting
murrelet can only be protected if an actual nest was found
LAST YEAR.

Actual nests are almost impossible to find, so biologists use
indirect clues to decide whether or not stands harbor breeding
murrelet. Also, it's impossible to go back in time to last
spring and re-survey with a new, nest-finding protocol even
if we could develop a "magic bullet" method of making it
a trivial task. So, the sales will go down pure and simple.

Now, the scope of the rider is very narrow but because of
the history of murrelet conservation vs. the USFS, many of
the existing sales freed by the rider were shelved due to
murrelet use, as determined by the existing protocol. So
a lot of known murrelet habitat will be logged (not "may
be logged" - the rider FORCES harvest, ASAP to make
harvest immune from future political turnabouts).

So the effect is real, though I think it's a bit premature
to state that the murrelet will disappear (in the PNW)
due to it.

I think we can safely state though that the RISK has been
increased, and that we have no real measurement of that risk.
I think we can also say that the industry, and Slade, don't
give a damn if it does disappear from the PNW.

It may be that the speaker your friend heard has overstated the case
slightly. It may be that your friend is a bit deaf to the subtleties
of the issue and slightly misunderstood what was being said.

Now the politics...

Slade is going to be a big player in efforts to rape ... oops,
"improve", sorry :) ... the ESA. One of the mantras we
see repeated by the "improvers" has to do with substituting
"good science" for "bad science." Slade has made it clear
with this legislation that "good science" isn't science that
is acceptable to scientists - it is science acceptable to timber
CEOs.

And he's made it very clear that he's willing to step in and
make political definitions of "good science" and embody them
in law - at a very low level. At least, I consider issues
like survey protocol to be way down there, sort of like
the Senate determining the carpet color of the BLM office
in Burns!

So to state that the precedent set by this legislation is
very, very, very evil and bodes ill for species protection
if Slade can carry over such language to laws with much
broader impact is not hyperbolic in the least!

If nests were easily found, we'd still have the problem of
territories left vacant a single year being on the blocks
for sale. And only Slade et al's reading of their political
strength would keep them from changing the protocol to
something equally difficult as an end-around, say requiring
the witnessing of actual copulation or requiring the
chicks be baptized or something.

Once you accept the principle that it is reasonable to
politically define "good science" and embody it in law,
anything (in theory) is possible.

I will admit to a certain level of respect for the subtle
and insidious end-around they took here. Their creativity
quotient (CQ vs IQ?) was VERY high the day they thought it
up.

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