>Good to know our representatives are carrying our message.

You are such a cynic. Here's a blow-by-blow discussion by a Portland
Audubon Society blowhard and board member: me.

A similar memorial is expected to sail through the Oregon legislative
bodies as well. Newt Gringrich has requested the legislative bodies
of our two states to do so so that he can use them during committee
hearings on bills to increase logging in PNW forests.

> We, your Memorialists, the Senate and House of Representatives of
> the State of Washington, in legislative session assembled, respectfully
> represent and petition as follows:
> WHEREAS, the Northern spotted owl is currently listed as threatened
> under the federal Endangered Species Act; and
> WHEREAS, Promoters of this listing contended that spotted owls
> require old growth forests in order to survive; and
> WHEREAS, This contention has proven to be false, and it is now
> known that spotted owls also thrive in second growth forests which have
> been logged for over a century; and

OK, here is what I understand. It is certainly true that northern spotted
owls not only nest, but thrive in second-growth REDWOOD forests in
northern California. This fact is not debated by anyone, as far as
I know, is not controversial and indeed has led to much less stringent
management plans in that part of the bird's range. We understand why,
and the "why" doesn't apply to Doug fir forests.

The industry has tried to extend this to argue that, since they thrive
in second-growth redwood forests, surely they must in second-growth
Doug fir, as well.

They also use the fact that indeed pairs are occasionally found nesting in
fairly young stands of Doug fir. Not many have though, and - here my
knowledge may admittedly be out of date - little is known if such pair
reproduce well enough to sustain a population.

Many of you have probably seen birds attempt to nest in all sorts of
bizarre places, where it is quite obvious that the attempt isn't going
to be successful. When considering population ecology, the question
is a bit more subtle. For instance, the bald eagle recovery plan calls
for nesting pairs to average one fledged young per nest per year. Why?
If pairs average significantly less than that, there won't be enough young
produced to sustain the population over time, despite the fact that
some chicks may be produced.

Sticking with baldies for a moment, those opposed to bald eagle recovery
could certainly point to nesting pairs averaging 1/2 chick fledged per
year and claim "see, look, they nest and raise young, they're OK!!!"

But, best available biology would tell us that the population is NOT OK,
as it isn't simply a matter of producing SOME young, but SUFFICIENT young.

Here is another truth, though: spotted owls do not require virgin stands
in order to produce sufficient young. Owls aren't philosophers. Their
habitat need is characterized by the need for stands which have old-growth
structural characteristics. I've seen one pair which does very well
in a stand near Lost Lake on the Mt. Hood NF which was selectively logged
many, many years ago - I've stood on big stumps to see 'em. They're
named "Buddy" and "Holly" as the local USFS biologist used to sing
rock 'n roll professionally...

But, this stand has many old trees which were not cut, and has the
canopy and understory characteristics of old growth.

Data like this is why forest ecologists have claimed that we can probably
develop some methodology to allow some harvest in at least some old-growth
stands without further harm to the population. The problem is that we
don't know just how to do that, and if we are to be truly conservative
(supposedly a desirable trait nowadays) we should approach the problem
scientifically and try out some approaches in a limited manner before
going whole-hog and applying techniques throughout PNW old-growth
forests. Which is what the "Clinton plan" proposes.

Of course, such logging will not produce the volume of timber that
traditional clear-cutting does. This, along with the time-delay
in development of management techniques, is why the industry opposes
this approach.

The industry again tries to extrapolate the fact that owls thrive in
non-virgin stands under certain conditions to claim that we can clear-cut
old-growth stands and replace them with even-aged second-growth without
harming the owl.

> WHEREAS, In the 1970's, biologists believed that no more than 1,500
> pairs of owls lived in the three-state region of Washington, Oregon,
> and California; and
> WHEREAS, As of 1993, over 4,000 pairs of Northern spotted owls, as
> well as over 2,000 single birds for a total of more than 10,000
> Northern spotted owls, have been documented to reside in this region;
> and
> WHEREAS, Land surveys conducted to be in compliance with the
> federal act continue to document the presence of more and more owls;
> and
> WHEREAS, The presence of so many owls on federal, state, and
> private lands is leading to even greater curtailment of timber harvests
> in the region; and
> WHEREAS, The restriction on logging because of a perceived but
> erroneous count of Northern spotted owls is causing severe hardship in
> the timber industry in Washington state; and

Well, the petition for listing didn't depend on a claim that we knew just how
many owls were out there, so the claim that logging has been restricted
due to an erroneous count is simply in error. Since only a fraction of
the forest had been surveyed for owls, clearly only a fraction of the
population had been counted. It was known that increased survey effort
would lead to an increased count. This doesn't only apply to owls,
but to all population work and to some extent we can even use statistics
to forecast this increase, if we want.

The petition rested on the fact that habitat for the owl was disappearing
at a rapid rate, and that the Forest Service intended to convert nearly
all of that habitat - mostly unprotected by wilderness, etc - to even-aged
second-growth stands. The Forest Service had a plan to preserve certain
stands as "spotted owl habitat areas" - SOHAs - but the acreage involved
per SOHA was much less than that documented to be required by owls. These
SOHAs were to be islands in a sea of even-aged second-growth, and only
stands known to contain pairs were to be preserved. Not all such stands,
just a relatively small number, and survey protocol at the time wasn't
sufficient to even find all pairs in planned sale programs.

The Forest Service's own assessment of the plan - I've got a copy at
home somewhere - stated that, on an "excellent to poor" scale that the
plan gave a "good" chance that owls would survive for ten years (the
length of time the plan dealt with) but only a "poor" chance of surviving
fifty years. Since the plan only dealt with a ten-year window, they
deemed it sufficient.

I could go on here, but the science behind the listing is sound, and only
people outside of science claim it is not.

> WHEREAS, The promoters of this listing have an agenda that goes far
> beyond protection of this particular species;

Well, true. PAS, for instance, is behind the current drive to preserve
"greenspaces" in the Portland Metropolitan area. The conservatives behind
the memorial also want to cut welfare as well environmental protection.
What does this have to do with the science behind the listing?

> NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully ask Congress to take
> immediate action to insure that the Northern spotted owl is no longer
> listed as either a threatened or endangered species under the federal
> Endangered Species Act.

The ESA, of course, specifies that species be listed or delisted according
to the BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE. For those of you with poor long-term
memory (or those of you who've just been too busy birding) remember that
Bush overruled the original proposal to list by the USFS, and that Dwyer
forced the USFS to reconsider the petition to list as the ESA is very
specific that you can't refuse to list because of political considerations.

> BE IT RESOLVED, That copies of this Memorial be immediately
> transmitted to the Honorable Bill Clinton, President of the United
> States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
> House of Representatives, and each member of Congress from the State of
> Washington.

Let me repeat that this is a case of the new leadership of Congress
reaching out to the states, asking them for such memorials.

For those of you who worry overmuch, I'd like to remind you that the
Judge Dwyer's injunction against logging PNW forests did not rest on
the ESA. The injunction was based on NEPA, which requires that the
forest service manage lands to maintain viable wildlife populations
REGARDLESS OF THEIR STATUS UNDER THE ESA.

The ESA has been a bit of a red-herring in the entire argument, though
of course the listing of the owl was very important, mostly because
it forced the USFS to let the USF&W review management plans in owl
forests. This has made it harder for the USFS to sweep biology under
the rug, so to speak. My opinion, anyway.

But, if you support:

1. Management of our forests based on our scientific knowledge of
forest ecosystems, rather than aribitrary harvest goals set politically.

2. Management of our forests according to the laws of the land.

3. Integrity of the listing/delisting process under the ESA

4. Citizen's right to sue the government when the government breaks the
law - not on forest issues alone, but all issues (Hatfield's rider
several years ago drew opposition from organizations ranging from
churches to minority organizations as the precedent of refusing
citizen access to the courts to force government to obey laws worried
many people)

Now is the time to write, call, cajole your delegation. Remind them that
you vote. Contact them even if you know they don't support attempts
to end-run current laws - they need to know you appreciate their
voting record and will continue to support them at the polls.

Of course, if you agree with the memorial you should write, too - but I
suspect most tweeters do not.

Thanks - sorry for the political diatribe, but I felt the memorial needed
a respons.

-Don Baccus-