Subject: Re: Marbled Murrelet Surveys - press release
Date: Apr 30 20:41:41 1996
From: Don Baccus - donb at Rational.COM


>There is no guarantee that the results of these surveys will
>save murrelet habitat or prove murrelets are nesting in the sale units.
>Particularly worrisome are the phrases "... will verify that this
>threatened seabird nests in ..." , and "This marbled murrelet occupancy ...
>meets the more restrictive interpretation of the 'known to be nesting'
>language ..." The terms "occupancy" and "nesting" do not mean the same
>thing. In addition to direct evidence of nesting (active nest, old nest cup
>with distinctive fecal ring and/or eggshell fragments, chick or eggshells
>on forest floor), "occupancy" means (to quote Pacific Seabird Group
>protocol) birds having been observed "flying below, through, into, or out
>of the forest canopy within or adjacent to a stand." These behaviors are
>considered highly indicative of nesting, but not direct proof.

By who?

>Direct proof is extremely difficult to come by!

Sure, and at the Goshutes, we only believe by implication that the
thousands (tens of) raptors flying south are actually migrating.

But...the implication is sufficient for me, and for science. In the
case of the marbled murrelet, the survey protocol was deemed sufficient.
At the Goshutes, we have limited banding data that indicates our
birds are migrating. The survey protocol also has backup to indicate
that it is accurate.

>These are the types of reasons the
>protocol has been challenged by politicos in Washington,

Bullshit. The protocol has only been challenged because it provides
a barrier to old-growth coastal harvest. Slade knows his trade. You
insult him by implying he acts out of ignorance. He acts from full
knowledge. He knows he's a lying piece of shit. He's admitted as
much with the salvage rider, when, after the Courts squished the
Administration's appeals, he stated "it's not about salvage".

Give the man credit! He's doing exactly what he wants. Improve
the protocol, and Slade will raise the stakes.

> and short of
>finding an actual nest, I don't think these extra surveys will satisfy the
>politicians.

Finding actual nests won't satisfy them either. The question is only,
will excluding the marbled murrelet from protection, even when actual nests
are found from, cause an intolerable reaction by timber interests? Can
conservationists prevail even if they meet the new, higher, standards?

Nope - got to kick some right-wing asshole butt, I'm afraid, at the
polls.

>Hundreds of occupied sites have been identified over the last
>several years, but politicians seem to demand "known to be nesting" proof
>on the order of the closed-circuit film of the WAMU peregrines.

True. And if we had videotape, they'd simply substitute "observation
by live observers". And, if we had that, "live observation by
Slade Gorton". And if he was forced to observe, "live observation
by the scientifically verifiable presence of God".

>While I may seem to picking nits here, it is precisely because of the
>challenges posed by anti-environmental politicians that all murrelet data
>meet the highest standards of accuracy possible. These days, science and
>politics meet in the courtroom.

No, they meet on the Senate floor - the courtroom has been left out
of the picture. That's the whole point of allowing sales without
citizen appeal.

>So, go ahead. Follow your heart; do what you can to help. Learn more about
>murrelets; enjoy your time in the forest. But please understand that the
>picture is more complicated than the press release might indicate.

You've got this right, Janet! Sorry to beat up on you, but you're
not cynical enough. Boost it a couple of magnitudes, and you'll
hit the mark.

You're where I was about 18 months ago...

OK, I must admit - you're not as naive as the researchers. But,
you're still too naive, I'm afraid :)

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http:://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza