Dennis:
>We've
>discussed this before on tweeters, but for a whole generation of the newly
>joined, birds such as western bluebirds and Lewis' woodpeckers, previously
>common, did *not* disappear because starlings took their nesting cavities.

How does this explain the disappearance of Lewis' woodpeckers in places
like Oak Island on Sauvie Island, which in the eyes of some (i.e. David
Marshall) coincides with the arrival of starlings, of which there
are tons now nesting in the abundantly available nest holes?

To my knowledge this area was not actively timbered, at least there aren't
any stumps...and the name "Oak Island" is not recent, presumably predating
the transformation of it into a pennisula by the dikes completed, I
believe, in the 40s.

>Bluebirds have been restored by provision of next boxes, not so Lewis'
>woodpeckers.

In the hills west of Portland, my understanding is that the "bluebird
trail"'s success is due, in part, to persistent human evacuation of
house sparrows in the nest boxes. I know for a fact that this is
done, but don't know enough to state that it's necessary to maintain
the bluebirds.

>I'm not in any way endorsing clear-cutting or slash burning, but there's no
>question that they (or the natural burning that preceded them) maintained a
>mosaic of environments that has actually become less varied in recent
>years.

Of course. This is the problem. I can't think of any reason to wish
for a contiguous old-growth forest west of the Cascades. In the early
days, clearcutting must've increased overall diversity in much of our
area. It isn't clearcutting that threatens the loss of some of our
native species, it is the scale of clearcutting, i.e. the planned
conversion of virtually all westside old-growth to uniform monoculture
rotations.

There's nothing wrong with clearcutting per se when proper streamside
buffers are provided, steep grades left alone, etc etc.

What's wrong is clearcutting the whole damned forest.

As James Geisinger (chief timber industry lobbyist in Oregon) has
said: "We've not given up the dream of logging in National Parks
and designated Wilderness". Quoted in the Oregonian after Bush
derailed the first USFW proposal to list the NSO and before Judge
Dwyer forced Bush to follow the law.

Guess which PNW National Park containing significant old-growth was
fought bitterly by the timber industry when proposed and created, and
which park he primarily had in mind when he made the statement (he
made no secret of it). Hint: it's closer to Seattle than Portland.

Industry spokesfolks were quoted in today's Oregonian stating that
the Salvage Bill freeing green old-growth sales in the westside
from environmental law was "a good first step towards providing
a steady supply of old-growth" (paraphrase).

>It doesn't have to be either-or. I think we can have both a timber
>industry and an abundance of natural environments if we humans could just
>*work together* constructively.

The question is whether we can have *this* timber industry, run by
*these* individuals. You or I could structure an environmentally
sound timber industry, indeed the Clinton Forest Plan in a way did
that (barely, maybe, if all went perfect). But of course that Plan
is in the toilet. It's gone. History. Unless things change very
drastically next November.

If I sound a bit bitter today, it's because I'm feeling a bit bitter
today. I sick of watching the timber industry drooling on their bib
at the sight of the old-growth feast their lackeys in Congress are
planning to serve up in the next few months.

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