At 05:53 PM 1/26/99 -0800, Tom Merritt wrote:

[big snip of stuff implying that the listing of the spotted
owl was political, not based on science - anyone can read the
history of the case and find out that this is not true. Indeed,
it was the refusal to list which was ruled illegal PRECISELY because
the refusal was a political override of the USF&W's evaluation of
the best available scientific data. Tom's entitled to his beliefs,
but they won't change the history of the legal battle over the owl.]

> This in
>turn means that the 2nd Growth forests must be somewhat similar to Old
>Growth forests. That is, there should be some snags around and a variety of
>tree species with different maturity levels.

OK, now we need some definitions.

Old-growth does NOT mean unlogged in the forestry vernacular, which is that
used by biologists working on forest species as well. It is a descriptive
term - descriptive of the stand, not the stand's history.

That's why conservationists - careful ones, anyway - use the term ancient
forest to differentiate stands which are both old-growth and not logged.

"second-growth" is an unspecific term, not descriptive of a stand but
rather its history. It's really a poor term to use. I should've
pointed this out in the earlier post, but didn't want to get into a
long-winded technical discussion with someone who really only needs
to know that conditions in redwood forests are unique when discussing
this issue with the fine but uneducated residents of Aberdeen.

One reason people get confused is that in the PNW, old-growth virtually
does mean unlogged, or ancient, forest because of the history of our
use and management of forests. If they're logged, they've been almost
universally replanted in single-species, even-aged stands and thinned
and maintained and herbicided into staying that way over time.

So from a conservation perspective, for the next few decades northern
spotted owls in PNW (non-redwood) west-side coniferous forests will
be dependent on ancient forest stands, no matter what changes we
implement.

> In essence this means that
>logging must occur in a more benign manor, rather than the clear cutting
>with replacement with a single species forest that has been prevalent in the
>NW. I feel that the logging should be selective.

>To support my view, I cite the natural occurrence of fires. We all know
>that fire was a natural occurrence. Normally, fires were relatively cool
>and did not destroy all life. Some snags were left standing and some trees
>survived. Nature, would quickly repopulate these areas. I am also sure
>that the Northern Spotted Owl would also quickly repopulate these areas.
>However, these forests could by no stretch of the imagination be classified
>as an "Old Growth Forest".

Given that old-growth is a descriptive term of a stand's physical structure,
sure they'd be classified as old-growth. You're describing a situation
where damage to a stand is slight if old-growth characteristics either
persist or regenerate quickly after a fire. On the other end of the
spectrum is the Tillamook Burn, after which I can assure you that these
characteristics would take a LONG time to regenerate naturally, and that
northern spotted owl would therefore be absent, at least as a viable
breeding population (scattered individuals don't count and aren't the
issue), for a long time as well.

>I have also personally seen a Spotted Owl in the Teanaway area on Boise
>Cascade timber lands. These lands have almost all been logged. However, in
>general there is still a diversity of habitat available They resemble old
>growth forests in many ways.

One nso a viable population does not make. Also, a kid in a strange place
may very well be a dead kid after a short period of time. nso are no
different than other birds, when dispersing they can show up in many
strange places, and some attempt to establish territories in hopeless
areas (often because all the good places are taken).

The situation is similar to the young cougar that get pushed out of
good habitat into marginal suburban or farm habitat that abuts it.
This doesn't imply that suburbia's suitable habitat for cougar, but
rather than there might be more cougar than available territories,
or the cougar ate a little acid or peyote by mistake and got royally
tripped out :) Or was born stupid.

You have to think of the population ecology of the species, not simply
point to individual sitings. Birds must not only live as individuals,
but must be able to raise young in large enough numbers to replace
losses due to mortality over a long period of time (including during
periods of drought or other stressful climatic cycles) for the species
to survive.

It takes a lot more than anecdotal spottings of nso in unusual areas
to prove that these unusual areas can support a viable breeding
population. This is a difference missed by most lay people, in a general
sense (i.e. it's not unique to folks' opinion regarding nso).

>In summary, my opinion is that the Northern Spotted Owl can thrive in 2nd
>Growth forests. However these forest must provide suitable habitat.

Of course, it's all about habitat. And, as far as we know, the very best
habitat for these birds is structural old-growth - whether unlogged or
not.

>Accordingly, the timber companies are partially correct in their message
>that the Northern Spotted Owl can thrive in 2nd Growth forest.

And in this case they aren't saying what you're saying, not in the least,
one of the advantages of using an imprecise term, I guess (and undoubtably
intentionally confusing on the part of timber industry spokesfolks).

What they want people to believe is that nso can survive in ALL 2nd
growth, no matter how intensely managed, and that if we cut all remaining
old-growth (99% at least of which, I imagine, is also unlogged or ancient
forest), the owl will perkily breed like rats in the young, monospecific,
even-aged stands we currently grow to replace these old stands.

Which is false.

Except to some degree in young second-growth redwoods. ("young second-growth"
is at least a little more precise than "second-growth"). For very good
reasons that do not apply to the coniferous forests found in OR/WA.

>However, the
>environmental community is also partially correct in that the Owl requires
>habitat that provides some characteristics of old growth forests.

Where do you get off talking about "the environmental community" in this
manner? We don't "believe" this, we simply report the results of research.
The nso is one of the most heavily studied bird in history, almost up there
with chickens and turkeys, and the data we have on these birds is substantial.

It's not "partially correct" that the nso requires habitat that provides
"some characteristics of old growth forests". It is ENTIRELY correct that,
based on the substantial and substantive data we have available, nso
require structural old-growth in order to maintain a viable population
(in non-redwood coniferous forests, i.e. "our" forests).

Stands can be managed to create structural old-growth. As I mentioned
above, for the next few decades we're dependent on unlogged old-growth
no matter what management decisions are made because of past history.

The Northwest Forest Plan sets aside substantial ancient forest reserves
for additional reasons, however. That being the fact that the nso
is only ONE species which appears to be dependent on these forests. Unlike
the nso, for the vast majority of these species we don't know which aspects
of these old forests are needed. While it is certain that we can manage
stands in such a way that they'll regenerate nso habitat, there's not
guarantee that doing so will meet the needs of the other species
currently largely constrained to ancient forests.

If we're to maintain this suite of species, and want to liquidate all
remaining ancient forest over time, we're going to need to do a LOT
of research to find out how to do so.

The best thing the timber industry could do in order to maintain timber
harvests on National Forests would be to lobby Congress hard for
increased research into the needs of various species which are forest
dependent, particularly but not limited to old-growth dependent
species.

Instead, they lobby to get rid of the laws that make maintaining our
biological heritage across the USFS system a legal mandate. That's
short-sided because it's a fight they can't win, while the fight they
COULD win would eventually result in knowledge that could be applied
to silvicultural activities on USFS lands.

>Accordingly, there is room for
>compromise, provided that both sides are willing to moderate their rhetoric
>and seek some common ground. However, that does not seem possible given our
>current litigious climate.

I invite you to restudy the legal history of the nso listing and injunction
against the USFS harvest of ancient forests. The ruling was not based on
rhetoric, but rather on science. More specifically, the ruling was that
the USF&W was bound, by law, to choose whether or not to list based on
its own scientific evaulation. The USF&W had said "the science demands
listing", the Bush administration said "don't list it despite this". The
law does not allow the administration to do so, it is VERY explicit about
the fact that the decision must be made based on the Service's scientific
evaluation.

Certain elements of the timber industry are willing to compromise, and
always have been. Others aren't. Those that haven't been are those that
seem to have the most influence when lobbying Congress. Their idea of
"compromise" is to simply rid the law of the need to maintain our biological
heritage on USFS lands by making timber harvest the primary use of our
National Forests, with species conservation and recreation opportunities
to be allowed only if no impact on timber harvest results. Senator Larry
Craig of Idaho introduced such a bill a couple of years ago, and he
didn't dream it up on his own, it was drafted by the PNW timber lobby's
legal team.

This, also, is not rhetoric, nor is it compromise.

>At the risk of provoking some angry responses and a long drawn out thread, I
>am posting this message on Tweeters.

I doubt if you'll meet with much anger. If you go read the telephone book
sized documentation underlying the Northwest Forest Plan you'll find that
1) much of it says we need a LOT more research before we talk about
managing for old-growth in a timber harvest context and 2) the eight options
put forward by the scientific committee all called for more protection
than Clinton was willing to grant. Thus "Option 9" - the political
option designed by the administration. That's the only thing political
about the plan - its being WEAKENED by political considerations over the
recommendations put forth by scientists. As it happens, Clinton was right
to do so, because the Plan has barely survived political attacks even in
its weakened form, and it does give substantial protection to old-growth
ecosystems. I fully believe any of the options put forward by the
scientific committee would've been destroyed in Congress.

Read the science. Read the history. Come back then.


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net