Found this on the Oregon listserve and thought some tweeters readers would
be interested.

Valerie Elliott
Olympia, WA
VElliott at msn.com

>Subject: Marbled Murrelet to be delisted
>From: Tim Rodenkirk <garbledmodwit AT yahoo.com>
>Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
>
>The following article is from the newspaper
>"Oregonian."
>
>
>Murrelet may lose protection
>Wildlife The Bush administration wants to take the
>seabird off the endangered list, opening land to
>loggers
>Friday, October 21, 2005
>MICHAEL MILSTEIN
>
>The Bush administration is moving to drop federal
>endangered species protections for the marbled
>murrelet, a small seabird that has stood in the
>way of Northwest logging for more than a decade.
>
>Scientists estimate the species is sliding toward
>extinction in Oregon, Washington and California.
>However, the Bush administration concluded the
>declining birds in this region do not differ enough
>from more numerous murrelets in Canada and Alaska to
>warrant protection on their own.
>
>"Given what we know now, it's incumbent upon us to
>proceed in this direction," said Chris Tollefson, a
>spokesman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
>Washington, D.C.
>
>There are an estimated 21,900 marbled murrelets in
>Oregon, Washington and California, and 925,600 in
>Canada and Alaska.
>
>The move reverses an earlier pledge by the Fish and
>Wildlife Service not to remove the protections until
>it examines how the entire species is faring
>across its range. Many biologists think the murrelet
>is declining in Alaska and Canada.
>
>It's not the first time the Bush administration has
>overruled the federal wildlife agency when it comes to
>the bird that lays a single egg each year
>on the moss-covered branches of old trees.
>
>Biologists at the agency's regional office in Portland
>said last year there were clear enough differences
>between murrelet populations to maintain
>protections for the bird in the Northwest. But Craig
>Manson, assistant secretary of the Department of the
>Interior for fish, wildlife and parks, reversed the
>findings.
>
>A report drafted by the agency last year was changed
>to say that new wildlife safeguards in Canada removed
>any basis for protecting birds in Oregon, Washington
>and California as a separate population of murrelets.
>Some sections were deleted, including one that said
>the loss of any of its populations would "reduce the
>species' resources and compromise its long-term
>viability."
>
>The new interpretation means that marbled murrelets in
>Oregon, Washington and California are not a "distinct
>population" and do not qualify for
>protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, said
>Joan Jewett, a spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife
>Service in Portland.
>
>It is not relevant that the birds are thought to be
>declining in the three states, she said: "That doesn't
>enter into the equation."
>
>The government was not asked to remove the murrelet
>from the protected list, although Coos County Board of
>Commissioners voted this week to pursue a
>lawsuit with that goal.
>
>It's unusual for the government to propose removing
>protections from a species without being pushed to do
>so through a petition or lawsuit.
>
>The murrelet was listed as threatened in Oregon,
>Washington and California in 1992 as logging eroded
>old-growth forests where the birds nest, and their
>numbers declined. Its protections, along with those
>for the northern spotted owl and salmon, led to a
>collapse in logging of public lands.
>
>The Fish and Wildlife Service will propose to remove
>the murrelet from the list of threatened species by
>the end of the year, Jewett said.
>
>The proposal will be open to public comment, she said.
>It probably will lead to lawsuits seeking to maintain
>the bird's protections.
>
>The timber industry has pressed for elimination of
>protections of the marbled murrelet, and welcomed the
>news that the administration is moving that way. Chris
>West of the American Forest Resource Council in
>Portland said the species should have never been on
>the protected list because there are so many in other
>areas.
>
>"There's millions of this species from Russia to
>California," he said. "You don't list a species when
>there are millions in the population."
>
>He said dropping federal protections for the species
>should reduce the bureaucratic hurdles surrounding
>logging and other forest management. Private
>landowners also will not have to worry that cutting
>down trees will disturb the birds.
>
>Because the birds spend most of their lives at sea and
>fly inland only to nest, they are more affected by
>ocean conditions than the presence of older
>forests, he argued.
>
>Scientists who have studied murrelets said the fate of
>the birds is closely tied to forests. Canadian
>researchers said the new laws in Canada used by
>the Bush administration to justify its move are not
>strong enough to safeguard the murrelet.
>
>"The reality is that the act is pretty weak, and there
>really is not a lot of improved protection for
>murrelets in Canada," said Alan Burger, an associate
>professor at the University of Victoria. "I don't
>think the U.S. can expect Canada to provide extra
>murrelets, because ours are in trouble as well."
>
>Tim R
>Coos Bay
>
>PS: What it means on federal lands is many acres of
>older forest open for logging, particularly since
>management plans on BLM and Forest Service lands in
>the PNW are currently being revised and may no longer
>have any special protection for old growth forests
>(ie. there won't be late seral reserves when the new
>plans come out and there may not even be ACEC's or the
>like, we'll see)
>
>
>