All and Wayne,

I don't think that having an alternative point of view on this one puts you
in the camp of the timber companies and other such (and it's probably best
to avoid such personal generalizations). It really doesn't matter whether a
given species is a specialist or a generalist, or was originally the
resident or one who has moved in and expanded its range. What matters is
whether anything can be realistically done about it and what we should be
spending our scarce conservation dollars on. Focusing so much money on a few
species that could not possibly survive without our help (and here I am not
necessarily referring to the spotted owl) has always seemed to me to be a
strange choice. While, as an environmental professional, I am aware of
several ESA success stories, there are many more cases where heroic efforts
are being made to propagate a species that has long since lost its habitat
or the genetic diversity it needs to survive in the wild.



IMO, we should focus on habitat as a guiding principle for interventions. If
we can alter our own activities such that habitat will be created or
preserved that will support the species in question, great. My preferred
charity is the Nature Conservancy for that reason. This is a long-term
sustainable approach that allows the species (and others that depend on that
habitat) to survive without choosing to actively kill one species to benefit
another. So, for example, changing logging practices or adopting roadless
rules that would benefit the Spotted Owl makes sense.



However, I do not see how killing another species when you are not changing
or improving the underlying habitat problems will be a sustainable solution
over the long-term, particularly if you are not eradicating that competitor.
It will simply expand its numbers again because it is better adapted to the
current environment. Attempts to completely eliminate introduced predators
from island ecosystems are an entirely different matter and not a good
comparison, because that strategy could be sustainable once carried out.



Over the years, I have begun to wonder why we focus so much energy and money
on a few individual species, rather than developing and carrying out a more
sustainable habitat focus that would benefit large numbers of species and
entire ecosystems (not just birds). My skepticism has increased dramatically
with the advent of climate change. Let's face it - any population that is
currently marginal is not likely to survive the rapid shifts that are
coming. We'll be lucky to sustain currently healthy populations of species
in the face of shifts in temperature, food resources, habitat availability -
not to mention our own species and food resources. I'd like to see a
rethinking by the resource agencies of what their priorities should be given
the likelihood that we may not be able to count on habitat conservation or
restoration to maintain the ecosystems that have historically existed. We
may have to get used to the idea that substantial changes in species ranges
and abundances are going to be a reality, and they will be very hard to
predict in advance, much less control. It has never been clear to me why we
should try to prevent change in biological systems (which is not to say that
I support any form of habitat destruction by humans), and it is even less
clear now. The earth will continue to adapt as it always has and always
will, with or without us.



Teresa Michelsen

Olympia, WA