Posted on 04/25/2005 1:16:54 PM PDT by forester
PORTLAND, Ore. -- A decade after the Clinton administration reduced logging in national forests in the Northwest, scientists have concluded the forests are growing, but the population of the threatened northern spotted owl has declined.
Scientists reported Tuesday that the Northwest Forest Plan, adopted by the Clinton administration in 1994, resulted in an 80 percent reduction in logging on 24 million acres of land in western Washington, Oregon and Northern California.
Since the plan was adopted, medium-aged to older forests have increased by 606,000 acres to 7.9 million acres, or to about 34 percent of all forest land in the region, said Melinda Moeur, program leader for old-growth monitoring for the U.S. Forest Service.
[snip]
Scientists are not sure what is causing the declines, but possible factors include invasion of the spotted owl's habitat by the barred owl, an aggressive cousin from Canada that often drives them off, Lint said. Habitat lost to past logging, as well as wildfires, climate changes and insect infestations are also factors, he said.
[snip]
The forest plan produced an average of 421 million board feet each year - just 54 percent of what was expected, said Susan Charnley, an environmental anthropologist with the forest service.
Charnley said only 400 of the 11,000 timber jobs that have been lost since 1994 can be blamed directly on the fact that less timber has been cut on federal lands in the region. The rest were caused by restructuring in the timber industry, she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattlepi.nwsource.com ...
Maybe these owls don't know how to "do it." I'm surprised that Clinton would leave that out of his plan to rescue them.
Seems they did not even consider the possibility that the forests need to be interspersed with more cut areas and meadows which would produce more small animals to feed those owls.
Build more K-Marts, or failing that, just put up a bunch of the big "K" parts of the signs......................
It doesn't even get UP to "lie" It's wrong on its face. "restructuring" means the loggers had to find something else to do. 11,000 minus 400 would indicate the timber industry had what, 10,600 bookeepers?
None of us cared about spotted owls until the huggers started whining about them. Now everybody has a nice feather hatband.
"...invasion of the spotted owl's habitat by the barred owl, an aggressive cousin from Canada..."
Why don't the Greens advocate BARRED OWL HUNTING !!!
That's exactly right---the owls followed those thinned areas çause that's where the varmits are. Owls don't live in the deep woods since they can't even get a good shot at the ground not to mention a varmit that might be down there. The floor in old growth is covered with Krap that nothing but bugs live in.
They knew they needed old growth to roost in, but they didn't seem to think that maybe they fed in meadow, or clear cuts. A similar owl in Utah lives off of wood rats. And now they've disrupted an economy, and probably dropped the population of owls off of a high that might have even been produced in part because of clear-cutting.
Hubris? Or more likely, environmentalists using any excuse to get their way, even if it hurts the things they are trying to protect, like not letting them treat for noxious weeds, or clear dead wood, or do things to help ease the beetle damage....
(I'm cynical when the religon of environmentalism outweighs real science.)
Exactly! The small animals,( as well as many game animals,) are highly dependent on the food supply that meadows provide. The Ideal situation is to create as much "fringe" area, between meadow and forest, as possible. As you obviously know, old growth forests, (minus fringe areas,) are surprisingly devoid of wildlife.
Amazing "liberal" arrogance strikes again. Per a recent National Geographic cover story ('The Great Gray Owl') owls such as the gray owl with large wing-spans require room to fly, strange as may seem to "environmentalists", and shun dense forests.
Many moons ago west coast Indians/native Americans (take your pick) practiced controlled burns to clear forests and improve hunting. Recall the not-so-controlled burns last summer in CA that cost lives and property.
Knuckle-headed goo-goos gave us 'plunge once/flush twice' toilets, and we find now that the owls are `shining it on' to happier hunting grounds.
A short round of one-handed applause for dingbat `tree-huggers'.
Not surprising at all, actually. Old growth forests consist primarily of trees that are beyond the age of sexual activity. They don't produce seeds anymore. No seeds, no mice. No mice, no owls.
Spend a night in an old growth forest, and all you will hear is the creaking and groaning of really big trees. Spend a night in a young forest, and it is a cacophony of sound; your campsite will likely be visited by any number of small critters.
Back when I was born in 1954, there were maybe as many as three thousand white tailed deer in Tennessee and most counties thought that deer populations would never return. Now somewhere near 900,000 deer inhabit Tennessee and the healthiest and strongest are not those of the Cherokee National Forest but just in the common countryside.
The deer population density is relatively low in the Great Smokey Mountain National Park with the exception of the Cades Cove Area where mountain farmland is preserved.
There you go again...being logical and all.
What is truly surprising is that people with advanced biology degrees don't understand the obvious.... now don't go getting logical on me again. ; )
"...And now they've disrupted an economy, and probably dropped the population of owls off of a high that might have even been produced in part because of clear-cutting."
Well said! Greens can be so bad for the environment.
My guess is that you have all sorts of game such as turkey and bear too.
Isn't it funny how well our protected forests help keep those nasty critters populations down? If it wasn't for the environmental movement our country would be completely overrun by such pests.</sarcasm>
I like your use of the word "varmit" which Greens refuse to use.
Old growth is neat and all but it does not have to be surrounded my miles and miles of the same.
My sentimental favorite forest is like your pen name, the Cherokee National Forest and I know well sections of it both north and south of the National Park.
We both know it's not about the wildlife, it's about the control.
Liberals are at heart control freaks, and want everybody dancing to their tune.
Liberal forrest management policy is typical of liberalism in general. It is flawed and proven not to work. Not cutting to underbrush destroyed entire forrests the policy was supposed to protect. Not allowing logging hurt the owl it was supposed to save. Whatever the liberal policy is in anything do the opposite and you are likely to achieve the desired results.
Ain't that the truth! When the forests in the Olympic National Forest were shut down to logging due to the spotted owl, the eco-freaks had a big love-in in the woods. When they were still in the planning stage, the forest service tried to get them to move because there was a pair of nesting spotted owls located in the fringe of the meadow where the eco's were going to have their party.
It was a major fight, and the forest service lost. The greenpolice had their party, with loud music and everything, and the owls abandoned their nest. And, no, the tragic outcome of the party didn't show up in the Seattle Times...
Bingo!
That's a shame. Me and my friends have been feasting on these Spotted Owls for the longest time now. They're pretty tasty. I guess we'll have to find another "endangered species" as our main entree. (sigh)
I am sure you have seen a map of western Oregon. Every other section of land is owned by W Co. I recall Coos Bay Or in the 1950.s there were saw mills all over. When I left in 1970 there were two. The last one is now a casino. The pulp mill also went after a business decision. Things may be different in the far north.
What it implies is that these folks would have lost their jobs regardless of whether or not the owl was listed. This USFS woman (environmental anthropologist - what the hell kind of job is that?) is refusing to acknowledge that her and the other enviromental cohorts have devasted entire communities based on junk science. In essence, she takes tax dollars(ie her salary) and uses it to put taxpayers out of job. This really bothers me.
Funny you should mention that. When the biologist wrote their report (the Jack Ward Thomas report) they had two areas that did not fit their view of things - the northcoast of California's redwood region and SW Oregon. Both areas had "checkerboard ownerships" and had been continuosly harvested for over a 100 years, yet they still had owls. The way they explained this was as follows: the redwood region had owls because the trees grew very fast there, so fast that the forest resembled "old growth conditions" in as little as 60-70 years.
The SW Oregon forests didn't grow as fast, so they stated that the reason there were so many owls is because the owls were "fleeing" logging from the adjacent areas. Believe it or not, this was the actual reason stated. The forests in that area are a mixture of habitat types on both public and private lands. But the biologist refused to accept that owls were living and breeding there, so they called them "refugees" and listed the species as endangered anyway.
The small communities that produced wood products for America were sacrificed for absolutely no good reason .. and these people continue to deny that is what they did...incredible
In NM during a long drought, they had to almost empty a couple of lakes to support the silvery minnow but the lake water got so low that most of the fish went out with the water and ate the poor, silvery minnow.
The tragedy of the commons writ large.
Try to explain that to a socialist bureaucrat and you might as well try to talk a frog into a prince. If vacuum were energy you could fly their brains to Jupiter and back.
Total load of crap, isn't it? All that effort to bring down the logging industry, and what do they get? Barred owls from Canada. Owls are not fragile, they are total predators, who will carry off little Fluffy or Rover, if they get a chance. Bunny rabbits don't stand a chance against an owl. Oh well, it takes a federal government...
(I just love my screen name)
Hahahaaaa!!!! Easy on the mayo, please!
Now, what about this don't the enviro-wackos understand?
Now, what about this don't the enviro-wackos understand?
That explains the federal ground, but what about the restrictions on the private ground? Hatred of production? Hatred of capitalism?
Coming soon, to an American piece of private property near you -
“The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear. There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state... The constitution of the nationalistic Reich is therefore not based upon a system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual.” - Ernst Huber, National Socialist German Workers Party official, 1933
From a U.S. Army training manual, published in 1928:
DEMOCRACY: A government of masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other kind of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice or impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagoguism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
REPUBLIC: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard for consequences. A great number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
"We reject the idea of private property.” - Peter Berle, former president of the National Audubon Society
“Private ownership is not absolute and governments must often impose land use laws for the greater public good, whether it’s to protect endangered species, save trees, maintain scenic vistas or regulate population density.” - Bill Craven, Sierra Club of America
“What matters is to emphasize the fundamental idea in my party’s economic program clearly - the idea of authority. I want the authority; I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property.” - Adolph Hitler
“Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...” - United Nations policy on land
Your up early this morning. Good points all...many I have seen before...first time I've seen the Hitler quote though. Looks like the very definition of fascism; the means of production remain in private hands, but gov't controls production. One could say that applies to logging private land in California, except for the fact that there is no production quotas. It appears that in our case, mobocracy rules, and the impulse of the day is a hatred of producers.
Well, I'd say that private property that's taken out of production via fascist bureaucratic control has a production quota. It's zero, nothing.
That way private property not under bureaucratic control is able to meet market demands and get a higher return because competition has been artificially supressed.
This is true in so-called smart growth areas where bureaucratics designate "growth" and "no growth" zones.
Those inside the growth areas are allowed to build, develop, prosper and profit.
Property owners in the “no growth area” are punished. They are forced to pay taxes on their land while not having the ability to develop or profit from it.
In effect, bureaucrats have created de facto government nature reserves without paying a penny in compensation. This is classical socialist land theft, where the rights of the individual are sacrificed for the “common good” of all.
Get in line behind me---I've been burned by this whole enviroforest movement for a couple decades. Four decades ago I helped run a very productive forest. We paid our way, financed rec stuff w/o taxpayer help, kept the ground clean, never had serious fires and NEVER ran out of wood. Two years ago we lost about a third of that forest to fire---the crap would just not stop burning!
And by the way---I think an enviranthro is a strung out chick looking for BIGFOOT-------in San Francisco!
I remember that dumass/halfass rationale from back then---they failed to even mention the difference in rain/snow fall from NCal to SOr. And there are lots of suble differences in the forests over those areas. Same old deal tho---the owls follow the varmits.
Amazing how Petey and Bill can maintain their own rural hideouts with a straight face?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.