Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Forests grow, owls decline under [Clinton forest] plan
Seatle Post Intelligenser ^ | Wednesday, April 20, 2005 | By JEFF BARNARD

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: environment; esa; forestry; logging; spottedowl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
The last statement is a lie. I did a 100% survey of all of the logging jobs in our northern California County and found that we have lost 80% of our logging jobs since the owl was listed. Notice how that matches the 80% reduction in federal timber sales.
1 posted on 04/25/2005 1:17:02 PM PDT by forester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: forester
Well, the first law didn't help, so we must need another law.
2 posted on 04/25/2005 1:20:49 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism. DEA agents will not keep your children safe from drugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forester

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.


3 posted on 04/25/2005 1:22:25 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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.


4 posted on 04/25/2005 1:24:19 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (Technology advances. Human nature is dependably stagnant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: forester

Build more K-Marts, or failing that, just put up a bunch of the big "K" parts of the signs......................


5 posted on 04/25/2005 1:25:12 PM PDT by Red Badger (Entrepreneurs find a need and fill it. Politicians create need and fill it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forester

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.


6 posted on 04/25/2005 1:25:13 PM PDT by cherokee1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forester

"...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 !!!


7 posted on 04/25/2005 1:27:56 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (Technology advances. Human nature is dependably stagnant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24

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.


8 posted on 04/25/2005 1:29:48 PM PDT by cherokee1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24

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.)


9 posted on 04/25/2005 1:30:02 PM PDT by Knitting A Conundrum (Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24
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.

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.

10 posted on 04/25/2005 1:32:22 PM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: forester

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'.


11 posted on 04/25/2005 1:33:52 PM PDT by tumblindice (conservation=conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D Rider
As you obviously know, old growth forests, (minus fringe areas,) are surprisingly devoid of wildlife.

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.

12 posted on 04/25/2005 1:36:53 PM PDT by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: D Rider

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.


13 posted on 04/25/2005 1:44:23 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (Technology advances. Human nature is dependably stagnant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp
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.

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. ; )

14 posted on 04/25/2005 1:47:29 PM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Knitting A Conundrum

"...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.


15 posted on 04/25/2005 1:48:25 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (Technology advances. Human nature is dependably stagnant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24
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.

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>

16 posted on 04/25/2005 1:55:50 PM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cherokee1

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.


17 posted on 04/25/2005 1:56:20 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (Technology advances. Human nature is dependably stagnant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24
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.

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.

18 posted on 04/25/2005 2:01:00 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism. DEA agents will not keep your children safe from drugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: forester

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.


19 posted on 04/25/2005 2:05:23 PM PDT by Cat loving Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
We both know it's not about the wildlife, it's about the control.

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...

20 posted on 04/25/2005 2:08:09 PM PDT by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson