Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In addition; killing one species 'in hopes' the other species improves will not work. Why won't it work? Because the northern spotted owl has lost most of their habitat. Old growth forest are mostly gone and that is their preferred habitat. If Fish and wildlife wanted to truly help, then they need to protect the remaining forests in the PNW by limiting logging.
They did a five year study where they killed barred owls in an area to see its affect on northern spotted owls and while there was less of a decline of the northern spotted owls, there was NO improvement to their numbers.
I sincerely hope the plan does not go forward.
Barred owls have a right to exist, they should not be blamed for their success at adapting and staying alive.
It should work. It takes time to increase the population. If declines are arrested, the increase will come.
Across all study areas, removal of barred owls had a strong, positive effect on survival of spotted owls and a weaker, but positive effect on spotted owl dispersal and recruitment. Spotted owl populations stabilized in the areas with removals, but continued to decline at a rate of 12% in the areas without removals.
For northern spotted owls, the purpose is to stop or slow spotted owl population declines within selected treatment areas in the short term and increase spotted owl populations in the intermediate term.
I think it's more cruel to allow endangered species to go extinct than it is to kill common, widespread species that are in no danger of extinction. I do think it is unfortunate that this has become necessary.
Distasteful maybe, even biologists might agree with that. But necessary, unless you have a better idea to prevent spotted owl extinction. The distastefulness of it should serve as a reminder of how badly we screw things up. It should leave a bitter taste.
Evolution has for ages created winners and losers with various extinction factors in play.
I'd rather we focus our resources on key issues like habit preservation etc.
One has to wonder what sort of other issues we might cause by culling owls.
Evolution has for ages created winners and losers with various extinction factors in play.
Geographic and genetic isolation play an important role in evolution of species and biodiversity. What humans have done here is break down those barriers that promote the evolution of species, biodiversity and resilience. We may as well have blown up a portion of the Rocky Mountains.
Spotted owls and barred owls evolved in isolation from each other. They evolved from a presumed common ancestor because of that isolation. Mankind has singlehandedly destroyed their ability to remain isolated, undoing what geology and evolution did. This disruption promotes a more homogenous, less resilient natural world where common, generalist species become more common and rare, more specialized species go extinct.
Quote:
I'd rather we focus our resources on key issues like habit preservation etc.
If we had done that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Habitat is another part of recovery though, culling barred owls is only one part.
Quote:
One has to wonder what sort of other issues we might cause by culling owls.
Probably few to none. Barred owls are not native to the area. There may be more food for native hawks and owls and other native birds and creatures that have similar taste in cuisine to barred owls.
The agency says it's taking public comment, I still encourage all citizens to voice their concern with this disastrous plan and send in a message/comment.
No idea on what you are referring to when you mention represenative card. I imagine most people write their own words when submitting a message.
Of course, comment away. Public law requires the soliciting agency to accept comments from anyone who submits them. As they should.
By "representative card" I mean the agency will tally all the thousands of identical cards mailed in by NGO memberships and select a few to keep as examples for the administrative record.
Actually IME, most people commenting on hotly controversial decisions like this do NOT compose comments in their own words. They copy some or all key points some other entity suggests to them. Again and again and again. Sadly, many folks who hear about such public comment solicitations don't really understand (and don't bother to educate themselves about) the issues involved in the debate. They read an agenda-driven, carefully slanted summary some organization broadcasts somewhere. Their comments end up being a regurgitation of the broadcast and then end up being a knee-jerk emotional reaction. They rely on a politically active mouthpiece to suggest what they should say. I won't name those entities here. I'm sure people who tend to read and post in this subforum know who those players are. The mouthpiece may or may not understand the issues either. They have a platform to maintain and they use their membership to do it. Sadly, so much effort ends up being a waste of everyone's time; participating member of the public and decisionmaker alike.
Please understand. I wasn't trying to discourage anyone, I was suggesting how to make comments you submit most useful. I have spent days, weeks, months reading through thousands of comments about issues like this and can tell you how useless the majority of them turn out to be. Substantive, specific, data-driven, applicable submissions are few and far between. I'd much rather see productive reviews that promote good decisionmaking and thoughtful outcomes instead of the opposite, because in the end, the critter involved in the debate ends up losing.
Last edited by Parnassia; 01-04-2024 at 03:03 PM..
Geographic and genetic isolation play an important role in evolution of species and biodiversity. What humans have done here is break down those barriers that promote the evolution of species, biodiversity and resilience. We may as well have blown up a portion of the Rocky Mountains.
Spotted owls and barred owls evolved in isolation from each other. They evolved from a presumed common ancestor because of that isolation. Mankind has singlehandedly destroyed their ability to remain isolated, undoing what geology and evolution did. This disruption promotes a more homogenous, less resilient natural world where common, generalist species become more common and rare, more specialized species go extinct.
If we had done that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Habitat is another part of recovery though, culling barred owls is only one part.
Probably few to none. Barred owls are not native to the area. There may be more food for native hawks and owls and other native birds and creatures that have similar taste in cuisine to barred owls.
Specialist species have long gone extinct during fluctuations in the earths past.
With warming (or cooling like the last ice age) there are just so many big picture issues going on that I question the wisdom of these types of projects and their potentially unforseen outcomes but oh well.
Change happens, it's going to keep happening the timescale is the important aspect.
Specialist species have long gone extinct during fluctuations in the earths past.
That sounds like a rationale for letting any species go extinct at man's hand.
Quote:
With warming (or cooling like the last ice age) there are just so many big picture issues going on that I question the wisdom of these types of projects and their potentially unforseen outcomes but oh well.
I might agree if they were proposing the release of a new predator or parasite or disease to control barred owls, which might lead to unforeseen consequences on other native species. I just don't see that as a risk here. The only risk I can see is it may not be enough. But you are welcome to suggest better ideas that help more.
Quote:
Change happens, it's going to keep happening the timescale is the important aspect.
This too sounds like rationale for humans to do whatever they want, no matter the consequences.
Purposefully shooting barred owls is cruel.
................... Why won't it work? Because the northern spotted owl has lost most of their habitat. Old growth forest are mostly gone and that is their preferred habitat. If Fish and wildlife wanted to truly help, then they need to protect the remaining forests in the PNW by limiting logging.
They did a five year study where they killed barred owls in an area to see its affect on northern spotted owls and while there was less of a decline of the northern spotted owls, there was NO improvement to their numbers.
I sincerely hope the plan does not go forward.
Barred owls have a right to exist, they should not be blamed for their success at adapting and staying alive.
There is NO logging going on in Spotted Owl habitat.
However, the Spotted Owl habitat is being burned down, not logged. We need to stop the burning of our National Forests and Parks.
205 MILLION acres since 1990.
National Forest tree growth is NOW NEGATIVE.
120 years of logging didn't manage to do it. Growth was always positive.
33 years of forest management by politicians and environmentalists resulted in the burning down of the National Forests and the extinction of the Spotted Owl and the National Forests dropping under sustain yield levels due to burning.
Furious. The American public needs to stop this NOW.
There is plenty of logging going on in Oregon where I live. Huge sections of forests are still being logged and every year Cascadia Wildlands does field check outings to see the area of these timber sales and almost always there are several old growth trees still included in these timber sales.
Cascadia Wildlands measures the trees and while most are second growth, there are old growth dispersed in those forests. Those timber sales are habitat for the owls, one example is the N126 Windy Peak unit timber sale. Known spotted owl habitat, old-growth trees, marbled murrelett, coho salmon etc...
So yes, spotted owl habitat is indeed still being logged.
Last edited by Wintergirl80; 01-05-2024 at 10:07 PM..
Timber harvest on Federal lands from the Congressional Research Service. This will give you a historical background. This is information provided for Congress. Congressional Research Service is an arm of Congress.
We have burned 90 MILLION acres of National Forests and Parks since 1990. And your worried about patches of old growth that is left in second growth stands??
The growth rate on the National Forests is NOW NEGATIVE. First time in the history of the National Forests that has EVER HAPPENED. The environmental community has been managing the public forests along with hte lawyers and politicians. The environmental community thinks this is a good thing.
EVERY YEAR we BURN DOWN 10 times the timber volume that we harvest on our public lands. The environmental community thinks this is a good thing.
We have burned and killed 30% of the Giant Sequoia trees in the Sierra Nevada mountains over 4 feet in diameter. The environmental community thinks this is a good thing.
The National Forests and Parks are being converted into vast brush fields. The environmental community thinks this is a good thing.
We have approximately 30 years before the National Forests and Parks are completely destroyed by out of control wildfires. The environmental community thinks this is a good thing.
History will judge the environmentalists harshly for destroying our Forests and Parks.
Here is ONLY twenty years of fire history, scroll around the map. The environmentalists think this map is a good thing.
That sounds like a rationale for letting any species go extinct at man's hand.
I might agree if they were proposing the release of a new predator or parasite or disease to control barred owls, which might lead to unforeseen consequences on other native species. I just don't see that as a risk here. The only risk I can see is it may not be enough. But you are welcome to suggest better ideas that help more.
This too sounds like rationale for humans to do whatever they want, no matter the consequences.
In a real world environment I just caution on a tree level view vs. a forest level problem.
I'm not going to play theorhetical games when they've been proven to fall prey to real world policy and events.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
