Owl’s ‘Critical Habitat’ May Be Reduced
For the first time since coming under federal protection 15 years ago, the northern spotted owls’ forest haven may be in jeopardy.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed to decrease the owls’ “critical habitat” by 1.5 million acres, or 22%. 
The birds were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1990, with the habitat designation coming two years later.
In 1994, the government adopted the Northwest Forest Plan to help protect the owls and the marbled murrelet, a tiny seabird that nests in large trees, as well as to safeguard old-growth forests and watersheds. Designed to allow some logging, the forest plan has been bitterly contested for years by the timber industry and industry-dependent rural communities.
Most of the critical habitat proposed to be reduced is in Oregon. Some is in Washington, and 97,000 acres of it is in Northern California - primarily in Del Norte, Shasta, Siskiyou and Trinity counties. The Northwest Forest Plan covers 24.5 million acres in the three states.
Logging companies say the reduction would allow them access to trees they are entitled to under the forest plan, which some experts say has not worked out as was intended.
“I’ve been disappointed that the plan became a lot more static than we intended it to be. It’s been very difficult to get the timber yields out,” said Jack W. Thomas, chief of the Forest Service from 1993 to 1996 and one of the architects of the Northwest Forest Plan.
But critics of the proposal say it is part of a broad strategy by the timber industry and a sympathetic Bush administration to undermine protection of old-growth forests and resident wildlife.
According to environmentalists, a coalition of industry, labor and rural counties have sued over the years to weaken aspects of the forest plan and administration officials have acquiesced despite the advice of scientific advisors.
Federal officials say there is a scientific basis for their policy changes, including the proposed reduction of owl habitat.
In coming up with the revision, said Fish and Wildlife Service spokeswoman Joan Jewett, its authors “didn’t look at trying to save every single area that they didn’t feel was essential to the recovery of the owl.”
Two members of the scientific team analyzing the owl habitat issue said their work was largely rewritten by political appointees - over the scientists’ objections.
“We know that the spotted owl populations are still declining, and it just is counterintuitive to continue reducing the amount of protected habitat,” said Tim Cullinan, a wildlife biologist with the National Audubon Society in Washington state.
Cullinan and Dominick DellaSala, an environmental scientist with the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy, said they were required to weaken their original proposal by an oversight committee whose members included Mark Rey, the Agriculture Department’s undersecretary for natural resources.
In an interview with The Times, Rey maintained that the conclusions of the scientists were included.
Environmentalists critical of federal policies also point to an Oregon attorney who, after representing the timber industry in legal challenges, became a federal lawyer who helped craft policy consistent with industry demands.
From 1994 to 2002, timber companies and county governments filed lawsuits that sought, among other things, to reduce owl habitat and to eliminate a mandatory survey designed to identify and protect about 400 types of forest wildlife and vegetation in areas available for logging.
Mark Rutzick of Portland, Ore., represented logging interests in five of the lawsuits, including one that called for weakening protection of salmon streams.
In early 2003, Rutzick became an advisor to the general counsel of the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration. Documents show that at NOAA, he helped lay the groundwork for changes in the federal aquatic conservation strategy to protect salmon streams.
Michael Tehan, a NOAA official in Oregon, said that although Rutzick was involved, “it wasn’t his idea and it wasn’t the industry dictating what was being done…. The industry had suggested some sweeping changes at the same time we were deliberating and contemplating them ourselves.”
Rutzick, via e-mail, declined to comment.
By 2004, the administration had agreed to a number of changes in Northwest forest policies sought in court by the timber industry.
“The Bush administration has turned over the national forest and the national endangered species program to the timber industry,” said Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental conservation group.
“Rutzick is the clearest example of this extraordinary disregard for the basic principles of government,” he said.
Rutzick, who left the government, is back representing the timber industry. In March, he filed a lawsuit over marbled-murrelet policy on behalf of the American Forest Resource Council, an industry group. The suit is based on the Bush administration’s proposed changes to Endangered Species Act regulations, which had not been made public.
In May, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.) sent a letter to the inspectors general of the Interior and Commerce departments asking: “Could you please inquire how the American Forest Resource Council obtained a copy of the regulation?”
Environmental groups have sued successfully to block some terms of settlements arising from timber industry cases. Courts have thrown out the administration’s changes to the mandatory survey and to the aquatic conservation strategy.
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
The owl is an ancient symbol of wisdom.
That the bastards presently in power in the USA would befouling their own nests to please their insanely greedy billionaire masters, is no suprise.
They must be fought every step of the way!
====================================
“Peace will be the result of understanding and
sharing, and not the origin of them…” Djwahl Khul
===================================
“Without sharing there can be no justice;
without justice there can be no peace;
without peace there can be no future…
Man must change or die.
There is no other course.”
Maitreya, the World Teacher
http://www.share-international.org
=====================
Peacealluia!
The Church of Stop Shopping
http://www.revbilly.com/
Damned these scientists always getting in the way of commerce! The Church should have executed Galileo and set proper example for troublemakers who believe careful inquiry needs to inform our view of the world - which is flat, only several thousand years old, and the center of the universe, by the way.
The last of the best disappears and what little we save may suffer from climate changes and be lost to the future because we saved only tiny islands of diversity which were too small to withstand such large stresses.The smaller the habitat the less chance of long term survival. The last of the best disappears all around us so quickly these days.
If the timber companies felt there was no demand for paper products made from trees they would not invest in them. If the numerous alternatives sources of paper and construction materials were demanded by consumers than there will be a shift away from these practices until that happens it will continue to be business as usual until the only thing we will have are memories.
For more of my Modern Musings http://www.taureandevi.blogspot.com
I posted this elsewhere on this site, today, but it is extremely relevant to this article. It is also extremely LONG. Yesterday, the Supreme Court took a huge bite out of the Endangered Species Act.
The Supreme Court is putting this nation in jeopardy. I have long joked that the Bush family are members of the Comintern (are any of you old enough for that one?), intentionally driving the globe toward a people’s revolution. That, in fact, they are PAINED by their own policies, but know it to be the only way to bring the early relief of a worker’s uprising. Now, the Supreme Court has joined ranks with the Bush family.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court decided yesterday that it could defeat the Endangered Species Act by a thousand cuts. It subverted the law by adding language that did not exist in the original statute, relying on we poor lay people not to read the law. The Supreme Court has subverted the intent and language of the Endangered Species Act, putting first the Clean Water Act in consideration of Federal Agencies. While a battle between Endangered Species and Clean Water seems reasonable on the surface, it is not a clear picture of what has just moved beneath the surface. The Clean Water Act allows the Federal Government to devolve decisions to STATE agencies, which may then proceed with development activities WITHOUT interference on by the restrictions of the ESA. In essence, the Endangered Species Act has been turned to dust in the name of unrestrained development.
The ESA was intended to take precedence over all other law, as displayed in the Court’s 1973 decision on the Snail Darter. The law was written at a time when grass roots movements were putting pressure on Congress to recognize the value of the environment and to restrain corporate greed. The law was a reflection of the times and, though times have changed, the law is not one that Congress has been able to overturn because the public is, in spite of what the mass media might lead you to believe, an environmentally concerned public. With lobbyists unable to get the job done through Congress, it has fallen to the highest Court to write the law. A law of which there is no review. By leaving the actual statute on the books, but making an end run around it, the Court has allowed developers a means to further pillage our environment without restraint while leaving no room for popular outrage. Typically, when changes such as this come before Congress, popular resistance rears its ugly head and stops Congress from selling out our environment to the highest bidders. But the Court has subverted that will by CREATING law from the Bench, where there is no public review. We cannot vote the Justices out of office. We cannot call them before they hand down their decision.
The Court IS, in fact, making, rather than ruling ON, law this term. This is not the first case where it has ignored the precedence and statutes on hand to create a new law that jibes with the extreme conservatism and pro-corporate slant of the Roberts Court.
In another decision earlier this month, the Court upheld a Washington state law that restricts the use of Union Dues for political purposes. The law permits Union Dues to be be used in political campaigns ONLY if the membership of the Union is polled and agrees with the choices of the Union. It is not the law that I question so much as the fact that NO SUCH BEHAVIOR is required for Corporate donations. Where corporations required to also poll THEIR membership (stockholders) and support only those candidates approved by these stockholders, perhaps the Court’s ruling would not smack so of Corporate favoritism. It is an interesting distinction that labor, by virtue of being a restraint on the power of capital, should have its voice quashed by the Court, while, at the same time, the Court is assaulting the McCain-Feingold law. While not declaring the law unconstitutional, for which reason 3 of the 5 majority justices would not sign the majority opinion, it does gut the law so significantly as to make it nearly irrelevant. The attempt to put shackles on soft money spending by corporations has been defeated, proving that this Court truly stands for the One Dollar, One Vote ethic so repulsive to the notion of democracy. This attack on McCain-Feingold, combined with the restriction on Union spending on campaigns, means that Corporate American can speak with a billion dollar voice while the rest of us are restricted to five dollars a pop. It is simply impossible for private citizens to compete with the media muscle of Corporate America which not only has the money to dominate the purchase of air time, but effectively OWNS the PUBLIC airwaves besides. The choices that network television stations have made in refusing to run advertisements that it considers “controversial” even from those willing to pay the same prices as any other advertiser shows that the financial divide in having one’s voice heard is one that simply CANNOT be crossed, even for those who gather the funds for the outrageous toll. The Court is simply adding insult to injury with its joint decisions, speaking its opinion that those of us who work for a living do not count.
As if this were not enough, the Court has also said that the people may not bring suit against the Bush Administration for the use of tax payer dollars to support his Faith-Based initiatives. It was a 5-4 decision, with the lunatics lining up as a majority. For reasons beyond the comprehension of anyone who has ever read the Constitution, the Court ruled that the restrictions on religion were on the legislative branch, and that the executive was fine to use money from the GENERAL fund to support a given religion. Apparently, there is no separation of Church and State in the presidential palace and we begin to see that Cheney’s ill-founded logic on exemptions is not a one-man delusion. As we head into a corporate theocracy, where women have no rights over their own bodies and corporations are the only “people” deemed worthy of political voice, it should be no surprise that we also are abolishing the barriers of Church and State. What is fantastic is that there is any pretense to LAW in these decisions. While the legalize mentioned earlier is a barrier to understanding of the law, the matter of Church and State cannot by simpler. Apparently, however, this law applies EXCEPT in the highest office in the land, where we permit all law to meld into whimsy at the discretion of the Emperor. The Court has chosen to read the First Amendment to mean that the separation of Church and State applies ONLY to Congress, whereas the amendment states it thus, because the framers of the Constitution and the dissenters in the Bill of Rights had NEITHER any idea of the imperial office the presidency would become. They imagined the POWER to reside in the legislative branch, which said branch seems to have forgotten.
While the Court also ruled that Free Speech could be limited in matters so obviously outrageous as the phrase, “Bong hits 4 Jesus,” it is not clear at what point this Free Speech will also be limited on matters of religion, wherein it shall be found that Jesus is so OBVIOUSLY the one and only true savior, and all suggestions to the contrary are not FREE SPEECH, but un-patriotic blasphemy requiring a lengthy stay in the secret prison of the government’s (or appropriate Church leader’s) choosing.
It would seem there is no further point to putting matters before the Supreme Court as there is a simple formula for determining outcomes. Money trumps all. Free Speech means you are free to speak the government line. Development is always more important than the environment. Corporations are not responsible for ANY wrong-doing, intentional or not. We are a Fundamentalist Christian nation, subject to Biblical Law. Congress may pass what laws it likes, but anything that subverts the above is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If there is any doubt, please refer back to ‘Money Trumps ALL.’
Great post Moses.
Actually that was a very informative and useful post Moses. However while informative it was mostly about the court and not about the owls. And yes it was long. Many posters have decided that here is a way to expound on all manner of things political and personal, irrespective of the article they log into. Yours by being so useful makes me think that you understand…intelligent people cannot read 89 posts, each longer than the darn piece they refer to (obliquely)! So to you Moses (the only long post I actually liked reading)I say …brevity is virtuosity in such a milieu. Moses …for your post…you get a pass…lol. it was very good.
Attention: The previous post was not about owls. Sigh….either. lol
Rather than a scientific assessment of the impact of logging in national forests, I’d like to see an objective and thorough ECONOMIC analysis. I suspect that once you put a market value on the services an old growth forest provides (like tourism, carbon sequestration, erosion prevention, maintaining bio-diversity, etc.), the revenue realized from logging would be a pittance in comparison.
Combined, hemp and bamboo can completely replace the timber “industry”. But logging companies would have to change too, god forbid.
I find it discouraging when solutions this easy are ignored because it would cost someone money.
We are all going to have to change our habits, including our consumption habits in the coming years if we want anything to change.
Right dingoboy. Hemp and bamboo can replace the timber “industry”. In the case of hemp, thats why Hearst got his friend, Secretary Mellon and his relative Anslinger, to demonize marihuana and pass laws to protect his huge timber investments from competition from hemp. Now the oligarchy uses these ancient protectionist laws as a handy way to violate constitutional rights, put people in jail, invade other countries and generally to control the public. We might all plant bamboo. That would be a definite step forward. But what if we ALL planted hemp around the world to protest the marihuana laws? Would they send the army against us all?
dingoboy, ezeflyer,
The people talk endlessly about what should be done, but do nothing to bring about the basic changes needed to survive on a living planet, because they appear to be almost completely intimidated. So, from the way things are going, we consumers will change our buying habits and corporations will stop despoiling when the environment collapses and we all die.
Good article, Moses. Include in your laws however, the fact that we ship a sizeable amount of lumber to countries like China. In more ways than one, our government’s embracement of NAFTA, CAFTA, lies behind the gradual reduction of America’s natural resources, including habitats for endangered species. For what purpose does the present Administration intend on wiping out all of our laws that protect the environment? If these present powers care so little for what is left of America, then what do they intend to leave their grandhildren? Or are they incapable of looking ahead? Or maybe they intend to hop a spaceship to Mars.
Judi,
The Earth could end up looking like Mars, the atmosphere disintegrated by ultraviolet radiation and the waters sunk frozen below the surface, Mars & Earth partners in planetary death, all because of greed and lust for personal wealth and power.
Moses has clearly identified the most serious threat to our endangered species and “the ecosystems on which they depend,” which are also to be conserved under the terms of the ESA. Now that the Republicans no longer control both houses of Congress, it is possible to stop most legislative threats to the Act in their tracks. But the Supremes, as Moses says, have the final say. Bush and company have already appointed a number of anti-nature, pro-corporate judges at all levels of the federal judiciary.
In order to avoid even more awful decisions long into the future, it is crucial that pressure be brought to bear on friendly Senators to oppose and if necessary filibuster any more Bush appointments to the federal bench, especially to the courts of appeals, and of course, any Supreme Court vacancies that may arise (God forbid!) prior to January 20, 2009.
Most of these anti-ESA judges come down on the wrong side of many social and civil liberties issues (as Moses noted above), too, so it should be possible for conservationists to make common cause with other progressives to help block their appointment.
Those who believe in prayer had better add the health of the four remaining moderate justices to their lists of petitions. Then we need to be sure another Republican doesn’t wind up in the White House in 2008. (Yes, I know the Dems aren’t always all that great, but in general, their Supreme Court appointees have been much better for progressive and environmental causes than the gang of five right wing men constituting court majorities lately.)