Skip to main content

View Diary: Shooting Barred Owls To Save Spotted Owls (59 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think you missed the point of the FWS (0+ / 0-)
    Currently, the most important range-wide threats to the spotted owl are competition with barred owls
    We didn't import the barred owl. It's a stronger more adaptable species.

    You can keep from cutting so much as a tomato plant and barred owls will still displace ol spot. We didn't break anything.

    I linked the revised recovery plan just so folks who weren't familiar with the issue could read something written by scientists rather than the reactionary press.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:33:47 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It'd be great if you didn't misrepresent the plan. (0+ / 0-)

      Several major points:

      We didn't break anything.
      I take it you haven't looked at maps of the original extent of old growth forest and the current extent of old growth forest.  THAT conversion is driving a significant component of the current trends, as the revised recover plan makes clear. For example, in the executive summary the primary threat is listed as follows:

       

      Past habitat loss and current habitat loss are also threats to the spotted owl, even though loss of habitat due to timber harvest has been greatly reduced on Federal lands over the past two decades.
      Obviously, the notion that human activities aren't the main driver here is completely ludicrous.

      yes, the competition of the Barred owl which is invading disturbed lands (which is a very typical consequence of disturbance worldwide).  So actually, yes, we did import the barred owl by disturbing the habitat. THere's a great deal of scientific literature on this subject I would invite you to research and read.

      As the recovery plan clearly states the barred owl management is a key aspect of getting the spotted owl to recovery, so obviously, if shown to be effective in subsequent analysis, it's a pretty critical piece of the recovery plan.  IN fact, the recovery plan calls for experimental management to test the effectiveness of the intervention.  

      And of course, the law mandates that endangered species be protected, so in fact yes, we are choosing not to allow an invasion we made happen drive a species extinct, which is a point you fail to make clear.  Unfortunately a number of people are completely mislead by your misrepresentations

      It's great to present a link to the recovery plan.  It would be even better if you didn't misrepresent what it says.

      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

      by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:45:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I missed the part where it said that human (0+ / 0-)

        activity caused the barred owl to outcompete the spotted owl. Perhaps you could link or point me towards it,.

        I'm also not sure what scientific literature you want me to read. Press releases by the CBD don't count.

        The maps of old growth forest that would be worth looking at would be those showing old growth in say 93 compared to now, because I don't think much has been cut in the past 2 decades, yet owls continue to decline, due to barred owls, which is why they are saying,

        Currently, the most important range-wide threats to the spotted owl are competition with barred owls
        Everyone would love to take vacations in North America as it existed during 10K BC, before there were humans, but FWS deals in the here and now. Real life. The forests that exist now are all we have to work with, and at the end of the day the scientists at FWS think the single most effective way to curtail the decline of the spotted owl is to shoot barred owls.

        “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

        by ban nock on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 06:46:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  To be fair (0+ / 0-)

          CBD has a much better handle on the science that you do, but that's another story.

          First, the point is that the massive ecosystem disruption seems extremely likely to have contributed to the spread of the barred owl in the first place.  Without that, it is quite likely that the barred owl would not be present in the first instance.  Unfortunately, much of the work on the invasion in behind paywalls.   In any event, that's not the main story here

          Second, the main point is that the invasion is much more severe because of the habitat destruction that has already occurred, so in that sense, yes, we did cause the invasion or at least create a situation where it is as severe as it is and has such dire consequences.  A major part of this is that the invasion occurs faster and has more severe impacts in fragmented habitat.  The patch sizes of the spotted owl are greatly reduced, resulting in continued decline, which makes it demographically vulnerable.  For example, it has been documented that reduction in the size and distance between of old growth patches increases extinction rates and decreases local recolonization rates and exacerbates the impact of barred owl invasions  Thus, as I said earlier, the invasion itself is greatly exacerbated by the massive habitat fragmentation that has already occurred.

          Third, 1993 is a pretty irrelevant comparison, unless you are talking 1993 B.C.  so, now that the massive damage has been done to old growth and the species within it, we are now in a position to have to take extraordinary measures to prevent the total destruction of what we have pushed to the brink.  which is why they say:

          Addressing the threats associated with past and current habitat loss must be conducted  simultaneously with addressing the threats from barred owls. Addressing the threat from habitat loss is relatively
          straightforward with predictable results.
          In any event the recovery plan makes clear that this is an experimental method to see what the effects would be, which is an entirely reasonable approach to management.
          Before considering whether to fund and fully implement such an action [that is, barred owl management], however, the Service needs to be confident this removal would benefit spotted owls. The
          Service is currently developing a draft Environmental Impact Statement to assess the effects of barred owl removal experiments proposed in this Revised Recovery Plan.  
          (see page I-8 and I-9)  

          The main point is that the only reason management is even necessary because of course we have done so much damage to the species.  The idea that doing nothing is "letting nature take its course" is to completely pretend that none of the damage done ever occurred.  This is roughly like shooting someone and then arguing that we should "let nature take its course" and have them bleed to death since they'd die from blood loss anyway.  

          Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

          by Mindful Nature on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 07:55:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I notice this is before the revised recovery plan (0+ / 0-)

            and in reading it seems to say habitat becomes much less important when there is an out competing species.

            In other words, if external factors,
            such as competition with Barred Owls, are affecting the
            quality of Spotted Owl habitat, then relationships
            between habitat structure and fitness may be decoupled.
            When habitat selection becomes decoupled from habitat
            quality, then negative effects on fitness and population
            dynamics can result in ecological traps (Dwernychuk
            and Boag 1972, Schlaepfer et al. 2002, Kristan 2003).
            This may explain why populations of Northern Spotted
            Owls continue to decline in some areas (Anthony et al.
            2006, Forsman et al. 2011), even though large amounts
            of old forest have been protected throughout the
            subspecies’ range (FEMAT 1993).
            And this is all fun but I care less about arguing spotted owl than I do my time on a Saturday morning.

            The CBD is the only environmental group I've ever heard of who was convicted of lying. Convicted in court and assessed large damages, upheld on appeal. Not only are they liars but willfully so. In plain language they are a bunch of ranters, barking at cars and trying to bite the tires.

            “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

            by ban nock on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 08:35:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  really (0+ / 0-)

              please provide links.  

              they win a ton of lawsuits against all comers, frequently because they are often better at the science.  I recall recently even showing you completely wrong on lead poisoning, an issue CBD really played a key role in developing some of the science on.  

              Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

              by Mindful Nature on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 09:00:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  CBD doesn't develop anything except litigation (0+ / 0-)

                bunch of buffoons lead by a leprechaun. http://www.hcn.org/...
                http://www.chiltonranch.com/...

                Dennis Parker the Chilton's attorney had this to say about how the CBD could have avoided a lawsuit.

                1)it could have removed the defamatory information from its website; and 2)apologized to Mr. Chilton for publishing that defamatory material in the first place. This could have done upon receipt of Mr. Chilton's demand letter from me as his attorney. Instead, the CBD chose to ignore both the demand for retraction and apology, and, well, you know the rest of the story.
                In other words they refused to stop lying and apologize.

                Don't take my word for it, email the CBD, they'll tell you they can't discuss the trial due to court agreement. (and also because they sucked down hundreds of thousands in lawyer fees and damages that their contributors thought were going towards species advocacy).

                The ESA is going to be "updated". I'm sure big oil, mining, logging, and all other development type interests will extract some onerous concessions to get the bill passed. The two orgs driving ESA reform are the CBD and Wild Earth Guardians.

                “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

                by ban nock on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 09:38:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ah (0+ / 0-)

                  So they lost a civil suit, but we not convicted of anything. Bfurthermore this had zero to do with any science

                  If course what you don't like is that they are highly effective in enforcing the law and protecting species you'd like to kill off.   Fact of the matter is they also played a key role in exposing the lies an abuse of your buddy Julie MacDonald also

                  Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

                  by Mindful Nature on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 09:47:18 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I knew you wouldn't like it. (0+ / 0-)

                    Turn over rocks sometimes you find creepy crawlies.

                    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

                    by ban nock on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 11:00:19 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Of the thousands of campaigns (0+ / 0-)

                      They ran afoul the state courts in the land of Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio. I'd have to read the opinions of course, but frankly they have done a lot to prevent people from ignoring species until they're extinct.  I shouldn't be surprised that anti environment folks would slam them though. People who don't want species protected clearly don't like them because they are effective

                      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

                      by Mindful Nature on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 11:53:38 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Interesting (0+ / 0-)

                  That you cite an article decrying CBD for suing to get USFWS to comply with the law.  Note, CBD only gets paid when they win, which they only do when FWS doesn't comply with the law.  Note, the 90 day finishing business is a red herring since FWS can get extensions.   Not listing things that are clearly endangered is a major problem.  Ultimately FWS is underfunded because of GOP efforts to kill the ESA.

                  Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

                  by Mindful Nature on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 09:59:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  oh and they lost again in court on lead (0+ / 0-)

                science doesn't change no matter how much of a nuisance they try to be.

                “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

                by ban nock on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 09:40:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Do tell (0+ / 0-)

                  Your the guy who said lead shot isn't poisonous and got eviscerated here

                  Why don't you run along to redstate.  I think you'll find more anti environment folks there

                  Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

                  by Mindful Nature on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 09:48:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Good reply to a science based fact based position. (0+ / 0-)

                    If you are wrong on the facts and wrong on the science just fling stuff and yell a lot.

                    I belong to the largest conservation group in the US who yearly contributes almost 100% of the funds for wildlife conservation of all types and has the largest caucus of any in the US congress.

                    We are pro environment, pro conservation, and pro science. Always have been always will be.

                    I won't be so assuming as to tell you where to go.

                    Oh, and I trust the CDC's opinion on lead amo more than your's.

                    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

                    by ban nock on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 10:57:33 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                      As I showed, the CDC said the opposite (namely that eat lead contaminated game increases blood lead leels). However, I suppose there is some hope that we can keep working to correct these errors.

                      I apologize for losing my cool in the face of your absurd slanders against environmentalists.

                      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

                      by Mindful Nature on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 11:50:13 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  That would be (0+ / 0-)

                      The national wildlife foundation. Didn't know they had such a large lobby.  Good news

                      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

                      by Mindful Nature on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 12:05:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  oh and (0+ / 0-)

              the paper I cited shows that the "may be" is in fact a "probably not"  in any event, if there is decoupling (which would be highly remarkable), the highly fragmented nature of the habitat has a lot to do with it.

              Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

              by Mindful Nature on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 09:04:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site