Originally posted by loam
reply to post by nixie_nox
Originally posted by nixie_nox
Understand a little more about forest and ecology management before making such statements.
The barred owl is coveres all of North America. It will be fine.
Originally posted by loam
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
I do, as you will notice by my next response.
The point is not that this policy threatens barred owls,
I didn't say it did, I said the owl will be fine.
but that it insufficiently addresses why spotted owls (or any species in decline for that matter) are in decline in the first place.
Um, that would be from competition from the barred owl, the whole reason you started the thread in the first place.
Also because of habitat loss, which is also the debate surrounding the spotted owl in the first place.
This style of ecosystem management just makes a bigger mess of things.
How so?
Now for the real conspiracy here:
The mess has already been made. It was heavy logging that put the spotted owl in decline in the first place.
Bush sided with the lumber companies to increase logging in those areas by 22%. Fortunately it has been repeatedly shot down in the courts.
The real conspiracy here isn't the removal of the barred owl, it is the logging.
For one, the lumbar companies are now arguing that if there isn't a spotted owl, there is no longer a reason to protect the forest. I wouldn't be
surprised if they were sneaking in and poisoning the birds. JMO.
And until logging companies have their way and have decimated that forest, this controversy will never stop.
Without fully understanding and addressing the reasons for a species' decline, you will still likely lose that species and materially impact
many others by the arrogant removal of the ones that actually succeed in the present environment but you think are a problem. 
Again, the reason for decline was stated in your own source. Loss of habitat and competition by the barred owl. The same habitat that has caused
controversy for 25 years.I mean, seriously?
Anywhoo, not all owls are being shot:
In addition to shooting hundreds of barred owls, the new plan calls for their non-lethal removal by capturing and relocating them or placing in
them in permanent captivity.
link
Now for the real conspiracy here, the barred owl is the least of the problems. The DOI wasn't developed to protect resources but to make them federal
lands to exploit them.
From your source:
better managing forests, officials can give communities, foresters and land managers in three states important tools to promote healthier and more
productive forests, Salazar said.
A plan announced Tuesday would designate habitat considered critical for the bird’s survival, while allowing logging to reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire and to create jobs.
memorandum directing Interior to take a number of steps before the plan is finalized, including providing clear direction for how logging can be
conducted within areas designated as critical habitat and conducting an economic analysis at the same time critical habitat areas are
proposed.
This is about money.
This memorandum is just a bandaid to make it look like the spotted owl is being protected to cover up the fact that they want to log these areas.
Wild and forest fires ARE nature's way of keeping forests healthy but clearing out overgrowth. To "manage" forests to prevent fires IS artifically
maintaining an ecology. Using the prevention of wildfire is an excuse to log. As they would rather sell the trees and make money then have nature wipe
them out naturally.
This is a sad movement. Logging doesn't provide that many jobs. This administration is trying to balance economy and ecology.
The plan affects more than 24 million acres of forest land in Washington, Oregon and Northern California.
There is the cheddar.
edit on 29-2-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)
