In 1991, District Judge William Dwyer declared that the federal government was not doing enough to protect northern spotted owls and shut down most logging in Northwest old growth forests. In 1994, Judge Dwyer approved a Clinton administration plan that made that shutdown permanent.
Dwyer's decisions were devastating for many small logging communities in the Northwest. (Though some say that the logging would have to have cut back soon, anyway, because so much of the old growth areas had already been logged. I don't know what the facts are on that question.)
At the time these decisions were being made, I saw a striking statement from a mid-level federal bureaucrat; he said that if the northern spotted owl had not existed, it should have been invented. What he meant by this is that he and his allies favored stopping logging in old growth areas for other reasons (valid or not) and that the listing of the bird as endangered made it possible to do that.
What he said made me wonder if he was accidentally telling the truth, whether the owl had — in a sense — been invented by bureaucrats who agreed with him. There were two ways this might have been done. The northern spotted owl might not be a true sub-species of the spotted owl. Taxonomists don't always agree on these questions, but some appeared to believe that, though the owl varied over its range (from British Columbia all the way down to central Mexico), it was not broken into sub-populations. (For what it is worth, Peterson's field guide to Western Birds lists it as a single species — but my copy may be out of date. In contrast, the Sibley Guide to Bird Life and Behavior is certain that there are three sub-species of the spotted owl — but the question has become so politicized that I am not sure I can trust anything from the Audubon Society on this subject.)
Second, I thought that the scientists who said that a loss of old growth forests was causing the decline in northern spotted owls might have been wrong. (I am not saying that any scientists were being deliberately deceptive, but it is possible that some scientists wanted a particular result, and let that affect their thinking, and how they presented their findings.) It can be terribly difficult to explain changes in population levels, especially with interacting predators.
I have seen nothing since then that settles the first question. But this Seattle Times article, and the data in the chart that comes with it, gives me more reason to think that I was right on the second point, that the loss of old growth forests might not be causing the decline in northern spotted owls. First, the data. If you look at the chart (which you can find in the PDF file labeled "Spotted owls in decline") you will see that the owls have declined steadily in the Northwest since the two Dwyer decisions, in spite of very large areas set aside for their protection. Logging was stopped in these areas, but the number of northern spotted owls continued to decline.
And some biologists are finding more evidence that it is competition from the barred owl, not the loss of habitat, that is causing the decline of spotted owls. They have even tried the obvious experiment:
Desperate government wildlife managers are now considering experiments of systematically shooting barred owls.
In a preliminary test in Northern California, researchers shot seven barred owls near former spotted-owl nesting sites. Spotted owls returned to all the sites.
I don't regard this evidence, and this one experiment as definitive, but I think that, taken as a whole, the evidence is strong enough so that the experiment should be repeated, in other areas, and with different conditions. If, that is, we want to get the science right, follow the law, and protect the northern spotted owl. (I want to do all three, though I favor extensive changes in the laws governing endangered species, partly because those laws often have perverse effects.) If, on the other hand, we just want to stop all logging in old growth forests, and don't care about the rest, then we should continue doing what we have been doing.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(More information in this Wikipedia article, with the usual caveats.
Kudos to Warren Cornwall and the Seattle Times for a balanced piece on a sensitive and difficult subject.)
Posted by Jim Miller at August 13, 2008 02:08 PM | Email ThisThere was a story a spotted owl (made the papers about 4-5 years ago) about a spotted owl taking up residence in downtown Everett. The owl didn't want to move so the scientists forcefully removed it. That owl had to be in hog heaven in Everett with all the pigeons, so I doubt he was happy to move.
Posted by: swatter on August 13, 2008 02:50 PMOne suspects, however, that any scientifically based-effort would be considered a waste of time by ESA's more rabid enthusiasts. The science behind the northern spotted owl diminishing numbers is settled!
Posted by: Bob R on August 13, 2008 02:51 PMAs Mr. Miller says, "Dwyer's decisions were devastating for many small logging communities in the Northwest." And so it was that formerly employed loggers were forced by starvation to harvest the owls, to be served in small-town restaurants as local delicacies, or simply as "chicken" for folks who quailed at eating red meat.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on August 13, 2008 03:51 PMMan made wood using wood chips along with other adaptations was limiting the need for old growth timber. The competition from this, as well as, in the paper industry has brought to a close in the way timber use to be exclusively used. This fact, started with the use of the idle cotton fields because, of the waning demand for cotton being replaced by synthetics, was planted with fast growing pines. After 10 to 15 years the pines were harvested with machines that clipped the pines and stacked or loaded for hauling directly to a nearby fix based operation for processing. The pines were both chipped for the manufacturing of paper and man made wood products. This was done at far less expense and convenience than having to build logging roads in rough terrain and on the sides of steep mountains with long hauls to the mills plus, having to pay monies to Government for the right to log. The paper manufacturers using this source were able to out-price the paper manufacturers in the Pacific Northwest even, with the shipping fees from back East included. As you know, the Paper Mills have shut down operations in the Pacific Northwest because they couldn't compete. Weyerhaeuser has shut down at least one of it's mills and greatly reduced operations in the Northwest. Only, the smaller operators seem to be hanging on. This approach is so effective and popular that the method has spread across the Nation. Farmers with various portions of their land that is unsuitable for planting have planted those once idle acres with fast growing pines, cotton wood or any deciduous tree. In fact, it has gotten to the point that just, about any tree big or small can be chipped up and used for wood or paper products. These changing methods and requirements for old growth, should make a lot of people happy except, for Government who depend on timber sales income for schools and such.
The human value system shifts by the year. In the years of Lewis and Clark, the citizen knew that domestication of the wild environment was paramount.
Now, it seems our common vision compels us to bring the land back to the environment of pre Lewis and Clark.
We ALL live ON and derive our incomes FROM sites that were formerly pre-Lewis and Clark wilderness.
Should we raze our homes and infrastructure and return Seattle to Psuedostuga mono-forest?
What is the BEST environment? Old growth forests are dead zones. There is more wildlife diversity in my Maple Leaf neighborhood than in a dark forest in the Cascades.
Which is better?
As Cornwall's article points out, some endangered species are on their way out regardless of the activities of man. Does that make them especially VALUABLE or just IRRELEVANT other than as a footnote in natural history books?
Man is a natural inhabitant of the earth. The Sierra Club is man.
Man is just another tool of the Earth. The ESA is the main tool of the Sierra Club.
The Sierra Club can't survive without industry, but industry can survive without the Sierra Club.
What to do?
Posted by: Bart Cannon on August 13, 2008 04:38 PMEnviro-frauds are out to control people follow the money. They need to be challenged every step of the way. How does the Sierra club get taken down ? They have decimated our economy and will continue to do so unless a groundswell of public outcry occurs.
Dr. Bill Wantenburg on KGO is the foremost expert on this. He links a number of articles that expose the Sierra Club and other environmentalist lobbies for their radical agenda. This problem won't go away until the public gets involved.
Posted by: KS on August 13, 2008 09:10 PMThe Sad Case of the Spotted Owl
Spotted owls, we were told a decade ago, were disappearing because big bad timber companies were cutting down "old growth" forests. So the environmental movement rushed to the forests, hugged the trees and issued news releases to decry the evils of the logging industry. Save the owl. Save the trees. Kill the timber industry.According to a new government draft plan to save the species, scientists are no longer saying the greatest threat to the Spotted Owl is logging activity. "The draft recovery plan recognizes the primary threat to northern spotted owls as competition with barred owls." According to the report, barred owls are less selective about the habitat they use and the prey they feed upon and are out competing northern spotted owls for habitat and food, causing its decline.
In fact, for the entire decade since the issue emerged on the political scene, the property rights and land use movements have been reporting the fact that the spotted owl is only a sub-species of Mexican spotted owls, which are not endangered at all. Some experts will say the only way to tell the difference between the two is by their accents. (OK, I'm kidding, but this ridiculous story needs some humor). It was no secret that the spotted owl didn't need "old growth forests" to survive, since spotted owls were found living under bridges and in McDonald signs. What it needed was a good food source like any other species. Now we know it was undercut by another owl - a completely natural occurrence.
OOPS!
Hmm, maybe the headline should have been "The Sad Case of the Screwed Lumbermen, Their Employees and Their Shareholders".
Hey liberals, lecture us again how we are soley responsible for global warming...er, cooling...er, climate change! That's it! Climate change! Send your change to Al!
I swear I have a neckache from wagging my head in complete incredulity at the fools making noise and the bigger fools that follow them.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 13, 2008 09:12 PMEmployment dropped as much because of dramatically better efficiencies in milling as it did because of lower timber harvesting.
We produce more wood now that we have in the past, exporting less raw materials and instead adding value and using the wood in this country.
Small towns did suffer as the private sector became the dominant producer of trees to harvest, and the socialist practice of selling trees to support rural towns by the government was replaced by economic based harvest decisions.
Why is all this bad?
Posted by: BA on August 13, 2008 10:19 PMYour statement that trees were sold to support rural towns is nonsense and that it was a socialist practice is more nonsense.
Logging towns existed because the USFS and WADNR sold trees at an attractive price. Was the pricing a giveaway? Certainly not.
Show some data that Washington public forests are producing more wood products. Also show the data on the number of mills that have closed. You're toast.
Timber sales supported the USFS and bought the roads that we all used to enjoy driving around on.
And timber sales by the WADNR generated the state income which once easily funded our schools.
Now there is virtually no logging in Western Washington on the USFS. The Sierra Club stops EVERY timber sale using the ESA. Then they collect 100% of their court cost. They pay themselves to shut down the woods. One result is the the USFS no longer has any money to repair roads. Another drawback for public acces to OUR lands is that Sierra Club sues to close roads that COULD relate to the ESA. For example: roads in the Skykomish Ranger District have been closed down to protect Grizzly habitat. Never mind that NO GRIZZLIES exist there!
Other roads have been closed down because of fragile elk habitat. Elk habitat has been declining in exact proportion to the decline of clear cutting. Elk need the lush browse from clear cuts or natural burns to flourish.
Someone please sue the Sierra Club for destroying elk habitat!
Posted by: Bart Cannon on August 13, 2008 10:46 PMWhy don't you read up on the history of the US Forest Service and look at their official policies and practices over the years. They thought they were selling timber at a loss at times to support rural communities, so did the administrations and congresses writing and administering their budgets.
If you're an agency that gets sued and loses every time...it must be time to examine your practices against the requirements of the law.
You can find lots of forest industry data at the State's DNR website, and the The Inland Northwest Forest Products
Research Consortium publishes plenty of information as well for example. I'll cite more detailed sources when I'm confident you're literate.
Way fewer mills - of course, that's why the industry has become so efficient in their ratio of labor to product now compared to a generation ago.
The factors that have altered the forest industry are complex and intertwined - they include changing export markets and competitors, the value of the dollar and how it affects Canadian imports, improved milling technologies, environmental constraints, changes in product types, different ownership models (read up about Weyerhauser in the news now) etc. etc.
Blaming the spotted owl, or any other one thing, is wrong.
Wishing we might return to the good old days of a mill in every little rural town, is a bit like lamenting the loss of the buggy whip factory.
Posted by: BA on August 14, 2008 07:03 AMI liked working in the woods. But actual lumber production is up.
The time has passed for most lumber jobs. The real culprit is American Ingenuity.
One person running a cultivator now replaces: two fallers, two buckers, a few chokersetters; the hooker and loader. Mills are so much faster they can handle twice the timber they used to; they get a third more lumber from the same board feet of raw timber, and they do this with half the crew.
One job I don't miss is working on the green chain.
The myth of the Owl living in a WalMart parking lot is a retelling of that same retro 1980s era populist republican narrative that makes socialist villains out of scientists and banjo-eyed anarchists out of environmental activists. Both allegations are fanciful and marginal, and they've been used to manipulate public opinion for decades. Bart, as much as you appear to accept that unfortunate reductive narrative as truth, you do raise a really interesting philosophical question in asking where we are to go from here. For example, you can't grow swine very efficiently in a 1000 year old Pseudotsuga stand and people (me included) really like bacon - a lot. There is an inherent conflict in determining appropriate use.
The USDA considers Old-Growth (which is not a dead zone-btw) to be a native eco-system undisturbed for more than 160 years. Given that this year marks the 160th year since Oregon Territory was proclaimed, It's not likely there has been activity here long enough to really return anything to it's native state from a modified industrial agricultural condition, let alone to begin to find an easy to understand economic value in doing so. What's gone is gone, and the current prospects of restoring even small amounts of it are next to zero. What we can and do make a case for is how much native environment we are willing to lose forever. That case has been made and accepted repeatedly by a majority of active and concerned citizens with many affiliations. Looking at the continued efforts that went into establishing the Wild Sky Wilderness, preserving what we have left obviously continues to be regionally important in much more than an abstracted partisan political sense.
In the end, it is really technological efficiency and economics that endangered the mill towns of the northwest, not tiny owls and wine sipping effete activists from the cities. Though small birds do make convenient villains, don't they?
Yes, USDA timber sales do contribute funds to local rural governments. Debating whether or not re-allocating funds from the public trust to specific communities is socialist is at least a start toward looking at things as they really are, not as the mythologies and talking points have cast them. It's neither capitalism or the free market... discuss.
Posted by: Acid Brain on August 14, 2008 10:39 AMWhile the canopy of old growth is alive and full of growing biomass, its forest floor is close to devoid of wildlife inhabitants. You might see a few scraggly huckleberry bushes and a lonely black squirrel scurrying for fir cones in the hope of filling its belly between barred owl swoops.
The trunks of the grand old trees are dead except for their bark and roots.
Re: Small birds make convenient villians.
Nobody actually considers the Spotted Owl as THE villian. That owl is just the symbolic scapebird for the Sierra Club initiated acts of the legislators.
Re: "lumber" production on USFS lands in Western Washington.
With almost ZERO timber sales it's close to zero. Even before Wild Sky, the Skykomish ranger district hasn't sold a tree for almost twenty years. Even their thinning projects get blocked by the Sierra Club et al.
Re: Best allocation of resource revenue.
This is clearly in the eye of the beholder. If "wilderness" is the more highly valued than lumber or minerals, as it clearly is to the Sierra Club and the wine sipping effete, then things are going swimmingly.
Re: The Wild Sky Wilderness.
All you need to know about the Wild Sky Wilderness was in the front page feature in the Times last week.
Unless you most enjoy looking at mountain sides from your car or cutting brush there are ZERO hiking opportunities in the western two and largest blocks of the Wild Sky. The only trail featured in the story was the Barclay Lake trail, and it's a cherry stem in the Wild Sky.
I've been a frequent visitor into the brush of the Wild Sky since 1965. The Wild Sky will only make my pleasure harder to get to since the few jeep maintained logging roads will be closed.
Re: Best use of the land.
Now that the Sierra club has locked up the spine and rib-cage of the Cascades they are focused on the urban environment. They are now the third "go-to" entity regarding public transit and the first "go-to" entity regarding urban ecology.
They are already literally in EVERYONE'S actual backyard now. That's where they really want to be. If you can find The Sacramento Bee's week long expose "Fat of the Land" by Tom Knudsen you'll see that the Friday afternoon party at their five story Sierra Club headquarterson does not feature wine sipping. It features Martini swilling. The best thing about them.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on August 14, 2008 12:21 PMThis idea of the Old Growth as dead zone is as as unfortunate as the understanding of zero being something other than the absence of quantity. They are very much full of life, but a little quieter and more sparse than forests are depicted in popular culture. One could have the same sense about a parking lot coming across it after the store closes. You have every right to be disappointed, and you aren't solo on the limb there. The devil is in the details - not an office building in California.
Posted by: Acid Brain on August 14, 2008 01:31 PMI think for national forests now, if they haven't been logged ever (and yes, I know in Wild Sky this definition wasn't ironclad) we can say that the reality of both economics and societal values is such that these lands shouldn't be.
Our best lands for growing trees are private lands, state, and tribal lands rather than federal lands anyway.
Posted by: BA on August 14, 2008 01:42 PMBy closing off so many high mountain wilderness access nodes, the Sierra Club is FUNNELING wildnerness recreation into places like Snow Lake instead of distributing use throughout the mountains.
It's just plain wrong.
The Sierra Club high priests believe that there is only ONE species that does not belong in the mountains. And I'm not talking the sub-species that want to mine and log the woods. I'm talking about soft footed homo sapiens hiker who packs out his own turds.
Here is what the Sierra Club has accomplished.
They have moved resource extraction out of their own backyards and into third world countries where it is not regulated properly.
But who cares about that mess? Apparently not the Sierra Club.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on August 14, 2008 02:04 PM