Wildlife and People

RM Grey Wolves Genetically Connected

In July, 2008, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy enjoined the delisting of grey wolves in the Northern Rockies (thus placing them back on the Endangered Species list) [here, more].

Molloy based his ruling on a faulty understanding of genetics in wolf populations. A quote (with emphasis added):

Plaintiffs argue (1) even though the environmental impact statement on wolf reintroduction specifically conditions the delisting decision on a Finding of Subpopulation Genetic Exchange, the Fish & Wildlife Service delisted the wolf when there is no plausible showing of that genetic exchange between the Greater Yellowstone core recovery area and the northwestern Montana and central Idaho core recovery areas. …

As recently as 2002, the Service determined genetic exchange between wolves in the Greater Yellowstone, northwestern Montana, and central Idaho core recovery areas was necessary to maintain a viable northern Rocky Mountain wolf population in the face of environmental variability and stochastic events. The Fish & Wildlife Service nevertheless delisted the wolf without any evidence of genetic exchange between wolves in the Greater Yellowstone core recovery area and the other two core recovery areas.

Now wolf experts from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Yellowstone National Park, the Nez Perce Tribe, and UCLA have published a study showing that Rocky Mountain wolves are fully genetically connected — due to their (the wolves) propensity, as members of the Dog Family, for having multiple relations with whatever all the time (or words to that effect). The study is behind a pay wall [here]:

VONHOLDT, B. M., STAHLER, D. R., BANGS, E. E., SMITH, D. W., JIMENEZ, M. D., MACK, C. M., NIEMEYER, C. C., POLLINGER, J. P. and WAYNE, R. K. (2010), A novel assessment of population structure and gene flow in grey wolf populations of the Northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. Molecular Ecology, 19: 4412–4427. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04769.x

Abstract The successful re-introduction of grey wolves to the western United States is an impressive accomplishment for conservation science. However, the degree to which subpopulations are genetically structured and connected, along with the preservation of genetic variation, is an important concern for the continued viability of the metapopulation. We analysed DNA samples from 555 Northern Rocky Mountain wolves from the three recovery areas (Greater Yellowstone Area, Montana, and Idaho), including all 66 re-introduced founders, for variation in 26 microsatellite loci over the initial 10-year recovery period (1995–2004). The population maintained high levels of variation (HO = 0.64–0.72; allelic diversity k = 7.0–10.3) with low levels of inbreeding (FIS < 0.03) and throughout this period, the population expanded rapidly (n1995 = 101; n2004 = 846). Individual-based Bayesian analyses revealed significant population genetic structure and identified three subpopulations coinciding with designated recovery areas. Population assignment and migrant detection were difficult because of the presence of related founders among different recovery areas and required a novel approach to determine genetically effective migration and admixture. However, by combining assignment tests, private alleles, sibship reconstruction, and field observations, we detected genetically effective dispersal among the three recovery areas. Successful conservation of Northern Rocky Mountain wolves will rely on management decisions that promote natural dispersal dynamics and minimize anthropogenic factors that reduce genetic connectivity.

more »

Sage-Grouse and Predator Prey Relations

After years of hue and cry, and being carpet-bombed with lawsuits, last March the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service placed the greater sage-grouse on the candidate species list [here]. That didn’t halt the lawsuits, however [here, here].

The gist of the argle-bargle is that sage-grouse are in decline because their habitat is diminishing [here].

Nothing could be further from the truth. Sage-grouse population changes are governed by predator-prey relations, not habitat.

Sage-grouse do not eat sagebrush. They eat insects and seeds. They feed their chicks caterpillars. The insects and caterpillars that make up their diet also do not eat sagebrush. Principally, sage-grouse prey eat grass.

Sage-grouse can survive and even flourish where there is no sagebrush at all.

Sage-grouse, in turn, are prey to ravens, coyotes, cougars, eagles, hawks and other predators higher up the food chain. Sagebrush does not protect sage-grouse from their predators.

We reported these wildlife biology facts a year ago [here].

In a remarkable about-face, researchers have determined that sage grouse are NOT limited by “loss of habitat.” It turns out that sage grouse populations are governed by PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONS, just like all other animals. …

Idaho State University researchers found that ravens and badgers eat grouse eggs [here], but not ground squirrels. The clever scientists set up webcams near grouse nests and WATCHED as wild predators gobbled pre-hatched chicks. …

Real science, which is mainly concerned with reality, presents strong evidence that PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONS have everything to do with population dynamics, and that “loss of habitat” is a pile of bird crap.

more »

Wind Power: Green and Deadly

by Doug L. Hoffman, The Resilient Earth, 05/03/2010 [here]

An average US citizen or corporate entity who kills an endangered animal can be in big trouble with the law. Birds, eagles in particular, are zealously protected by nature lovers in America and around the world. Yet a July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, California, estimated that an average of 80 golden eagles were killed there by wind turbines each year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, estimated that about 10,000 other protected birds were being killed along with the eagles every year at Altamont. Where is the outrage over this slaughter? It would seem ecologists have a blind spot when it comes to the wind energy industry. As a result, the carnage caused by wind turbines, the “Cuisinarts of the Air,” is getting greenwashed. And birds are not the only creatures wind turbines kill—they kill bats and people as well.

In the US, birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. Over the past two decades, the federal government has brought hundreds of cases against energy companies for killing wild birds in the operation of their businesses. For example, in July 2009, the Oregon based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over a period of two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines. At the same time, wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds each year yet their owners are not being prosecuted.

While the total number of birds killed in the US each year fluctuates, Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that US wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year. Yet the Justice Department is not bringing cases against wind companies. “Somebody has given the wind industry a get-out-of-jail-free card,” Fry said, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. “If there were even one prosecution,” he added, the wind industry would be forced to take the issue seriously. … [more]

Windmills Are Killing Our Birds

One standard for oil companies, another for green energy sources.

By ROBERT BRYCE, WSJ Online, Sept 7, 2009 [here]

On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.

Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.

more »

USFWS Announces Greater Sage-Grouse As Candidate Species

In a long-awaited denouement, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today that the greater sage-grouse will not be listed as threatened or endangered but instead will be placed on the candidate species list. That means the species will not receive statutory protection under the Endangered Species Act and that states would continue to be responsible for managing the bird.

The announcement was published in the Federal Register [here]:

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce three 12–month findings on petitions to list three entities of the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that listing the greater sage-grouse (rangewide) is warranted, but precluded by higher priority listing actions. We will develop a proposed rule to list the greater sage-grouse as our priorities allow.

The USFWS also found that there is no “western” sub-species of the greater sage-grouse, based on new genetic studies:

We find that listing the western subspecies of the greater sage-grouse is not warranted, based on determining that the western subspecies is not a valid taxon and thus is not a listable entity under the Act.

The USFWS also declared the Mono Basin population of greater sage-grouse to be a new Distinct Population Segment (DPS), but that DPS will not be listed and threatened or endangered, either. It will also be placed on the list of candidate species.

We find that listing the Bi-State population (previously referred to as the Mono Basin area population), which meets our criteria as a distinct population segment (DPS) of the greater sage-grouse, is warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. We will develop a proposed rule to list the Bi-State DPS of the greater sage-grouse as our priorities allow, possibly in conjunction with a proposed rule to list the greater sage-grouse rangewide.

The listing decision was precipitated by a lawsuit filed by the Western Watersheds Project in 2006 that requested action on various petitions, beginning in 1999, for listing from the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, the Institute for Wildlife Protection, and the Stanford Law School Environmental Law Clinic on behalf of the Sagebrush Sea Campaign, Western Watersheds Project, Center for Biological Diversity, and Christians Caring for Creation.

Numerous court cases have followed the various petitions. No matter the USFWS findings, they get sued anyway. An unknown amount of EAJA funds have been paid out to the litigants over the years. The USFWS has many times found that listing was not warranted, but most recently (Dec. 2007) the U.S. District Court of Idaho ordered the USFWS to issue new findings, again. After some delays, the new finding of “candidate species” was issued today.

No word yet on whether more lawsuits will be filed, but observers agree that when the government pays enviro groups to sue them, lawsuits multiply like bacteria.

More info is available at the USFWS Greater Sage-Grouse website [here].

Audubon Awarded Sweetheart Contract By BLM

BLM looks to Audubon to map sage grouse habitat

AP, Billings Gazette, 02/17/2010 [here]

CHEYENNE, Wyo. - The U.S. Bureau of Land Management is looking to Audubon Wyoming to map sage grouse habitat across the 11 states where the bird is found.

Sage grouse have been losing their sagebrush habitat for decades and now face listing under the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expects to announce a listing decision next week.

New regulations resulting from an endangered or threatened species listing could substantially affect a variety of land uses across the West, including gas development and wind energy.

The BLM plans to award a contract for mapping sage grouse habitat to the Audubon Wyoming by early March. The contract amount has not been negotiated yet but won’t exceed $100,000, said Chad Hepp, a BLM contracting officer in Denver.

Audubon already works with various state agencies that have been studying where sage grouse habitat exists, Hepp said Tuesday. He said the group should be able to draw from that data without having to do new field research.

“We’re trying to pull everything into one central database and map it,” Hepp said.

The state wildlife agencies studying the greater sage grouse include the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, which with help from Audubon Wyoming created maps before the state announced core habitat zones for the species in 2008.

“This is an extension of the same work we’ve already done,” said Brian Rutledge, executive director of Audubon Wyoming. “Which just makes the most sense to do. Why reinvent the wheel?” …

Note: What the article convenient leaves out is that the Audubon Society has been a frequent plaintiff in lawsuits against the US Fish and Wildlife Service to force the Federal Government to list the sage grouse as an endangered species.

And now here comes this sweetheart no-bid contract. Conflict of interest? Extortion? Can their funky old counts done for lawsuit purposes be trusted? Exactly which invented wheel are they talking about?

Once again, your tax dollars at work, or at something.

Barred Owl Blasting Is Back

Yup, shotgun blasting of barred owls is back on the menu. The US Fish and Wildlife Service wants to blow the little birds to smithereens:

Fish and Wildlife Service Seeks Public Comments on Possible Experimental Removal of Barred Owls

USFWS News Release, Dec 9, 2009 [here]

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced it is preparing an environmental analysis of possible experimental removal of barred owls from three areas in Oregon and Washington, to determine if the removal benefits northern spotted owls. The agency is seeking public comments on the scope of the analysis that should be carried out; that is, what are the biological, social, economic and environmental effects that should be studied before the agency decides whether to conduct the experiments. The announcement will be published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2009.

“We will decide whether to conduct experimental removal of barred owls only after this open, transparent review of the effects those experiments might have,” said Paul Henson, the Fish and Wildlife Service supervisor in Oregon. “Removing individuals of a common species to benefit a species in peril is something the Fish and Wildlife Service does when necessary, but we will not proceed with this experimental removal until we better understand – and document – the environmental effects of doing it.” …

We first reported this amazing story over two years ago [here]

Shoot to Kill: The Curse of the Spotted Owl, Part 3

SOS Forests, May 8th, 2007

The latest “solution” proposed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to the Spotted Owl Crisis is to arm Federal “biologists” with shotguns, send them onto public and private property, and have them blast away at owls.

That’s right, sports fans. The defective brain trust at USFWS plans to give loaded weapons to wackos, form owl death squads, and send them out here to shoot to kill owls.

In the name of the Environment!!!!

Get this: after 15 years of intense expert study (ha ha, that’s a laugh), after 15 years of an economic straightjacket strapped on millions of citizens, after 15 years of a half-trillion dollar forest set-aside program, the architects of “owl biology” are punting.

They don’t have a clue about spotted owls, or the hope of a clue, and so have devolved their “owl biology” into a nightmare of pointless violence and owl murder. …

more »

Grouse vs. Fences

by the Baker City Herald Editorial Board, November 11, 2009 [here]

The results of a scientific study released a couple weeks ago suggest that on the ornithological intelligence scale, sage grouse are closer to the dodo bird than to the parrot.

The sage grouse in Western Wyoming are, anyway.

This study would have really tickled us, except that it could inform a decision that would have a dramatic, and detrimental, effect on ranchers in Eastern Oregon and across much of the West.

The federal government, as it has been at various times over the past several years, is trying to decide whether the sage grouse, of which there are populations in several states, should be listed as a threatened or endangered species.

The feds’ decision is significant. If the chicken-size bird is given federal protection, then some ranchers could be forced to stop grazing cattle on public lands that biologists deem critical habitat for sage grouse.

Biologists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies have laid most of the blame for the decline in sage grouse populations on the conversion of sagebrush habitat to such things as housing and agriculture.

That’s a logical explanation — the bird, as its name implies, depends almost entirely on sagebrush: for food, nesting habitat and protection from predators.

Which brings us to the Wyoming study, which was conducted in 2007.

Researchers concluded that during a seven-month period, as many as 146 sage grouse might have died because they flew into a 4.7-mile section of barbed-wire fence near Farson, Wyo.

We have no reason to question those statistics.

What worries us, though, is the prospect of federal officials citing the Wyoming study as evidence that sage grouse need the powerful protection of the Endangered Species Act.

The source of our skepticism is this: Barbed-wire fences have been widespread in the West for close to a century, yet even experts from the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies wrote in an assessment that sage grouse populations have been relatively stable since dropping substantially from about 1960 through the mid-1980s.

The obvious question, then, is why, if barbed-wire fences are such deadly obstacles for sage grouse, the birds have managed to not only survive, but for periods thrive, in a region where tens of thousands of miles of such fence have been in place for many decades?

Perhaps the federal government’s bird experts can answer that question.

If they cite barbed-wire fences as justification for listing sage grouse, we hope that answer is backed with convincing evidence.

Parallel Universe, Part One: When Two Worlds Collide – Ranching and Litigation

By Julie Kay Smithson, property rights researcher, London, Ohio [here]

Today’s ranchers raise beef that is leaner, grown with an eye toward both responsible grazing techniques and health-conscious consumers. Unlike America’s east, where private property is in the majority of land ownership, the federal government owns vast areas in the American west. Ranchers own grazing permits on federal lands. Modern ranching has become complex. Ranching practices must be leaner and greener in order to be environmentally responsible and profitable.

The West and its federal, or “public,” lands, is no exception.

Under the Taylor Grazing Act, the first grazing district to be established was Wyoming Grazing District Number 1 on March 23, 1935. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes created a Division of Grazing within the Department to administer the grazing districts; this division later became the U.S. Grazing Service and was headquartered in Salt Lake City. [1]

The Continental Congress, through the “Land Ordinance of 1785,” adopted a “Rectangular Survey System” on May 20, 1785, which defines the public lands by Township, Range and Section, modified by the Act of May 18, 1796, and other subsequent Acts into the recognizable cadastral survey system of today. Originally established by Congress in 1812 under the Treasury Department as the “General Land Office.” The GLO, among other things, was responsible for the surveys of the public lands. Successor to the GLO emerged when the consolidation of the GLO and the Grazing Service occurred on July 16, 1946, creating the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). [2]

In today’s world, being savvy about definitions and laws is vital to running a business. It is also of paramount importance to those whose custom and culture, work and lifestyles, carry the indelible stamp of resource providing: America’s farmers, commercial fishermen, miners, ranchers, and timber growers and harvesters. The saying, “If it can’t be grown, it must be mined,” is true. Food and fiber grown in America is necessary for the health of our nation. Responsible resource utilization encompasses not only the ability to extract or harvest resources, but also the keen, ever-learning manner in which those resources are brought from source to consumer.

Twenty-first century resource providers never leave the classroom – they are constantly in pursuit of new and better ways to both protect the natural environment and provide products that are skillfully grown/raised to be healthful. The old days of just “being” a rancher, farmer, logger, miner, or fisherman, are, as they say, “history.” Today’s history is being written by those dedicated to making a positive contribution to the earth and its people. Such dedication requires a willingness to learn that goes far beyond the confines of learning institutions, one that also respects the science that is ever evolving from those places.

Today’s holders of grazing permits in the West must keep in mind that new ways of grazing mean everything from riparian restoration to making sure livestock don’t tarry too long at any one watering or grazing location.

more »

Sage Grouse Subject to Predation

In a remarkable about-face, researchers have determined that sage grouse are NOT limited by “loss of habitat.” It turns out that sage grouse populations are governed by PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONS, just like all other animals.

Gob-smacked enviro-wackos are speechless. How could this be? You mean something is EATING the sage grouse? That sage grouse actually do much better when predators are controlled? That sage grouse populations are increasing on PRIVATE LAND where there are less predators due to human-based predator management?

Yes, Bunky, thems the facts.

Idaho State University researchers found that ravens and badgers eat grouse eggs [here], but not ground squirrels. The clever scientists set up webcams near grouse nests and WATCHED as wild predators gobbled pre-hatched chicks.

The researchers employed miniature, camouflaged infrared cameras to gather irrefutable evidence of what predators were eating sage grouse eggs, and to study a variety of sage grouse nesting behaviors. One finding of their research is that ground squirrels may have been unfairly linked to the predation of sage grouse eggs in nests. In addition, ravens have turned out to be a major predator of eggs in sage grouse nests.

… Some species of ground squirrels were suspected of being predators of eggs because of the remains of eggshells found in their scat and their occurrence near nesting sites. In addition, in eastern North America, there is definitive evidence of some species of ground squirrels preying. …

Film footage shot by Delehanty and Coates, however, repeatedly shows ground squirrels unable to successfully bite through eggs in nests. The eggs are simply too large for the squirrels. The ground squirrels were, however, seen consuming leftover eggshells, a valuable source of calcium, after the actual nest predator had destroyed the eggs. Thus, previous researchers who saw shells in ground squirrel scat and ground squirrels frequenting sage grouse nests were likely drawn to making incorrect assumptions.

Incorrect assumptions are rife in sage grouse studies. Most government-sponsored studies attempt to link (unsuccessfully) sage grouse decline with cattle grazing [here, for example]. However, much like ground squirrels, cattle do not eat grouse eggs, chicks, or full-grown birds either.

According to sue-happy enviro wackos, sage grouse populations are declining due to “loss of habitat from urban and energy development, wildfires, the spread of invasive weeds, global warming and livestock grazing” [here].

But that’s pure poppycock, junk science, and the braying of jackasses.

Real science, which is mainly concerned with reality, presents strong evidence that PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONS have everything to do with population dynamics, and that “loss of habitat” is a pile of bird crap.

Radical political Marxist-anarchists associated with Barky Hussein Obombo have aborted good science in favor of war plans to steal and destroy millions of acres of private land in the West via absurd, a-scientific sage grouse lawsuits.

Remarkably, some gummit researchers have not gotten the memo and persist in doing good science. You can be sure, however, that our new Administration has nothing but the worst intentions for America, and will continue to use absolute junk science to advance their anti-American, pro-Marxist agenda.

Idaho Needs To Take Control of Wolf Management

by Tony Mayer, Save Our Elk [here]

Several of us from our concerned citizens group had a meeting yesterday to discuss proposed wolf legislation in Idaho. In our meeting the proposed rule change IDAPA - Idaho Fish and Game was discussed. Our group is unanimously opposed to this rule change and recommends that this proposal be tabled or killed. Below is a summary of some of our concerns:

IDAPA 13 - IDAHO FISH AND GAME COMMISSION

13.01.08 - RULES GOVERNING THE TAKING OF BIG GAME ANIMALS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO

DOCKET NO. 13-0108-0801

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY: The following is a nontechnical explanation of the substance and purpose of the proposed rulemaking: The Wolf Management Plan calls for maintaining viable wolf populations at or near current levels of 500-700 wolves. The proposed rules allow hunting of wolves pursuant to seasons set by the Commission.

FEE SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 67-5226(2), the Governor has found that the fee or charge being imposed or increased is justified and necessary to avoid immediate danger and the fee is described herein.

Concern #1. The 500-700 wolves is a complete departure from the 100 wolf minimum and 150 wolf objective and from the Wolf Policy outlined in the WCMP. Further, because the IDFG “population plan” did not follow the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (see pages 4, 5, 18, 22, and 24 here) nor is it a lawfully amended version of that plan approved by the Legislature, this language should not be approved as part of a Permanent Rule and the Idaho Legislature should instruct the F&G Commission to repeal the plan and rewrite it in accordance with I.C. Sec. 36-715.

Concern #2. The imposition of more stringent fair chase standards and/or weapon restrictions for wolves than for other predators classified as either big game or furbearers will make them more difficult to hunt and harvest. For example, bears and lions may be hunted with hounds, bears may be hunted over bait, and lions may be killed using .22 caliber rimfire ammunition, and using electronic calls in specific locations, but none of these are legal in hunting wolves according to the rule changes.

Concern #3. In 2005, HB 132 amended I.C. Sec. 36-201 “Fish and Game Commission Authorized to Classify Wildlife” by adding the following: “Notwithstanding the classification assigned to wolves, all methods of take including, but not limited to, all methods utilized by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the USDA Wildlife Services, shall be authorized for the management of wolves in accordance with existing laws or approved management plans.” Yet, also in 2005, the IDFG Commission Rule classifying the Gray Wolf as a Game Animal was approved as IDAPA Rule 13.01.08.10.(k); and IDAPA Rule 13.01.08.410.05(d) prohibits the use of any net, snare, trap, chemical, deadfall or device other than legal firearm, archery or muzzleloader equipment to take a big game animal. This error should be corrected.

The Rules Subcommittee needs to address these concerns and correct the discrepancies between what the law says and what IDFG has done. In addition:

more »

The Barred Owl Strikes Again — It’s the Avian Bart Simpson!

The little dickens! The bad, bad, barred owl has been singled out again. This time the feathered fiend is being blamed for spreading avian malaria to that most pathetic of birdish species, the spotted owl. News Flash from the Dead Tree Press [here]:

Study turns up avian malaria in northern spotted owl

PORTLAND(AP) — A new study of parasites in the northern spotted owl has turned up the first documented case of avian malaria in the threatened species.

The study by San Francisco State University biologists was part of a larger investigation of blood-borne parasites in birds of prey.

Avian malaria is transmitted by mosquitoes, the same way humans are infected by another strain of the disease.

Researchers say even a single case is significant because blood parasites are an indicator of the overall health of a bird species.

They are trying to determine whether the avian malaria was introduced by the barred owl, a closely related species that has been taking over spotted owl habitat and is considered a threat to its survival.

The barred owl is a winged Bart Simpson. Whatever problems Spotty is having, it must be caused by Bart Barred Owl. So say the “researchers.”

But not to worry, the “researchers” (aka bird biologists) have the solution well in hand: barred owl blasting. That’s right, sports fans. Bird biologists, the very same bird brains who gave us the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), are hot to trot to blast barred owls out of the sky with shotguns. With their trigger fingers itching, “researchers” are already humping down logging roads and blasting away at owls from tailgates of pickup trucks. They call it “a redneck sport” [here].

It must be Bart Barred Owl, because who else could we blame for the utter and complete failure of the NWFP?

more »

Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan Inflicted

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has released the long-promised “final” recovery plan for the northern spotted owl. The entire plan is [here] (4,100 KB)

The recovery plan and other information, including a press release, may also be found on the USFWS NSO website [here].

The northern spotted owl was listed as endangered species in 1990. Finally, 18 years later, a recovery plan has been promulgated. The recovery plan was was proposed over a year ago, but withdrawn after wide criticisms. From the USFWS press release:

A draft recovery plan for the northern spotted owl was completed in 1992 but not finalized due to the development of the Northwest Forest Plan, which amended 26 land and resource management plans (LRMPs) of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. These LRMPs serve as the basis of conservation for a wide variety of species, including the northern spotted owl. The draft recovery plan released today builds on the Forest Plan and solely addresses the recovery needs of the northern spotted owl.

The Northwest Forest Plan has been a catastrophic failure. Spotted owl populations have declined 60 percent or more, old-growth habitat has been incinerated in megafires, and the economy of the region, especially the rural economy, has been decimated. Absolutely no good has come from the Northwest Forest Plan. The 18 years of suffering and tragedy associated have been a monumental waste. For 18 years!

Now bird biologists and the overweening Federal Government (motto: “We’re here to screw you over royally”) have a new plan. We will evaluate in depth it in future posts, but some general conclusions may be drawn at this time.

The northern spotted owl recovery plan (NSORP) has apparently dropped all the whoofoo language. Whoofoos (wildland use fires) are let-it-burn fires. The draft plan withdrawn a year ago was riddled with whoofoo. The drafters of that bizarre arsonist manifesto wished to incinerate spotted owl stands in catastrophic holocausts. Now the language has been toned down somewhat. There is still some verbiage about “managed wildland fire” but whoofoo has been nixed.

Barred owl blasting with shotguns from the back of pickup trucks by (drunk or stoned) employees of the USFWS is not mentioned explicitly but is implied. Although there is little or no scientific evidence that barred owls displace spotted owls, the NSORP calls for “large-scale barred owl control experiments.” Lock and load! USFWS bird biologists refer to barred owl blasting as “a redneck sport” [here]. HeeHaw!

Although barred owl blasting (BOB) is attractive to eco-wackos, the lack of wholesale megafire forest incineration is not, and no doubt the nutwads will be suing the USFWS for failure to burn down the Pacific Northwest in short order. So there is some question as to whether the NSORP will be a viable thing or a litigious punching bag.

We will do a more thorough review very soon, and pick the NSORP apart. The re-authors did make an effort to do a better job than they did with the draft plan, which was atrocious. The new language is less odious, by and large.

We invite you to read it. There is no “comment period.” This is it. The NSORP will soon be published in the Federal Register and become the Law Of The Land.

You probably thought you lived in a democracy, and had a vote about the laws that impact your life, destroy your landscape, and cripple your economy. Hahahahahaha. Get real!

Like a Redneck Sport

The barred owl blasting we predicted [here, here, here, here, here] has already begun. Self-described and alleged “biologists” and “researchers” have been driving around Northern California shooting owls with shotguns from the back of pickup trucks.

From the Oregonian yesterday [here]:

Shooting one owl to save another

A scientist says it’s an easy, inexpensive way to get rid of barred owls and help spotted owls

Michael Milstein, The Oregonian Staff, Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Biologists grappled Tuesday with the realities of shooting barred owls that invade the older forest habitat of federally protected northern spotted owls, a strategy critics say the Bush administration employs to help spotted owls while also trimming away at their preserves in an effort to open up logging.

A scientist who experimented with barred owl control in Northern California said it proved relatively easy, at least in limited areas of accessible forests, and removing some adult barred owls before nesting season could control the broader population and open a window for spotted owls to come back.

The cost would be relatively minor, Lowell Diller, a biologist with Green Diamond Resource Co. in Northern California, told researchers meeting Tuesday in Portland. He cautioned he wasn’t trying to make light of it, but said, “This is almost like a redneck sport — you do it from the tail of your pickup.”

A redneck sport! Not to make light of it, but what color is your neck, Lowell?

more »