1. RE: We might lose the ESA if we actually use it.
A. That's a lot like telling someone to keep their mouth shut because our
free speech might get taken away.
B. The ESA has already been killed to a large extent by the USFWS which
refused to enforce it and agencies such as the Forest Service and Bureau of
Reclamation which refuse to follow it. How many species have been listed
under the ESA in the Southwest in the last 5 years due to the integrity of
the Fish and Wildlife Service? Zero. How many have been listed due to
lawsuits and activst pressure? 100%. How many of the Southwest's native
fish have been listed as threatened or endangered by the Feds or the State?
about 80%. How many have recovered? Zero. How many grazing allotments
have the Fish and Wildlife Service shut down to protect native fisheries?
Zero. How many jeopardy opinions has the Fish and Wildlife Service issued
on the Central Arizona Project? Five. What impact has this had? None.
How many petitions and lawsuits will it take to make the Service enforce the
ESA and protect native fish? We've filed about 20 inthe last year, probably
need about 20 more.....The battle is not about using the ESA to its fullest
or not, that's what they like us to think, the battle is about the massive
effort needed to secure even the smallest amount of protection that the ESA
is supposed to ensure.
2. RE: Mexican spotted owl habitat use.
A. MSO does not select for edges. It is forest interior species. One of
the greatest threats to the MSO is increased predation and competition by
edge loving raptors such as Great horned owls and Red tail hawks which come
in when logging creates lots of openings and edges. Opening and edges also
decrease humidity and increase tempertures- very bad for MSO.
B. The study you cite is probably Ganey, J.L. and R.P. Balda. 1994.
Habitat selection by Mexican spotted owls in Northern Arizona. The Auk
11(1):162-169. Some quotes:
"Perhaps the most striking pattern with respect to foraging habitat
was the consistant avoidance of managed forests..."
"...Mexican spotted owls use virgin [their words not mine] ponderosa
pine forests mainly for foraging..."
"Most owls roosted primarily in virgin mixed-conifer forests, with
some also rooting in virgin ponderosa pine forests."
"The consistent avoidance of logged stands and the use of mature or
virgin stands at levels greater than expected argue for retention of virgin
(or at least mature) forests in areas occupied by Mexican spotted owls."
Get the idea?
3. RE: The big fire threat
A. The industry and forest disservice rhetoric is that unmanaged forests
are a severe fire threat because all the messy downed logs and snags and
stuff. Enviros, therefore, are endangering the good citizenry by preventing
the forest service for reducing fuel loads through loggin. Bullshit. The
largest fire in the Southwest in recent history is the Dude Fire on the
Tonto National Forest- a heavily managed forest. In fact, the forest
service was unable to sell three different timber sales in the area because
there were not enough large trees to make it worth anyone's while. There is
absolutely no evidence that catastrophic fires are more closely related to
unmanaged forests than managed forests. But then again, the whole debate is
bullshit, well orchestrated by the forest service and industry to obscure
the real issues. THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO UNMANAGED FOREST WITHIN THE TIMBER
BASE IN THE SOUTHWEST, ALMOST EVERYTHING WITHIN THE TIMBER BASE HAS ALREADY
BEEN ENTERED AT LEAST ONCE. The question then has very little to do with a
mythical battle between the managemed and unmanaged forest. It is really
about whether we are going to let the forest service to cut the few
remaining old growth pines left in the timber base.
B. Don''t buy the hype that "fire suppression" has caused too many (i.e too
dense) small trees. The scientific literature very clearly indicates that
timber cutting and overgrazing have also been very important contributers.
If the forest service was really concerned about "forest health" they would
start taking the cows off the forest, otherwise those thickets are just
going to grow back.
4. The first rule of oppression is control the parameters of debate and
make sure everyone is arguing about tangential issues.
Kieran Suckling
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity
Greater Gila Biodiversity Project
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0