Photo by Ellen Miller

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Killing barred owls will aid recovery of Oregon's spotted owls, federal wildlife officials believe

Killing barred owls will aid recovery of Oregon's spotted owls, federal wildlife officials believe


78
comments

Killing barred owls will aid recovery of Oregon's spotted owls, federal wildlife officials believe

Debate on whether to kill barred owls to save spotted owls
When researchers killed barred owls in a northern California management experiment, threatened spotted owls returned to nesting sites. (California Academy of Sciences)
Eric Mortenson, The OregonianBy Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian 
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on July 23, 2013 at 4:50 PM, updated July 23, 2013 at 8:20 PM
Email




Acknowledging it's a grim "last resort" experiment to save threatened northern spotted owls, federal wildlife officials plan to shoot or remove more than 3,600 barred owls from West Coast forests over the next four years.

Barred owls are larger, more aggressive and less picky about what they eat than their cousins, and have taken over much of the spotted owl's territory in Oregon, Washington and Northern California. By shooting barred owls or using non-lethal removal methods in four test areas, researchers hope to document whether spotted owls will recover.

But the wrenching decision to kill one species in order to benefit another has split biologists, conservationists and timber industry officials for the past three years. Some believe wildlife populations should not be artificially manipulated and that in the owls' case, natural selection is at work.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is in charge of the decision, found the issue so troubling that it hired an environmental ethicist to guide its discussions.

Robin Bown, a wildlife service biologist heading the project, said she doesn't expect full public support for killing barred owls to protect spotted owls.


"Some people will tell us it's OK to let them go extinct; we don't feel we can do that," she said. "We feel very strongly we have to deal with issues driving the northern spotted owl to extinction."

Spotted owls became the symbol of the timber industry's decline after they were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act more than 20 years ago. A 1990 report estimated logging had reduced the owl's favored old-growth habitat by up to 88 percent.

Severe logging restrictions on federal forests followed the owl's listing, and timber harvest numbers reflect the change. In 1988, Oregon loggers cut 4.9 billion board feet of timber on federal land. The 2009 federal harvest was 240 million board feet.

In recent years, however, wildlife biologists concluded that barred owls are a more immediate threat to spotted owls than habitat loss.

Barred owls are native to the East Coast and advanced slowly with settlers. They were reported in Montana by 1909, British Columbia by 1959 and in Washington and Oregon by the early 1970s.
GS.41OWLS124-02.jpgView full size
 Biologists believe the Northwest's barred owl now "completely overlaps" the spotted owls' range. The latter are declining at a rate of nearly 3 percent a year, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

While spotted owls nest in old growth forests and prefer to eat flying squirrels, barred owls are more flexible. Old growth is their first choice of habitat, but they'll live in younger forests and even city parks. They eat a variety of rodents and small mammals.

In the wild, territorial barred owls harass or even kill spotted owls. A Washington timber company biologist once compared the competition to a "generalist" -- barred owls -- against a "specialist" -- spotted owls.

"And invariably the generalist will win," said Blake Murden, of Port Blakely Tree Farms in Tumwater, Wash.

In deciding to remove barred owls, Fish and Wildlife officials drew upon the work of Lowell Diller, a wildlife biologist with Green Diamond Resource Co. in the redwoods of Northern California.

Working under a federal permit, Diller and other researchers killed 73 barred owls on the private timber company's land from 2009 to 2012. In every case Diller knows of, spotted owls returned to historic nesting areas. In one case, a pair of spotted owls that hadn't been seen for more than two years reappeared 10 days after a pair of barred owls were shot.

Green Diamond owns forestland over about a 100 mile stretch from Eureka north to the Oregon border. Diller has monitored spotted owls in the company's forests for 23 years, and believes very few would be left if barred owls hadn't been removed.

He believes killing barred owls in the four experiment areas is worth a try.
"The alternative," he said, " is to give up on conservation of spotted owls."

The question to be answered, he said, is the long-term feasibility of reducing and controlling barred owls over the spotted owls' full range, from Northern California to British Columbia.

Letting spotted owls go extinct is "not a good alternative when you consider how much resources we've already committed" in recovery efforts, Diller said.

Wildlife officials have intervened with other species, such as removing or killing California sea lions that eat threatened salmon bunched up at Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River. They've killed cormorants and terns that feed on juvenile salmon and steelhead in the Columbia, and Oregon also offers a bounty on northern pike minnows, which eat young salmon.

Barred owl removal will take place in the Cle Elum area of Washington state, in the Coast Range/Veneta and Union/Myrtle areas of Oregon, and the Hoopa/Willow Creek areas of northern California. For comparison, each removal area will be paired with a control section where barred owls are not killed.

The removal plan is a "preferred alternative" that will become final after 30 days. Bown, the biologist in charge, thinks the experiment will work.

"I personally believe we'll see an improvement in our spotted owl population where we remove barred owls," she said. "What we don't know is how we'll keep them out the area -- the feasibility and efficiency and efficacy of the process."

--Eric Mortenson

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Model made of mythical owls

Model made of mythical owls


GUEST VIEWPOINT

Model made of mythical owls

A flawed computer model led to nonsensical restrictions on timber management in Oregon


PUBLISHED: 
On June 26 a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ordered the Bureau of Land Management to comply with the law and offer more timber for sale in Southwest Oregon. The judge also found that federal agencies had broken the law by not adhering to rulemaking requirements in instituting the Owl Estimation Methodology, a flawed model for quantifying the impact of federal timber harvests on the spotted owl.
Most of the media coverage has rightly focused on the judge’s order to sell more timber. The little coverage of the owl estimation portion of the ruling has failed to describe the absolute lunacy underpinning a computer model that led to nonsensical restrictions on timber management throughout Western Oregon. It deserves greater scrutiny from the public and our elected officials.
What if an agent of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service knocked on your door and told you that you could not harvest any of the vegetables in your garden because it is the home of a threatened slug? You know first-hand that none of these slugs exist in your garden, so your mouth drops when the agent insists that a very sophisticated computer model has determined that your garden is definitely the home of the slug.
Wondering what the consequences of harvesting your vegetables might be, you ask, “What would happen if I ate one of my carrots?”
He then becomes serious and tells you, “We would have to prosecute you for ‘taking’ a threatened species.”
Not believing your ears, you say, “Are you telling me if I ate one of my carrots, I would face federal charges for ‘taking’ a slug that no one has ever seen in my garden?”
“Yes,” he replies.
Wondering if this could get any more bizarre, you ask, “What would happen if I ate another carrot tomorrow?”
He answers, “You would be charged for taking another threatened species.”
For clarification, you ask, “So I would be charged for taking two slugs for eating two carrots even though no one has ever seen one of these slugs in my garden?”
His reply: “Yes.”
Following this, you wonder, “I have 50 carrots, 25 heads of lettuce, 25 zucchini and 25 summer squash. Would I be charged with ‘taking’ 125 slugs if I picked all my vegetables?”
He calmly replies, “Yes.”
Wouldn’t you be outraged at such a ridiculous situation? We were — which is why we joined the lawsuit challenging the use of the Owl Estimation Methodology to determine how many spotted owls would be “taken” due to harvesting trees on our publicly owned federal lands.
None of us wants any species to go extinct. Federal forest managers consult with the Fish & Wildlife Service to ensure that their actions will not jeopardize a threatened species. The owl methodology was developed following a different court decision requiring the agencies to either quantify the amount of “take” that would occur from an activity or to disclose that quantifying the “take” is impossible.
“Take” in this case is not the killing of an owl, but rather a disruption that somehow might “harm” the species. Rather than deciding to disclose why quantifying “take” for the spotted owl is impossible (which it is), the Fish & Wildlife Service developed a very sophisticated computer model built by the very best scientists to spit out a number the computer says is how many owls would be taken due to harvesting trees.
On many occasions, this model creates spotted owl home ranges where no owls have ever been found. The Fish & Wildlife Service then requires these acres to be protected the same as those lands that are occupied by owls. Most of these mythical home ranges are created in areas that are already below the habitat conditions the service has deemed to be necessary to avoid “take,” so the harvest of one tree will be deemed as a “take.”
Just as with the phantom slugs in your garden, under the Owl Estimation Methodology thousands of phantom owls can be taken that no one has ever found and are not known to even exist.
While the owl estimation madness has now been stopped, the Fish & Wildlife Service has created another “very sophisticated computer model built by the very best scientists” to declare that more than 9 million acres of federal land is “critical” spotted owl habitat, even though half of this land has been identified as either unsuitable or marginal habitat.
A lawsuit has been filed challenging this decision — but ultimately our elected leaders must step up to put an end to these flawed policies that threaten our forests and communities.
Ross Mickey of Eugene is the federal forest manager for the American Forest Resource Council.

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Driven by exports from private forests, timber harvest in Oregon up for third year in a row

Driven by exports from private forests, timber harvest in Oregon up for third year in a row


logging.JPG
A strong export market for private forest logs continues to drive increased timber harvests. (Thomas Boyd/The Oregonian)
Eric Mortenson, The OregonianBy Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian 
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on July 08, 2013 at 5:43 PM, updated July 08, 2013 at 5:55 PM


Oregon's timber harvest reached 3.75 billion board feet in 2012, continuing a recovery from the crash of the housing market and the depths of the recession. In 2009, loggers cut 2.75 billion board feet, but the harvest has increased each year since.

The increased harvest has been driven by a strong export market and a slight improvement in housing starts, according to a report by the Oregon Department of Forestry. Timber from state and federal forests cannot be exported, but tribal and other privately-held timber can be shipped overseas.

Harvests from Native American-owned forests increased 21 percent in 2012, reaching a total of 63 million board feet. The harvest on "industrial" forests -- land owned by large timber companies -- increased 4 percent to 2.56 billion board feet. Owners of smaller family forest tracts cut 318 million board feet in 2012, more than a 14 percent increase over 2011.

Private and tribal harvests accounted for approximately 78 percent of the timber harvest in Oregon in 2012 despite making up only 37 percent of Oregon's timberland. About 60 percent of Oregon's 30 million acres of forest is owned by the federal government. 

Harvests on U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and state and county lands declined or remained about the same in 2012.

--Eric Mortenson