Fish and Wildlife Service opens comment period for spotted owl plan

From Bob Zybach:
Here is what Oregonlive posted:

Fish and Wildlife Service opens comment period for spotted owl plan
Published: Thursday, April 21, 2011, 5:57 PM
Updated: Thursday, April 21, 2011, 6:07 PM
The Oregonian By The Oregonian

Debate on whether to kill barred owls to save spotted owls

The latest recovery plan for the northern spotted owl has been opened
for public comment after drawing a legal challenge and technical
questions months ago.

Oregon Public Broadcasting reports the recovery plan is meant to guide
how forested areas from Washington to Northern California are managed,
to protect the threatened spotted owl.

A 2008 recovery plan was the target of a legal battle, and a report
found the Bush administration interfered politically in that plan.

But the timber industry has raised concerns about the latest Obama
administration revisions, and sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
over its planning process.

Now the federal agency is asking the public to comment on one of the
most controversial pieces of the plan - computer modeling. The comment
period closes May 23.

Here is my predictable response:

1) American hoot owls are not a threatened or endangered species. The
proof is that spotted hoot owls -- which are relatively uncommon --
can breed and produce viable offspring with barred hoot owls, which
are very common and have been actively expanding their numbers and
range for decades. To provide an appropriate analogy, their are more
differences in coloration, size, physiology, range, vocalization,
diet, and preferred habitat (by far) between a Pygmy and a Swede than
between a spotted hoot owl and a barred hoot owl. The differences
between a German shorthair and a French poodle are not so great as
those between a Pygmy and a Swede, but are still far greater than
those between a barred hoot owl and a spotted hoot owl.

2) Computerized modeling is not "science," it is gaming. Computerized
gaming is a useful tool for scientists, but is a poor and misleading
substitute for actual scientific methodology; which usually involves
observation, documentation, analysis, hypothesis, prediction and/or
experimentation as critical elements. Modeling is great for
engineering, but it has never shown itself to be useful for the life
sciences so far as predictive capabilities are concerned. Modeling
predictions for spotted (and barred) hoot owls in the 1980s, as
examples, have turned out to be as accurate as modeling predictions
for climate change. None of the predictions have come true. That means
that the assumptions and/or hypotheses used in the computer games were
erroneous. "Garbage in, garbage out," is what they used to say. Same
concept remains true to this time.

3) "Habitat," as typically defined by wildlife biologists or
"ecologists" of some ilk or another (I am an "historical ecologist,"
for example), does not provide a good basis for predicting wildlife
populations for favored species. Building more "habitat" for spotted
hoot owls over the past 30 years has resulted in reduced populations
of that animal, not greater, despite modeling predictions to the
contrary. To continue with the biped analogy, building more apartment
houses in Detroit will not likely result in a greater human population
in that city -- even with increased food supplies. Same with kennels
and dogs.

This is all politics, not science. People wanted to stop logging (and
jobs) on federal forestlands and rural communities, and they got their
way. Now we have widespread unemployment and catastrophic wildfires --
exactly as predicted in the 1990s by using traditional scientific
methodologies.

American forests can store more carbon emissions than previously thought

Published: Thursday, April 14, 2011, 5:08 PM     Updated: Thursday, April 14, 2011, 5:49 PM

By Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian
Follow

Share4

Share Email Print

View full sizeThe Associated PressA dense forest of Douglas fir, madrone and oak cover a steep hillside on federal forest land outside Ruch, Ore.

A research project headed by an Oregon State University professor showed American forests can absorb up to 40 percent of the nation's fossil fuel carbon emissions -- much more than previously thought.

The findings demonstrate the role U.S. ecosystems play in slowing down the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the researchers concluded in the study. It provides one of the most accurate assessments to date of the nation's carbon balance, according to an OSU news release.

The results were published in the journal "Agricultural and Meteorology." Beverly Law, a professor at OSU's Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, co-authored the study. The research team included scientists from 35 institutions.

Previous studies estimated forests and other vegetation could sequester only about 30 percent of emissions or less. Carbon dioxide, released by burning fossil fuels such as gasoline used in cars, is a major greenhouse gas and a factor in what most scientists believe is a pattern of global warming.

The research team said major disturbances such as droughts, wildfires and hurricanes can reduce the forests' ability to absorb carbon in any given year. Droughts in 2002 and 2006 reduced the sequestration rate to about 20 percent in the lower 48 states.

--Eric Mortenson

Putting wood (naturally) back in Oregon's future

Published: Monday, April 11, 2011, 1:04 PM     Updated: Monday, April 11, 2011, 1:08 PM

By Guest Columnist

By Tom Holt

Virtually at the same time and for many of the same reasons, a federal agency and Oregon's forest sector have put forth initiatives that favor wood as a green building material.

Just last week, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced a new strategy to promote wood in construction for U.S. Forest Service and other USDA buildings to help meet green building requirements. "Wood has a vital role to play in meeting the growing demand for green building materials, and Forest Service studies show that wood compares favorably to competing materials," Vilsack said.

And earlier in March, Oregon's House Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee held a public hearing on House Bill 3429 -- a bill that would direct the state of Oregon to use wood as a preferred building material. Called the Oregon "Wood First" bill, it states that for structures built with state funds after July 1, 2012, the building materials used should be -- to the maximum extent possible and economically feasible -- made from wood. The bill was introduced by Rep. Mike Schaufler, D-Happy Valley, and Rep. Sherrie Sprenger, R-Lebanon, and is supported by the Oregon Forest Industries Council.

The Oregon bill is modeled after British Columbia's Wood First Act, passed in October 2009. Passage by the Oregon Legislature would make the bill the first of its kind in the United States.

British Columbia's minister of jobs, tourism and innovation, Pat Bell, steered the bill through that province's legislative assembly. He testified in person at the Oregon House hearing: "Government on both sides of the border can lead by example by making wood its preferred choice for public buildings. With wood used in just 15 percent of commercial and institutional construction, we have a major opportunity to expand the market for wood products." Bell said the program is producing positive results in his district and elsewhere in the province, and even those who opposed the legislation now recognize its merits.

If this were any state other than Oregon, we might toss these initiatives aside as so much industry posturing. But consider that Oregon is the nation's number one supplier of softwood lumber and plywood panels. We are among the nation's most forested states, second only to Alaska. The forest and wood products sector makes up about 8.5 percent of Oregon's total payroll and ranks in the top four among Oregon traded sectors -- those industries producing income for goods and services sold out of state.

From an environmental perspective, wood holds a competitive advantage over other building materials. It requires less energy to produce. It stores carbon, reducing its contribution to climate change. It's renewable, reusable and recyclable. The use of wood encourages investment in responsible forest management. Landowners are rewarded for keeping Oregon's working forests in a forested condition, conserving clean water, fish and wildlife habitat and recreation instead of selling them for a non-forest use. And Oregon's forests are protected by strong laws that require replanting.

Just think of the possibilities if Oregon were to become the nation's leading advocate for wood products -- more innovation, more stable markets, more jobs and a cleaner environment. The sustainable use of forests and wood products defines us as Oregonians. In this state, it just makes sense to embrace "wood first."

Tom Holt, of Forest Capital Partners in Portland, is chairman of the
Oregon Forest Industries Council.

Judge finds Ore. logging plan withdrawn illegally

Associated Press, 03.31.11, 02:49 PM EDT


GRANTS PASS, Ore -- A federal judge has told the Obama administration it has to go through a public comment period before it can yank the Bush administration's controversial plan to double the amount of logging on federal forests in Western Oregon.

The ruling Thursday does not revive the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Western Oregon Plan Revision, popularly known by the acronym WOPR.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar pulled it in 2009 because the Bush administration had failed to have it reviewed for endangered species impacts - and it still would have to pass muster over potential harm to salmon and northern spotted owls.

Bob Ragon of Douglas Timber Operators, which filed the lawsuit, says the Obama administration should go through that review step before making a decision.