FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!
Posted on 10/21/2005 10:00:44 AM PDT by GreenFreeper
GRANTS PASS, Ore. — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed yesterday that it will propose removing threatened-species protection from the marbled murrelet, a small seabird at the center of battles over logging in the Northwest.
The proposal, to be formally made by the end of the year, will start a yearlong evaluation of the status of the bird. The marbled murrelet lives its life at sea but uses big old trees near the coast for nesting, laying a single egg in a mossy depression on a large branch.
The proposal is based on the idea that the 17,000 to 20,000 birds living off Washington, Oregon and California — now protected as a threatened species — are not distinct from the nearly 1 million other birds living off the coasts of British Columbia and Alaska, said Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman Joan Jewett.
The decision is the latest step in a process that began with a lawsuit filed by the timber-industry group American Forest Resource Council, demanding that a five-year review of the bird's status be done, as required by the Endangered Species Act.
Court battles over needs of the marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl and salmon led the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management to adopt the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994, which cut logging on federal lands in Washington, Oregon and Northern California by 80 percent to protect fish and wildlife habitat. Even those diminished logging levels have never been met because of legal battles and lack of funds for federal agencies, leading the timber industry to press the Bush administration to ease restrictions.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!
SOmeone spark up the barbequeue... we got some snacking to do. They'll be the center of attention at the next tailgate party!
Distribution MAP
The murrelet's dependance on old-growth nesting habitat and use of coastal marine feeding areas have brought it into frequent conflict with human economic interests, especially in the southern portion of its range where small, geographically concentrated populations are especially vulnerable to extirpation. However, both natural and human-related factors may be contributing to the species' decline; potential causes include the loss of suitable nesting habitat, accidental death in gill-nets, oil pollution, increases in predator populations, and declines in food supplies due to recent El Nino events.
Excuse me, but this is borderline disinformation if anything. Allow me:
The murrelet's dependance on old-growth nesting habitat
Large mossy branches suitable for murrelet nesting can be found on trees less than 100 years old.
use of coastal marine feeding areas
A simple overflight of the Pacific Coast belies this claim. Very little of it is developed.
especially in the southern portion of its range where small, geographically concentrated populations are especially vulnerable to extirpation.
Transitional and marginal habitat is always an iffy proposition for any species. Climate change may be more of a factor here than human influence as are shifts in oceanic thermal inversions. The point is, murrelet populations have held steady in our area for a very long time.
accidental death in gill-nets,
I'll give them that one.
oil pollution,
This is nonsense. The amount of oil pollution in this region today is dwarfed by the spills of the twentieth century.
increases in predator populations, and declines in food supplies due to recent El Nino events.
About which we can and should do nothing unless humans are witlessly abetting specific predators (such as Stellar's jays, which eat eggs).
I do agree the use of "old-growth" is a quite humorous. The other potential causes I can agree with though. While the development of the coast may be minimal, it still can have an impact (however small or large). It may be very minor but an impact is an impact.
Transitional and marginal habitat is always an iffy proposition for any species
This is the big one in my opinion. Successful species these days have a very large niche occupancy while the struggling species have a relatively small one. Any slight modification of that niche is amplified exponentially.
If we could just teach suburbanites to buy jay-proof feeders that would do a lot.
Send some to the midwest. We have seen a huge decline in Blue Jays in the last few years (likely due to west nile). They seem to be doing slightly better this year but the numbers are way down from historical records (heck just from 8-10 years ago).
Bring back DDT. DDT did more for bird populations than is commonly understood, because it killed the mites that caused the birds to get pneumonia. Audubon society bird counts during the period of DDT production report vast INCREASES in bird counts. The egg-shell-thinning story was a myth.
Heavy metal pollution is the likely cause of egg-thinning. While returning use of DDT might help bird populations, it would have some large impacts on amphibians. I don't agree with the outright ban but used irresponsibly DDT can be pretty bad and persistently bad.
As I have stated numerous times...nothing is completely free of detriment. There are always going to be trade offs to any management decisions- ala Red Queen Hypothesis!
There are all sorts of causes. Low calcium diet. Stress of any kind. Dehydration. Oil pollution (as was the case on Annacappa (when the FWS wasn't scaring the pelicans to death with their helicopters)).
Once again, GF, the causes are site specific. See tagline.
I thought it was all global warming, evil humans, and progress?
why oh why are they allowing the mullet to DIE!!!!?????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.