Owl data knowingly faulty

Washington Times ^ | 3/14/02 | Audrey Hudson

[mjf]

Oh, and by the way, this is my favorite section of the writing:

"I came away with the strong impression that it was, in fact, within my gestalt notion of what suitable nesting habitat is after having walked through dozens of places like this throughout the Sierra Nevada and in other parts of the owl's distribution throughout the West," Mr. Verner said.

As he drove through the forest, Mr. Verner said, "I had the feeling I was never outside a stone's throw of suitable foraging habitat at least."

This kind of stuff cannot be duplicated by those who stand on the Earth.

Or at least as far as I can tell.

[Eva]

Tell Brian that the problem with the spotted owl listing is that there is evidence that the Northwestern spotted owl is no different than any other spotted owl and does not need old growth forests to roost. As for the lynx study, yes the data was removed, but the same lab was used to identify other lynx hair, so that casts doubt on the other results as well.

We are just sick and tired of Eastern liberal elites who want to preserve land in other people's back yards. They are concerned with desolate ANWR, but not the beautiful, once pristine, beaches of Long Island or Nantucket. Now they are running into problems of their own making, however. I read that an environmental group is trying to stop the expansion work on the Woodrow Wilson bridge in DC. Maybe we should make them a trade, you get your bridge expansion if we get to drill in the ANWR.

[madfly]

bump