EF! Fined $1million in Idaho
donb at rational.com
Sun Nov 24 14:13:56 EST 1996
In article <32980933.743D at rippers.com>,
norm lenhart <lenhart at rippers.com> wrote:
>Don Baccus wrote:
>> Please list those species for which you believe your statement to be
>> true. We'll take 'em one at a time. We already know you're wrong
>> for northern spotted owl except for the special case of second-growth
>> redwood forests, but if you insist we'll stomp this into the dust
>> once again.
>Heres a couple.
>Bear,deer, beaver, muskrat, big cats, owls (even the spotted was proven
>to migrate to secondary growth redwood) , squirell, wolf...
>Start with those. Theres plenty more.
Sorry, I want to see your list of species which biologists claim to
be old-growth dependent, which you believe really aren't. Bear, deer,
beaver, muskrat, and big cats aren't thought to be old-growth dependent
by any biologist I know of.
As far as northern spotted owl goes, I already mentioned that you're
wrong about it's not being dependent on old-growth forests except in
the special case of second-growth redwood forests, so I fail to see
why you bothered to parrot my statement as proof that I'm wrong. In
case you've forgotten, the USFS is charged with maintaining species
on National Forests throughout their range, and the vast majority of
National Forests which are within the northern spotted owl's range
is not redwood forest...
>> Do you truly believe that there are no late-successional dependent species?
>> This seems like an odd belief to me, given the evolutionary tendency for
>> specialist species to exploit narrow niches.
>Narrow but not imutable. which is my whole point. They CAN migrate if
Name those that can, please. Back to the original question. Listing
species which aren't dependent on old-growth doesn't support your
>> I don't belong to the Sierra Club. My organization - the Portland
>> Audubon Society -
>Correct me if im wrong (and I may be) but didnt you comment on "MY"
>financial intrest in these matters ? If not, I mistook you for another
I think you mistook me for another poster.
>> defends old-growth conservation efforts on biological
>> ground. Not surprising, as we have the (retired) USFWS Endangered Species
>> Director under the Carter Administration (who, while employed in the PNW
>> region, officially warned the USFS in 1971 of their looming NSO problem),
>> the (retired) Regional Supervisor of the PNW Region of USFWS, and a
>> (retired) CA/NV Refuge Manager of USFWS on our Board.
They're professional biologists who've been involved with management
issues for decades each. I trust them more than I trust a random
netizen who cites deer as evidence that there are no true old-growth
dependent species, that's all.
>> But, of course, I should ignore the input of these distinguished wildlife
>> professionals and take the word of you, an uncredentialed netwit.
>You should make an attempt to see the other side of the issue. We do,
>why cant you ? Netwit he says. Very professional for a man of such great
Creationists tell us we should make an attempt to see the other side of
the evolution issue, as well, and ignore biologists, geologists, and
other scientists. Sorry, I have no time to waste trying to understand
fairy tales which have no factual underpinning.
>Tell me where you heard this before. I can say it too and be right.
>"Yeah, right. Oh, especially considering that there's tons of published
>shit which proves you wrong".
OK, point me to some scientific literature which proposes that there
are no old-growth dependent species.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
More information about the Ag-forst