EF! Fined $1million in Idaho

Don Baccus donb at rational.com
Mon Nov 25 13:09:13 EST 1996


In article <329948B9.3383 at rippers.com>,
norm lenhart  <lenhart at rippers.com> wrote:

>Don, Dont pull that "ET changes the rules half way through the game"
>crap with me.

>Let me refreah your memory...

>"Please list those species for which you believe your statement to be
>true." 

Norm, you twit, you claimed that there are no truly old-growth dependent
species, and those of us who so claim are wrong.  I asked you for a list
of species which "we" (conservationists/biologists) believe to be
old-growth dependent, which you don't believe to be old-growth
dependent.

You responded with a list of species which we all know aren't old-growth
dependent.  "deer" - none of us claim that deer are old growth dependent.

I'm not changing the rules on you - I've never claimed that ALL species
are old-growth dependent.  Indeed, some species can't survive in old-growth,
no denies that.

You, however, claim that no species are old-growth dependent.  Proving that
some (other) species flourish in second-growth does not address the question.

Either address the question or pound sand up your ass.

>Now before you start whining, National Geographic and Discovery have
>both aired shows claiming these species are/were endangered and
>dependant on existing forests. Refute it or "get off the pot" .

deer?  Certainly our black-tailed deer are dependent on our Oregon
woodlands, i.e. our existing forests, but the vast majority of these
forests are not old-growth.  Claims that a species are woodland
dwellers are NOT the same as claims that they're old-growth dependent.

So, once again, give me a list of old-growth dependent species which
you think biologists are lying about.

>Further, I like how you backpedal by using a cop out "Special case" . It
>proves the point. They DID Don, They did survive in SECOND GROWTH 
>FOREST.

No one claims they don't survive in second-growth redwood forests, so
what's your point?

They don't appear to reproduce in second-growth non-redwood forests in
sufficient numbers to maintain their populations, and believe me the
timber industry and the USFS have been trying to dig up evidence
that they do.  They've failed.

>Now if this is the case for the spotted owl, after all the crap
>ET's put the PNW through over it, how many more does it hold true for ? 

But it's not true for the spotted owl IN THE FORESTS IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON.

Management schemes in California recognize the fact that the NSO will
flourish in second-growth redwood forests, as they correctly should.

Management schemes in OR/WA likewise recognize the fact that they don't
flourish in OUR second-growth forests.

Wipe the drool off your chin and stick to the point.  The law requires the
USFS to maintain populations of wildlife throughout their range on National
Forests.  Merely maintaining populations in California's redwood forests
does not meet the law.

If you don't like the law, work to have it changed, that's what politics
is for.  Meanwhile, don't lie about the science by claiming that the
fact that NSO flourish in second-growth redwoods (under some conditions)
proves that they'll survive in second-growth, non-redwood forests.

>I'll tell you . We dont know. Why ? Well, unless Im mistaken, None of
>your "Experts ever bothered to find out. 
>They dont want thier "pet theories" disproved. 

Sorry, but the industry and the USFS have looked high and low for
evidence that the NSO can flourish in our second-growth forests in
OR/WA.  The effort has not changed our basic understanding of the
population ecology for this bird.  Private industry made the same
effort in California, and found that in some cases NSO will flourish
in second-growth redwoods.  They've even figured out why they will,
yet won't in non-redwood second-growth.

Here's a quiz, Norm, since you know so much:

Just why does the NSO manage to successfully reproduce in younger
redwood forests?  Tell me just why you believe these conditions can
be extrapolated to the non-redwood forests in western OR/WA.  Please,
Norm, I can't wait to see if you actually know anything about the
NSO's ecology in these young redwood forests...

>> Name those that can, please.  Back to the original question.  Listing
>> species which aren't dependent on old-growth doesn't support your
>> claim.

>Name one proven to be extincted by loss of old growth forests. Proven
>Don. Not disputed in the scintific community. Proven.

Ivory-billed woodpecker.

As far as western North American species goes, the idea is to prevent
extinction.  The fact that we've not yet liquidated old-growth to the
extent that such extinctions have been caused can't be extrapolated
to a proof that liquidation of the remainder won't cause any such
extinction.

>> 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.

>Well, thats your right, but Those pro biologists are backed and funded
>by the SC and or agencies supported by them. No bias or anything.....yea
>right.

Yes, right.  The fact that research by timber company biologists correlates
with research by others leads me to believe that the research is sound.

>Don, Independent biologists reached different conclusions on many
>subjects in the environmental field. They are as distingushed and
>reputable as those you cited. Both groups are not correct, but only one
>was unbiased.

Name the independent biologists who have actually done NSO research that
disagree with our basic understanding of its population ecology.  I know
timber company biologists, work with them, don't find that they disagree
with our basic understanding.

>Don, this has nothing to do with psudoscience. The only fairytales here
>are those propagated by you and the other ET's. 

Neither has it anything to do with science, as there is none in support
of your position.

>> OK, point me to some scientific literature which proposes that there
>> are no old-growth dependent species.

>Point me to UNBIASED literature that says there are.

You've made it clear that published work that says they are is biased,
so obviously there is none that will meet your definitino of unbiased.
Because you'll only accept as "unbiased" work that agrees with your
political position.

It's kind of interesting, because I have no problem accepting the
literature describing why NSO do OK in second-growth redwoods, even
though I personally would like to see old-growth redwoods saved.

You have no problem accepting that literature, which agrees with your
bias, but can't bring yourself to accept results which disagree with
your preconceptions.  Tch..tch.

>Dependant does not equate to immutable. No matter how bad you would like
>it to. They CAN, and like our friend, the spotted owl, DO migrate to
>other areas. Why not have the SC, EF! or the audibon Society fund a
>study to find out ?

Why should we, when federal and state agencies, and timber companies,
have funded vast research efforts themselves?  When even the timber
company's biologists agree with our understanding, why should we
bother wasting our money?  We accept the research results which
these agencies and companies have done - including that which demonstrates
the viability of NSO in second-growth redwoods, as well as of course
that which demostrates the same is not true in the younger forests
further north.

>After all, it's the environmet that would stand to
>benefit.

It's been studied to death, just like bald eagles have been studied
to death.  We know enough about both of these species.  It is wise
to spend money on species where our knowledge gap is more limited,
which is why we at Portland Audubon ARE paying for the creation of
summaries of the known population ecology of a variety of other
older-forest dependent species.

But we aren't going to toss more money at problems solved, or being
solved, by other folks with far more financial and scientific resources
than our  organization.

>Of course , they're so busy going through REAMS of paper in
>thier offices, they might not have time. They're so busy using toxic
>inks and chemicals to print calanders and pictures that they cant fit it
>in the schedule. 

Nope, we're just too busy with other problems to waste time or money
on problems being adequately addressed by others.

>BTW Don, I noticed in your sig. that you are a photographer. I share
>your intrest there. Can you tell me how you dispose of the Highly Toxic
>chemicals you use in developing film and paper ?

That's one reason why I use a lab, rather than do color work at home,
because it lessens the impact tremendously (nothing is more wasteful
than one-shot processing).  One doesn't have to be an absolutist in
order to lessen the negative effects of one's career or avocation.

Same with timber issues.  Working to ensure that our biological heritage
is conserved does not require society to give up wood products.  It
merely requires we manage are resources in ways that lead to species
conservation.  In the case of old-growth dependent species, that means
we must ensure that sufficient old-growth is left to maintain those
species.  There are bazillion other sources of fiber and pulp, largely
non-old-growth forests here in the PNW.

In other words, you're raising a false dichotomy if you insist that
one must either accept unbounded impact, or zero impact.

>Hmmm ? Please tell me you dont pour them down the sink.

That's right, I don't.  Though B&W chemicals are relatively benign...

>See Don, Even though Im a hellspawned Off-Roader, I DO try to do SOME
>things to help where I can. MANY of us do. Open your eyes and you would
>see that.

Never said you didn't.  I don't expect you, or anyone, to lead a
zero-impact life.

Doesn't mean I have to accept your lying about biology, though.
--

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
  Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
          http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list