USFWS - Marbled Murrelet Will Retain Threatened Species Status - ENN/CBD

[hatrack]

Seattle- Rebuffing the anti-science stance of the Bush administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wednesday released a report finding that continued protection of marbled murrelets in Washington, Oregon, and California is required. This report replaces a 2004 review in which Bush political appointees reversed scientific and legal conclusions to try to eliminate protections for murrelets. The new report finds that the tri-state murrelet population is distinct and separate from other populations in Canada and Alaska.

"Science has won the day," said Noah Greenwald, biodiversity program director for the Center for Biological Diversity. "The marbled murrelet is severely imperiled and needs the protections of the Endangered Species Act to survive."

The report concluded that "he species decline has been largely caused by extensive removal of late-successional and old-growth coastal forest which serve as nesting habitat for murrelets." It comes as Obama administration officials reconsider a Bush administration decision to increase logging of murrelet habitat in old-growth forests in western Oregon. Protection for the murrelets, as well as for salmon and northern spotted owls, stands in the way of this decision.

"Today's report affirms the need to protect old-growth coastal forests used by this seabird to nest and raise their young — yet another in a growing list of reasons that the Obama administration should withdraw the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (also known as WOPR)," said Kristen Boyles, an Earthjustice attorney. "Protecting murrelet forests also helps recover salmon and spotted owl populations, clean our air from excess carbon, and prevent pollution from entering drinking water sources for communities all up and down the coast," continued Boyles, who has litigated to protect and defend the birds.

EDIT

http://www.enn.com/press_releases/3007

[tabatha]

1. With resepct to forests, just heard about this - of any value?

http://www.foreverredwood.com/restoration-forestry.html

[Fotoware58]

3. Excellent!

This is EXACTLY what I am advocating in all the other threads I've participated in! It is unfortunate that this is totally unacceptable to "preservationists", though. Those people would rather see forests burn than to allow a few stumps. If we strictly managed forests to produce big, old and healthy trees, many other issues would fall right into place. Trees cannot get huge without reducing competition, and that needs to be man's focus. Many animals are on the Endangered Species List solely because of habitat loss. So, why not intervene and "create" new old growth??

Also, it's downright difficult to "kill" a redwood tree. They stump sprout!

[Fotoware58]

2. In my opinion...

it IS pretty difficult to support old growth harvesting in MM nesting areas. It is clear that they depend upon large trees to nest in. However, I really don't see much chance of reversing the WOPR. Now, changing the guidelines for resolving the issue seem to be the way to go to comply with the courts. Using clearcuts and old growth harvesting to settle in court is outright ridiculous, IMHO. Plantation thinning would be vastly more appropriate.