The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”

[Elkaholic daWg]

Dont Confuse me with FACTS Timberfaller...I know what i've been told by the good people with my best intentions in mind... Take off your  !         

at least his head isn't buried' in his greenie arse

[hunter399]

This is from the Fish & Wildlife Service:

Habitat

Northern spotted owls live in forests characterized by dense canopy closure of mature and old-growth trees, abundant logs, standing snags, and live trees with broken tops. Although they are known to nest, roost, and feed in a wide variety of habitat types, spotted owls prefer older forest stands with variety: multi-layered canopies of several tree species of varying size and age, both standing and fallen dead trees, and open space among the lower branches to allow flight under the canopy. Typically, forests do not attain these characteristics until they are at least 150 to 200 years old.

Thats why i dont agree with there current forest plan of leaveing so much space on trees of 50-100 trees per acre it takes away habitat ,thats why i always talk about the ski run style of cutting ,works for habitat,firebreaks,jobs,hunters alike they will never do it though because your clear cutting in some peoples mind.But your clear cutting a small spots compared to what your leaveing and leaveing so much big timber on each side of these strips means the clear cut area will reseed itself very fast without planting ,then someday they woulnd take the old growth and leave the younger strips lets say like every 100 years.

[timberfaller]

LOL "This is from the Fish and Wildlife Service"

I'll try and state it a little clearer,  IN 1910 when the report came out about the Northern Spotted Owl. HE was not found in Old Growth timber.  IT was not his habitat!

The "powers that be"(early 1980) used the ESA and a good brainwashing by the media(greenies) and "government agency's" figuring No One was interested in the propaganda taking place amongst them.

Early birth of the LIV!!!  Low Information Voter

Yes they are now found in Old Growth, NO its not their preferred Habitat and the Barred owl is letting them know they don't belong there. 

Remember this quote?   "Hi, I am from the government and I am here to help" Riiiiiiiiiiiight!

[Knocker of rocks]

LOL "This is from the Fish and Wildlife Service"

I'll try and state it a little clearer,  IN 1910 when the report came out about the Northern Spotted Owl. HE was not found in Old Growth timber.  IT was not his habitat!

The "powers that be"(early 1980) used the ESA and a good brainwashing by the media(greenies) and "government agency's" figuring No One was interested in the propaganda taking place amongst them.

Early birth of the LIV!!!  Low Information Voter

Yes they are now found in Old Growth, NO its not their preferred Habitat and the Barred owl is letting them know they don't belong there. 

Remember this quote?   "Hi, I am from the government and I am here to help" Riiiiiiiiiiiight!

I don't think it would be correct to assume that because Swarth in 1910 thought that the spotted owl had a different habitat than they do now, that Swarth was necessarily correct.  His was the initial description of a previously undescribed species, and he may have been in error.  You're making huge assumptions

[Curly]

The pocket gopher is the latest tool of the hippie crowd around here to try to stop development.  This is going to be bad for me to say, but I have to question why we place some animals ahead of our needs?  Why worry about gophers or spotted owls?  Let them adapt if they want to survive.

Seems to me that the timber industry should have been more valuable than an owl, and someone building a home on their 2 acre lot should be more important than a damned gopher. 

But with that said, I do think it does set a bad precedent if we determine which species are more worthy of saving.  It really is a tough situation.   
The most frustrating thing like with the case of wolves is when they are not even endangered.   The California sea lions is not protected by the E.S.A. They are protected by another bs law......The marine mammal protection act.  Like the E.S.A. , I am sure the law was made with good intentions but there needs to be some common sense used to control these predators.

Cormorants are a similar example.  An international treaty Signed in 1918 protects them because Canadians didn't want them killed, but it is obvious the population has gotten way out of hand.  The population should have been decreased starting 20 years ago or more.  Luckily they are an ugly bird and therefore won't be a ton of opposition to snuffing a bunch.

[wolfbait]

A little Wyoming History

I, Jonesy (Maury Jones), was personally involved in the legislation trying to craft a Wyoming wolf management plan that would be acceptable to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  Our legislators and our governor specifically lamented that the feds would not tell us what we had to have to get it approved.  We literally begged the USFWS to tell us what we needed in our plan.  They would not, perhaps because they were aware of a recent Supreme Court Ruling.
“The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State’s officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer, or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.” Printz v. United States, 521 U.S 898 (1997)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html
So we crafted the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan based on the Endangered Species Act, the Environmental Impact Statement, and the Final Rule for Introduction of the Grey Wolf.  10 of 11 wolf experts approved of Wyoming's plan saying that it would adequately protect 150 wolves (the minimum required was 100).  In spite of that, the USFWS ignored the experts and disapproved of the Wyoming plan, because we only protected wolves in the northwest corner of the state, not the whole state.  We didn't want wolves in the rest of the state, as it is not suitable habitat for them and thus they would prey on livestock to a great degree.  The EIS and the Final Rule specifically said that most of Wyoming was not suitable habitat for wolves, therefore Wyoming was only doing what the law said.
So all this about Wyoming being the problem is NOT TRUE!!!  The blame lies squarely on the USFWS and the wolf-worshippers who run the show.
The final solution is for the states, Wyoming specifically, to openly defy the feds and their attempts to control our management of OUR wildlife, by declaring that we, and we alone, own the wildlife in our state and will do what we damned well please with it.   
We must REFUSE to allow their federal dog to destroy our huntable populations of wildlife.  See the attachment.
http://tinyurl.com/2da47py

[timberfaller]

"You're making huge assumptions"

NOPE

Read the article and seen the data and pictures.

Swarth??  did a internet search, not even close to the REAL data and research.

A not so old saying, "tell a lie often enough and long enough, it becomes the truth"

Why do you think the Climate change HOAX is still going on??

NO difference, just other scientist with a political agenda.

A lot of "early" scientist didn't have a "axe" to grind, but their research has been USED for "agenda's" by others

Here is a good read,(Swarth is there)  but you have to read the WHOLE page.  Very funny in places!!

http://www.birdzilla.com/birds/Spotted-Owl/bent_life_history.html

[Knocker of rocks]

And what is that supposed to be proof of?

[bobcat]

Timberfaller, I don't see anything in that where it says spotted owls don't live in old growth, and I've never seen anything credible that says old growth is not spotted owl's preferred habitat.

You can't just make up your own facts in regards to these owls, simply because you don't like the fact that preserving their habitat means some old growth forests can't be cut down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AspenBud]

No animal brings out habitat problems more than the spotted owl. On one hand it needs a place to live, on the other some of the practices in place to save it have hurt several other species that rely on early successional forest, grouse and deer come to mind and that's just the start.

That someone in 1910 would notice them in younger stands shouldn't be that surprising, old growth forest doesn't let much sunlight in and as a result leads to virtual deserts on the forest floor. Younger forest allows that light in which creates more cover and food for prey animals.

In short, spotted owls probably hunt the edges like a lot of grouse hunters. That said, just because you find them around food does not mean they choose live where they hunt.

The spotted owl still isn't doing all that swell. If I had to guess it's because the emphasis has been too much on old growth and not healthy, mixed age class, forests. The thing everyone forgets is these birds lived in a world where forest fires burned out large swaths of land from time to time. They didn't live in unchanging habitat.

[magnanimous_j]

99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Human beings had a hand in a very very small amount of those.

The difference is that we have done our damage in the course of a couple hundred years, which is geological time is faster than the blast of an atomic bomb. We are killing off species much faster than the meteor finished off the dinosaurs. And if we don't get the climate change under control, we could speed it up even more.

Human beings are the most vicious extinction even the planet has ever seen.

[timberfaller]

"You can't just make up your own facts in regards to these owls, simply because you don't like the fact that preserving their habitat means some old growth forests can't be cut down."

I not making anything up, bobcat.

The 1910 article I am referring to showed the "owls" known habitat.  It was a "pencil lead thin" line starting in Seattle and going down the PNW coast line and almost halfway through present day Kalifornia.  NOTHING east of the Cascade crest.

The link I posted IS NOT the research I am referring to.   I posted it because it shows the A BIG difference in Ideology between the THEN scientist and the ones we have today.

How many scientist of today talk about how "stupid", or I could have "killed" the "specimen"  so easy, and the one I laughed at the most, "if I had a gun" I could have killed......

If you read the whole article through you should have also picked up on 4 different owls.  Not just the Northern Spotted Owl we were mislead on and clubbed over the head with.

The problem with "Old Growth" is that it is "protected" Why? Because people have been brainwashed into thinking so.  And city dwellers can go out of their concrete jungles and Ou and Ah when they see a big tree.

But then that a whole nother subject that has been "mis-informed" to the general public.

I wonder when the term "marketable" changed to "old growth" in reference to trees used for lumber?

[AspenBud]

You need both. A healthy forest is a mix of age classes. Cutting down all the old growth isn't any better than ceasing logging operations in many areas.

The problem as I see it is they didn't just decide to stop cutting existing old growth, they decided to create it. I still talk to friends who are loggers who talk about logging stands that will be replanted with X hardwood, never to be logged again. Personally I think that's unwise.

They have a variation of this argument in the Midwest all of the time. Groups like the Sierra Club try to stop logging of aspens on state lands for this or that reason and seemingly fail to realize that several other species rely on aspens and early successional forest, that if you don't clear cut aspens periodically the stands will eventually die, not come back, and be replaced by other species of tree that aren't as friendly to wildlife.

Bare forest floor = hunting no more

On the surface that could look like an anti hunting plot, but I personally think it's more a matter of people not understanding how forests work.

[wolfbait]

"You can't just make up your own facts in regards to these owls, simply because you don't like the fact that preserving their habitat means some old growth forests can't be cut down."

I not making anything up, bobcat.

The 1910 article I am referring to showed the "owls" known habitat.  It was a "pencil lead thin" line starting in Seattle and going down the PNW coast line and almost halfway through present day Kalifornia.  NOTHING east of the Cascade crest.

The link I posted IS NOT the research I am referring to.   I posted it because it shows the A BIG difference in Ideology between the THEN scientist and the ones we have today.

How many scientist of today talk about how "stupid", or I could have "killed" the "specimen"  so easy, and the one I laughed at the most, "if I had a gun" I could have killed......

If you read the whole article through you should have also picked up on 4 different owls.  Not just the Northern Spotted Owl we were mislead on and clubbed over the head with.

The problem with "Old Growth" is that it is "protected" Why? Because people have been brainwashed into thinking so.  And city dwellers can go out of their concrete jungles and Ou and Ah when they see a big tree.

But then that a whole nother subject that has been "mis-informed" to the general public.

I wonder when the term "marketable" changed to "old growth" in reference to trees used for lumber?

Actually Timberfaller is correct, and at the time CNW which was then known by a different name was pushing the owl agenda, and the spotted owl was filmed living in warehouses in Seattle WA.

I wonder how much it cost the USFWS to relocate a few spotted owls?

Old Growth?  A better question is how old is old growth?

Since the fraud and corruption of the wolf introduction has been proven time and time agin, the spotted owl now plays into the same game.

[jasnt]

99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Human beings had a hand in a very very small amount of those.

The difference is that we have done our damage in the course of a couple hundred years, which is geological time is faster than the blast of an atomic bomb. We are killing off species much faster than the meteor finished off the dinosaurs. And if we don't get the climate change under control, we could speed it up even more.

Human beings are the most vicious extinction even the planet has ever seen.

What makes you think we are having a climate change?  We as humans have only been keeping track of weather for a few hundred years. How do we know what's normal?  Global warming is a total joke!!!!!