As an employee of the U.S. Forest Service in the Pacific Northwest, I have seen the impact that the protection of the northern spotted owl has had on the economies and people of this area. Almost two decades ago the northern spotted owl was declared a threatened species. Since then millions of acres of our national forests in the Pacific Northwest have been restricted from harvest operations to save this species. Families, communities, and entire counties had their livelihoods ripped out from underneath them when these lands were locked up. Counties with high proportions of their acreage in National Forests depended on income from harvesting these lands to supplement the lack of property taxes that would have been generated if those areas were privately owned. Not only were these harvest incomes lost for the county governments, many families lost their personal incomes because they depended on the timber industry for employment.
To supplement these financial losses, temporary programs were established in 2000 to give money to counties in 41 states that were struggling to compensate for the loss in federal revenues due to the harvest restrictions. This temporary program will end in 2012, and President Obama plans to reinstate this financial support for another five years, but at a 20 percent reduction in funds.
As funding is proposed to decrease, the amount of land under harvest restrictions may increase, causing even more financial hardship for citizens of timber product dependent counties.
Even after 20 years of logging restrictions, there has been little progress towards the recovery of the northern spotted owl. In fact they may be more at risk due to the increased population of barred owls which compete against the spotted owl for food and space, and often succeed. Since two species are now competing for the same resources the barred owl may be subjected to population control, or more resources will be allocated to these species so that they each have enough habitat and food to both survive. Where will this land come from? Most likely the national forests of the Pacific Northwest. The result? Some effects we can be sure of: less income for rural counties from federal harvest revenues, more unemployment, and more financial hardship. Some effects we cannot be sure of: an increase in the northern spotted owl population.
Preserving biological diversity is a very important goal of the U.S. Forest Service but there is a line that should not be crossed. It is very easy for people outside of the affected region to rally for the protection of the northern spotted owl, as they have not seen or experienced its effects. Although logging practices in the past may not have been very sustainable there have been changes in mindset and technique to ensure more sustainable harvests. The people who depend on forest resources for their livelihoods do not want to see them destroyed, but they also do not wish for those resources to be taken away from them through preservation. I believe that the likelihood of this species making a comeback needs to be re-evaluated and compared to the reality of the financial suffering it has caused the people.
Sources of information:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Spotted-Owls-New-Nemesis.html?c=y&page=2
http://www.dailytidings.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110214/NEWS02/102140303/-1/NEWSMAP
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/02/obama_budget_has_room_for_county_payments_--_but_at_lower_amount.html
4 comments:
I can understand the concern for income, but once an animal is extinct, you can't get it back. Disregarding the spotted owl populations purely for income can NOT be the only solution. As a country, we need to realize that there are conservation-friendly jobs that we will need to be put into place everywhere. The loss of an entire species may have a greater impact on the ecological stability of an area than we may realize. Maybe the drop in population of the owl is an indicator to us that the resources are being used up more quickly than they can be replenished. What will happen to those families when there is no longer any trees to harvest. You are right in saying that there is a line that we shouldn't cross, but that line WILL be crossed if we completely disregard the success of an entire species. Crossing that line could lead to many consequences for conservation efforts throughout the nation. Consequences that we are not prepared to handle. -Kyle George
Kyle, I agree that the consequences of a species going extinct cannot be fully understood until it has actually happened. However, how can we justify the taking away personal and local government incomes from entire communities based on speculation? Imagine your parents both losing their jobs and then your community no longer receiving the revenue required to maintain roads, public education, law enforcement, etc. How would you feel about protecting a species that seems to be on the way out? This is a difficult question to answer when you are on the outside looking in.
The loss of a species is undoubtedly something that should be avoided, when and where possible.
The spotted owl is indicative of a lack of old growth in that region. But ask yourself this, what is old growth? Can it be managed for, or is it simply something that happens over time? When do you know a forest is in an 'old growth' stage? Does it have to do with age or structure or species or all of the above? It is a very subjective term that lacks clear and consistent definition throughout the literature.
If you can think of conservation jobs that could employ all of those displaced people and still contribute to society by producing a profitable good or service from forest resources, that would be wonderful. Apparently the unemployed people in the Pacific Northwest have not yet been able to figure that one out.
In my opinion there is room for preservation, conservation, and intensive management and utilization across our nation's forests. The challenge is knowing when and where it is appropriate to implement each style of management.
-Laura L.
I have heard this arguement posed people vs. owls. Who are you going to choose? a bird or hard working Americans trying to feed their families? I have also heard it posed as extreme on the environmental side.
Yes, I am all for people, and yes I am all for conserving our environment, and this issue seems to turn gray when it comes to the solution. I know that loss of habitat is not the only source of the population decline, but the outcompetition by the barred owl as well. Sustainable forest harvest in the pacific northwest is conservation. Preservation and conservation have opposing values. When it comes between a monetary issue and an environmental issue such as this, and seeming as it is decided politically, going against money is highly unpopular. Money is going to beat out the environment most of the time. No one is always going to be happy with the decisions made. Someone, especially with these topics, is always going to have opposing values.
Thanks for this conversation! I really didn't know that it had not yet been resolved.
Post a Comment