Queen Charlotte goshawk

[GregMik]

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-26154.htm

What do you all think?

Greg

[PeteJ]

Didn't we just go through this a couple of years ago? Mostly the big fear then was that BC wasn't doing enough to reduce the timber pressure...but then they came through setting aside huge square miles of forest to be left alone for the Gos and some other critters that were tied to the coastal rain forest habitat.
Apparently our guys are still bending over under the pressure to list this species and it's all about trees in this particular case. You would think that getting trees off those islands wouldn't be all the inexpensive to begin with.
Do I think this subspecies deserves protection? Probably not. It is a horrifically difficult area to survey for nests and I doubt they have hardly even touched what the real numbers could be in such an area. And while their numbers may in fact be generally low in the scheme of things, this has more to do with their specialization for that habitat than anything else. So rather than listing the bird as threatened...list the habitat as threatened. But noooo, we wouldn't want to do that cause there isn't any money for programs to study the rare species there if you just set aside the habitat permanently!

[sharptail]

Hi Greg,
Why is the UNITED STATES FWS, DOI, again overstepping its bounds into Canada? Like blocking access on once public roads here in Wyoming, when there are no objections made for some period of time, it become legally recognized as a no public access or private road.
Is it just accepted that US government can interfere at a whim anywhere now? Is Canada not capabale of running it own government? Why are we paying for it?

Other than the ever expanding role of US government into foreign countries, and congress throwing our money down another rat hole, the idea that these coastal goshawks populations having been in trouble for more than 15 years, has been long anticipated by Wa. falconers, and I heard talk of establishing breeding pairs there, those long years back, but do not know the status of that plan.

[goshawkr]

Didn't we just go through this a couple of years ago? Mostly the big fear then was that BC wasn't doing enough to reduce the timber pressure...but then they came through setting aside huge square miles of forest to be left alone for the Gos and some other critters that were tied to the coastal rain forest habitat.
Apparently our guys are still bending over under the pressure to list this species and it's all about trees in this particular case. You would think that getting trees off those islands wouldn't be all the inexpensive to begin with.
Do I think this subspecies deserves protection? Probably not. It is a horrifically difficult area to survey for nests and I doubt they have hardly even touched what the real numbers could be in such an area. And while their numbers may in fact be generally low in the scheme of things, this has more to do with their specialization for that habitat than anything else. So rather than listing the bird as threatened...list the habitat as threatened. But noooo, we wouldn't want to do that cause there isn't any money for programs to study the rare species there if you just set aside the habitat permanently!

The habitat shouldnt be listed as threatened either.

Wether or not mature old growth forests should be cut down is NOT a conservation issue. There are few - if any - species that are really truely dependant on the old growth.

The Langii goshawks are used as a poster child, and claimed to be dependant on them. Steve Layman and his son took some langii goshawks from a stand of trees on the Olympic Penninsula that were about 30 years old - that aint old growth, and it aint mature. The data from studies done in several goshawk territories on Vancouver Island showed that goshawks in territories with clearcut logging flegged 1.75 young per nest, as opposed to the 1.5 for goshawks in territories with no logging.

I have been taking some trapping trips out to the Olympic Penninsula this fall, and all the goshawks I have seen so far have been in tiny little 20-30 foot tall trees with edge habitat (clear cut or logging road).

Now then, having worn a lot of shoe leather hiking in the old growth and the mature second growth, I can tell you it is sight to behold. It is a GRAND idea to set some of it asside, because it takes a LONG time to grow back once the chain saws come into it.

But saving it isnt saving the goshawk, or any of the other post children that have been proposed. Goshawks and spotted owls like the managed forests just fine. So do the marbled murellets.

The people who are really behind these proposals should get out and walk through some of these logged lands and see the bounty. Its a bit stark for the first few years after the chainsaws come to visit, but with all the rain we get here it dosnt stay that way for long. But then, they would have to pull their head out and look around while they are there.