This falls into the "scary" side of things, IMO:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012...2012-18211.pdf
Printable View
This falls into the "scary" side of things, IMO:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012...2012-18211.pdf
I like this part the best , so did I read this right.."let's keep cutting timber to hasten their extinction...
They wrote:
The NGRT
considers threats from genetic isolation
to be high for the Queen Charlotte
Islands, and low to none elsewhere in
British Columbia (NGRT 2008, pp. 16,
18–19). We concur with this assessment.
We believe that the greatest threats from
inbreeding depression or other impacts
associated with low genetic diversity
would come as populations adjust to
reduced habitat availability, which we
believe will be lowest in about 120 years
on the Queen Charlotte Islands, and in
about 50 years for the rest of the DPS,
when conversion of available old
growth to second growth forest will be
nearly complete (except on a few timber
tenures), and timber harvests will be
composed primarily of second growth
(see discussion under
Factor A, above).
I find it interesting, and more than a little troubling that the basis of the listing is that goshawks dont like logging activites. There is a lot of BS statements in there justification for those statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by goshawks00
I do have to qualify this by saying I have never been on Vancouver Island (well, not more outside of an urban area anyway), and never been to the Queen Charlottes.
But I have spent many spring weekends in the temperate rainforest looking for goshawks. They are far more common in and near heavily logged areas than in pristine habbitat. The Final Rule speculates that for some reason the prey species in the Canadian population segment of the Laingi goshawks does not adapt well to the edge habitat created by logging. I find it very hard to believe that this is the case when those same species which occur just across the interantional border in the US, where I live, thrive in clear cuts. The rainforest goshawks down here LOVE to hunt on the edges of clear cuts - I frequently see them still hunting while perched right on the edge of a clear cut.
Trying to recall where I read it now, but I read a study done on Vancouver Island that was comparing nesting success in pristine unlogged territories and territories that occured in logged areas. The study was funded by the tree huggers, and show a distinct bias in favor of those who paid the bills (hope no one died of shock just there), but in the raw data of the study there was a distinct increase in fledgling rates in the logged areas.
How is it that the USFWS (UNITED STATES) can declare a species that predominantly thrives on Canadian soil, threatened?
Damn good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by JRedig
The ESA targets populations -which are defined on an ad hoc basis. In this case, they defined the population on the Queen Charlotte Islands, of Canada, as endangered and the population on Vancouver Island, CA as threatened.
As the US has no jurisdiction over either of these distinct populations, I dont understand what the point was.
My underlying worry is that the camel's nose is now under the tent...and the conservation groups that were pushing this will now seek to add SE Alaskan and Washington populations to the list, because their real goal - as it has been all along - is to get the chainsaws out of the woods.
I love forest conservation...but this is NOT the right way to go about it.
Still working on digesting this document, but when I hit this I started breathing easier:
Quote:
Comment: If goshawks are listed in British Columbia, legal take of goshawks should not be affected outside the area in which they are listed, under "similarity of species" authorities.
Our Response: Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes the Service Director to designate non-listed species that closely resemble listed species as Threatened or Endangered for purposes of take, possession, transport, trade, export or import. In determining whether a species should be designated under this similarity of appearance authority, we must consider
Although Queen Charlotte goshawks in British Columbia are essentially indistinguishable from those in Southeast Alaska, and difficult to tell from goshawks outside the range of Queen Charlotte goshawks, we do not believe that goshawks outside coastal British Columbia need to be designated under section 4(e) of the Act as threatened or endangered because we do not consider direct take for falconry or any other purpose to be a threat. Direct take is discussed further below under the heading "Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes."
- the degree of difficulty enforcement personnel would have in distinguishing the species from a listed species,
- the additional threat posed to the listed species by the loss of control occasioned because of the similarity of appearance, and
- the probability that so designated a similar species will substantially facilitate enforcement and further the purposes and policy of the Act (50 CFR 17.50).
Well that "sounds" good. Surprisingly direct.Quote:
because we do not consider direct take for falconry or any other purpose to be a threat
Here are the details from the section discussing human take of goshawks, including falconry:
Good news. Looks like there is nothing in here to stop me from taking some unrelated black goshawks to pair up with the ones my buddy and I took in June.Quote:
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes In Canada, A. g. laingi has been federally listed as "Threatened" under the Species at Risk Act since 2002 (51 Eliz. II, Ch. 29). British Columbia has included the subspecies on its "Red List," as a candidate for "Threatened" or "Endangered" status, since 1994 (Cooper and Stevens 2000, pp. 3 and 14). In 2004, British Columbia recognized that, as a Schedule 1 Species at Risk, the Queen Charlotte goshawk, along with other named species, could be affected by forest management and required protection in addition to that provided by general forest management regulations (BCMSRM 2002, pp. 1–2; Barisoff 2004, p. 2; reviewed by USFWS 2007, pp. 11–12). Each of these designations provides some protection from direct take. For example, capture of Queen Charlotte goshawks has been banned since 1994, when the subspecies was added to the provincial Red List (see "Factor D. Inadequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms" for further discussion). Take of wild birds for falconry, therefore, is not a threat to the population. Further, the northern goshawk is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The database in which CITES trade is documented, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) CITES Trade Database, does not, for the most part, collect trade data at the subspecies level, and there are no CITES trade data available for the Queen Charlotte goshawk subspecies. However, as a Party to CITES, Canada must ensure that trade in northern goshawks, including the Queen Charlotte goshawk subspecies, does not adversely affect the species.
Although individual Queen Charlotte goshawks may be killed or captured illegally on occasion, we have no indication that such activity is common, or that it poses any threat to the subspecies. We do not expect overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes to contribute to population declines or extinction risk. The NGRT considers the threat of human persecution to be low to none (NGRT 2008, pp. 17 and 21). We conclude that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes does not now, or in the foreseeable future, pose a significant threat to the British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte goshawk.
Thats a relief.....for now.........
Maybe I jumped the gun. Perhaps they say falconry doesn't pose a threat because there's no legal capture of them... maybe I misunderstood.
Anyhow, Geoff. Black goshawks? We need a picture thread, unless they're in one already :).
There are some photo threads on NAFEX with photos of black goshawks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Venomlust
I had a mature female named Angel who is in photos on a few threads, and I posted photos of Steve Layman's tierce "Sol Duc" on at least one thread.
I am planning on posting some caparison photos of my immature black female next to an immature Wisconsin goshawk in a bit.
That's interesting Geoff. I've never been to Washington so I can't comment. This certainly has not been the case in Wyoming. (Different logging practices perhaps?) I have seen a great many of my goshawk territories destroyed by logging in Wyoming. Most of them will be uninhabitable for future goses in my lifetime and probably in my children's lifetime. Now with the widespread devastation caused by beetles in the West, it would not surprise me at all if Goshawk take from some of the western states such as Wyoming will be shut down.Quote:
Geoff wrote:
They are far more common in and near heavily logged areas than in pristine habbitat.
I've been amazed that this has been as under reported as it has been.
That's interesting to read, when I sent this to a few notable gos people in our area, they commented they had seen the same thing as Geoff here and in Wyoming...everyone has different experiences!Quote:
Originally Posted by keitht
I dont think its significatnly different logging practices. It may be due to a different environment, but I doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by keitht
There is a difference between forageing habbitat and nesting habbitat, even during the nesting season. Washington has both temperate rainfrorest and the dry temperate forests more common in the rest of the mountain west - habitats very similar to what you have in Wyoming, although some of the treee species differ.
I see them foraging on the edges of clearcuts, because their prey species thrive in the open habbitat. Forest Grouse, squirrel, rabbits/hares, bandtailed pigeon. These all do better in edge habitat or even in the open meadows of a clear clut. And when I say I see them, please keep in mind that these not only goshawks we are refering to, but while ones. "The Phantom of the forest."
Of course never see them nesting in the clearcuts, or even close to them. However, it dosnt take a very big stand of mature trees for them to nest. I have seen some in as little as 5 acres of mature stage trees surrounded by a large tract of tiny second growth (it was actually old growth, but very young).
Once the clearcut has grown back into a dense stand of young trees it is unsuitable for either foraging or nesting. In the temperate rainforest habbitat, this occurs in less than a decade from natural seeding even if the forest is not actively replanted. I spoke to a manager from a private forest company who told me that after a cut they plant 1,000 trees per acre, and ten years later they do a thining cut to bring it back down to that level from the 10-15,000 trees per acre that grow back in.
But once that dense stand has grown to maturity it is useful for both again.
I have roamed through the dry rockies a lot. I lived in Utah for 15 years and spent every possible moment in the forested mountains. I think that you are dramatically overestimating how long it takes for a stand of trees to grow back to being suitable for goshawks. It certainly wont happen overnight, but it will happen in a few decades.
I have been in dense stands of mature lodgepole pines. Very little lives there, except the pines, once you get more than a few yards in from the edge of the trees. They are deserts of trees.
I must add, however, that I moved to the rainforest before my passion for goshawks blossomed.
As for the beetle - they are definately a menace, and one that seems to be increasing (I have watched that one first hand from the early 80s to the mind 90s and a bit beyond). I am certain the goshawk will survive them. It may be as simple for them as moving into stands of aspen.
I would liked to have had some of those guys tag along with me. In 2011 I spent a month looking at deserted nesting territories in Wyoming. I did find birds, but vast areas are no longer suitable due to a combination of over logging and pine die-off. Not only are the goses gone, but all the small game they depend on are gone as well. And what little healthy pine is left is now highly sought after by loggers. Hopefully next year I can go back and survey more ground.Quote:
That's interesting to read, when I sent this to a few notable gos people in our area, they commented they had seen the same thing as Geoff here and in Wyoming...everyone has different experiences!
I have no doubt that some birds will adapt and survive, but they are there is far lesser numbers than what existed before.
I can say that being from bc, the goshawk issue has been one that has plagued Lowermainland and vancouver island falconers for some time. Several years ago BC wildlife officials put backpack transmitters on many vancouver island and QCI goshawks. While the QCI goshawk is technically it's own species, they are genetically the exact same as every other goshawk out there. It has been known for some time that the QCI goshawks and the Van Island goshawks cross back and forth hence why falconers can't take goshawks from Van island, cause they are "the endangered variety." Well one of the backpacked birds was found to have crossed the georgia straight and was found in the lowermainland. Well the biologists made the amazing discovery that, "holy crap the lowermainland of bc has Van Island goshawks. So that must mean that the goshawks found in southwestern BC are endangered. Time to close that up to falconers as well." Now if a southwestern bc falconer wants a wild taken goshawk they have to travel into the interior to get one. Pretty BS reasoning but it's the government wo what would you expect. Oh and second note, many of the backpacked goshawks were found dead only a few weeks after having them installed. It seems the backpacks hindered the flying ability and hunting of the birds. Smart move on that one.
Bob
I think you meant to say sub-species above Bob...yes/no?Quote:
Originally Posted by red_tailed
The irony of the backpack thing is just unreal...yep, we're the problem...clearly we're killing them...frus)
The QCI goshawk is a subspecies whose range is expanding, not contracting. Even if the population in the core habitat, on the Queen Charlotte Islands themselves is in trouble, which I doubt very much, it dosnt make sense to list a subspecies that is expanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by red_tailed
If they are crossing from Vancouver Island to the lower mainland of BC, they are also crossing the Straight of Juan de Fuca into the Olympic Penninsula. Of course, they are also crossing the Canadian border on the mainland into both Alaska and Washington State. Lucky for us that was not documented, or noted in the ESA ruling. Then again, if it WERE noted in the ESA ruling it would be case for not listing them, because its not, after all, a "Distinct Population Segment"
We had a biologist working on the goshawks on the west side of Washington State that was real piece of work. As I recall he had a 100% mortality rate within two weeks for the tiercel goshawks that he mounted backpacks on, and a better but alarmingly high mortality rate for the females. He arogantly attributed the mortality to "el Niño", and claimed that the hawks were driving themelves to starvation to feed their families during a poor prey year. Funny, he didnt mention that they were anything less than fit when the backpacks went on. Everytime I see this guy's work cited my skin crawls, and he has proven that his data is suspect. His work on Western Washington goshawks was sited in that ESA final rule.
I disagree that its the worst thing. There can be some very valuable data gathered this way. However, its not something to be done lightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by wyodjm
There were studies done on the Tongass, also working with QC goshawks, where the mortality rate was quite low. It wasnt zero, but I believe that some level of mortality is an acceptable trade.
The thing that really kills me about the Bloxton studies is that several falconers, including myself, offered to let him practice his tecnique on captive birds that could be monitored. He pointedly told us that he knew what he was doing.
I have been using backpacks for 5 years on my falconry birds, and will never go back. They are great. IF they are properly fitted, which just takes knowing what your doing and keeping an eye on things after the fitting.
Hi Geoff:Quote:
Originally Posted by goshawkr
You're fast. I changed my opinion to it may not be a good thing. Go look. :) But you had already quoted me.
Anyway, I don't use backpacks.
Geoff,
Is this the study that you are referencing?
http://www.ruraltech.org/pubs/theses..._ms_thesis.pdf
Thats the one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goshawk635
And in skimming the data, I see I was mistaken. He was blaming the mortality on La Niña. Big difference.... :D