But passionate is not the same as emotional. We ground our comments in the best-available science. Though we might express that we are fond of marbled murrelets, we do not sob or plead.
Nor do we tear up when we suggest that the DNR use a precautionary principle and complete its long-overdue Long-Term Conservation Strategy for the Marbled Murrelet before considering clear-cuts within large blocks of nesting habitat. This strategy is now in the works, but seems the DNR is not inclined to ensure it is a solidly science-based document, one that serves the trust beneficiaries and the wildlife.
Peter Goldmark's comment--that we believe the 200 acres of forest he and his board approved unanimously on Tuesday are the "last acres available" is not true. No one has said this.
Since logging began in earnest in Washington in the 1840s, we have lost 90% of our mature and old-growth forests. Are the "last acres" in the remnant 10% of these forests?
According to a 2012 report on the status of the Lower 48 marbled murrelets published by a team of highly respected murrelet biologists, Washington State has suffered the largest losses of nesting habitat between 1996 and 2006--more than Oregon, more than California. The 2012 Annual Report of the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife states, "From 1996 to 2006, model-defined potential nesting habitat in Washington declined by an estimated 252, 600 ac out of 2.3 million ac (~11%). Most of this loss (>90%) was attributed to timber harvest."
The remaining 2.05 milion acres exist not in one contiguous block, but in fragments and patches on federal, state, and private land across western Washington. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat on these acres is being lost primarily through logging on non-federal lands. These fragmented forests are being further lost through windstorms, such as the one in December of 2007 that took out an estimated 2000 acres of occupied habitat. It is being lost through disease and fire. We have lost 90% of our forests incrementally--through industrial-scale logging and through a thousand small cuts.
How many acres are the last acres? Do Peter Goldmark and the BNR know "in fact" where these last acres are? And will they stop rubber-stamping timber sales when we identify them? And do they mean "in fact" acres--as in more than one acre--so 2 acres? Or will they use the more technical definition of, say, 1.5 acres?
By this point, yes, we will all be sobbing and pleading.
Meanwhile, read or listen to the KUOW report here.