In an article for television station KCET, reporter Chris Clarke examines the current debate over spotted owl habitat in California's burned Sierra Forest. The owls have begun living in the burnt trees from the catastrophic Rim Fire; however, logging companies want to remove the trees while they are still useful as wood. Further, many fear the burnt trees increase the risk of more fires. The Federal Government has already given permission to logging companies to collect the trees, but Environmentalists are now blocking it in the courts. Here is his article: "Spotted Owls Using Burned Sierra Forest Slated for Logging"
This is just one article about this topic. There are many all over the internet -- including television news stories -- your evidence can come from any source you choose. Just be sure to cite your source (i.e., tell me where your evidence came from.)
What do you think? Should the habitat be preserved for the spotted owl, or should the burned out trees be cleared away to save the area from potential fires? Use evidence from the article to support your perspective. Remember the S-E-E response format for using evidence! Thank you all again for maintaining polite discourse with your classmates.
I think that the burned out trees should be cut down because if another fire starts, we will lose more trees. Also, if another fire starts, some of the wildlife might die, including the Spotted Owls. For example, in the article in the link above, one of the researchers says,"If the Forest Service continues with its plans to log the Rim fire area, the many owls residing in the post-fire forest mosaic will be harmed," and I personally think that being harmed is better than being killed. I know that we're supposed to be protecting the trees and stuff, but we should be protecting the live trees, not the burnt down dead ones. Protecting a dead tree is like feeding a dead goldfish.
ReplyDeleteThere is an alternative though. The logging companies could just cut down the trees that the owls aren't living in. For example, instead of cutting down a tree that a Spotted Owl lives in, cut down the tree next to it that has nothing living in it. Also, I know that other wildlife live in those trees as well, so maybe environmentalists could replant some new trees. -Apolo L.
I agree with your simile "Protecting a dead tree is like feeding a dead goldfish," but, a forest fire will eventually start, so we would lose even more trees by cutting the burnt trees down. If you cut down the burnt trees, the owls will have no place to live, because they prefer the burnt trees to hunt prey. The burnt trees are home to many animals, not just the spotted owl, so it would take homes away from many animals, not just one, because in the article by Chris Clarke, it says that the owls hunt for prey better in the burnt trees, that must mean there has to be other animals there. Cutting down trees would lead to harming the spotted owl.
Delete-Karina V.
I agree with Apollo's view that some trees should be cleared but the owls should be left alone. The owls need their habitat to thrive but the burnt trees need to be cut so the fire danger can be reduced. According to Chris Clarke "Where the National Park Service removes only those burned trees that pose a direct threat to visitor safety and otherwise leaves forests alone to regenerate naturally post-fire, California spotted owl numbers are stable." When the forestry department selectively removes trees that are a fire danger the owls numbers do not decline and it accomplishes the goal of fire safety. Also other wildlife will be safe because of the reduced fire risk.
DeleteI think that the logging company should leave the spotted owls alone and just cut down trees that do not have animals living in them. It would be the better thing to do for the animals living in the forest. I say this because in the article " Snowy Owls Using Burned Sierra Forest Slated for Logging", it says, "...those logging plans would harm the California spotted owl, along with other species such as the black-backed woodpecker". This shows that there are several species of all kinds of animals living in the forest, all of which should be protected and kept from harm. If the logging company were to go through with their plan, it would leave them homeless, without food, and vunerable.
ReplyDeleteMoney also plays a huge part in all of this. This is because the logging company seems to be thinking more about what it will do for the environment and how much money they will get out of cutting down the burnt trees. In the same article that I mentioned earlier, it says, "...let's not forget that the Forest Service has a conflict of interest because it sells burnned trees to private commercial logging corporations and keeps the money to enhance its budget". This shows that the logging company really isn't helping the animals at all, but instead making things worse for them, not caring what happens to them, and keeping the money for themselves. They should be ashamed.
Great use of textual evidence!
DeleteIn my opinion, I think the loggers should leave the burnt trees alone in the Sierra Forest. The spotted owls would have a chance to regrow the population in California. The loggers should stop plans to cut down the trees. For example the article from above says,"the logging plans would harm the California spotted owl, along with the black-backed woodpecker." This shows that not only the spotted owls are getting harmed but other species of birds.
ReplyDeleteLogging is is more of a threat to the owls compared to fires. For example, Monica Bond of the Wild Nature Institute says,"Recent science and survey results like those from the Rim fire are repudiating the old, outdated assumption that fire is bad for owls. Logging has always been the real danger to spotted owls, not fire." This shows that logging is a harmful thing that affects the owls and fire is not the real danger. I hope the logging plans are stopped so the spotted owls and other species of birds will repopulate out of the threatened condition.
Don't forget to also respond to your classmates' comments, everyone!
ReplyDeleteI think the logging companies should respect and preserve the natural habitats of the spotted owls. The article “Spotted Owls Using Burned Sierra Forest Slated for Logging” said, “USFS biologists found 33 breeding pairs of the diminutive owls in forests burned by the Rim Fire, along with six single owls.” This shows that there aren’t very many spotted owls left. The Sierra Forest also houses many other species of wildlife that will be directly affected by the loss of food and shelter that the burned trees provide. Without the trees, many species will die out. This will lead to the Sierra Forest becoming not only treeless but also lifeless.
ReplyDeleteThe article also states, “The logging project would take out trees on about 30,000 acres of land…” The real problem for the spotted owls isn’t the fires, but the logging. People shouldn’t worry about fires and instead worry about the wildlife. In addition, if there are heavy rains and flooding occurs, there will be no trees to hold the soil in place and it could cause significant damage. No trees may also lead to the Dust Bowl 2.0.
You've really considered all the information! We'll done!
Delete#dustbowl2.0
I think that logging companies should not cut down the burned trees in order to preserve the spotted owls habitats. In the article "Spotted Owls Using Burned Sierra Forest Slated for Logging" said, "Recent science and survey results like those from the Rim fire are repudiating the old, outdated assumption that fire is bad for owls. Logging has always been the real danger to spotted owls, not fire." This clearly states that logging is the real danger to the owls and not the fires. Matter of fact, the same article states "spotted owls may actually prefer burned forests for hunting." Showing that the burned forest may help their survival.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the logging could hurt more animals aside from the owls. For example, the article said "charging that those logging plans would harm the California spotted owl, along with other species such as the black-backed woodpecker." This show that spotted owls are not the only animal that will be hurt from the logging. Due to this, animals who lived in the trees that will be cut down may die due to having no shelter. The logging companies should not cut down these tree unless they want even more animals in endangered.
Jaime, I liked the way you explained the evidence -- readers interpret differently, so explanation is always important.
DeleteIt's a tough decision to choose between protecting the animals and preventing a fire hazard. Although, from what I've read the fires arent much of a threat so I think they should prohibit the logging companies from cutting down the trees.
ReplyDeleteAs Jamie said, the logging would more than likely effect other animals besides the owls. The artical states that the black-backed woodpecker is just one of the species that would be effected by it. Cutting down the trees could also start a chain reaction. If we take away a shelter from these animals, they'll travel to another burnt down forest. Than, if/when we cut that forest down it'll take away a shelter or kill even more anumals. The logging companies should start growing their own trees, so they don't have to cut down as many. I know growing trees will be a long and frustrating pprocess, but if we had done this years ago this wouldn't be a problem, which means it'll be better to start sooner than later. Plus, cutting down a mass number of trees can't be good for oxygen levels, the ozone layer, or the enviroment in general.
So while I see the downside of not cutting the trees down, such as increase in paper cost and other materials related to trees, killing and relocating that many animals is unacceptable for that cause. Also the enviromental reprocussions of cutting down that many trees makes it not worth it at all to allow the logging companies to cut down the trees.
Very thoughtful reply, and I like how you incorporated your classmate's statements.
DeleteWe need protect the wildlife and prevent fire hazards. In this situation, it's difficult to decide. Cutting down a couple trees won't make much of a difference, but cutting down 255,000 acres of trees is going to effect the wildlife as well as us for the enormous loss of trees. The logging, though, takes up 30,000 acres. There's also another point. If we cut down the trees with no life living in them, it's better to cut them down in order to get paper. If we keep those ones, that'll be just useless because they're dead trees. Justin Augustine with the Center for Biological Diversity said, ""The Rim Fire area is teeming with wildlife that thrives in burned forests, including these spotted owls living right in the same forests the government wants to cut down." If the government wants to cut down the whole 30,000 acres of trees, that's a bit insane. It's very dangerous for taking away all the spotted owls' shelter. ""Recent science and survey results like those from the Rim fire are repudiating the old, outdated assumption that fire is bad for owls. Logging has always been the real danger to spotted owls, not fire," said Monica Bond, principal scientist for the Wild Nature Institute. Do you agree with that? If so, I believe the solution to that would have to be, like I said, cutting down the burnt trees with no living life.
ReplyDeleteAfter forest fires, salvage logging is usually justified as a way to reduce dead timber that could add fuel to later fires. Lots of animals and plants claim the burnt forest areas home. Research ecologist Dr. Chad Hanson of the John Muir Project said, "If the Forest Service continues with its plans to log the Rim fire area, the many owls residing in the post-fire forest mosaic will be harmed." It's very important not to chop down the animals' home and that salvage logging is necessary to encourage regrowth of healthy trees that provide owl habitat.
Very eloquent argument, and excellent use of textual evidence to support your claims.
DeleteI'm on the side of logging companies cutting down the burned trees. My reasoning for this, is that if another fire started because of the burned trees, it would run the owl and other animal's homes, and the wood wouldn't be useful. But if we cut down the trees and plant new ones, then the trees that we cut down would be useful to us, and the animal's would have a home.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the U.S Forest Service shouldn’t cut down the burnt trees for two reasons. The spotted owls would rather live in burnt trees than regular trees. In ‘Spotted Owls Using Burned Sierra Forest Slated for Logging’ by Chris Clark, it says, “The groups are saying USFS’s position is based on obsolete science, and that spotted owls may actually prefer burned forests for hunting.” This shows that if the USFS cut down trees, the owls would run out of prey. The groups that say the USFS’s position is based on obsolete science are Wild Nature Institute, the John Muir Project, and the Center for Biological Diversity. They are calling on USFS to take steps to protect the owls and avoid cutting down trees within a 1.5 mile radius of nesting and roosting sites of the spotted owl. USFS should not cut down the burnt trees, the spotted owls’ homes.
ReplyDeleteMy second reason is if the USFS cuts the trees down, they will harm many spotted owls. It would harm them because the burnt trees are where they live, so the USFS would be taking their homes. The Rim Fire area (2013 forest fire- Sierra Nevada forest land) is filled with many animals, including the spotted owls, so they would be taking other animals homes also. The article also states, “The logging project would take trees on about 30,000 acres of land,” which would mean, the owls and other animals couldn’t live on 30,000 acres of land. USFS would take the owls homes. USFS should leave the burnt trees alone. They could harm owl and other animals too. The spotted owls aren't the only creatures living in burnt trees; therefore, USFS would take homes from many different animals also.
-Karina V.
I think that the area should be reserved for the Spotted Owls, and not destroyed for wood. Honestly, how would you feel if someone came and destroyed your home, just because of some special wood that your house is made out of? You wouldn't want that because then you'd have no home and you would have to go find a new one. That's probably how the Spotted Owls feel, if us human beings came in and started to cut down the trees to use as wood and other things. Plus they'd be destroying other animals' homes too.
ReplyDeleteIn the article about the Spotted Owls, that was put up, it said that USFS wanted to cut down 30,000 acres of the forest, do they could get wood and so they could plant new healthy trees for them to live in and so that the trees don't set a flame again. Really I don't think they'd plant new trees all they want is the wood. Some of the scientists said that the Spotted Owls might like to hunt in the burnt trees because it's easier for them. Also if USFS did cut down the trees they would be taking away the homes of not just the owls but other creatures too. Another scientist said that the real danger is the logging, not the fire itself. When they starts logging the 30,000 acres of forest they might end up killing animals in the process, which obviously isn't good at all. I don't think that they care about the animals pr anything at all when the do this type of thing, because people these days only want money and that's about it. Also, even though the trees can set on fire the animals that are in there can usually sense when a natural danger is coming. When there is a fire they can sense it and can try to get out before it even starts. When people come to cut down the trees, the animals might not be able to tell that they have a huge danger with them that could kill the animals in the process of logging, and the animals might not have a chance to get out of there alive. I think they should just go get the wood from somewhere else so they won't harm any of the creatures living in the forest. Even though we can't avoid not getting wood because we'll need it at some point and time, they should go log somewhere else.
-Taylor S.
I agree with Apolo. I believe that ,"We want to retain enough of these trees, and we want them of different sizes and species, so that we get these habitat benefits and we maintain an ecosystem function. But, at the same time, if we start out with this uncharacteristically dense forest because of past management and fire suppression, and you just leave all these trees that are dead, you could end up with something that’s even worse," (http://www.firescience.gov/projects/briefs/06-3-4-16_FSBrief146.pdf ) If we leave the burnt,dead trees,"Fuel characteristics change over time, and these changes influence future fire behavior and severity." (same resource as stated in the previous sentence).
ReplyDeleteThis will lead to more danger to not only the spotted owls,but to all of the organisms living in the trees. I feel that it's better to cut down the dead trees instead of keeping them. Since the spotted owl's first priority is to mainly survive,it would be better for us to cut down the dead trees because if we don't,fires would happen in the future and that would kill the owls. Although,spotted owls hunt better in dead trees,they can adapt to an environment where they hunt and live in trees that are alive.
Apolo's statements,"we should be protecting the live trees, not the burnt down dead ones. Protecting a dead tree is like feeding a dead goldfish,";"The logging companies could just cut down the trees that the owls aren't living in,"are also good reasons why we should cut the dead trees whether were cutting all the dead trees or just the ones around the tree where the spotted owls live.
-Kayla A. #1
I believe that the trees should be cut down because there are many more trees for the owls to live in. I agree with apolo that we should plant more trees and that it would better for the owls to find a different tree then to get killed in another fire. The owls should be protected, but they should be moved somewhere else until the trees are cleared. In the kcet article it says that removing the trees are nessescary the growth of new and healthy trees.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, the salvage would take up over 30,000 acres of land, making it one of the biggest salvages in california history. I think they should limit that to 20,00 acres and plant newer and healtier trees in the space. That would make the salvage more enviromental and less poluted. In the article it says that if this land was taken out, the owls would most likely migrate out of the area. So , they should limit the salvage to 20,000 acres and let the owls keep their home.
I think that logging companies should not cut down the burnt trees. One reason is that many animals including the spotted owls call this home. If the logging happened it can kill many animals in their own home and that would be terrible. Also Monica Bond, a principal scientist for the Wild Nature Institute says, "Logging has always been a real danger to spotted owls not fire." This shows that you shouldn't log animals homes. Logging shouldn't be used on animals homes.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason is spotted owls seem to prefer burned forests and if they logged it down, then the owls would have to find a new home. For example, Justin Augustine and the Center for Biology Diversity say, "The Rim Fire area is teeming with wildlife that thrives in burned forests, including these spotted owls." This proves that spotted owls and other animals prefer burned forests. If logging companies decide to take down the forest then they will be killing a lot of animals. This brings me back to my main point, logging companies shouldn't cut down the burnt forest because it is inhabited by wildlife.
I believe the logging company should not cut down the trees and let the owls and other animals stay in their habitats. The California spotted owls need the burnt trees to survive better. The spotted owls may prefer the burnt trees for hunting purposed and the owls have made a home in the burnt trees, which means if they get cut down, the owls will have to go somewhere else where they might not do as well as with the burnt trees. According to Monica Bond, a principal scientist for the Wild Nature Institute, "Logging has always been the real danger to spotted owls, not fire." This means that if the trees get cut down, then there is a big problem because the owls may not find a home that as good as the burnt trees.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, it is not even only the spotted owls that may be harmed, there are many other animals, for example the black backed woodpecker. These animals may be able to do better and the spotted owls may repopulate in California, but if the trees get cut down, them all of those animals will not be able to do as well. So I believe that these animals can do better with the burnt trees and that the trees should not be logged.
In my opinion, the logging company should not cut down these trees that owls are living in. The spotted owls need these trees for a better life, spotted owls choose burnt trees over normal trees. Yes, they could say that a fire started from these trees but we are talking about living animals lives here. Plus the owls aren't the only animals living here, "blacked beaked woodpeckers" are in the Sierra Forrest. Even Monica Bond, a principal scientist for the Wild Nature Institute says, "Logging has always been a real danger to spotted owls not fire." This shows us that it is more of a danger to the owls homes. Also, without these trees the wildlife that live in the forest will become extinct.
ReplyDeleteWhich leads to my conclusion, the logging company should not cut down these trees because it is putting harmless animals at risk and these logging companies have to right to be cutting down the these trees in the Sierra Forrest.
The government has had an option of logging the burned trees of the Sierra forest. However, there's also a choice of saving the spotted owls who live in the forest. I believe that the trees of the Sierra forest should not be logged for the sake of the spotted owls, and other animals who live in the forest as well. Justine Augustine and the Center for Biological Diversity once stated,"The Rim Fire area is teeming with wildlife that thrives in burned forests, including these spotted owls living right in the same forests the government wants to cut down." This proves that if the trees are logged, not only will the spotted owls lose their habitat, but so do other animals who call the forest their home.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, even though the government believes that logging the trees would provide new development and growth to the forest, a letter sent to the USFS says otherwise. "...USFS's position is based on obsolete science, and that spotted owls may actually prefer burned forests for hunting." This shows that logging the trees would not be the best for the spotted owls. If the government has the trees logged, the spotted owls cannot live like they used to in which the results could be catastrophic. In conclusion, The government shouldn't take away life from the forest by logging the trees that spotted owls, and other animals live in.
-Shreya S.
I think they should keep the trees. If the owls have already adjusted to the new habitat why make them change again? It's just like someone came up to your house and said," we want to destroy your house and you'll have to find a New one". You wouldn't want that, so why make the owls go through that? Even if it may mean a gain for us, they are still living creatures an they should be treated equally.
ReplyDeleteThen again, burnt trees could make the risk of forest fires higher. More wood wouldn't be bad either. As long as the owls are happy though, we should keep it like that and shouldn't cut down the trees and mess with the owls.
-Juliana P.
Though both options have justification for their actions, I believe that they should preserve the spotted owls' habitat instead of clearing out the burned trees."The Rim Fire area is teeming with wildlife that thrives in burned forests, including these spotted owls living right in the same forests the government wants to cut down," according to the article. This shows that clearing the trees will not only eliminate habitats for the owls, but for plenty of other species in the area as well. Conservation Northwest and Sierra Forest Legacy state that the habitats for these owls has declined about 40-60% in the last 10 years and their populations have declined 50% from 1990-2012 in some areas, making it crucial that we start saving these animals now instead of waiting for them to become endangered.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that cutting down the burned trees will benefit the owls is only partially true, because even though it does serve as protection from future fires, it has more downsides to it. "The logging project would take out trees on about 30,000 acres of land, making it one of the largest salvage logging operations in USFS history," says Chris Clarke. Do we really want to clear this much land? In conclusion, we should just leave the trees alone and let the owls live their lives.
~Kayla A. II
I don't think that the trees should be cut down because that is California spotted owl's natural habitat. The logging plan can't just go into the Sierra's forest and just start cutting down trees for wood. Those owls use that forest for their home and for good hunting ground. That logging company will wipe out everyone of the thirty-three breeding owl family there, they will put owl's in danger of losing their families. Even though the forest is still in danger of burning, they should let the owl's live where they want to live. As I did research on the website www.kcet.org I found that they also agree with keeping the owl's habitat.
ReplyDeleteKcet says "we will sue the logging plan to protect the owl's and animals in that habitat." The logging company is just doing what they are told for the money, but I bet they wouldn't want to harm innocent animals, the owl's use the forest as their home. If the loggers destroy the forest the owl's will have to move out of their homes, and possibly out of California. I do not think they should put the animals at risk of having lost their homes.
I think the logging companies should't take the burnt trees out because the owls, and other animals living in the burnt trees, should be able to live there rather then it being taken away from them. The logging companies probably just want money from this and don't even care about the animals' whose homes they are taking away. The trees may be a fire hazard, but why would animals live in them if they knew it would be suicidal? I trust the animals' instincts because of the fact that some animals, such as dogs and other animals, help humans and act on their instincts. Also, these trees might be getting wasted an not turned into furniture or paper, but its not really being wasted because they're turning into a home, and not just a little decoration or object. These homes are actually helping the animals and taking it away from them is just heartless and cruel. No one would like it if someone showed up at their house and was forced to leave, so why should animals be treated any different?
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, the logging companies shouldn't take the burnt trees away for their own benefit and leave the animals alone to live their lives in their new found homes, that was created by something unfortunate that turned into something special.
-Nikamarie F.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBryan, I got your comment, but I had to delete it because you put your full last name in there.
DeleteHere is Bryan T's comment:
I think that they shouldn't cut down the trees because the spotted owl and a lot of other animals homes will be destroyed. The forest has a chance of burning but the owls need a place to live and a place to hunt. It's like giants coming in after our houses burn down to destroy all our houses. They still have a chance of burning but I think a shelter is better than no shelter even if it's a little not dangerous. I think that they should stop the logging company and let the animals live where they want to.
Fire isn't the issue, people coming in and tearing down their houses is. According to Monica Bond, a principal scientist for the Wild Nature Institute, "Logging has always been the real danger to spotted owls, not fire." In the article it shows that more animals are endangered than just the spotted owl. A" third subspecies, the Mexican spotted owl, ranges from the Rocky Mountains in Utah to central Mexico. Both the northern and Mexican subspecies are listed as Threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act." I conclude that they should NOT cut down the trees or we will have a bunch of unhappy birds and animals.
I think the the trees should not be cut down. There are many reasons they shouldn't cut down the trees. It wouldn't just be harming the owls, there are other animals in the burnt forest. Although the keeping the burnt forest there is the better option it is true that there is a little bit of a fire hazard which could danger some animals.
ReplyDeleteI think this because in the third paragraph it says "that the stooped owls may actually prefer the burned forest for hunting." this shows that it could possibly be better for them to live there, or they want to live there. which would mean they shouldn't be cutting down those trees if they wanted to be there. plus they are a species of endangered owls so is they did cut down the trees could it could kill some of the population of owls.
I think that they should cut down the forest because the fires pose a threat not only to owls, but the humans and other animals living in the forest. When winter ends and summer is back, the low winds and high heat increase the chances of already burned trees and charcoal to be caught on fire again. The Rim Fire area is teeming with wildlife that thrives in burned forests, including these spotted owls. This makes the outcome of having a fire again in the forest even worse. "In the spring and summer of this year, USFS biologists found 33 breeding pairs of the diminutive owls in forests burned by the Rim Fire". With this many species with this habitat now, the population will increase and by the summer, it could be a more major place of inhabitants by spotted owls. If another fire happens, many spotted owls and other animals could be lost.
ReplyDeleteYou have to think about the big picture. There is more at stake than just the owls. If the fire burns through again, many more species could be put in danger. There are more species that inhabit a burnt forest environment than just spotted owls. In conclusion, I think that the forest should be cut down, and the inhabitants relocated best as can be.
-Caleb S.
I agree with Apollo that the burnt trees should be cut down. They are a fire hazzard and if they start a new fire more trees and some wild life including the spotted owl could be killed. As he said we should be protecting trees but not dead ones. Protecting dead trees is like feeding a dead goldfish.
ReplyDeleteI also see the other side of the argue meant. The owls need some where to live. The trees might not be home to just the spotted owls. Other wild life might live there and lose there homes.
-Lauren M.
I think that the trees should be cut down because when summer begins high temperatures might cause sparks. The sparks can quickly lead to infernos if the trees around them are burnt. The old burnt wood is excellent fuel for a fire.If a fire occurs, then the owls that live in the burnt trees and the ones that live in the other trees are both in trouble. The burnt trees could also pose a problems for some animals who depend on the tree for food. Th animals might get poisoned and die. :(
ReplyDelete-----------Jamal N.
I think the trees shouldn't be cut down. We need to preserve as many geographically made structures as we can. This is one of them. Maybe the owls won't even be functional in any other place. Would you want to have the owls disappear? I wouldn't. It just seems like the right thing to do.
ReplyDelete---Kaela A.
Don't forget: your comment should be at least two full paragraphs, you should respond to your classmates' previous comments, and you should use textual evidence from the article in the post.
ReplyDelete