This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Conservation Planning:
Lessons from the Spotted Owl
R. J. Gutierrez1
I
Abstract -The spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) has helped natural resource
managers. focus on the appropriate scale of management (single species
versus larger systems). While larger scale management systems are
necessary, endangered species management is relevant. The scientific
process and the presence of empirical knowledge are necessary to establish
scientific credibility. Scientific credibility is the key to acceptance of
conservati.on plans by the courts, Congress, and the public. Scien~e as a
process includes not only gathering knowledge but also communication,
appropriate use of models, appropriate inferences, peer review, and other
features. The relationship between wildlife biologists and forest managers
has deteriorated as a result of this conflict. Perhaps this is due to the
differences in operational and philosophical paradigms that govern each
group. Another reason could be the education process prevalent within these
different paradigms. The educational system could playa greater role in
preparing future resource specialists for the challenge of managing complex
ecological systems. The lessons learned from the spotted owl controversy
are relevant not only to endangered species but also to ecosystem
management and new forestry initiatives.
We probably know more about the status and ecology
of the spotted ow I than of any other threatened or
endangered species (Gutierrez 1993a). Most of this
information stems from research culminating in the past
decade. This information base has allowed science-based
management plans. Since my research group and I are
associated with a university, our work has an air of
independence because we presumably have no vested
interest in the outcome of the research and political
pressures may be less than for government scientists.
Finally, I am a member of both the northern spotted owl
recovery team and the California spotted owl technical
team. In view of my independent research and management
involvement, I wish to share my perspectives on
conservation planning for the spotted owl and the lessons
I have learned.
I present some insights I have gained in this process as
they may affect future conservation planning, particularly
"New Forestry" initiatives. Although many professionals
believe the spotted owl is a major obstacle to forest
management, I believe the bird galvanized our recognition
that ecological systems cannot be managed piecemeal.
INTRODUCTION
More has been said or written about the spotted owl
occidentalis) than any other threatened or
endangered species because of its association with ancient
forests. The bird has declined in many places primarily
because of logging its primary habitat (Gutierrez 1993b).
As a result of past declines and future projected declines
in its habitat both the northern (S. o. caurina) and Mexican
(S. o. /ucida) subspecies have been declared threatened
(USDI 1990, USDI 1993b). At least 9 management plans
have been proposed to maintain viable populations of
various spotted owl subspecies (USDA 1988, Thomas et
aI. 1990, USDA 1991, Johnson et aI. 1991, SOWS 1991,
USDA 1992, Verner et al. 1992, Thomas et al. 1993, USDI
1993a). Status and literature reviews have become
commonplace because of the explosion of knowledge about
this owl (see reviews in Gutierrez 1993a).
(Strix
1 R. J. GutifJrrez is Professor of Wildlife Management,
Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, Califomia
95521.
51
LESSONS FROM THE SPOTTED OWL:
THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN RESOLVING
CONFLICT
by wildlife biologists and forest managers) theory of
maintenance of genetic diversity (Fnmklin 1980). Since loss of
genetic diversity was receiving much attention in the budding
"conservation biology" field (Soule and Wilcox 1980), it was
assumed that genetic diversity was a key to maintaining spotted
owls. The SOMA plan lacked credibility because simple facts
of natural history (e.g., spotted owl home ranges are on average
much larger than 405 ha; owls usually exist as adjacent rather
than isolated pairs) suggested that this plan neither accounted
for home range needs nor considered social and population
dynamics. Further, it was quickly shown that genetic
considerations were unimportant relative to short-term
demographic crumge (Barrowclough and Coats 1985). Thus, not
only was the theory irrelevant to the problem, but also the
structure of the SOMA system was inappropriate in light of
natural histOlY.
Empirical knowledge has repeatedly proven to be a powerful
force in developing spotted owl plans. The northern subspecies
was listed, in part, on the basis of declining trends in many owl
populations, the absence of· owls in areas where they were
expected (e.g., Western Washington Lowlands Province), and
declining habitat trends (USDI 1990). The data showing decline
were birth and death rates estimated from capture-recapture
studies. The absence of owls from certain areas was noted from
detailed sUlVeys throughout the bird's range. The inference of
declining habitat was based on owl habitat selection studies (e.g.,
Forsman et al., 1984) and rates of logging. In fact, no empirical
study has not demonstrated that spotted owls show strong
selection for either primary (old growth or mature) forests or
forests with complex structure and relatively large trees (see Bart
and Earnst 1993 for a summary).
Knowledge is strength because it supports a planning
endeavor. It provides the mechanism for articulating and
defending the plan to decision-makers. It also allows
decision-makers to make informed choices if scientists clearly
intetpret the inferences taken from data (see below).
Although many wildlife managers are concerned over the
amount of money spent on spotted owl research, it is justified
for the following reasons. The spotted owl is the first species
declared threatened when populations were still relatively
widespread. Thus, the question seems to have been "how many
owls do we need?" This question is often posed as " minimalist"
theory (i.e., minimum viable populations, e.g., Shaffer 1987). In
order to answer the question, basic ecological information is
needed. Following the acquisition of this information, a
theoretical framewOlx is needed to predict the consequence of
various impacts on owl populations. This means that we must
be able to model population dynamics and habitat trends over
time. Finally, populations must be monitored to assess the
efficacy of the management plan. While a huge amount of
money has been spent on spotted owls, the original questions
were beyond what wildlife biologists had confronted previously
and this warranted the expenditures. In any event, all of this
money is equivalent to old growth timber value within 1-2 owl
home ranges at today's prices! Further, nearly all scientists agree
Science as a Process
Throughout the spotted owl conflict, the role of science as a
process has been shown to be decisive in litigation, judicial
review, congressional support, and public acceptance of
management plans or inferences about the fate of the owl. Key
features of this scientific process have been repeatability and
generality of results; full disclosure of methods, experimental
design, analytical process ana results; and willingness of
investigators to present inferences drawn from the results. The
objectivity and openness with which individual scientists have
operated have been critical to the fate of plans. Even when a
plan such as USDA (1988) has been rejected, it was rejected
because the preferred alternative carried an unacceptable risk of
failure in the eyes of the court aDd concerned citizens. This level
of risk was noted by the scientists themselves (see also Marcot
and Holthausen 1987, USDA 1988).
Mwphy and Noon (1992) described the development of the
Interagency Scientific Committee's (lSC) spotted owl
management plan. This plan has been challenged repeatedly by
the timber industry, individual foresters, advocate scientists
(those scientists hired specifically to challenge the plan), and
lawyers. The plan sUlVived because of 1) the scientific process
used to develop the conservation strategy; 2) the scientists'
willingness to articulate the process leading to the inferences
about the potential response of the owl to a reserve design; and
3) the empirical knowledge about the owl that supported the
plan.
It is evident that courts, politicians, and the public are
becoming more sophisticated in forestry related issues. Thus,
those advocating more holistic resource management should be
aware that the process they follow as well as the knowledge
they use to support novel approaches to sustainable resource
exploitation will be heavily scrutinized. The days of pronouncing
change without science-driven plans are over.
Facts
Theory can be a powerful tool in the development of
endangered species conservation plans. However, it pales in
comparison to empirical knowledge about the life hiStOlY of a
species. A theory used to develop a plan without an empirical
base will not be scientifically credible, if an alternative plan is
supported by natural or life history infonnation
For example, the first U. S. Forest Service northern spotted
owl management plan called for 405 ha spotted owl management
areas (SOMA) to protect suitable habitat (see USDA 1988). In
addition, this plan called for as few as 500 SOMAs. The number
500 was chosen on the basis of a widely misunderstood (i.e.,
52
economic ones. This and all other spotted owl conselVation plans
have been driven in part by economic considerations (Thomas
and Verner 1992).
The ISC developed a habitat reserve system only after a series
of hypotheses were tested regarding population stability and
habitat selection (Thomas et al. 1990). Empirical knowledge
about the birds supported those tests. Finally, population
dynamics modeling was used to structure the reselVe design
(specifically, the number of reselVes and their sizes). Thus facts
and theory led to a reselVe design that was more appropriate to
the conselVation of owls than was the SOMA plan However,
the reselVe design i~lf is still a hypothesis that needs to be
tested (Thomas et al. 1990).
To develop a management plan for the California spotted owl
(S. o. occidentalis), a technical team was fonned by the U. S.
Forest Service (Verner et aI. 1992). In contrast to northern
spotted owls, California spotted owls were relatively unifonnly
distributed and it was not certain that populations were declining
(see Verner et aI. 1992). However, it was evident that California
spotted owls were habitat specialists and that their habitat was
declining under proposed forest haIvest strategies (Verner et aI.
1992). A reselVe design like the one proposed by the ISC was
rejected on the basis of empirical information Verner et aI.
(1992) developed an interim plan that protected limited habitat
around individual owl sites and also protected the large (> 76
cm) trees throughout the Sierra Nevada that characterized
California spotted owl habitat. Thus, a plan was conceived that
was appropriate to the data. The California spotted owl plan has
withstood withering attacks by foresters and the timber industry
partly because inferences drawn were based on empirical
information
Much has been said regarding the role of scientists as
advocates. Wildlife management evolved in a conselVative
arena. Thus, many wildlife scientists are reluctant to advocate a
position on conservation decisions. Each scientist must choose
whether to be an advocate or to remain neutral regarding his or
her own information However, I believe that scientists have an
obligation to explain their woIk as well as the inferences allowed
by their woIk because they know the data and its limitations
best. If a scientist does not advocate action based on his or her
woIk, many others will do the same.
that a pro-active approach to conselVation (i.e., when a species
is still relatively abundant) is much less costly than" emergency
room" approaches.
Models
Models are important to assess potential affects of either
population trends or management impacts on long-tenn viability
of the population However, models cannot replace empirical
knowledge because models should be based on empirical
knowledge. From my non-model builder's viewpoint, models
are tremendously influential. Models themselves have fonned
the basis for arguments about the reliability of a plan in political
and legal settings. We as scientists and resource managers must
stress the fact that models are only tools and are only as good
as their foundation They should be used in an exploratory
fashion and given credence only after empirical testing. If
models are allowed to become' the focus of conselVation
planning in lieu of empirical infonmtion, we will see a chaotic
future in conselVation as advocate scientists produce a battery
of dueling models (e.g., see Boyce 1987).
In summary, appropriate management plans are based on
knowledge and basic research is needed to achieve this
knowledge. Models are tools that can be used to explore patterns
suggested by knowledge.
Comm unication
Presentation of information is as important as its acquisition
Decisions-makers, faced with economically consequential
choices, naturally tend to favor economic considerations. This
is true of the spotted owl issue (Thomas and Verner 1992).
Therefore, it is important that the manner in which information
is presented to decision-makers be unambiguous and contain
information that not only they can use but also those who
challenge those decisions can use. As scientists we have an
obligation to present the entire set of facts. One example is the
presentation of point estimates and measures of their variability.
This simple information can make the difference between the
success and failure of a plan (e.g., the SOMA plan).
Peer Review
In peer review, qualified scientists review the woIk of other
scientists. In order to be effective, referees must be chosen by
a neutral third party to avoid a conflict of interest. Ideally,
referees are unbiased, honest, and knowledgeable. Referees
review the experimental design, methods, analysis, logic, and
inferences in a rigorous manner. Peer review is absolutely
necessary for the progress and integrity of science and scientists
alike. It is also important for management plans to be subjected
to peer review not only for their scientific content but also for
the inferences that directed each decision within the plan (e.g.,
Appropriate Inferences
Appropriate inferences drawn from empirical or theoretical
woIk have been critical to the acceptance of conselVation plans.
The adoption of a 405 ha SOMA was an inappropriate inference,
given available information on owl home range sizes. This figure
actually fell below the obselVed range of owl home range sizes:
408 ha of old forest (Forsman et al. 1984). The recommendation
of 405 ha SOMAs was made not on scientific grounds but on
53
spotted owl the cost of management would be prohibitive. Thus,
the owl controversy sharpened the focus of conservation
planners and politicians alike on the issue of single species
management as a conservation strategy. It was clear when I
wotked with the northern spotted owl recovery team that the
owl was the tip of the "species iceberg." Anthony et aI. (1993)
demonstrated that while the recovery plan would help conserve
old forest wildlife it would not assure their future viability.
Concurrently, the court was forcing the U. S. Forest Service to
expand the spotted owl analysis to include other species
associated with late seral stage forests (Thomas et aI. 1993).
Conservation planners and land managers have been expanding
their horizons as exemplified by the U. S. Forest Service's new
scientific analysis team report on the spotted owl and other
species (11lomas et al. 1993), New Perspectives Initiative by the
U. S. Forest Service (Kessler et al. 1992) and ecosystem
management ideas (e.g., Swanson and Franklin 1992, Franklin
1993). Despite our willingness to invoke new paradigms of
forest management, our knowledge of the impact of forestry and
other extractive resource uses on wildlife has been rudimentaIy
at best.
Franklin (1993) argues that ecosystem management is the
only course of action However, the spotted owl and other
endangered species are still relevant issues even in an expanded
philosophy of management. For one thing they help focus our
attention on more broadly defined problems like habitat
conservation. In addition, some endangered species have such
narrow habitat requirements and limited distribution that they
must receive individual protection and attention Thus, both
approaches must be wed together. Contrary to popular belief,
endangered species management, in general, is not disruptive to
other activities, nor need it be a piecemeal protection program
(Wilcove et al. 1993).
a reserve plan vs. a non-reserve plan). Scientific wotk receiving
the benefit of such scrutiny usually is held in higher regard than
non-peer reviewed work. It has been the modus operandi of
most spotted owl scientists to seek peer review. In addition, all
recent conservation plans have been peer reviewed by
appropriate scientific societies. These evaluations have given
current spotted owl management plans scientific credibility
because the scientists and planners have invited criticism and
evaluation In contrast, many documents propose alternative
management plans that have been publicized without peer
review (e.g., Craig 1986, SOWS 1991, Anon. 1991). These
documents almost uniformly lack scientific credibility (e.g., see
Sirnberloff 1989 for one review). A corollaty of peer review is
that authors of plans, reviews,. or scientific documents should
be identified. Recently, anonymous reports have appeared that
claim no specific author (e.g., Anon 1991). These anonymous
reports lack credibility because authors are not identified.
I
Delphi Approach
The "Delphi Approach" is a fonn of professional judgment.
If a rigorous, quantitative analysis cannot be made, a consensus
among experts can be used to drnw inferences or to develop
tentative aspects of conservation plans. This approach is well
recognized as the basis for many of the Habitat Evaluation
Procedures of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. One of the
few "weak" links in the ISC strategy (11lomas et al. 1990) is
the application of the " 50-11-40 rule" . This construct states that
at least 50% of the landscape not explicitly protected within owl
reserves should be covered by trees of at least 11 inches diameter
at breast height and also be covered by 40% canopy closure.
This rule presumably facilitates juvenile dispersal (Thomas et
al. 1990). Yet there is a paucity of infonnation regarding habitat
selection by juvenile spotted owls. Thus, there is little empirical
support for this "rule", but its acceptability lay in the
professional experience of the ISC as well as their honesty and
openness following their recommendation. In addition, science
as a process governed their deliberations. The delphi approach
under some circumstances is acCeptable if there is no other
alternative. In fact, it appears that the courts are willing to accept
professional judgment in these matters if there is no other
alternative. I propose a "litmus test" for a delphi procedure.
lbat "test" is the willingness of the individual scientists to
defend the plan Often a weak link in a plan such as the 50-11-40
rule is considered a fatal flaw, but Mmphy and Noon (1991:776)
argue that a plan is a strong as its strongest link rather than as
weak as its weakest link.
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG RESOURCE
PROFESSIONALS
Professional relationships deteriorated between foresters and
wildlife managers (and conservation biologists) during the
spotted owl controversy. Part of this deterioration is the result
of a changing emphasis in wildlife management from game
management (where most game species are edge species and
therefore often" benefit" from timber haIvest) to general wildlife
management (where timber haIvest may be detrimental to some
species). The other part, in my opinion, has to do with the
educational framewotk of each discipline. In the past two
decades I have never heard a forester say that he/she could not
achieve some objective or "desired future condition" (with the
exception of" recreating" old growth systems). This is not meant
as a slanderous rematk but merely illustrates the fundamental
difference and philosophy upon which our educations are based.
I present a few of these differences below.
Single Species Management
One of the most controversial aspects of endangered species
management is the high cost of managing species like the
spotted owl. If every species received the same attention as the
54
is predictable (Le., there is little or no uncertainty). Some
possible reasons for the certainty expressed by foresters are the
agricultural paradigm discussed above, their view of ecological
succession, and the educational process itself.
A debate raged among ecologists during the early part of this
century on the nature of ecological succession One school of
thought proposed that succession was probabilistic (Gleason
1926) and the other proposed that it was detenninistic (Clements
1916). Ecologists now believe that succession is generally
probabilistic for a variety of reasons (Drury and Nisbet 1973).
However, foresters apparently harbor a notion that succession is
detenninistic becausei' if it really were probabilistic, there would
be a higher level of uncertainty in the outcome of silvicultural
prescriptions. To be sure, one aspect of silviculture is to reduce
the probabilistic nature of succession through manipulation (e.g.,
site preparation, fertilization, herbicide application).
Nevertheless, the confidence expressed by foresters must be a
function of their belief that succession will follow a predictable
path In contrast, wildlife biologists generally acknowledge
uncertainty about the outcomes of habitat manipulation for
non-game and endangered species (e.g., Shaffer 1987, Mwphy
and Noon 1991).
I cannot speak with much authority on the educational process
of foresters, but I can about wildlife biologists. Humboldt State
University has one of the largest wildlife programs in the United
States. Thus, my colleagues and I teach many students each year.
It is a cornerstone of our philosophy to express and illustrate
the uncertainty of biological prediction and management
planning. Rather than teaching that uncertainty is a weakness
we teach that it is a strength because it forces one to WOIK within
one's limitations and to consider the consequences of one's
actions. Thus, it serves to temper predictions and to err on the
conservative side of actions that may affect species, particularly
endangered ones. From my limited interactions with forestty
students at four universities I have an impression that scientific
uncertainty in forestty is not expressed as a philosophical
component of their curricula.
As long as disciplines operate within different paradigms they
have a lower chance of meaningful interdisciplinary WOIK.
Rather than being willing partners in creating novel solutions to
problems, one seems to be dragged along by the other. My
experience with spotted owls and forestty issues has taught me
that there is little trust between forest managers and wildlife
biologists. This lack of trust was explicitly addressed in the ISC
report (Thomas et al. 1990). It was a topic of discussion many
times within the recovery team. More recently, Interior Secretary
Babbitt openly expressed this lack of trust in public forum.
Finally, even foresters themselves recognize that there are
fundamental problems with traditional forest management,
particularly within the U. S. Forest Service (e..g, see the
newspaper "Inner Voice" ).
How do we restore trust and regain our working relationship
as resource managers? We have to re-assess the philosophical
and scientific basis upon which our disciplines operate. The
willingness of wildlife biologists worlcing with spotted owls to
The Agricultural Paradigm
Forestty operates primarily under an agricultural paradigm
while wildlife management operates under an ecological
paradigm. The agricultural paradigm is driven by the fact that
one can cut trees (as a crop), prepare the soil, plant seedlings
or seeds, fertilize the new crop or allow it to grow on stored
nutrients, and then harvest the mature crop. This cycle can be
repeated until the soil is exhausted or the system is ecologically
disrupted (Maser 1988). The ability to achieve a desired result
like growing a tree crop (at least in the short tenn) is not
equivalent to achieving the replication of a myriad of complex
forest ecological interactions (Maser 1988). Under the ecological
paradigm, forests are viewed as ~omplex systems with many
structures and functions. Conversely, under the agricultural
paradigm forests are viewed as areas that contain economically
valuable trees. It is generally believed by foresters that they can
"recreate" spotted owl habitat. In fact, one well known forest
ecologist, speaking at President Clinton's forest summit, stated
that foresters could recreate spotted owl habitat but not old
growth. A wildlife biologist's question is "how can we recreate
spotted owl habitat when we do not know what it is?" In order
to understand truly a species' habitat we should know not only
the structure of its habitat but what regulates the population and
how regulatory mechanisms are related to habitat conditions.
For the spotted owl, we do not understand population regulation
nor is the information on habitat structure well developed (e.g.,
there is not a published paper on habitat characteristics of
northern spotted owls north of the California border!). Thus, the
ability to foster tree growth through silvicultural practices
(agricultural paradigm) is not equivalent to "recreating" owl
habitat (ecological paradigm). The current occupation of
previously logged forests by spotted owls is not evidence that
we can "recreate" owl habitat. These birds nearly always occupy
regenerating forests with residual old forest components. We still
do not know if these owls constitute viable populations nor if
foresters can consistently derive these conditions in a timely
manner through silviculture. Of course, the fact that we do not
know the critical features of owl habitat does not mean that we
should not attempt forestty experiments designed to maintain
owl habitat. But these experiments should be done in a
replicated, rigorous fashion that lends scientific credibility to the
results (Mwphy and Noon 1992, USDI 1993). For that matter,
all new forestty initiatives should be considered experiments
because of the uncertainty in their outcomes (see below).
The Uncertainty Principle
Uncertainty is the nature of science. Mwphy and Noon (1991)
discuss this fact in relation to their experience while woIking
on the ISC strategy. Even some politicians recognize this feature
of science (e.g., Gore 1992:38). Yet when discussing forestty
and its implications for spotted owl habitat management, I am
left with the impression that many foresters believe silviculture
55
As part of the work of the northern spotted owl recovery
team and the California spotted owl technical team, each team
wished to know how much owl habitat remained, where it was
located spatially, what were the past cutting patterns and history,
where the future haIvest was going to occur, etc. We were unable
to answer these questions. Often the data were not computerized
nor cataloged for easy retrieval. Process, procedures, and data
bases on forest resources varied by national forest and
sometimes by forest district. Our attempt to answer some
fundamental questions necessruy for future prediction was often
bewildering because the infonnation available was chaotic in
organization, distribution and similarity. Often basic knowledge
was unavailable, and if it was available it often was neither
easily accessible nor in an usable form. If "adaptive"
management will be the guide for ecosystem management, it
should be based on knowledge derived from research (preferably
experiments). Ecosystem management also implies that
management will occur in a spatially explicit environment. The
U. S. Forest Service, which manages the majority of owl habitat
and which will selVe as a primary initiator of new forestry
initiatives (Kessler et al. 1993), does not have a physical
infrastructure and centralized philosophy to accomplish
ecosystem management, if I am to judge from my experience
working on the owl teams.
I do not intend to criticize individuals who wOlk in the U.S.
Forest SelVice. Rather, I am stating a fact about the structure of
the organization Record keeping and retrieval are not spatially
explicit or consistent throughout the SeIVice. This will inhibit
future planning, monitoring, and adaptation to a spatially explicit
philosophy of landscape or ecosystem management. The
following actions would help rectify this problem within the
U.S. Forest SeIVice. First, a substantial amount of time should
be spent on developing an infrastructure to meet the needs of
the organization (primary objectives being the acquisition of an
agency consistent, spatially explicit Geographic Infonnation
System, a data base system, and baseline resource reference
system It would be effective to acquire a system that will be
accessible to non-agency resource managers and scientists.
Second, those who are statespersons of change in ecosystem
management or other large scale initiatives should spend as
much time advocating the development of infrastructure and
science as a process as they do articulating philosophy. I selVe
on the boards of The Nature ConselVancy and Tall Timbers
Research Station and I have found that it is much easier to sell
an idea than a reality. The reality of an infrastructure to support
ecosystem management will be more expensive to achieve than
the acceptance of new policy. Third, a balance needs to be found
between individual initiative and creativity (Le., maintaining the
ability of national forests and districts to respond to local
conditions) and consistency of record keeping (i.e., a centralized
and internally consistent management system). Fourth, a
philosophy of science can be introduced to new forestIy
initiatives by considering every action that affects the
environment as a test of a hypothesis with a set of predictions
and a course of monitoring.
expose their own uncertainty even when subjected to
professional as well as public criticism has resulted in their being
viewed with favorable public and judicial sentiment. The
expression of uncertainty is viewed as honesty and humility by
the general public. It is also necessary for scientific
advancement. The public image of forestry and foresters,
unfortunately, has suffered as a result of the controversy
surrounding the spotted owl. One only has to recount mass
media advertisement campaigns, which attempted to project a
positive forestry image, as evidence of an unfavorable public
image. On the other hand, wildlife biologists/managers suffer
from being one of the few fields in which the lay person thinks
he or she knows more than the professionals.
This issue of trust is not tri.vial because the success of new
forestry initiatives must be executed in an open and honest
mrumer with the sustainability of resources clearly the primary
objective. I wony about these new initiatives because I already
hear grumbling that it is euphemism for another round of
resource exploitation
•
My comments should not be construed to be forester bashing
but rather to point to a starting place where this destructive cycle
of mistrust and non~ooperation can be broken Educators of
foresters and wildlifers, myself included, have not done enough
to bridge the disciplinary gap. Indeed, competition and
antagonism is prevalent, if not encouraged by some faculty,
among students toward their sister profession This is not only
counter productive but unprofessional. The rift between
disciplines can best be bridged by young minds who still have
not been exposed to the prejudicial legacy that we have built
for them I also believe that forestIy, at least as practiced on
public lands, should be governed under an ecological rather than
an agricultural paradigm New forest management initiatives
imply a shift from an agricultural to an ecological paradigm
This may necessitate fundamental changes in the foundation of
forestry school curricula
DISCUSSION
Relevance of Spotted Owls to Ecosystem
Management
Knowledge about spotted owls, and about other species
(including plants), is gained from extensive and intensive
research. This information can be the foundation for models to
explore future scenarios in resource management. The call for
changing forest management and policy is an event that
ecologists welcome. Yet despite the eloquent rhetoric about new
initiatives in forest management (Kessler et al. 1992, Swanson
and Franklin 1992, Franklin 1993), the success of these
initiatives will depend upon knowledge and action, not words
and policy directives.
56
TIle spotted owl helped change the way we view forests as
well as resource and habitat sustainability. The process of
science followed by spotted owl scientists and the acquisition
of knowledge about the bird that supported management plans
selVed as a model for endangered species conselVation and, one
hopes, for more comprehensive forest management strategies.
In my view, rather than the owl being a roadblock to
management, it selVed as a stepping stone to progress. Whether
science as a process will continue to be a major influence on
conselVation decisions or whether the political considerations
will supersede science will be a test of the importance of science
to society.
.
Anthony, Robert; Williams, Thomas; Bart, Jonathan; Bruce,
Charlie; Boula, Kathryn; Elmore, Wayne; Fay, John;
Holthausen, Richard; Knowles, Donald; Stalkey, Edward;
Rodrick, Betty. 1993. Consideration of other species and
ecosystem concerns, Appendix D in: U.S. Department of the
Interior, Draft recovety plan for the northern spotted owl.
Barrowclough, George, F.; Sadie L. Coats. 1985. The
demography and population genetics of owls with special
reference to the conselVation of the spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis). Pages 74-85 in: Gutierrez, R. 1., and Andrew
B. Carey, eds. Ecology and management of the spotted owl
in the Pacific Northwest. General Technical Report
PNW-185. Portland, OR; U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station
Bart, Jonathan; Earnst, Susan 1993. Suitable habitat for northern
spotted owls: an update. Appendix B in: U.S. Department of
the Interior, Draft recovety plan for the northern spotted owl.
Boyce, Mark S. 1987. A Review of the U.S. Forest SelVice's
viability analysis for the spotted owl. ColValliS, OR: National
Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement, Inc. 50 p.
Clements, F.E. 1916. Plant succession: Analysis of the
development of vegetation Carnegie Institute of Washington
Publication, No. 242. Washington D.C. 16.3.3, 16.4.5.
Craig, George A. 1986. The spotted owl and wise forest use.
Western Timber Association, Sacramento, CA. 69 p.
Dru:ty, W. H.; I. C. T. Nisbet. 1973. Succession Journal Arnold
AIboretum, Harvard University. 54:331-368.
Forsman, Eric D.; Meslow, E. Charles; Wight, Howard M. 1984.
Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon
Wildlife Monographs. 87:1-64.
Franklin, Ian Robert. 1980. Evolutionaty change in small
populations; pages 135-149 in: Soule, Michael E.; Wilcox,
Bruce A. eds. Conservation biology: An evolutionatyecological perspective. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland,
Massachusetts.
Franklin, Jefty F. 1993. Preserving Biodiversity: species,
ecosystems or landscapes. Ecological Applications 3 :202-205.
Gleason, H.A. 1926. The individualistic concept of the plant
association. Torrey Botanical Chili Bulletin 53:7-26.
Gore, AI. 1992. Earth in the balance: ecology and the human
spirit. Houghton Mifi1in Company, New York. 408 p.
Gutierrez, R. 1. 1993a. Natural histoty of the northern spotted
owl. Pages 15-36 in U.S.DJ. Recovety plan for the northern
spotted owl: final draft. U. S. Department of Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon.
Gutierrez R.I. 1993b. Changes in the distribution and abundance
of spotted owl in the past centUlY. in Jehl, Joseph; Ned K.
Johnson eds. Studies in Avian Biology (In Press).
Johnson, K.N.; Franklin, Jefty, F; Thomas, Jack Ward; Gordon,
1. 1991. Alternatives for management of late-successional
forests of the Pacific Northwest: a report of the Scientific
Panel on Late-successional Forest Ecosystems to the U.S.
House of Representatives.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1. Dunk, A. Franklin, and D~ Simberloff reviewed the
manuscript. My colleagues on the northern spotted owl recovety
team and the California spotted owl technical assessment team
devoted thousands of hours to their respective groups with little
recognition In particular, I thank, R. Anthony, 1. Bart, T. Beck,
G. Gould, R. Holthausen, K. McKelvey, B. Noon, E. Starkey,
1. Verner for teaching me so much about the process and
integrity of science.
The following organizations provided fmancial support to
spotted owl projects at Humboldt State University in the past
year: U. S. Forest Service (pSW-92-0021CA); California
Department of Fish and Game (FGI510); Bureau of Land
Management (8950-A2-0028); Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station (53-82Ff-l-04); U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (RWOI4-16-OOO9-1547 no.28); and Southern
California Edison Corporation
Despite occasional differences of opinion and disagreements,
the line staff and administrators with whom my students,
colleagues, and I have wolked over the past 14 years have been
extremely helpful to our research efforts. In addition, I never
have had Forest Service administrators or wildlife scientists tty
to suppress or change the results of our research. Thus, I wish
to acknowledge this academic freedom and to thank the
multitude of agency scientists and staff who are ttying to expand
their role and that of their agency to meet the demands of 21st
centmy resource management.
LITERATURE CITED
Anonymous. 1991. A facade of science: an analysis of the Jack
Ward Thomas report based on sworn testimony of members
of the Thomas committee. A report for the Association of 0
& C counties and the Northwest Forest Resource Council.
Preston Thorgimson Shidler Gates & Ellis, Portland, Oregon
24 p.
57
management considerations for species associated with
late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific
Northwest. Report of the Scientific Analysis Team. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest SelVice. Port:land, OR. 530 p.
Thomas, Jack Ward; Jared Verner. 1992. Accommodation with
socio-economic factors under the Endangered Species Act more than meets the eye. Transactions of the North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 57:627-641.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest SelVice. 1988. Final
supplement to the environmental impact statement for an
amendment to the Pacific Northwest regional guide. Port:land,
OR 2 Vols.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest SelVice. 1991. Draft
environmental impact statement on management for the
northern spotted owl in the national forests. Portland, OR.
366 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest SeIVice. 1992. Final
environmental impact statement on management for the
northern spotted owl in the national forests. Portland, OR.
854 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife SelVice. 1990.
Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; detennination
of threatened status for the northern spotted owl. Washington,
D.C.: Federal Register 55:266114-26194..
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
1993a. Recovety plan for the northern spotted owl: fInal draft.
Portland, Oregon 322 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
1993b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
detennination of threatened status for the Mexican spotted
owl. Washington, D. C.: Federal Register.
Verner, Jared; McKelvey, Kevin S.; Noon, Bany R.; Gutierrez
R.J.; Gould, Gordon I. Jr.; Beck, Thomas, W. 1992.
Assessment of the current status of the California spotted owl,
with recommendations for management. Pages 3-26 in:
Verner, Jared; McKelvey, Kevin S.; Noon, Barry R.;
Gutierrez, RJ.; Gould, Gordon I. Jr.; Beck, Thomas W. tech.
coords. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of
its current status. Gen Tech. Rep. PSW-G1R-133. Albany,
CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest SeIVice. 285 p.
Wilcove, David S.; McMillan, Margaret; Winston, Keith c.
1993. What exactly is an endangered species? An analysis of
the U.S. endangered species list:1985-1991. ConselVation
Biology 7:87-93.
Kessler, Winifred B.; Salwasser, Hal; Cartwright, Charles W.
Jr.; Caplan, James A. 1992. New perspectives for sustainable
natural resources management. Ecological Applications
2:221-225.
Marcot, Bruce, G.; Holthausen, Richard. 1987. Analyzing
population viability of the spotted owl in the Pacific
Northwest. Pages 333-347 in: Transactions of the North
American Wildlife Natural Resources Conference.
Maser, Chris. 1988. The redesigned forest. R.& E. Miles, San
Pedro, CA. 234 p.
Murphy, Dennis D.; Noon, Barry R. 1991. Coping with
uncertainty in wildlife bIology. Journal of Wildlife
Management 55 :773-782.
Mwphy, Dennis D.; Noon, Barty R. 1992. Integrating scientific
methods with habitat conservation planning: reselVe design
for northern spotted owls. Ecological Applications 2(1):3-17.
Shaffer, MaIk. 1987. Minimum viable populations: coping with
uncertainty. Pages 69-86 in~ Soule, Michael E. ed. Viable
populations for COnselVatiOfl. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, England. 189 p.
Simberloff, Daniel. 1989. Book review of: Craig, George A.;
The spotted owl and wise forest use. Western Timber
Association, Sacramento, CA. 69 p. Condor 91:496-500.
Soule, Michael E.; Wilcox, Bruce A. 1980. eds. ConselVation
biology: An evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sinauer
Associates, Inc., Sunderland Massachusetts. 395 p.
SOWS (Spotted Owl Study Subgroup). 1991. A multi-resource
strategy for conselVation of the northern spotted owl.
Washington, D.C.; National Forest Products Association and
American Forestry Council, Spotted Owl Subgroup. 45 p.
Swanson, F.l; Franklin, IF. 1992. New forestry principles from
ecosystem analysis of pacific northwest forests. Ecological
Applications 2:262-274.
Thomas, Jack Ward; Forsman, Eric D.; Lint, Joseph B.; Meslow,
E. Charles; Noon, Bany R.; Verner, Jared. 1990. A
conselVation strategy for the northern spotted owl: a report
of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the
conselVation of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR; U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest SeIVice; U.S. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and National PaIk SeIVice. 427p.
Thomas, Jack Ward; Raphael, Martin G.; Anthony, Robert G.;
Forsman, Eric D.; Gunderson, A. Grant; Holthausen, Richard
S.; Marcot, Bruce G.; Reeves, Gordon H.; Sedell, James R.;
Solis, David M.. 1993. Viability assessments and
I
58
•