Rare Woodpecker Sends Town Running for Chain Saws

Over the past six months, landowners [in Boiling Springs Lakes, N.C.] have been clear-cutting thousands of trees to keep them from becoming homes for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. The chain saws started in February, when the federal Fish and Wildlife Service put Boiling Spring Lakes on notice that rapid development threatened to squeeze out the woodpecker.

The agency issued a map marking 15 active woodpecker "clusters," and announced it was working on a new one that could potentially designate whole neighborhoods of this town in southeastern North Carolina as protected habitat, subject to more-stringent building restrictions.

Hoping to beat the mapmakers, landowners swarmed City Hall to apply for lot-clearing permits. Treeless land, after all, would not need to be set aside for woodpeckers. Since February, the city has issued 368 logging permits, a vast majority without accompanying building permits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/us/24woodpecker.html

9/24/2006 11:11:32 PM

another success for the endangered species act!

9/24/2006 11:15:43 PM

fuck the woodpeckers

9/24/2006 11:17:04 PM

why would they intentionally cut down trees so the woodpecker couldn't live there?

9/24/2006 11:28:21 PM

And people wonder why I am always rooting for hurricanes to come here. Fuck humans.

9/24/2006 11:33:56 PM

Lonesnark sees the free market beating regulations.

I see a perfect example of why we need regulations in the first place.

9/24/2006 11:45:04 PM

^^ Because hurricanes kill people and leave trees unscathed?

9/24/2006 11:47:33 PM

Quote :

"why would they intentionally cut down trees so the woodpecker couldn't live there?"

...to protect themselves and their land investments from the gov't of course.

Here's how it works. The gov't declares your land as a wild-life haven for some critter. Now you have a bunch of rules forbidding productive use of your land.

Now your land is basically useless. No sane person would buy it with no permission to develop it.

But to the rescue now comes the "Environment" group The Nature Conservancy. They feel your pain and agree to take the land off your hands ..of course at a major loss for you.

The Conservancy holds the land and sells it to state trustees and contributors at greatly reduced prices with the understanding that the difference would be made up in contributions to ...The Nature Conservancy!

Now these new owners are somehow allowed to build on the land.

The Nature Conservancy even attempted to make up sightings of an extinct woodpecker in order to grab some more land ....

http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05125.cfm

9/24/2006 11:50:55 PM

GIT OFF MAH LAND!!!1

9/25/2006 1:35:28 AM

yo i read the first post

it kinda pisses me off that this bird is endangered but they are killing all its habitat

is there anyway to like do something about this?

9/25/2006 2:07:37 AM

unless the woodpeckers can organize and fight some sort of guerrilla war i doubt it.

according to the theory of natural selection, chainsaw pwns bird.

of course, if it were monkeys who had built chainsaws and were using them to get woodpeckers, people would stop bitching and put that shit on discovery in no time. shit, we would even have monkey chainsaw week.

9/25/2006 2:15:37 AM

man thats messed up...this land is perfect for a rare bird and you want to kill them

9/25/2006 2:20:55 AM

it happened to my grandfather when he was building/founding Johnston Community College...the birds threatened to slow the whole process and basically eliminate certain buildings, that was until they had a specialist come in and he either removed them to habitat close by or just cleared the permits and i cant remember which, but that bird was a hassle.

9/25/2006 3:51:06 AM

land that is not in a protected habitat when you buy it, and not currently in the works to become protected, should never be allowed to be so without the landowner's agreement. The conservationists have the money to move these birds to other areas, like the Palmetto Preserve which is already a home of that particular woodpecker if they are so intent on saving the bird. I applaud what this town is doing to protect thier land.

[Edited on September 25, 2006 at 8:23 AM. Reason : ]

9/25/2006 8:21:22 AM

i agree, but the law should change to allow this move rather than allowing people to clearcut thousands of trees which likely contain the woodpeckers. dumbass lawmakers are pwning themselves and their efforts by protecting certain trees, resulting in mass clear cutting (i personally love it). one tree with a woodpecker can render a lot unbuildable for a home (unless someone is shady).

9/25/2006 8:27:29 AM

This is so fucking funny, because witout the Endangered Species act and the broad powers that are issued because of it, this would not be happening.

These people don't hate the bird. Personally I think woodpeckers are pretty cool to see in the yard. Used to happen a lot at our old house. But when it means that I can do NOTHING with the land I bought and will be unable to sell it for anything near what I made, I totally understand.

This is what happens when conservation measures are implemented without considering the effects on the people that it impacts. Common sense takes a back seat, and this is the kinda steps that must be taken.

9/25/2006 8:46:57 AM

the law of unintended consequences.... strikes again

9/25/2006 9:15:08 AM

Quote :

"Since February, the city has issued 368 logging permits, a vast majority without accompanying building permits."

I think this is the key quote. The owners have no intention to build on the vast majority of the land now being clear-cut because of the woodpecker. The owners are simply acting to protect the right to maybe someday build something, by clear-cutting their land.

Therefore, without the Endangered Species Act the vast majority of this habitat would remain untouched as it is, perhaps forever. But with the Endangered Species Act people have a perverse incentive to destroy the endangered species before the government finds out it lives there.

The saying is "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up."

This is why some environmentalists fight to keep species off the list because being listed usually leads to a sudden drop in population as land-owners across the country begin secretly hunting the creature down.

9/25/2006 9:16:46 AM

I dunno... now that this article has made it to the New York Times, I'm almost afraid that groups of fringe environmentalists are going to descend upon this poor town, and escalate this issue further until compromise is no longer possible.

It's sad too, because I always thought that one of the biggest marks of beauty for the state were its thick forests.

9/25/2006 9:39:25 AM

btw if you wanted to build a house on a plot of land, is it really necessary to clear cut the entire plot of land for construction of the house???

I've wandered this many time when they build on wooded land. For example there is woods near my house. The community decided to improve on the land. Instead of clearing out part of the land for building the house. They chopped down the entire lot. Built the house, and a majority of the property was just empty land. I do not even recall them even having equipment or construction machinery on any part except for the very front of the property.

9/25/2006 9:58:01 AM

^ It is up to the owner. But if necessary the builder can be compensated for working around some trees, within reason. If the trees are small enough they can be moved elsewhere, build the house, move them back.

Obviously the owner you saw build a house didn't like trees.

9/25/2006 10:14:21 AM

Better call the God Squad.

9/25/2006 10:49:22 AM

This is awesome. GG, small town in NC.

I applaud them.

9/25/2006 11:02:10 AM

^for killing a rare bird?

9/25/2006 11:14:06 AM

no, for adhering to awesome libertarian dogma!

DURP DE DURRR!!!

9/25/2006 11:16:04 AM

for protecting their assets. For believing that humans trump birds. A town shouldn't die for a bird to live.

The same thing happened in oregon. A town had used a river for generations for irrigating crops. The government comes in and finds some endangered fish. They mandated that the town stop using the river as a water source. The town now sits as a ghost town. Everyone had to pick up what they had and move where their family had been for generations.


To me, humans > animals.

9/25/2006 11:17:59 AM

I believe the clear cutters should be responsible for not killing an endangered bird

you can believe if they were bald eagles instead of woodpeckers that they'd be protected

[Edited on September 25, 2006 at 11:19 AM. Reason : ^thats a good point]

9/25/2006 11:18:55 AM

I was serious. The God Squad exists for stuff like this.

9/25/2006 11:24:13 AM

it's because of the EPA that the woodpecker will not have a home in this town. If they weren't so damned militant and would literally shut down a town to save a bird, then perhaps man and bird could coexist. As the EPA mandates, the birds will get to live at the expense of humans. You better be damned sure I'd be cutting some trees down.

9/25/2006 11:26:55 AM

Yeah I did miss that thanks.

[Edited on September 25, 2006 at 11:55 AM. Reason : a]

9/25/2006 11:28:13 AM

Lewizzle, abonorio made a good point that you might have missed directly above your post.

Quote :

"it's because of the EPA that the woodpecker will not have a home in this town. If they weren't so damned militant and would literally shut down a town to save a bird, then perhaps man and bird could coexist. As the EPA mandates, the birds will get to live at the expense of humans. You better be damned sure I'd be cutting some trees down. "

In this case, it appears the habitat would have not been completely erradicated if not for people's (well-grounded) fear that governmental oversight would destroy their property values.

With more lenient policies, no one would have rushed to get logging permits, because hardly any of them were developing their land.

9/25/2006 11:41:46 AM

Endangered Species Act is shady as hell.

Quote :

"SEC. 5. (a) PROGRAM.-The Secretary, and the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to the National Forest System, shall establish and implement a program to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants, including those which are listed as endangered species or threatened species pursuant to section 4 of this Act. To carry out such a program, the appropriate Secretary- (1) shall utilize the land acquisition and other authority under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as appropriate; and (2) is authorized to acquire by purchase, donation, or otherwise, lands, waters, or interest therein, and such authority shall be in addition to any other land acquisition vested in him."

9/25/2006 12:02:14 PM

Quote :

"To me, humans > animals."

it is not like these land-owners are going to go hungry b.c of this. They could easily improve there land w/o clear cutting the entire lot. To me the endagered animal > Roy D Mercer buying a new SUV/pick-up truck w/ marginal land profit.

9/25/2006 1:03:18 PM

I hate people.

9/25/2006 1:06:27 PM

^^then i suggest you leave this country for some place that restricts economic freedoms.

9/25/2006 1:09:11 PM

Quote :

"it is not like these land-owners are going to go hungry b.c of this. They could easily improve there land w/o clear cutting the entire lot"

No, once it's declared to be a protected habitat, land owners can't do anything to their land easily. By clear-cutting the land, it becomes pointless to declare it a protected habitat.

If there was no threat of making the land a protected habitat, no one would have any issue with the woodpeckers.

[Edited on September 25, 2006 at 1:12 PM. Reason : haaw]

9/25/2006 1:12:01 PM

Quote :

"then i suggest you leave this country for some place that restricts economic freedoms. "

good idea Randy; if i have a desenting opinion i should be forced to leave the country. I am glad you support a fascist form of government.

9/25/2006 1:27:56 PM

Quote :

"it is not like these land-owners are going to go hungry b.c of this. They could easily improve there their land w/o clear cutting the entire lot. To me the endagered animal > Roy D Mercer buying a new SUV/pick-up truck w/ marginal land profit."

Ok, maybe you didn't read the thread or don't understand the Endangered Species Act, but once your land is protected under it, you cannot easily improve your land. You have to get special permission (and are often denied) to make any improvement.

The re-sale value plummets, if you can find a buyer at all.

Quote :

"But to the rescue now comes the "Environment" group The Nature Conservancy. They feel your pain and agree to take the land off your hands ..of course at a major loss for you. "

9/25/2006 1:35:37 PM

[Edited on September 25, 2006 at 1:36 PM. Reason : fuck it n/m...]

9/25/2006 1:36:10 PM

Quote :

"By clear-cutting the land, it becomes pointless to declare it a protected habitat. If there was no threat of making the land a protected habitat, no one would have any issue with the woodpeckers. "

the feds should prove a point to these fucktards and declare it protected habitat.

9/25/2006 1:36:17 PM

There are a lot of good conservationalist and then there are people like those at PETA. Hell even my sister who is a Wildlife Refuge Director won't work with PETA. It is pretty sad that they had to clearcut their land to retain ownership.

At least they can replant trees of their choosing etc.

9/25/2006 1:38:33 PM

Has nobody learned th lessons from the movie, Hoot?

9/25/2006 1:56:44 PM

I don't see why some tree hugging group wouldn't be able to get a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order on this matter.

9/25/2006 2:16:03 PM

i'd like to see them at least take some responsibility and try to regrow many of these trees.

9/25/2006 2:48:36 PM

clever title

9/25/2006 3:00:50 PM

those jews

9/25/2006 3:09:40 PM

Yea ya'll really don't understand, its not just the fact that you can't cut down the trees. In some cases its to the point that you can do NOTHING within the birds natural living area, so say a half mile or so around a tree, you can't develop or do anything to alter nature because it might bother the bird nesting above. That would include landscaping, mowing, building a carport, etc. etc. etc.

If you bitch about this, think about it from your perspective. I just bought a house last December. I have several nice big ass trees in my yard. But if I was told that I would be unable to do anything to change my yard or improve it, then I would be somewhat upset. Also I would lose my fucking ass on my property value. I don't know about you, but I can't take a damn 40% loss on my home, its a huge fucking investment for most people, and its really not something little like I wrecked my car, or some shit like that.

9/25/2006 5:01:44 PM

This just proves the birds need more protection.

Obviously, more secrecy is required. They shouldn't announce this kind of shit. The men in black should just show up and occupy woodpecker habitat.

9/25/2006 5:23:13 PM

Quote :

"That would include landscaping, mowing, building a carport, etc. etc. etc."

Are you sure about that?

9/25/2006 5:39:41 PM

Quote :

"I see a perfect example of why we need regulations in the first place."

Odd, I see an example where regulation has created a perverse incentive to kill endangered animals. What regulation do you think we could pass that would stop this? You have no proof why these people are clearing their trees, only a suspicion. What, are you going to outlaw the cutting down of any trees? I simply cannot imagine any regulation would could have prevented this unforeseen outcome short of the employment of millions of inspectors scowering the country checking up on every gun-shot and chain-saw.

However, if you imagine an alternate universe where the ESA does not exist then none of this would have been news. None of the trees would have been cut down, none of the birds would have been hunted down and shot. Man would have lived in harmony with the woodpecker since, without the ESA, no man has an interest in the birds demise.

Regretfully, the ESA does exist, so people across the nation risk losing everything, so they and friends get together to hunt down and slaughter endangered species. Lose the law and we lose the death squads.

[Edited on September 25, 2006 at 6:00 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/25/2006 5:57:51 PM