Not that I defend those jack-bones, but I do feel compelled to point out that it was NEVER about the damned bird; it was always about the habitat. The issue here is to not log in places where the tree-huggers say not to log. The bird is just the unwitting figurehead for these efforts. This feels like a re-run because it is; the "habitat" that would be "protected" is already protected, and the barred owls are just a new face to the controversy. EXAMPLE: the ownership I work on has NEVER had spotted owls found within its boundaries, yet USFWS insisted that we preserve "habitat" as a "corridor" for migration between Olympic and Cascade populations which may or may not exist. Thus, we accepted restrictions to protect birds which were acknowledged to be imaginary!