EnvironMENTALists in Government Plan to Save the Spotted Owl by Killing Off Native N. American Barred Owls

Yeah…  Isn’t that just like an EnvironMENTAList?   Euthanize the competition.

By the way, the EnvironMENTALists like to frame this debate by calling the Barred Owl an invasive species, implying that the Barred Owl is non-native.  That is not an honest assessment.  The Barred Owl is native to North America.  Once the old-growth forests were cut down on the Pacific side of America, the Barred Owl began expanding its range to fill the void.  It’s not like they were imported from Japan or something.  Even a wildlife and fisheries director in Washington state notes that they are native species:

“Population dynamics between two native species should not be artificially manipulated,” said Blake Murden, wildlife and fisheries director for Port Blakely Tree Farms in Tumwater, Wash. The company agreed in 2009 to manage 45,000 acres as spotted owl habitat in exchange for protection from additional logging restrictions. – [link]

Of course, one can’t help but notice that the Barred Owl has microevolved into a superior species to the Spotted Owl:

Murden said the population of barred owls expanded rapidly because they adapt well to mixed habitat and eat a variety of prey. Spotted owls, on the other hand, prefer old-growth to nest and mostly eat flying squirrels.

Yup, apparently, the EnvironMENTALists’ god of evolution has betrayed them.  So, they must exact their revenge by killing off the superior species: 

Gov’t Announces New Way to Protect Spotted Owls: Kill Their Competition

July 1, 2011 by Jonathon M. Seidl – The Blaze

The northern spotted owl is a beautiful bird. It’s also threatened under the Endangered Species Act. And now, the government is taking drastic measures to ensure it’s survival by advocating the “removal” of the bird’s major competition, while also seemingly targeting loggers.

“Removal” of the birds is really just another way to say shooting the barred owl, the spotted owl’s rival. And it’s part of a group of recommendations announced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to help revitalize the spotted owl population:

Management of the encroaching barred owl to reduce harm to spotted owls. Most of the recovery actions the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has carried out since finalizing the spotted owl’s 2008 recovery plan deal with the barred owl threat. A major part of this is developing a proposal for experimental removal of barred owls in certain areas to see what effect that would have on spotted owls, and then to evaluate whether or not broad scale removal should be considered. This portion of the 2008 plan was not significantly revised.

The Seattle Weekly explains how “removal” has worked in the past:

Though the USFWS policy hasn’t officially been released yet, The Oregonian reports that it’s likely to include a strategy to kill off between 1,200 and 1,500 barred owls from northern California through Oregon and Washington.

Killing off invasive species is a common practice in wildlife management, but barred owls aren’t invasive–they’re native. And several environmental groups are arguing that killing them won’t help the problem unless people are prepared to shoot the owls by the thousands every single year.

One biologist estimates the cost of such a plan to be $1 million annually.

Plus, by seemingly all accounts, the barred owl is simply a stronger and better-adapted species. It eats a wider variety of food and nests in a wider variety of places than the spotted owl.

While the wisdom behind killing one species to save another is part of the debate, there’s also controversy surrounding another aspect of the recommendations — protecting the spotted owl’s habitat. But there’s just one problem: that conflicts with local logging.

The Weekly reports that loggers are skeptical of the idea:

Under the new plan, both the elimination of barred owls and the preservation of forest land are used.

Jerry Bonagofsky, CEO of the Washington Contract Loggers Association, says that protecting spotted-owl habitat at this point is useless, and that the Obama plan will hurt the economy and kill jobs.

“Given that the barred owl is now part of the equation, it’s not clear that protecting habitat will help at all,” Bonagofsky tells us. “I think the Bush plan, given time, could have worked. In the present economy, locking up more timber land will have a huge effect on rural communities, jobs, and families.”

All told, it would appear that environmentalists did get a bigger bone thrown to them under the new plan than the loggers did.

Another argument, it seems, is that environmentalists and anti-loggers can fight the industry under the guise of protecting the owls. For example, one environmentalist expressed his excitement that the plan opens the door to regulate private land.

“In some regards [the plan] takes important steps forward,” Shawn Cantrell, executive director of the Seattle Audubon Society, told the Weekly. “It talks about the need for non-federal land owners to do more and it points at gaps in the regulatory structure of non-federal lands. It also recognizes the importance of protecting the remaining high-quality forest we still have. But on the downside, in some places, particularly on the east side of the Cascades, they seem to open the door to much more logging, saying we have to cut down the forest in order to save the forest.” [Emphasis added]

Is it ironic that in a story on owls, the proposals to protect them don’t seem so wise?

Explore posts in the same categories: Environ-mental-ism

6 Comments on “EnvironMENTALists in Government Plan to Save the Spotted Owl by Killing Off Native N. American Barred Owls”

  1. Ciccio Says:

    If survival of the fittest were government policy you would not have
    racial quotas in employment or university entrance requirements.

    • PB-in-AL Says:

      And this story wouldn’t have occurred. Of course, it is never about “survival of the fittest”, nor allowing the “dance of DNA” to continue unabated. No, it’s simply about control. Even the idea of “invasive” species flies in the face of “evolutionary ethics”. Sure, the australian pine isn’t native to FL, but it sure grows like nobody’s business, as does kudzu here in AL. Just because it got here by a person bringing it, why is it any less of a candidate for survival? Freakin’ hypocrites.

  2. Ciccio Says:

    Just came across an interesting little bit of news. The antarctic sea ice is the heaviest it has ever been since they have been measuring it.

  3. CavMom Says:

    I was living in Oregon in the late 80’s and watched logging towns become ghost towns. Watched as families lost their homes…. Al Gore really has a weak gene. He honestly believes the nonsense he spews. I truly despise the man and his followers.

    Who are they to say that the spotted owl has more right to live than the barred owl?

    What will they do if forest fires ravage the last of the old stands or needle blight or beetles? Who or what will they blame at that point?

  4. Big Frank Says:

    IMHO Whenever the government sticks it’s nose into most things they screw it up, usually beyond repair. Smaller less intrusive government anyone?

  5. Miana Says:

    Please don’t kill the Barred Owls. Enlarge your forests and capture the barred owls to be kept as pets. Unlike rabbits which can die easily, it’s strong and live for many years, so it’s for kids and it’s good to have one in your home. The reason why they’re invading spotted’s territory is because there isn’t enough forests for all the birds.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: