It is routine practice for government officials to kill animals deemed invasive or destructive. For the most part, Americans accept this or look the other way — especially if the “pests” are insects, rodents or garden-munching deer. That has changed now that the US Fish and Wildlife Service plans to shoot thousands of owls in California, Oregon and Washington.
The species on the hit list is the barred owl — a creature whose adaptability has enabled it to spread into new areas. This expansion is driving the increasingly rare spotted owl to extinction.
This is not just natural selection in action. All over the world, human activity has changed landscapes so fast that the diversity of plants and animals is collapsing — with a few hardy species taking over. In an attempt to stop this, authorities around the world are protecting coral reefs by killing starfish, protecting salmon by killing sea lions and protecting red squirrels by killing gray ones.
Illustration: Louise Ting
However, the case of the spotted owl is unusual because, to the untrained eye, it almost looks the same as a barred owl. The two species are so closely related, they sometimes mate and produce hybrid offspring. That has forced a reconsideration of big ethical questions: Is it moral to kill in the name of ecological balance and diversity? If it can be, how do we decide which species are acceptable to target?
Field experiments show that shooting barred owls can stave off the decline of the spotted owl, but there is no end point. The current plan under the Fish and Wildlife Service would go on for 30 years and kill up to half a million owls. However, it is understood that the shooting would have to go on forever to save the spotted owl.
Stephen Pruett-Jones, an ecologist at the University of Chicago, said that while barred owls can interbreed with spotted owls, they are very different animals with different calls and different diets.
Spotted owls only eat certain small mammals, while barred owls can eat mammals, fish, amphibians, birds, insects and slugs. Spotted owls are only adapted to live in old-growth forests; barred owls live in a much wider range of environments.
In the 1980s and 1990s, environmentalists used the spotted owl’s status under the Endangered Species Act to argue that a fraction of the old-growth forest in the Pacific Northwest should be protected from logging. They succeeded, but the spotted owls continued to decline — losing 80 percent of their numbers in the past 30 years.
Scientists and bird watchers witnessed the bigger, more aggressive barred owl move in and outcompete spotted owls for food and nesting sites. It is not just the spotted owl that is at risk — the barred owl’s proliferation might be hurting the local screech owl and pygmy owl populations. Some scientists worry that human activity has depleted the spotted owl populations and accelerated the barred owl’s expansion.
Kent Livezey, a retired wildlife biologist for the Fish and Wildlife Service said that human activity has affected owl ranges for millennia, starting when Native Americans used fire to clear land in the middle of the continent. As European colonists took over, suppressing fires and building farms, towns and parks, they helped create a corridor of trees through which barred owls slowly expanded westward along with many other birds.
Livezey said he is not opposed to killing a few barred owls in places where spotted owls can be saved. His concern is that the government plan includes culling in areas surrounded by thousands of barred owls, so more would move in replacing any that are shot.
He worries the killing is being motivated by another reason — under the Endangered Species Act, the spotted owl is the only legal leverage preventing logging from destroying what is left of the old-growth forests. It would be far better to create new laws to protect the forests rather than kill thousands of owls.
The one place where he thinks there is hope for the spotted owl is in the Sierra Nevada mountains. In other places, he said, the shooting would be a waste of money and of avian life.
A recent New York Times op-ed piece also argues against the killing, citing “genomic evidence that the barred owl has in fact resided in the Pacific Northwest for thousands of years.” However, that was at odds with what all the scientists told me. The paper cited did not appear to make that case, so I called one of the authors, biodiversity scientist John Dumbacher.
He said the Times piece misrepresents his work, which shows there is more genetic variation among barred owl populations than thought.
“The data are clear at this point: The barred owl is an existential threat to the spotted owl,” he said.
The spotted owl is “disappearing at a rate that’s blowing away the scientists,” he said.
If humans had not drastically depleted their numbers by destroying much of the old-growth forest they depend on to survive, maybe they would have stood up better to the barred owls.
“The science is all very clear about what’s going on, but the science doesn’t tell you what to do about it,” Dumbacher said.
For that, we need ethical arguments. The public should have a say as well.
He said he has given public lectures on this issue and people have mixed views. He understands people’s opposition to killing charismatic creatures. He is not opposed to taking either road, but either choice would have consequences.
If we do nothing, it is all going to be dandelions and raccoons and black rats — and a few other species that can adapt to human-degraded environments, he said.
There might be no good path forward. What might be more important is proceeding wisely — having an end goal, learning from mistakes, and doing what we can to avoid coming to this juncture in the future.
F.D. Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She is host of the Follow the Science podcast. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS