Andrew is a post-doctoral researcher in North Carolina focused on population and conservation genetics in hydrothermal vent communities.
Image from OwlPages.com
This month’s Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment has a brief article about a new proposed conservation strategy that seems perfect for a Southern Fried Science ethical debate. Northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) are one of the most famous endangered species in the United States. While solutions to the destruction of their habitat by logging have been debated for years, a new threat has been recently identified- encroachment on their limited habitat by another species of owl (the barred owl, Strix varia). Some conservationists now believe that we need to kill barred owls to protect spotted owls.
Bob Sallinger, the Conservation Director of Portland’s Audubon Society, explains why this is such a tricky issue:
“Shooting hundreds, perhaps thousands of barred owls, in perpetuity, is a horrible thing to contemplate – but the [possible] extinction of the spotted owl is also profoundly difficult to accept”, he said.
Barred owls are not endangered. It is likely that without habitat restoration and removal of barred owls, the Northern spotted owl will go extinct.
According to the article, the US Fish and Wildlife Service expects to make a decision on whether or not to attempt small-scale barred owl removal experiments within a few months. They have also hired an ethicist to help sort out this problem.
Do you think it is acceptable to kill large numbers of a non-endangered species in order to prevent the extinction of an endangered similar species?
Do you think it is acceptable to allow an endangered species to go extinct by choosing to not kill a similar non-endangered species?
Do you think it should be within the authority of endangered species management bodies to kill animals that threaten those endangered species, or does killing animals go against the point of conservation?
Is this a dangerous precedent or an innovative new conservation idea?
The article does note that without a workable plan for restoring the old-growth forest habitat, even removing all the barred owls from the spotted owl habitat won’t help. Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that there is a plan in place to restore old-growth forest habitat for the spotted owls, and only focus on the killing of barred owls.
~WhySharksMatter
Quick Q: are the barred owls invasive in the spotted owls’ habitat?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wasn’t able to find anything that specifically answered that question. The map of their range from owlpages.com included the spotted owl habitat, so they may have always been there but are only a problem now that the spotted owl habitat is so much smaller.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Hm. Well, that makes it tougher.
I was going to say that if they’re invasive (esp if we stupidly brought them there), then slaughter the problem owls. Call me heartless or cruel, but I’ve got no problem with culling invasive species to save endangered native ones. In Hawaii, a small little bird from Japan is devastating the endemic bird species, and I would gladly sign up to eradicate the pests from the islands, no matter how cute they are. It’s a matter of life or death, and the other birds were not only here first, but in danger of extinction – the choice is easy for me.
It gets a little fuzzier if species are native to an area – it seems a little less acceptable to just kill them by the tons.
Of course, either way it comes down to how you weigh the importance of two species. Does one deserve to live more than another, especially if it means that other ceases to exist? How important is it to save one species? I’m not really sure I know the answer to those questions.
I’m totally cool with extirpating invasives, though I see the argument against it; one could argue that it’s not fair. After all, the animals did nothing wrong. They just did what they’re supposed to – survived and reproduced. But that’s just how I draw the line – and as animals are pushed to the brink of extinction, we have to draw the lines somewhere. Some things have to end up mattering more than others – risk of extinction, native v. invasive, etc. Some criteria have to be weighed, and from them conservation decisions have to be made.
In this case, I think that as long as the barred owls are not in danger and the spotted ones are in danger but can be saved, then cull away. Of course, there have to be other plans to rehabilitate the spotted owls alongside mass murder of barred owls – habitat restoration, breeding programs, etc, to make the effort worthwhile.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
I don’t honestly know enough about the issue to make an enormously informed decision.
Based on what you wrote, though, I have a few comments.
This kind of mirrors the basic heirarchy of life (cells -> tissues -> organs -> organism etc.) in that the dilemma is whether or not to sacrifice organisms in favor of a species. This logic, of course, leads to killing the barred owls to save the species.
This could also be an interesting experiment in island biogeography, though.
Also, if the “culling of the herd” takes place, what guarantees that those shooting the barred owls won’t shoot the northern spotted owls? Both species are similar in appearance and in size. Granted, it’s less likely because of the smaller population size of the Strix occidentalis caurina, but it’s still possible that they’ll get switched a few times.
This method has been tried before. The Atlantic Sea Lampreys in the Great Lakes were so overpowering fish populations in the ’70s that a “lampricide” to kill the larvae was used. In this case, which is admittedly less direct than hunting, obviously didn’t work.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Why is one Owl’s life more important than the other?
Could the barred Owl possibly be relocated? I guess that may not be possible,huh?It’s a sad thought,but maybe we should let nature take it’s course. I hope that something is figured out to save both.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
“Why is one Owl’s life more important than the other?”
I’m not sure if I agree that one is more important than the other, but spotted owls are critically endangered and barred owls are not.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Unfortunately, it sounds as if from the comments made, that the real problem is US. As always. So until we address the real problem, deforestation by us for our selfish purposes, then all of this “band-aid” work is pointless. We could go ahead and at least try to get the Barred Owl population under control for the time being. But it would have to be done by very environmentally dedicated hunters that can tell the difference between the two easily, thinking before they shoot. And yes, I can hear all of the bad jokes there on that line, but they DO actually exist. They’re rare, but they do exist. But you will still run into mistaken identities as already mentioned. But how long can we do this and at what cost? Until the logging COMPLETELY stops and reforestation is truly allowed to take place to allow these 2 owls to coexist? When will we as a species start to control our own population and excesses? I know, preaching to the choir. But unfortunately this is the same old story on every front of conservation and extinction discussion and issue. So when will we address the real problem? Because otherwise this is a circular conversation that will be happening again in 2 months or more time on some other species. Which one was it before this?
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
How does the barred owl affect the population of the spotted owl? What are the competing for? Perhaps we could find a solution in trying to get both to coexist.
According to the comment left by Sam, history has shown that the removal of one species for the other may not work, thus, maybe we could think of introducing a third party to the ecosystem that could save the situation.. this is an idealistic thought, but i don’t know enough about the problem to give a practical one.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Why not? We’ve driven species to extinction for less worthy goals, haven’t we? Seriously though: we’ve culled predators to protect our domestic herds and the herds of wild herbivores we like to hunt, caused extinction of island species because we wanted to bring sheep and pigs on sailing ships. We’ve pulled up thousands of purple loose strife plants to protect the wetland plants we were worried they’d replace. Culling may be contentious, but its part of the toolbox that wildlife managers use, and if we consider protection of spotted owls a goal as worthy as protecting those wetland plants, or having a certain quota of white tailed deer to hunt, I encourage USFWS to pursue the experimental removals and gather some data on how effective this might be.
The expansion of Barred Owls into Spotted Owl territory is a recent (1900s) though not necessarily entirely natural process (link to sei.org). This means we have to get into the recurring debate, “are natural range expansions invasions?”
Finally, although habitat destruction is a major issue for these owls, as always, it will be difficult to weigh the impacts that either conservation effort will have relative to the other, and so I wouldn’t necessarily write off barred owl culling because there’s a larger threat out there, nor would I suggest that a barred owl culling program would release us from the need to conserve old growth forest.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
All Owls,as do all animals,matter.So the life of one owl species is the same as the life of another species,whether it competes foe food,habitat or mating space.But i agrre there should be a way to manage both species in a sustainable way,without kiling one species
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
“there should be a way to manage both species in a sustainable way,without kiling one species”
No one has found one so far, and the spotted owls are dying. Should we continue to search for a perfect solution, or should we act to save a critically endangered species?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I agree with Heather’s first comment. As per usual it is the actions of humans which is causing the problem. To go out and kill another species, as so often happens in conservation, simply provides a scape goat. If we want to trully conserve species and biodiversity, we need to start treating all nature, which includes every single animal regardless of whether or not their species is endangered or not, with respect. We need to change our actions, not persecute nonhuman animals who are simply doing what they need to do to survive.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
“we need to start treating all nature, which includes every single animal regardless of whether or not their species is endangered or not, with respect. We need to change our actions, not persecute nonhuman animals who are simply doing what they need to do to survive.”
How exactly will respecting barred owls stop them from encroaching on spotted owl habitat? I agree with some of your sentiment, but lofty goals don’t help on this level of planning.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“How exactly will respecting barred owls stop them from encroaching on spotted owl habitat?”
It won’t, and unfortunately that means that the population size of the spotted owl will decrease. What I am saying for is that we have absolutely no right to persecute and kill any animal in for the benefit of another, or some animals of one species to try and maintain the population of another. WE created the problem through logging! Before this, it seems that the two species were able to both exist perfectly well, so before we take the usual conservation route of killing the so-called problem animal species, we should look in the mirror, and see that we are causing virtually every single conservation problem on the planet, and start changing our actions instead of passing the blame to nonhuman animals who are simply doing what they need to do to survive in their even decreasing habitats which we are destroying more and more by each passing day.
I recently seen a list of the 100 worst invasive species on the planet. To my surprise humans were not on it. This reflects the arrogant and foolish view that seems so common in conservation, that humans are somehow above all other animals and the same terms cannot even be applied to us.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I think they do not have the right to kill any native species to save another even if they are endangered.Perhaps more funding for captive breeding of this species might help instead of killing a population of another species. I think this conservation technique is a quick and temporary fix to the problem. Also by killing off the local population of barred owls might cause a ripple effect in the natural balance of that area. Are they planning on replacing all those predators to keep a balance of predator/prey while the spotted owl recovers? Next thing you know they will be killing off some other species that the population has exploded as a result because they are now overpopulated and a nuisance. Its a vicious cycle. i believe killing any species for another is not a conservation technique…its just a quick fix. I believe more research and captive breeding is the key.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
This looks like what happened in Australia, centuries ago when MAN brought the rabbit and the population exploded…or the case of the american type squirrels in London, killing the British type…
I have a more “human” (or should we say “animal” ) solution…Years ago, in Paris the population of pidgeons represented a big dancer for health and hygene of the tow… the prefecture wanted to kill a big part of the population, the “fondation Brigitte Bardot” had a better idea: instead of giving poisonous food to the pigeons…why not give them “contraception”? A special bird food was then created and “euthanasia” was not necessary. The same can be done with the owls.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Contraception has been used with the Atlantic Sea Lampreys in the Great Lakes. Captured lampreys were, instead of being killed, neutered or spayed. Didn’t work.
Did the contraception with pigeons in Paris work?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Why not? We’ve driven species to extinction for less noble goals. Just think of all of the island bird species that no longer exist because we wanted to bring sheep and pigs on sailing ships, or all of the predators that were extirpated so that we could hunt their prey (white tailed deer, etc.), or all of the purple loosestrife we have pulled out of wetland because it chokes out native plants.
Seriously though, species removal is just another technique in the toolbox of environmental managers, and if the goal of saving spotted owls is judged to be worthy, why not let them use all of the tools at their disposal? I encourage the USFWS to undergo the appropriate experiments and gather some data on how effective it might be.
Yes, habitat destruction is also a threat (and possibly a bigger threat) but that doesn’t mean we should ignore all of the other threats the species faces.
I couldn’t find a good report on the history of the barred owls’ range expansion but here scientists suggest that it is a natural range expansion that humans may have facilitated or sped up. (link to sei.org) So if you consider barred owls invasive (the result of human meddling) I don’t see why you wouldn’t support this as much as you support pulling up purple loosestrife to save native plants and animals. If you don’t consider them native then it gets a little trickier. Species-based management plans often lead to these sorts of contradictions: a whole-ecosystem approach would be better.
@CathytheCat developing wildlife contraception techniques is time and resource intensive, that’s the reason it’s only pursued in heavily populated places like Paris where either for safety or public opinion reasons the much more effective (and cost effective) removal technique is not a viable option. This will never happen in old growth forests.
@Julie captive breeding is another feel-good measure that often ends poorly for the wildlife, we generally breed endangered species in hopes that an increase in their numbers will make them immune to whatever pushed them to the brink of extinction in the first place. This is rarely the case: management that addresses the cause of endangerment directly is much more effective.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
I think if a species is endangered then you must adopt it and change it surrounding knowing that in its current condition cannot survive. what does it say to save a species and kill another that we are pleying favorites with lives? I think you should reconsider this whole thing and that this beyond saving or studying a species its about learning about ourselves.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
“this beyond saving or studying a species its about learning about ourselves.”
Friend, what are you talking about? Learning about how humans view animals’ place in the world won’t save the spotted owl.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
As a museum guy and ornithologist I run into all the perceived problems with killing wildlife. The truth is birds and other wildlife are being killed all the time, 24-7, for many reasons, none of which has to do with spotted owls. Your house, your car, your cat, your cell phone are all contributing to killing birds. The numbers of birds killed by outdoor cats and cell phone towers FAR outweighs any proposed culling of barred owls. Millions of mourning doves, waterfowl, upland game birds like snipe and grouse and even crows are legally killed by the millions for sport and none of those species are threatened with extinction.
Often people forget that conservation is about preserving populations, NOT individuals, as every individual dies regardless of even the best conservation efforts. The issue is how will any proposed action affect the population. As legal hunting has shown for decades most avian populations can withstand considerable take.
Barred owls are invasive in the West and are threatening spotted owls through introgression, breeding, basically moving barred owl genes into the spotted owl gene pool. Interbreeding can lead to extinction just as quick, if not quicker, than any habitat loss.
I think if as a society we have deemed it important to keep spotted owls around, and it seems based on the money thrown at them we have, then this is a no-brainer. I think the bigger issue is the fact that one would likely have to cull barred owls for a very long time as dispersal from eastern populations would continue meaning that this would likely be another enormous long-term expense in spotted owl management.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
I agree that this competition problem lies in the extensive deforestation and habitat destruction. This problem must be dissolved by stopping the destruction of habitat. Although barred owls may have a more general range across the landscape, the culling of their numbers will have more negative reverberations than positive. One of these is a reduction in local genetic diversity that could spell trouble for barred owls in the future. Then what will we have to kill to reduce competition for the barred owls? Will there be anything left?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Reference Jane Goodall and her intervention with regards to infanticide by chimpanzees. Do you agree with her tactics in that case?
NO SPECIES, including humans, have a right to exist forever. In fact, the natural law is just the opposite. 1) If this is a natural process then we must let it unfold. 2) If the barred owls are invasive, then intervene.
Let’s preserve the randomness of evolution and not our own wishes and desires. Last time I checked evolution involved change.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Hi all:
I just saw this discussion and read a few of the responses above and thought that I would very briefly weigh in on it. I am very familiar with this situation, and to answer one of the earlier questions posed, no, the barred owl is not native to the Pacific NW. Human modification of the lands of the midwestern US has allowed them to move westward into spotted owl range. Regarding the proposed solution to the problem, clearly the culling of barred owls is an ethical one more than anything, but I would ask you to consider this – are the spotted owl and barred owl actually two distinct species? Currently, we recognize them as such, but that does not mean that they are in reality. These two “species” do in fact hybridize, and their offspring are in fact fertile, as I understand it. So, together, they meet the definition of the biological species concept. So, if you consider this, then it changes the discussion altogether. Just a few things to contemplate.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
The biological species concept is a mess. That’s really interesting that they can hybridize, though. I hadn’t heard that.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
The answer to this question obviously depends on ones ethical framework, but we should make sure not to fool ourselves into mixing up our ethics. It seems like there’s an underlying ethical theme of “naturalism” amongst people who wish to save endangered species. The prevailing idea is that the reason endangered species exist is due to human interference, and that human interference is not a “natural” mode of operation; therefore it is a moral imperative to protect endangered species. Of course this mode of thinking is categorically false and misguided, even if the protection of endangered species can be justified in other ethical frameworks. It’s obvious that human beings are natural, and that extinctions can and do occur despite them. The problem is that the human species is such a prolific one that it’s virtually impossible to extricate it from responsibility for any significant changes in ecosystems; in other words, human beings are responsible for a whole host of ecological events, not solely extinctions, but population explosions, and the evolution of new species. If one is truly motivated by a “natural” ethical framework, then they should understand that the extinction of a species is not implicitly a bad thing. The method by which any owls have come to exist is through the extinction of some other species. There is nothing implicitly wrong, from a biological standpoint, with one species of owl dominating and subsequently wiping out an other species of owl.
Whether a species is invasive or non invasive is only relevant in that it may introduce drastic shifts in the ecology of the area, and this is only of concern if ones morals are motivated by ethical frameworks other than the “natural” one, since ecosystems have been making drastic changes since ecosystems have existed.
I would propose that the reason people should be concerned about the extinction of a species is two fold: the first is that the extinction of a species can bring about drastic changes in ecosystems, and that this can cause disruption in the way human beings live. This concern is motivated by the ethical framework of self interest. The second is that the extinction of a species may result in the loss of a valuable piece of history, information, and beauty. This can fall under a number of ethical frameworks, but I’ll put it under aesthetics and understanding. Self interest, aesthetics, and understanding, are all ethical frameworks which most people seem to agree upon, so given those reasons, perhaps it is best to protect the endangered species.
The problem with protecting an endangered species at the detriment to another species is that you are not allowing for the efficient evolution of new species. Why would we want new species to evolve? From a self interest standpoint it’s hard to say. On one hand it would seem that we don’t want new species to evolve, a new breed of super owl may come along and devour us. On the other hand a new breed of super delicious owl may emerge. From an aesthetic and understanding standpoint, new species provide us with a new mode of seeing and understanding the world.
Given that these spotted owls are already a dwindling population, I suspect that their loss will not result in a drastic change in the ecosystem, so self interest is off the table. I propose that the best solution is to store as much of their genetic material as possible, so that if need be we may resurrect the spotted owls, and then allow the barred owls to do their thang.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“a new breed of super owl may come along and devour us. ”
And now I am terrified.
“a new breed of super delicious owl may emerge. ”
And now I am terrified and hungry.
“new species provide us with a new mode of seeing and understanding the world. ”
And now I am terrified and hungry and inspired.
Interesting points all.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Regarding barred owl ecology
- The barred owl has spread across the USA from the east to the west coast in the last 200ish years, and is considered invasive by some (The Barred Owl(Strix varia) invasion in California, Auk, 1998, link to fwcb.cfans.umn.edu)
- The cause of the spread is debated. I’ve heard climate change and altered successional patterns in the great plains (ie increased woodlands) as possible causes. The owl, however, was not artificially introduced, so its status as “invasive” is perhaps debatable.
-Barred owl compete with Spotted owls for nest sites and territories (Are barred owls displacing spotted owls? Condor 2003). Barred owls are considered to be more aggressive than spotted owls.
-The two species also hybridize (Hybridization between barred and spotted owls, Auk, 1994)
Besides the ethical issues, It needs to be considered how many owls need to be killed in order to make an impact on the population. This would require a population analysis of sorts (a population un-viability analysis in application). Managers of invasive species have been criticized in general for shooting from the hip and not considering the demography of the species they wish to control to inform its management.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Thanks for the links, Nathan. I always appreciate it when folks provide references for claims they make in these discussions.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Rather than make a long-winded reply of my own, I am going to second this one. There is a lot to consider on this issue. We have some other bird species that are rapidly changing their ranges, and putting pressure on other species because of it (although not necessarily putting pressure on an endangered species). One is the white wing dove in Central Texas, which never used to occur here 20 years ago. It has moved north for the same reasons that barred owls are moving north, and is displacing other dove species.
I would wait for more good scientific information before coming down on one side or the other of this question. If keeping numbers of barred owls lower would improve the chaces of spotted owls, I might go for it, but it had better work, or there will be a lot of killing for no good reason.
In Texas, barred owls are only found in moist (usually riparian) habitats, never in upland, drier areas.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
For those who asked:
Others gave range detail, but in general Barred owls are a more generalist species than the old-growth specialist spotted owls. Presumably, the spotted owls can out-compete barreds in their preferred habitat; everywhere else (eg, younger forests, mixed edge-type stuff) the barreds succeed. Here in the Northeast, barreds seem to fall out when the landscape becomes more suburban (though they can stand some development and are seen in urban parks sometimes) and/or primarily hardwood forests.
I think the biggest error on the part of biologists/conservationists was to, years ago, frame the debate around spotted owls specifically rather than (old-growth) habitat conservation. Focusing on a single species leads to ideas such as this – “let’s exterminate a native species that is actually responding positively to habitat change.“
I study owls myself (albeit in a much different setting), and even I see little “big picture” difference between a forest dominated by spotteds vs. one dominated by barreds. The point is that the forest is there and the system remains intact. Whether barreds are labeled invasive or not is not really the issue…will the barred owl drastically alter the system if it pushes out the spotted? The 2 species are so similar I really don’t think so. There are probably more substantial ways to spend your conservation dollars than shooting barred owls.
I realize the infamous spotted owl struggle may have required the single-species focus in order to quickly enact ESA protections, and there was no time to address the inefficiencies in our legislation and conservation philosophy, so my opinion above has a large amount of 20/20 hindsight.
Nathan also makes a good point re: a thorough demographic analysis/shooting from the hip.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
“I see little “big picture” difference between a forest dominated by spotteds vs. one dominated by barreds. The point is that the forest is there and the system remains intact.”
That’s an interesting point, Chris. All too often we focus on charismatic endangered species and not the ecosystem as a whole.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I do not believe any degree of violence can solve this.
Assuming they are not facing a greater threat from man caused habitat change/destruction, I would say remove the non-native owls species without killing them. Use enough people to safely capture without harming them and relocate. That is what I want to see money used up for.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Is it the barred owls fault that the spotted owls are going into extinction? Do they deserve to die for our mistakes? Yes, it is a dangerous precedence.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
We usually don’t use words like “fault” to describe the behavior of animals, particularly the behavior of whole species instead of individuals.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Assuming that there is a plan in store for the restoration of the old-growth forest habitat, it is implied that the next biggest obstacle in restoring the Northern spotted owl population lies within the new encroaching barred owl population.
As one who sees myself as an advocate for all living things, I find myself facing a difficult dilemma. Is the life of one living thing more deserving, or more important than the life of another? My instinct is to say no. In this situation, however, I must ask myself to weigh the options in front of me.
It comes with the saying, “desperate times call for desperate measures.” I can fully understand the growing need for an answer on this topic, but the thought of killing large numbers of a non-endangered species in order to save an endangered one almost seems like a scapegoat. Is there no other alternative? The information presented above makes me seem to think that the answer is “no”. And so, I find myself wanting to save this endangered species. And so, if this extermination of part of the barred owl population were to occur, and the population of Northern spotted owls were to increase, what would happen next? Would the barred owls continue to be a threat to the Northern spotted owl population, or do they only cause a threat because of the variation in numbers?
I find it important to act on behalf of this endangered species in the most effective, yet humane way possible, and if this is the only plan left, then I find I must support it, regardless of who I think has the authority over these situations. I do believe, that if we as humans have the capacity and resources to help this species, then we should, only as long as the barred owl population does not become endangered as a result. I think THAT is my biggest worry in this situation, and that is why I still see this as a dangerous precedent, and what should be seen as a last resort, because in any other circumstance, I would see killing other animals as an effort against conservation as opposed to for it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I believe that deforestation and habitat destruction mostly because of the ever expanding population has led to a lot of species becoming endangered. However, why do we need to kill one owl species in order to save another? Has there been any effort to increase the spotted owl population for example, capturing a few to put in a protective environment in order for the species to mate and grow? I am not that well informed about biology, but I don’t know how effective relocating either the spotted owl or the barred owl would help either population. One main problem that I see is if we do choose to relocate either species, we are changing their habitat, which would mean that the owl would have to adapt to this new habitat. This can either hinder or promote the owl growth depending on how well they adapt to the habitat. Another problem that might arise in killing some barred owls is that species would adapt to this and reproduce more. How is killing some barred owls going to stop their reproduction? I personally think that deciding to kill the barred owl is a preemptive decision and we need to look at other possibilities.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
13
I don’t agree with killing the barred owls just to try to increase the spotted owls population. Has anyone tried to increase the Spotted Owls population by having two mate? What if we tried to build up the Spotted Owls population a bit more before we go and kill another animal? I don’t believe that killing an animal just so another animal can live is ethical.
What is going to happen when we kill all the barred Owls and they are then endangered? Will we feel it’s ok to kill another animal just to save this one? As you can see, I believe that this will cause a snowball effect, it will keep building up and up.
I believe that we should try to produce more spotted owls and see how successful we are before we go and kill other animals.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2