Andrew is a freelance marine biologist 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
If one truly steps back, the problem at hand is not the abundance of Barred Owls, rather the limited habitat from excessive logging. I believe finding a solution to the source of the problem should take precedence over the slaughtering of Barred Owls. Killing excessive amounts of owls is simply a temporary solution to a much greater problem.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Although the northern spotted owls are an endangered species, I do not think that it is ethical to kill barred owls. Even if barred owls are not in danger of becoming extinct, killing one species of owls for another does not seem like the right solution. I do not think that the endangered owls should be allowed to go extinct, but I also do not think that killing animals is acceptable. Endangered species management bodies should decide how to preserve any species facing possible extinction, but the purpose of these bodies should be to conserve all animal life. So, I do not think that they should have the authority to kill anything. I believe that killing owls to save owls contradicts the concept of conservation because, in the struggle to save a particular species, another species is dying; therefore, this idea is a dangerous precedent, not an innovative conservation idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
I agree with bioloquest. Killing one species for another will not resolve the real problem at hand, excessive logging. By reducing the numbers of the Barred Owls, we are punishing them for our mistakes. It’s not fair to either species. We should be more focused on cutting down on the amount of logging or coming up with a plan that replenishes the trees in a way that they are always plentiful, rather than putting yet another species at risk.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
According to the Santa Clara University Ethics department, only an astounding 10% of northern spotted owl habitat remains in today’s environment. I believe that the real question here is how are we as Americans responsible for causing such a catastrophe to occur, and what can we do to replenish and rehabilitate the mass destruction? Sadly, it does not seem as that the answer will come in a timely fashion, which in turn will ultimately lead to the extinction of the northern spotted owl if drastic measures are not taken…and quickly. For hundreds of years this beautiful species has called “home” the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. They have been able to fed, survive, and reproduce off of the vegetation and invertebrate life, which is created by the timber. The timber in question is the hemlock, spruces and cedars, to mention a few, which have aided in a multi-billion dollar logging industry that threatens to destroy many species habitat, not just the northern spotted owls. The debate about the precedence of the owls, over the major economic impact of the logging industry, sounds like the real problem. Of course, it is vitally important to save the northern spotted owl, as well as the barred owl, but to what extent are Americans willing to go? Relocation of the barred owl might not work in the long term, and rebuilding the habitat of the northern spotted owl may not be in time. I think that this particular instance of endangerment of a species is a great example of what could happen to our world if we continue to over-use and diminish all of our natural resources at such a horrific rate. These owls, both species, are an important addition to the ecosystem, and therefore I cant say that I agree that one life should be valued over the other, but I am not willing to see a endangered species die off while we sit around and wait for it to happen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with the previous post by dani. Since when is it right to kill one species over another, endangered or not? You are eliminating one species to conserve another. I am sure that there is another way to manage both species, possibly by relocating, changing their habitat (planting more trees),etc. It is not right for endangered species management bodies to kill animals that threaten endangered species because it does go against the point of conservation. There can be other resolutions besides killing. That’s like taking the easy way out. The entire idea is a dangerous precedent, not an innovative new conservation idea. There is nothing innovative, conservative, or new about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Although it is terrible that the northern spotted owls are going extinct I do not believe that the best way to solve this problem is by killing another species of owl just for the sake of saving and endangered species. This simple does not seem human to me. There has to be another way to go about this. Would it be possible to try relocating the northern spotted owls? Or perhaps moving a great deal of them to captivity? (I know that sounds hard but maybe in a zoo or somewhere these owls could be taken care of…)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
The non-endangered owls should not be killed to save the endangered species because there are other possible solutions to the problem. They could capture the endangered species and breed them into some facility or zoo till there population get large enough to release them back into their habitat. I do not believe killing the owls is the best way to go about the problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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?”
This is a very tricky ethical problem. Depending on your perspective it can go either way. In a utilitarian sense, the life of the endangered species has more value then the more populated one. But from a more individualist mindset, what makes the killing of one living thing more just then another? I am under the opinion that the endangered life has more value and that if eliminating a less valuable life for the sake of saving multiple endangered ones is justified.
“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?”
Yes killing animals does go against conventional conservation there is no arguing that point. But this is such a tricky question I don’t think it can be solved with conventional methodology. While its still a sticky problem, this solution should not be discarded without proper deliberation; even if it does go against convention.
“Is this a dangerous precedent or an innovative new conservation idea?”
It certainly has the potential to be a dangerous precedent. But I feel that it is more-so an innovative new conservation idea (although based on other’s posts it seems its not all that new). As stated above, the answer to this question depends solely on the ethical framework its approached with. I happen to think eliminating some of the more populous species is justified
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lacking thought in my
Opinions, I, instead, blame
Mexico. More tea?
Comment edited as per rule 5a.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
This problem has many solutions with different consequences. I feel like killing the owls would be a bad choice as it results in a structure problem for not only the owls, but other species near them. Changing the habitat to suit everyone would be the best possible way for everyone’s survival here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
I agree with both sides of this argument. I do see killing many Barred Owls as a cruel punishment to that species seeing as they, I’m sure, didn’t plan to move in on the Spotted Owl’s habitat and take over. It’s the common idea of survival of the fittest. I feel that people are always trying to save and rescue what sometimes is out of our control. It is not up to us to save another species. However i understand their are many people who do spend their lives trying to rebuild and maintain species from going extinct. For this there are plenty of wildlife reserves that could take in the endangered Spotted Owls, rebuild their habitats, repopulate their species behind closed doors and allow them to slowly crawl out of extinction. However it is wrong to decrease a strong species like the Barred owl simply because the Spotted owl has perhaps lost their ability to adapt with the changes in their environment and survive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I am truly stuck between both sides of this argument, but I’m leaning more towards this…
Part of me finds it unacceptable to kill large numbers of non-endangered species to prevent the extinction of an endangered similar species. One reason I feel this way is because…
“The extinction of at least 500 species of animals has been caused by man, most of them in this century. Today there are about 5,000 endangered animals and at least one species dies out every year. There are probably many more which become extinct without anyone knowing.”
(link to ypte.org.uk)
At least one species dies out every year and probably many more we don’t even know about? Plus, 500 species have been caused by man, so who is to say that we could not easily make that mistake again by false identification of the wrong owl? Being similar in shape and size could make it hard to eliminate only the non-endangered one.
Also, I find it hard to convince myself that taking the life of an owl that is non-endangered, abundant, and could possibly be as valuable as the Northern Spotted Owl one day, is simply just acceptable.
Endangered species have been dying off for years, it’s all a process. We’ve all heard of natural selection, the organism best adapted to the environment will survive.
Who is to guarantee that killing large amounts of this non-endangered owl will do any good in the long run? Sooner or later, the Northern Spotted Owl is going to be extinct. By killing large amounts of the barred owl, were only adding another animal to the list of close extinction.
I say, let nature take its course. If the Spotted owl is meant to survive, it will. If not, why not sit back and see what the barred owl has to offer?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t believe it is right for the barred owls to die. I think the better choice would be to try and relocate the barred owls. I thought the job for the endangered species management was to save animals from becoming extinct. I understand by killing off some of the barred owls that would save the spotted owls but the killing of the barred owls might go too far and instead of saving one species the endangered species management would have two species to save.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I believe that killing animals is barbaric regardless of whether or not the species is endangered. I don’t know much about how to increase the population of endangered species, or what specifically causes many species to become endangered. It seems as if we could increase the spotted owl population by figuring out a way to increase the amount of mating and procreating among them. Or maybe place them in a controlled area where there population can increase on its own. Killing the barred owl will only create a larger problem in the long run. There will be less barred owls and then their population will possibly become endangered also. There must be some other resolution to this. But opting to kill the barred owl, in my opinion, is not an option.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I believe that in order to ensure the survival of the Northern Spotted Owls we should at least experiment with decreasing the population of the Barred Owls. This may mean opening up hunting grounds for Barred Owls to be hunted during the appropriate season (with some stipulations to ensure no that neither species becomes extinct). Animals will always be hunted; at this current time, we must try to protect the Northern Spotted Owl. Conservation calls for a different action dependent upon each situation. In this case, the Barred Owl is invading the habitat of the Northern Spotted Owl, and, since the Barred Owl has a broader variety of habitats it may choose to inhabit, we need to focus on decreasing their population in the old-growth forest habitats, which is the Northern Spotted Owl’s primary habitat.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I agree with many of the previous commenters, it is not acceptable to kill the barred owl at the expense of the spotted owl. It should not matter whether one is endangered and one is not, they are both living creatures. What makes the spotted owl more important then the barred owl? Just because the spotted owl is on the verge of extinction does not mean we should kill a whole population of barred owls. All throughout the wilderness the birth and death of animals is all involved in the circle of life; its natural. It makes no sense to me to intentionally kill a certain species of owl just to save another. According to Charles Darwin, it is “survival of the fittest”. There are other ways to go about this issue. One would be to move the barred owl or the spotted owl to a new location. It seems to me that killing a whole population of the owl would create an even bigger problem. I understand that the barred owl is invading the spotted owls natural and primary habitat, but how do we know that the owls will not adapt to their new inhabitants? It is only fair to let nature take its own course. We are born, and then we die, it is a part of life, whether you are a human or an animal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think mass killing of the barred owl would be totally unethical. How can it be justified when it is the fault of humans(by deforestation) that the spotted owls are going extinct to begin with- now we want to kill MORE owls to put it right? Doesn’t make much sense to me. If possible we should do what we have done with other species that are going extinct and round some up and put them in conservations and hope they reproduce.
I found it really interesting that the barred and spotted owls can produce fertile offspring because this means that they are not really different species (if we are going by biological rules). This makes the mass killing of barred owls even more unethical because how do we know that they are not hybrid owls we are killing?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This sounds more like a conservation problem instead of a “favorite owl” problem. Although they are not on the same scope (as the barred owls are not considered “invasive” species) there is the similar issue of feral cats vs. birds. There is much argument as to whether or not that is a “cat person vs. people person” debate or strictly a conservation issue. Obviously the spotted owl is in danger of going extinct so I’m looking at this as a conservation issue. I would much rather see the killing of barred owls to save the population of the spotted owl. Who knows how long it will take to find the best solution, and no matter what we do we’re going to offend someone in the short term. However, in the long term there will still be both species of owls. For the most part, I see conservation as the restoration from loss, damage or neglect. These spotted owls have certainly suffered a loss and will obviously continue to suffer the loss even to the point of extinction. The loss of the spotted owl could result in other areas of lost in the ecosystem. In the long run, I see the killing of barred owls as the better solution to this conservation issue and within five, ten, twenty, etc years hopefully we will see in increase in the population. Yes, I do see benefits in some sort of relocation, a trap, change ,and release movement to possibly manage the barred owl population, but right now I prefer the former.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Human’s habits are to blame for putting the Northern spotted owl on the endangered species list to begin with, so why not kill off another owl species, the barred owl? That is ridiculous. Let nature run its course. It does not make sense to kill off one species just because another is endangered. If the barred owl is not an invasive species it should be allowed to live. We, as humans, try to control too much of our world’s habitats. With humans being the reason species go extinct it seems that we are trying to over compensate for our mistakes. As someone posted before, who is to say one species has the right to live over another?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Human’s habits are to blame for putting the Northern spotted owl…Let nature run its course.”
You do realize that you just said completely opposite things, right?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
As soon as you start killing the species that is harming another species then they might become extinct as well. If the non-endangered species are killing other species it follows suit with Darwin’s theory of “survival of the fittest,” basically saying, “survival of the good enough.” If that species of owls isn’t good enough to stay alive then maybe it shouldn’t be. A little harsh, I know. But, there will always be problems with this kind of stuff and we as humans can’t always save the world. Nature is going to take its course.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The complete eradication of the Barred owls is entirely too much human interference. As tragic as it would be to see an end to the Spotted owls, if this is what nature has in store for them, then humans have to authority to have an alternate course of action.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There are a lot of questions that arise after reading this article. For instance, what are the two species of owls competing for? Are both species native to the area? Does there exist any other way of protecting the Northern spotted owl? However based on the information provided, I feel that it would be a huge mistake to follow through with killing such a significant number of barred owls. To be honest, I am surprised that ‘shooting hundreds, perhaps thousands’ of any species would even be a debate among conservationists. Maybe I am naïve about the objectives of proclaimed ‘conservationists,’ but it appears to me that this mass killing goes against everything they claim to stand for. It would be best to let nature run its course. There is no way of knowing what the exact repercussions of such an act would be or if it would even be enough to save the Northern spotted owls from extinction. Furthermore, this would without a doubt set a dangerous precedent. Such a severe undertaking would, in a sense, ‘open the flood gates’ for similar acts to follow. I do not feel that this proposition should even be within the authority of endangered species bodies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In most cases it is not acceptable to kill large numbers of a non-endangered species in order to prevent the extinction of an endangered similar species. Usually is it the circle of life and survival of the fittest. If the barred owl is the more dominant species, then they will survive and the Northern spotted owl will not. However if the barred owl has been forced into the Northern spotted owl territory and did not come there naturally, then it is not fair to the Northern spotted owl, and I would justify controlling the barred owl population for the sake of the spotted ones.
I think if one wanted to act as a traditionalist, and not tamper with the forces of nature, then they would allow the barred owl to take over and ruin the population of the Northern spotted owl. However, it is due to human activity that both species are forced into this situation. Therefore if humans caused the problem, humans should be there to fix with the solution.
It is within the authority of endangered species management bodies to kill animals that threaten endangered species. Killing animals does not go against the point of conservation. With some animals, such as deer, if some are not killed, the species will overpopulate, and will slowly die from malnourishment and competition.
I believe it is a dangerous precedent and I would not encourage it at all. I can only hope that people realize in advance what they are doing to the local ecosystem before it gets to this point so they can prevent it from ever getting that close.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would have to agree with Christy’s post. You gotta do what you gotta do. If the competitor is an invasive species… nuke’em. A) They’re animals, not Jews. B) What do they taste like all battered up and fried?
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
“A) They’re animals, not Jews. B) What do they taste like all battered up and fried?”
What on Earth are you talking about? I’m not sure whether this offends me most as a Jew, as a conservationist, as a lover of fried food, or as a speaker of the English language.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
This situation reminds me of the experiment done in my lab once. It was an debate as to whether introducing an new species could help restore the endangered species at hand or should it be caught for consumption and sporting. In this case it does go against the ideal conservation. Just as the issue of the extinction of the bald eagle, I believe this situation as well should play its course out. The killing/shooting or shall I say murdering these barred owls manipulate the conservation process. It should be left alone and there isn’t proof that killing them off is a solid conclusion to the extinction that is being taken place with the spotted owl. That is my biggest problem, everything is being quickly done off pure impulse instead of strategically thinking the situation through.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0