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
“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.”
Sir, as a big Jew fan (Curb Your Enthusiasm box-set owner/lover) I certainly did not intend to offend anyone. I was employing humor to make the point that these aren’t human beings, and that Jews AREN’T animals. Get it now? Because we’re entertaining the systematic destruction of one animal for the sake of another (and given the controversy surrounding the suggestion), I felt (however thoughtlessly) that I was illustrating an interesting parallel. If, after clarifying my comments, I continue to offend anyone then I apologize.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
How can we find it appropriate to end the lives of a group of non-endangered species in order to justify the lives of an endangered similar species? As Bob Sallinger clearly stated about the situation, this puts us all between a rock and a hard place, and frankly it turns out into a lose-lose situation. With that being clarified then NO, it is not acceptable by any means to go ahead and kill off the barred animals just to save the spotted owls. The situation overall is unfortunate but I am confident that the Animal Conservation bodies can conclude a much better alternative, besides, who is to say that this plan can turn out to be efficient?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with Figtree. There has got to be another alternative.
I have a proposal to make. The whole gist of what I’m about to discuss has been brought up by Bjaded earlier and no one commented on it. I’m curious as to why this isn’t being seriously contemplated…
We should, instead of killing, take enough of the barred owls out of the environment to where it would let the Northern Spotted owl population grow. The number of barred owls captive would be equal to barred owls hunting quota (if they were to be hunted).
While I know people will ask,” How can you decide to captivate one bird and let the other go free?” ok, I understand.
However, my point is not looking at animals as individuals but as a species. Once a species is doing fine, care about the individual, but when an entire species is dyeing do what you can to revive it. But I think killing, at this state and amount of justification, is over the line.
However, if the owls have a certain purpose like deer being killed then perhaps it is justified. But I have not heard of any resources that would be attained and equally positive to humans (like deer hunting). But if there is no food source that would come from the killing of the barred owls, then instead of just killing them in vain, we could instead raise awareness with them.
Make some type of school owl program… I don’t know. Anything! I’m in school to be a high school teacher so anything to educate would be wonderful!
I know there will be questions of money, resources, etc.
Is that the reason this proposal is not seriously contemplated? Or is there some other obvious point I’m missing…
Basically, all I’m wondering is whether there is any other purpose that can be furthered before the killing. I think there is something that could be done.
Also, of the topic of my post, I think I don’t think the survival of the fittest applies to this debate considering we are the ones destroying their environment. In an ideal non-human effected environment, yes, survival of the fitted makes since but not when, as one commenter stated; only 10% of their environment is here. Nature can take its course when we haven’t tampered with it. But we have so let’s at least try to make up for what we’ve done without making things worse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with many of the above posted comments. If killing the barred owls is the only way to save the spotted owls, then it doesn’t look like we have much choice. Saving an endangered species should certainly be top priority over the safety of the other non-endangered, dominating species.
Population control of other animals are in place all over the US. White tailed deer were a major problem in Hilton Head, SC a few years ago, so to get their populations down to a manageable size, hunting them was allowed. I feel that this would be similar to the situation with the barred owls and should be allowed, especially if it will save an endangered species.
Also, are there places that have spotted owls in captivity? Not that this a solution to the problem, but if we were able to at least save some of them, then we could continue to have them reproduce so that they won’t completely go extinct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As I understand the issue, which is taking place I feel strongly that humans should “ let nature take its course” – according to the comment left by “ Linda.” the endangerment of an animal yes, is something humans can help control however, is it something that should really be done? In my opinion it is not. The information provided above shows there has been a significant amount of research done, however is there room for more? Have all of the possible alternatives been carefully thought out? Is there a possibility of trying something other than killing off one species to protect another? What about attempting to reproduce more spotted owls? With the way the environment is going and the trend in high numbered endangered animals is it really worth the time and energy to take the time to kill off these owls? I think not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1