Dear Editor,
I am extremely disappointed by NEC’s apparent stance on the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’) barred owl removal proposal, as expressed in the February News from the Center. I would like to take this opportunity to address each of the points Mr. Glass and Ms. Griffith raised.
- They are concerned that focusing on barred owl removal will somehow remove the focus from habitat management approaches such as better logging practices and wildfire control. At the same time, they quote one of the researchers whose data were used to craft the proposal, and who is solidly in favor of it, saying that long-term survival of the northern spotted owl will depend heavily on both reducing impacts from (i.e., removing) barred owls AND habitat management. No one is proposing relaxing habitat conservation and improvement in favor of barred owl removal; they are not mutually exclusive. The proposal proponents recognize that barred owl removal is a bandage, albeit a critical one. To build on the medical analogy of seeking a cure for cancer while continuing to allow the use of carcinogenic chemicals, NEC’s position here is like failing to re-hydrate a cholera patient while waiting for the antibiotics to take effect.
- They refer to the “dystopian decision of hunting one bird to (hopefully) save the other.” This conundrum is far from unique; it’s simply a reality of endangered species preservation. The many other examples include killing ravens to save snowy plovers and cowbirds to save Kirtland’s warblers. Further, this “dystopia” is purely a product of “charismatic megafauna” bias. If the offending organism were a beetle rather than a bird, we would not be having this discussion. Such bias has derailed many well-conceived and necessary conservation measures and needs to be taken out of the equation. I would like to see us, as a society, be willing to remove a bird population to save a beetle species if the need arose.
- They, as many others do, frame the argument as one of owl vs. owl. It’s really much bigger than that. Barred owls are generalist predators and will consume virtually any animal they can catch and overpower. This includes a wide range of native species that did not evolve with this predator and many of which have suffered the effects of old-growth logging just as intensely as has the spotted owl. As EPIC’s Tom Wheeler has eloquently put it, this isn’t owl vs. owl, it’s owl vs. ecosystem.
- They propose holding off on barred owl removal until all other options have been exhausted, using it as a “desperate last resort.” I have news for them: We’re already there. Northern spotted owl populations are tanking across most of the subspecies’ range. Owls are long-lived animals and can persist on the landscape for many years without reproducing, but obviously not forever. We are already at the point at which many spotted owls that do still survive have been unable to breed successfully for over a decade. There simply isn’t time for habitat-level approaches to become effective before spotted owls disappear forever. Barred owl removal now can have immediate beneficial effects, prevent impacts to spotted owl populations (and forests) that are still relatively unaffected by barred owls, and buy us and the spotted owl some critical time. Putting a species on the endangered species list in the first place is already pretty close to a desperate last resort and invariably reflects our failure to act before its status became critical.
I don’t hate barred owls. They’re amazing, impressive animals. But they don’t belong here and they’re wreaking havoc on our forests. Time is running out for the northern spotted owl. We need to try to put our faulty human biases aside and do what’s right and necessary for the ecosystem.
Ken Burton
McKinleyville
EcoNews Retorts
We welcome Ken’s criticism and acknowledge that this is a polarizing issue. But we think he missed a crucial point we were trying to make, which is that the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Forest Service need to be held accountable for their failure to protect the habitat that has brought us to this dire situation.
The cognitive dissonance we describe is heightened by the fact that one government agency is saying this is our last, best chance to save the northern spotted owl from extinction, while other agencies keep approving the logging of northern spotted owl habitat which is resulting in take of ESA listed species. If we are taking the step of eradicating up to a half a million barred owls over the next 30 years, let’s also take the step of ending logging in northern spotted owl habitat. But that is simply not happening.
In September 2023 Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment, along with allies Klamath Forest Alliance and Conservation Congress, filed a legal action against the Shasta Trinity National Forest asserting that it violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with the McFarland Fire Recovery Project, a combination salvage sale and green timber sale. This 2,138 acre project contains 2,118 acres of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. The Forest Service conducted its own biological assessment pursuant to the ESA and concluded that the project “may affect but was not likely to affect” the NSO. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, the federal agency that has jurisdiction over terrestrial wildlife species listed under the ESA like the NSO, disagreed with this assessment and determined that the Forest Service Project was likely to adversely affect the NSO to the degree that it was reasonably certain to cause the take of six owls.
Despite this, the Forest Service approved the project under a Categorical Exclusion, a document that’s reserved for timber stand or wildlife habitat improvement projects expected to have no significant environmental effects either individually or cumulatively and therefore doesn’t require the detailed analysis that would happen in an Environmental Impact Statement or even the less intensive Environmental Assessment.
This scenario is being repeated with the South Fork Sacramento timber sale which will result in the take of 12 northern spotted owls.
We acknowledge that the science shows that killing barred owls could potentially help the northern spotted owl, that doesn’t mean we have to like it or think that it’s any kind of management to be proud of. And it absolutely needs to be accompanied by habitat restoration and preservation, which we don’t see happening. We would like to see the USFW declare the northern spotted owl in jeopardy and stop all further taking of habitat.
