US Government Wants 500,000 Owls To Be Shot Dead in Cull (Nevada, Oregon)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you read any book by Charles Darwin where he talks about survival of the fittest or adaptation?
Trying to frame barred owls edging out spotted owls as survival of the fittest in action is like trying to frame the Russian annexation of Crimea as survival of the fittest, or emerald ash borer killing untold millions of ash trees in North America, or introducing cats to Australia. It's not survival of the fittest; it's humans effing things up.
Darwin originally used the term natural selection, not survival of the fittest, which was not his term. He only came to use that phrase later, and dumbing it down has led to a lot of misunderstandings about natural selection.
What Darwin described was how species adapt and evolve naturally over millennia and millions of years. When you log 95% of the old growth in 100 years, you have the opposite of survival of the fittest: You have species that has evolved for hundreds of millenia in that habitat, the spotted owl, which IS therefore the fittest, now almost immediately (in evolutionary time), without most of it's habitat and in sudden and direct competition with a species that they never faced or had time to develop defenses against over evolutionary time. And all of it due to unnatural processes. That is not what Darwin described. Spotted owls don't have time to evolve that fast (although there is some evidence they maybe trying to change their behavior by reducing their vocalizing to reduce detection by barred owls. This could reduce their reproductive success too, IMO..)
The sudden advantage that barred owls have is entirely due to humans disrupting the environment, causing them to "introduce" themselves and taking the "natural" out of the "selection" just like when any other invasive species is manually introduced.
Displacement and extinction of species happens naturally too, but usually very slowly. The earth is resilient but not infinitely resilient. The landscape-scale and even global-scale changes wrought by industrial man can only be compared to something like asteroid strikes in their sudden, massive impact. And we don't seem to be slowing down.
The landscape-scale and even global-scale changes wrought by industrial man can only be compared to something like asteroid strikes in their sudden, massive impact. And we don't seem to be slowing down.
No kidding. I wish we could set up a cull to eliminate 500,000 humans...per state. It probably still wouldn't make a dent in the damage we're doing.
The more I look at this, the more I wonder if the Barred owl simply was expanding its range regardless of anything humans did.
The spiel here is that Barred owls have expanded their range across the Plains due to humans planting more trees on the Plains.
Problem with that idea is, they haven't expanded their range across the Plains: They've instead expanded across central Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. These are areas that have been forested since the end of the last ice age.
So the Barred owls simply migrated across an area that was merely an extension of the northern edge of their previous range and habitat, and then eventually encountered the west coast forests containing the Spotted owl's range.
Public participation in this I believe will be very tightly monitored. Someone would need a permit and all kills would need to be recorded. That would make sense but it is the government.
The more I look at this, the more I wonder if the Barred owl simply was expanding its range regardless of anything humans did.
The spiel here is that Barred owls have expanded their range across the Plains due to humans planting more trees on the Plains.
Problem with that idea is, they haven't expanded their range across the Plains: They've instead expanded across central Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. These are areas that have been forested since the end of the last ice age.
So the Barred owls simply migrated across an area that was merely an extension of the northern edge of their previous range and habitat, and then eventually encountered the west coast forests containing the Spotted owl's range.
You can't tell how barred owls got where they are from their current range map. Analysis of historical sightings over time show that they actually moved into Alberta and Saskatchewan from Montana in the mid-20th century after they crossed the US plains in the late 1800s. And they do occur in pockets across the plains today.
If anyone wants to leave public comment, it's at the above link. Public comment is only being accepted through Jan. 16th, 2024.
Take this from someone who's conducted many federal NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act)/EIS projects over the years and designed, managed, and participated on public comment analysis teams for controversial decisions like this. If you cannot provide specific data or sources of new information to back up your comment about the analysis of impacts from the proposed alternatives, it won't help the agency make a better decision. Emotional vague complaints or railing that you do or don't agree with the proposal won't do much of anything. Back up your concerns with factual information and/or applicable local knowledge. That is what the agency needs and what they are soliciting. Hundreds or thousands of little postcards torn out of some NGO's action letter or magazine may clog the agency's mailbox for a while but that's about all they'll do. This isn't a public election or a popularity contest. The alternative that gets the most votes doesn't win. Those little comment cards may not even be kept after the ROD (an EIS's record of decision) is written. One representative card or much-copied/paraphrased letter might be placed in the administrative record but that's it. The rest will be recycle fodder.
Last edited by Parnassia; 01-03-2024 at 03:31 PM..
Take this from someone who's conducted many federal NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act)/EIS projects over the years and designed, managed, and participated on public comment analysis teams for controversial decisions like this. If you cannot provide specific data or sources of new information to back up your comment about the analysis of impacts from the proposed alternatives, it won't help the agency make a better decision. Emotional vague complaints or railing that you do or don't agree with the proposal won't do much of anything. Back up your concerns with factual information and/or applicable local knowledge. That is what the agency needs and what they are soliciting. Hundreds or thousands of little postcards torn out of some NGO's action letter or magazine may clog the agency's mailbox for a while but that's about all they'll do. This isn't a public election or a popularity contest. The alternative that gets the most votes doesn't win. Those little comment cards may not even be kept after the ROD (an EIS's record of decision) is written. One representative card or much-copied/paraphrased letter might be placed in the administrative record but that's it. The rest will be recycle fodder.
The agency says it's taking public comment, I still encourage all citizens to voice their concern with this disastrous plan and send in a message/comment.
No idea on what you are referring to when you mention represenative card. I imagine most people write their own words when submitting a message.
The agency says it's taking public comment, I still encourage all citizens to voice their concern with this disastrous plan and send in a message/comment.
No idea on what you are referring to when you mention represenative card. I imagine most people write their own words when submitting a message.
Disastrous? How is it disastrous?
Distasteful maybe, even biologists might agree with that. But necessary, unless you have a better idea to prevent spotted owl extinction. The distastefulness of it should serve as a reminder of how badly we screw things up. It should leave a bitter taste.
Distasteful maybe, even biologists might agree with that. But necessary, unless you have a better idea to prevent spotted owl extinction. The distastefulness of it should serve as a reminder of how badly we screw things up. It should leave a bitter taste.
Purposefully shooting barred owls is cruel.
In addition; killing one species 'in hopes' the other species improves will not work. Why won't it work? Because the northern spotted owl has lost most of their habitat. Old growth forest are mostly gone and that is their preferred habitat. If Fish and wildlife wanted to truly help, then they need to protect the remaining forests in the PNW by limiting logging.
They did a five year study where they killed barred owls in an area to see its affect on northern spotted owls and while there was less of a decline of the northern spotted owls, there was NO improvement to their numbers.
I sincerely hope the plan does not go forward.
Barred owls have a right to exist, they should not be blamed for their success at adapting and staying alive.
Last edited by Wintergirl80; 01-04-2024 at 01:25 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
