Perez, Luis-Bill “The Fragmented World of the Owl Species”

Growing up in rural Peru, as soon as my father learned to walk, he began working on the family farm. At a young age, he was told by his relatives that owls were a bad omen. Once they make eye contact with you and you hear it hoot or screech, you must kill it before it curses you with bad luck. He still believes it to this day due to mysterious events and tragic deaths that happened to his family soon after one of them encountered an owl. One summer night in the late 1970s, the minute the sun fully set, lurking its head above the corn plantation was a small owl. My father described its face as frightening yet comforting and majestic as its soft, feathery face resembled a cat with a sharp tiny beak, with its dark eyes being eerily like human pupils. With the sniper rifle shaking in his sweaty palms, he managed to kill the owl. Once it was all over, there were no regrets; to him, it meant someone’s life was saved.  

Owls are often seen as either a symbol of death, a bridge to the underworld, or a spiritual consultant with ancient wisdom in various Native American tribes. In some cases, cultures vary their symbolic perspective based on the species of owl (Hay). In the environmental science community, there are distinct views when it comes to the importance of certain species over others, which often boils down to ecological and economic value. What happens when a species has none of these values? This question was entertained by American University award-winning student, Joshua Sucec, who cited strong evidence for making mosquitoes extinct in his essay “What to Do with a Magic Lamp?” by describing their threat to human health and their lack of importance to the ecosystem. Wiping out a species for self-preservation may seem cruel, but if it saves the rest of the ecosystem, then it is no longer selfish, but morally justifiable. The symbolic and cultural relevance of owls is well-known, but after researching the relationship between owl species in North America, I found many ethical and political controversies surrounding the U.S. Fishing and Wildlife Service’s solution to the Northern spotted owl endangerment. The most significant one being from 2015 to 2021, when the USFWS authorized the killing of one species of owl, the barred owl, to save another, the Northern spotted owl. This made me ask, to what extent is this lethal removal justified as a means of preserving the Northern spotted owl? Although there are negative effects of the barred owl’s role as an invasive species, ignoring the extensive deforestation and habitat fragmentation, as well as continuing to kill barred owls, is undoubtedly detrimental to all species, including humans.  

The Northern spotted owl has become one of the most studied species in the US due to many controversies surrounding its endangerment (Scott). The Northern spotted owl has a dark brown coating and white spots discretely blending underneath from its head to tail. Though they look small and fragile, they are quick to catch prey. In total, there are 19 species of owls residing in North America, not including sub-species or genetic diversity (Lowe). The Northern spotted owl remains the only federally recognized threatened owl species in the US, under the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). What led to their endangerment was “extensive [habitat] reduction and fragmentation of late-seral forest as a consequence of timber harvest” (Dunk 4). These Late seral forest-old-growth trees-are important as they enhance biodiversity. Unlike other species of owls, Northern spotted owls aren’t as capable of adapting and specifically require these mature forests to survive and reproduce (Benjamin). These owls keep the ecosystem balanced as predators of small rodents. But more importantly, their presence also leads to “improvements in nutrient-dense soil, salmon fisheries, water quality, and greenhouse gas reduction” (Beam). They are also indicator species, meaning their presence signals a healthy state of a forest (Andre and Velasquez). Due to their role in the ecosystem, this owl’s extinction undoubtedly would have negative repercussions on humans. Yet, some have argued the economic costs of saving them outweigh the benefits.   

Before the Northern spotted owl was protected by law, there were many government reports stating conservation efforts would negatively impact labor. Because logging has been an integral part of the economy for Pacific Northwest communities, since the Endangered Species Act prohibited logging of some old-growth forests, many economists were concerned about the long-term effects on jobs. One study from 2021 looked to see if these concerns were valid. Researchers found that since the Northern spotted owl was listed as threatened, there has been an estimated job loss of “16,000 from a regional perspective [which is] approximately 14% to 28% of timber industry employment in the counties within 25 km of the Northern spotted owl range” (Ferris and Frank 25). If we look solely at the economic factors, then the conservation of the Northern spotted owl wouldn’t be worth the trouble. It is only when we consider the ecological value that we acknowledge the need to save them. The conflict between loggers and environmentalists in the early 1990s illustrates modern struggles with grasping the “more-than-human world” (Kimmerer 184).   

Years before the barred owl removal experiment, this debate on whether old-growth forests and Northern spotted owls should be saved was known as the “Timber Wars” (Scott). Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez, who are both experts in ethics, wrote an article for Santa Clara University, titled “Owl Controversy”, where they provide multiple reasons as to why it took so long for the conservation of the Northern spotted owls. A report by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management from the 1990s concluded logging job loss in the Pacific Northwest, could lead to higher rates of “domestic disputes, divorce, acts of violence, delinquency, vandalism, suicide, alcoholism, and other problems” (Andre and Velasquez). However, critics have viewed this as hyperbolic language and an attempt from the US federal agency to protect the logging industry. The log workers also stated new trees are continuously being planted. But to environmentalists “No amount of reforestation can replace the highly developed and diverse (ancient forest) system”. Advocates for old-growth forests also argue that logging industry jobs should make room for more renewable and sustainable energy (Andre and Velasquez).   

After the Northwest Forest Plan was adopted in 1994 to conserve old-growth forests, is when the controversy regarding the Northern spotted owl endangerment shifted. Now the conflict centered around their predator: The barred owl. According to The US Fish and Wildlife Service, the barred owl is the main barrier to Northern spotted owls’ survival. Their solution? Population control. In other words, we must kill one species to save another. The barred owl has short textured brown stripes on its tail, hazel brown eyes, and a dark yellow beak. With its vicious speed, it can capture creatures nearly its size. An important historical fact about barred owls is that they weren’t originally from the northwestern United States. They began to migrate from the eastern plains in the 1900s and currently compete for limited territory with the spotted owls. They are described as an “apex predator and a fiercely territorial invader from eastern North America” (United States Geological Survey). Their higher reproduction rate, bigger size, and overall higher aggressiveness give them the ability to hunt and dominate Northern spotted owls (Beam). They are also more able to adapt to unfamiliar environments than the Northern spotted owl (Kemp and Laustsen).  

What makes killing barred owls morally permissible is that they are not at risk of extinction or endangerment due to their growing population. However, if we entertain a similar scenario with humans, it leads to significantly more ethical discomfort. In an infamous thought experiment called “Survival Lottery” by renowned bioethicist and philosopher John Harris, he proposes a system of sacrifice where one healthy human is indiscriminately selected to give his life for Y and Z- two dying patients needing a lung transplant. Like the barred owl removal, those killed under this lottery system don’t put humans in danger of extinction. It has the opposite effect. When trading one human life to save two, we increase the population. One reason Harris mentions why people would view this system as extremely cruel and immoral is that we instinctively respect the individuality and free will of the healthy person (84). In other words, their life has an intrinsic value, and we cannot determine their fate for them. But why many of us don’t have the same moral inclination with the barred owl removal is that we simply don’t view humanity and the animal kingdom as equal.   

Saving any species is a moral duty for environmentalists not due to economics, but due to a nuanced understanding of their relationship to the Earth. This relationship between humans and the rest of the ecosystem is explained in Aldo Leopold’s “Land Ethics”. He argues that even though he doubts more than five percent of the thousands of plants and animals native to Wisconsin can be sold, fed, or eaten, nonetheless, “[those] creatures are members of the biotic community, and they are entitled to continuance” (Leopold 388). In other words, a solely economic lens to preserve the environment would not save many species. Although both Northern spotted owls and barred owls may not have fully positive economic impacts, they have an inherent right to exist due to their crucial role in the ecosystem. With both spotted owls and barred owls, since their presence coincides with the health of an environment, they ensure easy access to quality water, which therefore also benefits local fisheries. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, another owl species, the Barn Owl, serves as a natural pest control by keeping rodent populations at bay. One 2012 study found Barn Owls to be significantly cheaper, more efficient, and safer for crops than other pest control methods like propane gas (Browning). For farmers, Barn owls can be both an investment and an integral part of their community.  

 Based on the data, it isn’t clear that continuing the barred owl’s removal would save the Northern spotted owl in the long term. Kent B Livezey of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, wrote a paper in 2010 years before the experiment was approved, called “Killing the barred owl to Save Spotted Owl: A Global Perspective”. This owl experiment unfortunately wasn’t the first time humans used lethal intervention to prevent extinction. Livezey cites many examples across the world of cowbirds, gulls, and other predators that had their populations controlled to preserve other endangered species. The results, however, were very mixed. For example, in Scotland, their government wildlife agency approved a population control of Herring and Lesser Black-backed Gulls because of their threat to other endangered bird species, like the Atlantic Puffin. The results revealed that although puffins were able to feed their chicks at a higher rate and have a lower risk of kleptoparasitism (one species stealing food from another), “there [still] was no significant difference between gull-free and gull-occupied habitat growth and survival rates of puffin chicks” (Livezey 91).  

 Other methods to save the Northern spotted owl that haven’t been explored are labeled as impractical but could be more ethical approaches. An ecologist and rare species conservationist, Jeffrey Dunk, in a case study of Northern spotted owls, emphasizes alternative methods such as providing sustainable forest habitats for barred owls which can promote their coexistence with the spotted owls. Another possibility is hybridization (crossbreeding) between barred owls and Northern spotted owls. These hybrid owls have been spotted in the wild; however, they are incredibly rare as they happen at specific times when there is a lack of mates for barred owls (Barnard). One belief all ecologists and preservationists have in common is that killing the barred owl is a last resort effort. In several studies about barred owl removal, there is an acknowledgment that much more could have been done earlier to prevent this scenario. The inability of humans to see damage to the natural world before it’s too late is the common enemy between the two owl species. It is a frightening idea that humanity is already on the last resort when it comes to saving species from extinction.  

Whether it’s de-extinction, a frozen zoo, or lethal removal, modern strategies to save endangered species keep leading to ethical dilemmas and harsh sacrifices. Writer Elizabeth Kolbert in her Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Sixth Extinction witnessed revitalization efforts by the San Diego Frozen Zoo and her insight summarizes the condition of modern conservation. She states, “Does the last best hope for the world’s most magnificent creatures—or, for that matter, its least magnificent ones —really lie in pools of liquid nitrogen?” (Kolbert 247). In other words, have we truly attempted every possible solution to the point where we need to freeze embryos and hope that the future will find an answer? One solution to endangered species that has become popular is de-extinction. In the early 2000s, an extinct species called the Pyrenean ibex (Burcado)- a subspecies of wild goat – was brought back to life through cloning. However, “The baby’s lung was misshapen, and she suffocated within minutes” (Martindale). Some believe tragedies like these are worth the discovery of something greater- a simpler way to save species. Even if we do successfully find a quick solution to reverse extinction, humans then avoid the truth that our destructive activity was the main cause of their demise in the first place. Several studies reveal that the barred owl’s movement westward was “precipitated by changes to the environment in the boreal forest and Great Plains as Europeans increasingly settled and dramatically altered the landscape” (USFWS). Humans altering the environment for comfort and control has become an idea everyone accepts to the point where it is considered a natural phenomenon. The frozen zoo, the pursuit of de-extinction, and the lethal removal of the barred owl all derive from good intentions. But they also all represent the universal belief that “human ingenuity will outrun any disaster human ingenuity sets in motion” (Kolbert 253). As Kolbert implies in her book, modern strategies to save species have become difficult to digest. Those hired to hunt the barred owl have said seeing the Northern spotted owl survive longer is “worth the agony” (Shogren). But if we are heading towards “a sixth extinction”, then agonizing decisions will be even more common in the future.  

The official results of the barred owl experiment were released in 2021 showing that the killing of barred owls had slowed down the declining population of Northern spotted owls. In Northern California and Oregon, where contracted hunters and researchers lethally removed barred owls, there remained a steady 0.2% decline per year compared to the sharp decline of spotted owls (12.1%) in areas without removal (Wiens). But could mitigating the effects be considered a long-term solution? Underlying questions remain, when will the hunting stop? And what truly could have been done before the barred owl’s presence? According to a study from the Ecological Society of America, barred owls had “existed in low numbers in 1994 when the Northwest Forest Plan went into effect” (Gentes). Therefore, for a few years, the Northern spotted owl could not increase its population even when there was no alien predator.  

There was a larger problem under the surface surrounding the Northern spotted owl’s ability to repopulate.  

This problem was investigated in 1990 by the Times article titled “Owl vs Man” by Ted Gup, who is a well-known journalist for government secrecy. The US Fish and Wildlife Services faced several legal battles concerning logging industry regulation and the Northern spotted owls before their official listing as a threatened species. The USFWS “refused to call for the owl to be listed as endangered” until a federal court in 1988 forced them to, calling their refusal “arbitrary and capricious.” The US General Accountability Office also discovered that Fish and Wildlife officials had rewritten portions of a major study, expunging critical references that suggested these owls were on the brink of extinction (Gup 9). Specifically, the agency ignored its scientists and used one unrelated study that said “field mice make more babies when their populations drop” as their only evidence to show that the Northern spotted owl was not endangered (Scott). Lastly, it was discovered that The Forest Service and the US Bureau of Land Management often “sold timber rights to the highest private bidder”. This resulted in the strange fragments of private and public forests we have today in the Pacific Northwest. This is why the conservation efforts remain difficult to manage on remaining public land.  

Despite the scandalous nature of the “Timber Wars” from the US government and private industry, there are reasons that reveal how, to some extent, we are all responsible for the Northern spotted owl endangerment. For many species facing extinction, their endangerment often originates from our desire to push wildness out of our lives. Global environmental politics professor Paul Wapner, in his book Is Wildness Over? describes this phenomenon as a search for comfort. The barred owl, for example, has been pushed out west for centuries so infrastructure can be built to make our daily lives easier. Now, barred owls have been pushed to the U.S. Pacific Northwest. If the barred owl today replaced the remaining Northern spotted owl, because of severe forest fragmentation creating a less-than-ideal habitat, they would migrate outside the US entirely to survive if they can do so. They possibly can cause more havoc on other ecosystems and give a path for loggers to purchase and fully eliminate the remaining mature forests in the region. Killing the barred owls without a doubt slows down the time before the spotted owl becomes extinct, but not addressing the root cause as to why the Northern spotted owl remains endangered will lead to a vicious cycle with no ending in sight. As Wapner started in “Is Wildness Over?” pushing wildness out of our lives won’t truly get rid of it, it puts the burden on others. In this case, much of the burden is on those having to pull the trigger on barred owls.  

For an unfamiliar species in a remote part of the country, it is still very difficult for most people to care about this issue. In general, we are so far removed from nature that many may have never encountered an owl. If they do, they may have a negative view due to cultural beliefs. However, many similarities go widely unnoticed between us humans and owls that could make us view this situation differently. While looking at the economic conflict between owls and humans, I discovered both biological traits and social grievances we share with owls. First, a study from 2018 in Germany discovered that owls, like humans, “group together different elements as they move in the same direction” (Klein). In other words, this means the ability to distinguish an object from its environment and background. Before this discovery, this ability of visual processing was thought to be “a higher level task that requires complex brain structures” only possible for humans and primates (Klein). Why does this matter? Novelist David Foster Wallace explains it best in his Gourmet magazine article “Consider the Lobster”. When you place the lobster in the boiling pot, you hear “the creature’s claws scraping the sides of the kettles as it thrashes around” (Wallace 62). It’s the same way humans would behave being cooked alive. Likewise, imagine the unsettling fear humans have when they see a gun aimed at them. After many encounters with weapons, the barred owls will have the same fear in their eyes as they fall from the giant hollow trees. The USFWS in their experiment mentioned taking into consideration orphaned barred owls (OFWO 58), which is why there were some restrictions for hunting during mating seasons. They acknowledge the potential suffering they can cause and the owl’s true sentient nature, just not to the same extent they do with humans.  

The similarities between humans and owls go beyond natural science and extend to social issues. The barred owl seems to be a scapegoat to cover up the large systemic issue with conversation; however, since removing them from certain areas is an easier feat to overcome, that is the option that is taken. When conducting the removal, the US is showing that barred owls have no right to exist in the northwest even though their cause for migration was man-made. This is similar to how today there is no legal recognition of climate refugees internationally, even when crises could have been averted had action been taken years prior (Giles). There are also parallels between habitat fragmentation and gerrymandering. As mentioned, excessive logging of old-growth forests left the remaining trees suitable for the Northern spotted owl scattered, which leaves the owls scouring for shelter and vulnerable to prey. Similarly, due to gerrymandering, the low-income community within Ohio’s 39th district faces “high environmental exposure to respiratory hazards and lead paint — issues not experienced by the overwhelming majority of rural voters in that same district” (Téllez). The voting block of the low-income residents is fragmented so they can’t change their circumstances through elections. Therefore, they remain vulnerable with nowhere to go; they are a part of a less-than-human world. For humans and owls, it’s the same struggle for existence and intrinsic value.  

As the barred owl removal is set to resume, one question that keeps returning is what if we acted sooner? According to investigations, there was collusion between the logging industry and federal agencies that pitted owls against humans, and later, owls against owls, all due to preserving economic growth over the growth of mature forests. Although at first glance it seems inaction will result in the barred owls soaring over the last remaining Northern spotted owls, it is often those in positions to push wildness out of their lives who soar over those that can’t. Which leaves the rest of the “biotic community” (Leopold 388) to fend for itself. The UWFS renewal for a larger barred owl removal will lead to more than 400,000 barred owls being killed over 30 years (Wing). In the grand scheme of things, it may not seem terrible. But as the Northern spotted owl continues to stare extinction in the eye, humanity will continue to pull the trigger literally and metaphorically with last-resort conservation efforts. If “the sixth extinction” and more climate disasters are upon us, no owl or human will be safe.