• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

U.S. officials plan to kill hundreds of thousands of barred owls to save another species from extinction

We Never Know

No Slack
Do you agree with the interfering of nature to this extent? In a way I see it as interfering with evolution.
Good thing the officials didn't exist when Neanderthals did or they might have killed off a bunch of modern humans to prevent Neanderthal extinction.

U.S. officials plan to kill hundreds of thousands of barred owls to save another species from extinction

"To save the imperiled spotted owl from potential extinction, U.S. wildlife officials are embracing a contentious plan to deploy trained shooters into dense West Coast forests to kill almost a half-million barred owls that are crowding out their smaller cousins.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Wednesday was expected to release its final plan to prop up declining spotted owl populations in Oregon, Washington state and California. The Associated Press obtained details in advance.

The plan calls for killing up to 470,000 barred owls over three decades after the birds from the eastern U.S. encroached into the territory of two West Coast owls: northern spotted owls and California spotted owls. The smaller spotted owls have been unable to compete for food and habitat with the invaders.

Past efforts to save spotted owls focused on protecting the forests where they live. But the proliferation of barred owls in recent years is undermining that earlier work, officials said.

"We're at a crossroads. We have the science that indicates what we need to do to conserve the spotted owls, and that requires that we take action on the barred owls," said Bridget Moran, a deputy state supervisor for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Oregon.

The notion of killing one bird species to save another has divided wildlife advocates and conservationists. Some grudgingly accepted the proposal after a draft version was announced last year; others denounced it as reckless and a diversion from needed forest preservation."

 
Last edited:

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
As someone who extensively studied conservation biology, I get where these sorts of decisions come from and their scientific basis. Conservation biology is an interesting field because it really toes the line between being science and non-science; all management decisions like this, while based on scientific research, are not themselves science. They are grounded in subjective values and "ought" prescriptive-type thinking.

I am really not on board of culling other species to save another in part because the primary species that needs to be culled in this way is never on the table for discussion. In nearly all cases, decline of non-human species is due to human activities; instead of fixing the human elements, humans externalize the problem - by committing mass murder no less - rather than take responsibility. Humans are the ones decreeing such and such is how things "ought" to be - the onus is on us to make the needed sacrifices for that vision, not mass murder others to get it done.
 

Laniakea

Not of this world
Do you agree with the interfering of nature to this extent? In a way I see it as interfering with evolution.
Good thing the officials didn't exist when Neanderthals did or they might have killed off a bunch of modern humans to prevent Neanderthal extinction.

U.S. officials plan to kill hundreds of thousands of barred owls to save another species from extinction

"To save the imperiled spotted owl from potential extinction, U.S. wildlife officials are embracing a contentious plan to deploy trained shooters into dense West Coast forests to kill almost a half-million barred owls that are crowding out their smaller cousins.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Wednesday was expected to release its final plan to prop up declining spotted owl populations in Oregon, Washington state and California. The Associated Press obtained details in advance.

The plan calls for killing up to 470,000 barred owls over three decades after the birds from the eastern U.S. encroached into the territory of two West Coast owls: northern spotted owls and California spotted owls. The smaller spotted owls have been unable to compete for food and habitat with the invaders.

Past efforts to save spotted owls focused on protecting the forests where they live. But the proliferation of barred owls in recent years is undermining that earlier work, officials said.

"We're at a crossroads. We have the science that indicates what we need to do to conserve the spotted owls, and that requires that we take action on the barred owls," said Bridget Moran, a deputy state supervisor for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Oregon.

The notion of killing one bird species to save another has divided wildlife advocates and conservationists. Some grudgingly accepted the proposal after a draft version was announced last year; others denounced it as reckless and a diversion from needed forest preservation."

More evidence that we should let nature run its course rather than interfering with it to not allow it to change according to nature's rules.
Slaughtering one type of wildlife to "save" another.....now, what would that be called if it was humans being killed in that way?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
As someone who extensively studied conservation biology, I get where these sorts of decisions come from and their scientific basis. Conservation biology is an interesting field because it really toes the line between being science and non-science; all management decisions like this, while based on scientific research, are not themselves science. They are grounded in subjective values and "ought" prescriptive-type thinking.

I am really not on board of culling other species to save another in part because the primary species that needs to be culled in this way is never on the table for discussion. In nearly all cases, decline of non-human species is due to human activities; instead of fixing the human elements, humans externalize the problem - by committing mass murder no less - rather than take responsibility. Humans are the ones decreeing such and such is how things "ought" to be - the onus is on us to make the needed sacrifices for that vision, not mass murder others to get it done.

I hope I'm misunderstanding you. You're not morally equating the killing of a human with the killing of a bird, are you?
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I hope I'm misunderstanding you. You're not morally equating the killing of a human with the killing of a bird, are you?
Killing is killing - doesn't matter what the species is unless you're a speciesist. What does matter is the relationship you have to what is killed and how you honor those killed.

Did you kill it for food? For feather or fur or skin? Did you ask permission? Were you greedy and took more than you needed? Did you kill because it threatened your life? Did you kill because you were just angry? Did you kill for fun or pleasure? Perhaps most importantly, did you give something back in return for this death? What did you give up for this sacrifice of life for life? How did you honor it?

Those to me are the key questions with this - so humans have decided to mass murder another species for the sake of another. What are the humans going to give back to honor this sacrifice? What are they paying, thee who decided this was "needed" for some reason? A new, annual ritual to honor the dead? Fundraising with the sales of feathered headdresses to buy more forest land to preserve? What is being given back to justify this mass slaughter?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Killing is killing - doesn't matter what the species is unless you're a speciesist. What does matter is the relationship you have to what is killed and how you honor those killed.

Did you kill it for food? For feather or fur or skin? Did you ask permission? Were you greedy and took more than you needed? Did you kill because it threatened your life? Did you kill because you were just angry? Did you kill for fun or pleasure? Perhaps most importantly, did you give something back in return for this death? What did you give up for this sacrifice of life for life? How did you honor it?

Those to me are the key questions with this - so humans have decided to mass murder another species for the sake of another. What are the humans going to give back to honor this sacrifice? What are they paying, thee who decided this was "needed" for some reason? A new, annual ritual to honor the dead? Fundraising with the sales of feathered headdresses to buy more forest land to preserve? What is being given back to justify this mass slaughter?

'Murder' is a particular word we use for killing of innocent humans. We punish murderers with life in prison or even the death penalty. You're not seriously suggesting that murdering an innocent human has the same moral gravity (which would then entail a similar response from society) as killing an innocent bird...I hope?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
I read an article about this and it pissed me off. It definitely is interfering with a natural process. Nature is not static and environments change over time. Those birds naturally learned to find their way to the West Coast. Plus, it does nothing to really solve the issue of them migrating there. They're still going to come. I expect them to drop this plan eventually when they realize it's not working.

If they really want the birds gone, they will have to find a way to repel them from the area. But that will actually take hard work and who wants to do that? It's easier and probably cheaper to just kill them, and pretend that they solving anything. :rolleyes:

Also, I guess we should kill ourselves since the human species is the biggest disrupter of natural environments and destroyer of habitats. Even this is an example of us trying to control nature to our standards.
 

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
'Murder' is a particular word we use for killing of innocent humans. We punish murderers with life in prison or even the death penalty. You're not seriously suggesting that murdering an innocent human has the same moral gravity (which would then entail a similar response from society) as killing an innocent bird...I hope?

Killing is killing is murder. Quintessence has the right idea here imo.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
All killing is murder? :oops:

Well there are these...

"New PETA Billboards Proclaim, ‘Meat Is Murder!'"



"The phrase “Meat Is Murder” was an emotive plea to cause a reaction within carnivores, with the mournful title song pondering: “The flesh you so fancifully fry / Is not succulent, tasty or kind / It's death for no reason / And death for no reason is murder

 

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
That's wild. So you consider it equally morally egregious if I Clorox my countertops in my kitchen, thus "murdering" countless bacteria, and me shooting and murdering a human being in cold blood?

Sort of.

See Quints answer (post #7) for clarification.

Edit: here - "Did you kill it for food? For feather or fur or skin? Did you ask permission? Were you greedy and took more than you needed? Did you kill because it threatened your life? Did you kill because you were just angry? Did you kill for fun or pleasure? Perhaps most importantly, did you give something back in return for this death? What did you give up for this sacrifice of life for life? How did you honor it?"

All this and much much more should be taken into consideration.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Sort of.

See Quints answer (post #7) for clarification.

Edit: here - "Did you kill it for food? For feather or fur or skin? Did you ask permission? Were you greedy and took more than you needed? Did you kill because it threatened your life? Did you kill because you were just angry? Did you kill for fun or pleasure? Perhaps most importantly, did you give something back in return for this death? What did you give up for this sacrifice of life for life? How did you honor it?"

All this and much much more should be taken into consideration.

This doesn't answer the question, to be honest. If I don't kill the bacteria to eat it, if I don't ask the bacteria's permission to kill it (how would I?), if it's not threatening my life, if I was angry, if I did it for the simple pleasure of a clean kitchen, if I gave nothing "back" or "up" in exchange for cleaning my countertops (what would I give back or up to bacteria?) and I didn't "honor" the bacteria (how would I?)....would you regard me cleaning my kitchen counter and thus killing bacteria to be morally equivalent to walking over and murdering my human neighbor in cold blood?
 
Top