Editor:
Don’t be fooled by Wayne Pacelle’s letter against Barred Owl (BAOW) culling (Mailbox, Aug. 14). Although he frames his argument in terms of efficacy and fiscal impact, the organizations he represents endorse the “right” of individual animals to live regardless of the consequences. The BAOW, here due solely to anthropogenic landscape alteration, threatens not only the Spotted Owl (SPOW) but the entire Pacific Northwest forest ecosystem. Don’t the animals being consumed by invasive BAOWs have rights, too? If animals have rights (and I believe they do), don’t populations, species, and ecosystems? I argue that those rights outweigh individual rights. We don’t have an Endangered Ecosystem Act, so basing BAOW removal on the “pretext” of SPOW survival is the only option available.
Pacelle is right that BAOW removal likely would have to continue forever to be effective, but that’s true of controlling most invasive species. Should we forego all efforts to fight weeds, exotic mussels, Sudden Oak Death, invasive insect pests, etc. because they’re never-ending? And what about the rights of those organisms? They’re not charismatic, so no one lobbies to save them. This is about human bias. BAOW removal works and it buys time. It also can be effective at preventing further spread.
The proposal’s opponents use inaccurate, inflated estimates of the cost to bolster their other arguments. A well-researched paper published last year estimated the maximum cost of the program to the government over 30 years at $360,000,000, not a billion. Either way, nobody said saving ecosystems was cheap; it comes down to priorities.
There is nothing inhumane about instant death by shooting, which is what the culling proposal calls for. Natural causes of BAOW death are mostly far less humane. Nature is messy and often involves great suffering. The “inhumane” argument against shooting BAOWs doesn’t hold water, it just muddies it.
Ken Burton, McKinleyville
This article appears in ‘Come Back Young Again’.