Well the subject asks the question, here's the link:

Killing in the name of...

I would post the text of the article but it is embedded with many graphics.

Seems very wrong to me but what do you think?

So how did the invasive species get there in the first place? If they came there naturally that is one thing. If people (gubbermint or not) did it that is another thing. Natural selection?

And from the sounds of it, it is far too late to remove the invasive species anyway. Can mankind kill the "invaders" faster than they can multiply? I doubt it.

At this stage it seems unlikely that much can be done to protect the "native" owls.

Against it. Let mother nature and Darwin figure it out. Trying to save a couple of pairs of owls by killing 3,600 or more owls doesn't make sense, especially since it's unlikely to be successful.

From my time in the California desert, I seem to recall BLM shooting ravens (all over the place) to keep them from preying on desert tortoise (endangered) eggs and babies.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
So how did the invasive species get there in the first place? If they came there naturally that is one thing. If people (gubbermint or not) did it that is another thing. Natural selection?

That's the key for me.

It is arrogant of man to believe he can control or change nature. Over the course of time almost all species on earth have gone extinct.

I bet there will be worse effects from man trying to correct this perceived problem.

I don’t give a hoot.

Who cares. What ever you do it will be wrong.

quote:

Should humans kill one owl species to save another owl species?

No.

Instead of that, here's what we do:

Explain to the "Native" owls that the situation they face is NOT their fault. Give them free owl food and cell phones perhaps. Explain to them that they have been oppressed by an "invasive species" who have obvious "oppressive privilege" and have become a dominant species only through treachery, deceit and egregious miscarriages of justice.

Then find some highly outspoken "Native" owls and give them even more owl food to spread this narrative to their "owls". Meanwhile, marginalize the "invasive owls" and apply a 70% tax rate on all the owl food they hunt for and collect for their owl families.

Eventually, the "invasive owls" will get sick of the situation and elect an owl leader of their own who will narrowly defeat the "native" owl's leader in a national owl election.

The elected owl will end the 70% tax rate, and more owls will then hunt for food. Owls will begin to see the fruit of their labors and strive to become better owls.

Because no "native" owl will ever defeat the "invasive" owl in an election, it will then be necessary for the "native" owls to develop a highly inflammatory story of the "invasive" owl colluding with the Hawks to interfere with the previous national owl election and attempt to impeach the "invasive" owl.

The Spotted Owl must be saved. Without the Spotted Owl, look at how much government control over the Pacific Nothwest would be lost. We cannot ever loose an endangered species.

If Barred Owls were invasive from another continent and introduced to the Spotted Owls range, that would be one thing. But they are native to the eastern US and made it to the northwest all on their own. If they are outcompeting Spotted Owls, nothing will change the outcome except that a lot of Barred Owls will end up dead.

I’m pretty much against humans meddling on this one.

This is how evolution works, the more aggressive species dominates the unsuccessful one.

They aren't invasive like house cats. They have migrated from the East since the end of the last ice age.

If they TRULY wanted to save the Spotted Owl, they would declare it an exotic species an allow breeding for the pet trade. Money is always an incentive to save anything.

Ecosystems are not only more complex than you think; they’re more complex than you CAN think.
- Jack Ward Thomas (former Chief of the U.S. Forest Service)

Yet there are those so arrogant as to think they can control ecosystems—or climate.

And to think that liberals want more government in our lives. Humans can change the earths climate and we can change natural evolution by government intervention. Good grief.

Jim

"Natural Selection"...plain and simple.

They are expanding, or rather corrupting, the definition of invasive to promote their own agenda. The elitist central planners want the power to control even which species of animals they prefer. Seems they prefer to sacrifice the successful to protect the unsuccessful. That sounds familiar....