Forum for Sept. 27, 2024: Barred owls

Published: 09-27-2024 4:51 PM

No call to kill owls

The recent decision by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to kill 452,000 barred owls in the Northwest (“To save native birds, killing of invasive owls to ramp up”; Aug. 31) is both shocking and puzzling. Barred owls have expanded their range from the eastern US into the Northwest, and they are now competing with spotted owls for food and habitat. The spotted owl population plummeted in the 1980s due to excessive logging in their old growth forest habitat.

In support of its case, the US FWS claims the barred owls are an “invasive species.” This is absurd. The progression of the barred owls has been a gradual expansion, beginning more than 100 years ago, according to FWS. The owls move into new territory that meets their needs. Changes in breeding ranges for species have been happening for millions of years. It is the way of nature, and some species decline as other species increase.

The real cause of spotted owl decline was overly aggressive logging by another “invasive species,” humans. Had we not expanded into the Northwest and cut down their forests, the spotted owls would be fine. Yet no one has suggested exterminating loggers. Blame habitat loss, not the barred owl.

This program is futile and surely the biologists at FWS know that. The barred owls are there to stay. If we decide we will kill them in some area of spotted owl habitat, we are committing to continue killing them forever; because anytime we stop, the barred owls will immediately repopulate the area. At an estimated cost of $235,000,000 (Hilary Franz, Washington Public Lands Commissioner), this program is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

This is a familiar pattern of humans messing up an ecosystem, then compounding the problem by messing up the ecosystem some more. If anything, filling the woods with hunters shooting owls only increases the danger that more spotted owls, which look similar to barred owls, will be killed as collateral damage. Let it be.

Rob Anderegg

Hartland

Splitting the ticket

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

When coming of age, 52 years ago, I took the Freeman’s Oath, pledging to put Vermont above all without fear or favor of any person. This has been my guiding principle in every election since then. I have never voted a straight party ticket and will not be doing so this November.

On a national level, the choice for me is clear. The Republican candidate for President is a bitter old man who puts his own self-interest ahead of his country. While highlighting some legitimate grievances, he relentlessly promotes divisiveness and hatred. The Democratic candidate provides a vision and programs of opportunity central to the core of America. She is committed to signing the strong bipartisan immigration bill, increased support for small businesses and expanding housing. Her policies are decidedly practical and moderate.

On a state level, the choice for me is also is clear. Phil Scott, the Republican candidate for governor, has proven to be a strong leader in difficult times. He recognizes both the needs and the limits of state government. At the same time the Democratic supermajority in the Legislature had attempted, impractically, often at the expense of those least able to afford it, to try to solve national and world problems on a state level

Once again, I will be voting a split ticket. I will be leaning towards voting primarily for Democrats running for national office and at the same time leaning towards voting primarily for Republicans for state office. However, you choose to vote, I would urge you not to vote party line, but closely consider the merits of each candidate and the good they would do for our nation, sates and communities.

John Freitag

South Strafford