- Bipartisan lawmakers oppose a $1.3 billion plan to kill barred owls.
- The initiative aims to protect the endangered northern spotted owl.
- Culling is estimated to cost $3,000 per owl.
- Critics question ethical, financial, and ecological consequences.
- Experts suggest alternative conservation methods.
A bipartisan coalition of 19 US lawmakers is urging the Trump administration to halt a contentious plan to cull over 450,000 barred owls across West Coast forests. The initiative, spearheaded by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), aims to protect the dwindling northern spotted owl population, but lawmakers and conservationists alike are raising concerns over its efficacy, cost, and ethical implications.
Led by Representative Troy Nehls (R-TX) and Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA), the lawmakers argue that spending an estimated $1.3 billion over three decades—roughly $3,000 per owl—is an inefficient use of taxpayer funds. They question whether such an extensive culling operation will have a lasting positive impact on spotted owl populations or if alternative conservation methods would be more effective.
Barred Owls: A Threat to the Spotted Owl?
Barred owls, originally native to eastern North America, began migrating westward in the 20th century, likely due to habitat changes and climate shifts. By the 1970s, they had established themselves in the Pacific Northwest, where they now outcompete the smaller and more habitat-sensitive northern spotted owl.
The barred owl’s adaptability, aggressive nature, and higher reproductive rate have contributed to a sharp decline in spotted owl populations, which are now estimated at only 7,100 individuals across California, Oregon, and Washington.
The USFWS argues that targeted removal of barred owls is necessary to prevent the extinction of the spotted owl, which is already suffering from habitat loss due to logging. The agency’s plan includes hiring trained shooters to eliminate over 15,500 barred owls annually by 2027 across roughly 23,000 square miles of old-growth forests.
Ethical and Financial Concerns
Critics argue that culling one species to save another poses significant ethical dilemmas. Wildlife conservationists question the morality of actively killing a species that has naturally expanded its range due to environmental changes. The plan has drawn comparisons to other controversial wildlife management strategies, such as culling sea lions and cormorants to protect salmon populations.
Additionally, the estimated $1.3 billion budget has sparked financial concerns. Lawmakers argue that these funds could be better utilized for habitat restoration, reforestation, and research into non-lethal methods of managing barred owl populations. “Spending billions of dollars to systematically kill birds without addressing the root cause—habitat destruction—is both wasteful and short-sighted,” said Rep. Kamlager-Dove.
Alternative Conservation Strategies
Wildlife experts emphasize that conservation efforts should prioritize habitat protection over culling. Some suggested alternatives include strengthening protections for old-growth forests and investing in reforestation projects to provide more secure environments for spotted owls.
Instead of killing them, some propose relocating barred owls to other regions where they would not threaten the spotted owl population. Another approach is exploring the possibility of using contraceptive methods to manage barred owl population growth. Additionally, establishing protected reserves with controlled access could help limit barred owl expansion.
According to wildlife biologist Dr. Sarah Kross, “Targeted conservation strategies that focus on ecosystem health rather than mass culling are far more sustainable. If we address deforestation and environmental changes, we can support both species without resorting to lethal measures.”
Balancing Conservation and Ethics
The debate over the barred owl culling plan underscores the complexities of wildlife conservation. While the goal of protecting the endangered northern spotted owl is widely supported, the methods proposed by USFWS have sparked ethical, financial, and ecological concerns.
As the plan moves forward, conservationists, lawmakers, and policymakers must weigh the costs and benefits of culling against long-term, non-lethal solutions that promote biodiversity and ecosystem balance. Finding a sustainable approach that prioritizes habitat preservation and coexistence strategies is crucial for maintaining ecological stability.
Ultimately, this controversy highlights a broader question in conservation: Should humans intervene to control wildlife populations, or should nature be allowed to take its course? The answer may shape the future of endangered species management in the U.S. and beyond.