Teresa,

I would like to respond to a few points in your message.

First of all, the goal of endangered species programs in the USA and Canada
is not, as you put it, to "prevent change in biological systems". It is to
prevent certain species from disappearing from the earth forever, and if
possible, to restore them to non-endangered status. If we can ensure the
continued survival of species like Spotted Owls in the short term, they may
well be able to adapt and survive in the long term.

For some species, a very simple change in the way we do things has enabled a
rapid recovery from endangered or threatened status. The banning of DDT has
allowed the rapid recovery of Peregrine Falcons, Bald Eagles, and Brown
Pelicans, all of which were endangered or threatened because of its use. The
banning of lead shot for hunting (which should have happened long ago) would
probably do the same for California Condors. These species were only
"doomed" as long as we kept poisoning them. However, for many other species,
like Spotted Owls, The reasons for endangerment are more complex, and the
road to even partial recovery will be more difficult.

Has money been wasted on futile endangered species recovery programs? Yes,
in my opinion. One example is the "recovery plan" for the Ivory-billed
Woodpecker, a species which is almost certainly extinct, despite
protestations to the contrary. In a message to BIRDCHAT last year, I stated:
"Somebody's head should roll for allowing $14 million to be spent on an
Ivory-bill recovery plan". However, the Northern Spotted Owl is in a very
different place from the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. It is still very much with
us, and there is a good chance that we can save at least part of the
population.

I agree very much with you that a multi-species approach, rather than a
single-species approach, to endangered species management is preferable
wherever possible. In many cases, numerous endangered or threatened species
will benefit from habitat preservation or restoration efforts. An excellent
example in British Columbia is the Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team
(GOERT). Have a look at their website at http://www.goert.ca . If one
includes vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants, there are dozens of
threatened and endangered species in this beleaguered ecosystem. However,
even here, habitat preservation/restoration alone is not enough. Because of
the numerous invasive plant species that have infested Garry Oak ecosystems,
recovery is possible, at least in the short term, only by a concerted effort
to kill these competing species.

Efforts to save the Northern Spotted Owl by preserving large chunks of
old-growth forest will also benefit dozens of other potentially endangered
animals and plants. I am not aware that there is a multi-species management
approach similar to GOERT, but if not, there should be. (Or perhaps the
Northwest Forest Plan is that approach, although it addresses much more than
just endangered species.)

In the end, it may not be feasible to kill enough Barred Owls to allow the
continued survival of Northern Spotted Owls, or it may only be possible to
maintain them in a small part of their former range. However, most wildlife
biologists that I know seem to agree that it is worth at least attempting
this experiment. In the meantime, efforts should continue to preserve and
restore old-growth forest in the Pacific Northwest, for the benefit of the
numerous plant and animal species that are restricted to that habitat, if
not for the Spotted Owls themselves.

Wayne C. Weber
Delta, BC
contopus at telus.net



-----Original Message-----
From: Teresa Michelsen [mailto:teresa at avocetconsulting.com]
Sent: February-08-11 12:35 AM
To: 'Wayne Weber'
Subject: RE: [Tweeters] Why save a doomed species?

All and Wayne,
I don't think that having an alternative point of view on this one puts you
in the camp of the timber companies and other such (and it's probably best
to avoid such personal generalizations). It really doesn't matter whether a
given species is a specialist or a generalist, or was originally the
resident or one who has moved in and expanded its range. What matters is
whether anything can be realistically done about it and what we should be
spending our scarce conservation dollars on. Focusing so much money on a few
species that could not possibly survive without our help (and here I am not
necessarily referring to the spotted owl) has always seemed to me to be a
strange choice. While, as an environmental professional, I am aware of
several ESA success stories, there are many more cases where heroic efforts
are being made to propagate a species that has long since lost its habitat
or the genetic diversity it needs to survive in the wild.

IMO, we should focus on habitat as a guiding principle for interventions. If
we can alter our own activities such that habitat will be created or
preserved that will support the species in question, great. My preferred
charity is the Nature Conservancy for that reason. This is a long-term
sustainable approach that allows the species (and others that depend on that
habitat) to survive without choosing to actively kill one species to benefit
another. So, for example, changing logging practices or adopting roadless
rules that would benefit the Spotted Owl makes sense.

However, I do not see how killing another species when you are not changing
or improving the underlying habitat problems will be a sustainable solution
over the long-term, particularly if you are not eradicating that competitor.
It will simply expand its numbers again because it is better adapted to the
current environment. Attempts to completely eliminate introduced predators
from island ecosystems are an entirely different matter and not a good
comparison, because that strategy could be sustainable once carried out.

Over the years, I have begun to wonder why we focus so much energy and money
on a few individual species, rather than developing and carrying out a more
sustainable habitat focus that would benefit large numbers of species and
entire ecosystems (not just birds). My skepticism has increased dramatically
with the advent of climate change. Let's face it - any population that is
currently marginal is not likely to survive the rapid shifts that are
coming. We'll be lucky to sustain currently healthy populations of species
in the face of shifts in temperature, food resources, habitat availability -
not to mention our own species and food resources. I'd like to see a
rethinking by the resource agencies of what their priorities should be given
the likelihood that we may not be able to count on habitat conservation or
restoration to maintain the ecosystems that have historically existed. We
may have to get used to the idea that substantial changes in species ranges
and abundances are going to be a reality, and they will be very hard to
predict in advance, much less control. It has never been clear to me why we
should try to prevent change in biological systems (which is not to say that
I support any form of habitat destruction by humans), and it is even less
clear now. The earth will continue to adapt as it always has and always
will, with or without us.

Teresa Michelsen
Olympia, WA