Ronda,

I've tried to stay out of this, as I know it's as much an emotional issue as a scientific one. But I have to respond to your last sentence.

Homo sapiens has long practiced eradication, or partial eradication, of species because of our own needs, desires, and whims. Hundreds of species have been actively and legally "controlled" by us because they preyed on us or our livestock or our pets, because they competed with us for food (crops, wild plants, fish and other animals), because they transmitted human or livestock disease, etc.

We kill millions of individual animals, even charismatic ones that are loved by many people, because they eat the things that we eat. We are killing other species constantly because they eat salmon or other fish that we like to eat (and that, obviously, are big business). We poison carnivores because they eat the deer we like to shoot. Guess why there is so much controversy over wolves. The examples of this sort of "preference" go on and on and on. One difference in controlling Barred Owls is that we are actually trying to protect a species (Spotted Owl) just for the sake of protecting it, not because we eat it or use it in some other way!

Dennis Paulson
Seattle


On Jul 27, 2013, at 12:03 PM, tweeters-request at mailman1.u.washington.edu wrote:

> Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:47:06 -0700
> From: Ronda Stark <rondastark18 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Tweeters] Re: Barred Owl Kill-off (proposed plan)
> To: Barbara Deihl <barbdeihl at comcast.net>
> Cc: Tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Message-ID:
> <CAFNywYXeMU15geeghEftZGP5-5zqTDSruvvgo3DmjzNkMKha_w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Its ok to have dialogue as long as we all know the facts. What percentage
> of spotted owl decline is directly attributed to presence of barred owl?
> Is this percentage derived from sound science or just a wild guess? What
> percentage of decline is due to habitat loss? Wasn't spotted owl endangered
> before barred owl showed up on the scene?
>
> Eradication, or partial eradication, of one specie, in preference of
> another specie, is not something that has been sanctioned in the past. Are
> we setting new and possibly dangerous precedent?
>
> Ronda



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20130727/d0de3579/attachment.htm