Thank you, Steve, that's really interesting and good to know. Thanks for
doing that leg work!
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025, 5:33 AM Steve Hampton via Tweeters <
tweeters at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
Last year I wrote an article about this that explains a few key things
>
that I think most of the media and public misunderstood: No, They're not
>
Really Going to Shoot 450,000 Owls
>
<https://www.postalley.org/2024/09/12/no-theyre-not-really-going-to-shoot-450000-owls/>
>
>
>
First, it was never a "plan;" it was a permit. And it never came with any
>
funding or staffing. And it was reliant on partner agencies (federal,
>
state, county, tribal) to opt in - on their own dime. It came with no cost
>
estimate (I read the whole EIS and related documents and interviewed the
>
USFWS about it).
>
>
Second, the 450,000 number was always an absurdity. The permit evaluation
>
required an upper bound; that was it. They put it in the executive summary
>
and the media ran with it. That works out to killing about 80 owls per
>
night, every night, for 30 years - an absurdity because it's quite labor
>
intensive, limited by seasons, and slow-going. The permit itself notes that
>
Barred Owl removal would be largely limited to areas with known Spotted Owl
>
territories, of which there are VERY FEW. Even removing a few Barred Owls
>
per night seems a stretch.
>
>
To my knowledge, Olympic NP, one of the places where it would make some
>
sense in a few contexts (which I can count on one hand), had not decided to
>
participate. This was probably due to staffing issues even before Trump
>
took office. In northern Calif, CDFW and the Yurok Tribe (near Redwood NP)
>
had received modest federal grants to fund limited participation. Again, it
>
was slow-going and labor intensive, working out to $3000 per bird. That's
>
no surprise (see my article).
>
>
The current Washington Examiner article is among the most misleading. It
>
offers none of the context above and relies on the dubious statements of a
>
Texas Republican, who apparently took the $3000 figure, multiplied it by
>
the 450,000 permit cap, and assumed "Biden" had allocated those funds. Yes,
>
450,000 x $3,000 = $1.35 billion. But no and no and no. It's fantasy
>
Trumpian math.
>
>
With or without the current fiscal assault on the federal government, this
>
was never a plan with funding nor staffing and was always going to be
>
implemented in an anemic piece-meal fashion. That's the reality, no matter
>
where you stand on the actual permit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 12:55 AM Dan Reiff via Tweeters <
>
tweeters at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>
Well, Tweeters, what do you think of this?
>>
Dan Reiff
>>
Note: As always, if you do not have an Apple phone or computer, or the
>>
link cannot be opened, copy and paste the subject headline into your
>>
Internet browser, like Google or Safari and Search. By this method, you
>>
will usually be able to find and view the article.
>>
>>
*Biden plan to shoot 450,000 owls at $3,000 each under fire*
>>
July 23, 2025 A bipartisan parliament of House and Senate members today
>>
is calling on Congress to kill an expensive plan ordered by former
>>
President Joe Biden to shoot 450,000 barred owls bullying the endangered
>>
northern spotted owl in Northwest forests. A resolution being introduced
>>
today, led by Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) in the House and Sen. John Kennedy
>>
(R-LA) in the Senate, would trigger the Congressional Review Act and stop
>>
the Biden-era initiative. Recommended Stories In addition to saving
>>
>>
Read in Washington Examiner: https://apple.news/AfbZ26W90RvO-_Z5sVfgBgw
>>
>>
>>
Shared from Apple News <https://www.apple.com/news>
>>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
>>
Tweeters mailing list
>>
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
>>
http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>>
>
>
>
--
>
Steve Hampton
>
Port Townsend, WA (qatáy)
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
Tweeters mailing list
>
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
>
http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>