USFWS Barred Owl Removal Plan (2 Viewers)

[Mendobirder]

The United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) is seeking public comment on a draft plan to manage Barred Owls in western US forests:

Service Seeks Public Comment on Draft Strategy to Manage Invasive Barred Owls | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

PORTLAND, Ore. – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking public input on a draft environmental impact statement and draft Barred Owl Management Strategy that addresses the threat of the non-native and invasive barred owls to native northern and California spotted owls. Populations of the...

www.fws.gov

More information from USFWS about their Barred Owl management:

Barred Owl Management | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

LATEST NEWS: The Service seeks public input on a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and draft Barred Owl Management Strategy that addresses the threat of the non-native and invasive barred owl to native northern and California spotted owls. The 60-day public comment period c

www.fws.gov

The proposal includes "lethal removal" of Barred Owls - shooting them - and that has been picked up by popular media recently:

US Government wants 500,000 owls to be shot dead in cull

13,397 barred owls will be killed every year in the first decade, 16,303 a year in the second, and 17,390 birds annually in the third.

www.newsweek.com

USFWS Drafts Plan to Cull Half a Million Invasive Owls in the Pacific Northwest

The non-native barred owls will be culled to protect endangered spotted owl populations in Oregon, Washington, and northern California.

www.fieldandstream.com

This is a super-complex issue with a lot of scientific uncertainty. I'll add more in comments.

 

[Mendobirder]

Nobody really knows how or why Barred Owls expanded their range and moved into the forests of the Pacific Northwest. The most widely-cited analysis of the matter was published by Kent Livezey of the USFWS in 2009. Part I dealt with the observational evidence for the path of expansion:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20491416

"... Barred Owls originally traveled across the northern Great Plains via the forested riparian corridors of the Missouri, Yellowstone and Musselshell rivers into east-central Montana by 1873. From there, they accessed western forests in southwestern Montana (1909), moved to northwestern Montana (1922) and then expanded their range in two general directions. They moved north and east to northern Alberta (1934) and Saskatchewan (1948) where they apparently encountered other Barred Owls coming westward from Manitoba. They also moved north to northern British Columbia (1943), southeastern Alaska (1967) and Northwest Territories (1977), and west and south to Washington (1965), Idaho (1968), Oregon (1972) and California (1976)."

And Part II analyzed alternate theories for the apparent sudden range expansion after millennia of stability:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20491442

"Overall, it appears the historical lack of trees in the Great Plains acted as a barrier to the range expansion and recent increases in forests broke down this barrier. Increases in forest distribution along the Missouri River and its tributaries apparently provided Barred Owls with sufficient foraging habitat, protection from the weather, and, possibly, concealment from avian predators to allow Barred Owls to move westward. Decades later, increases in forests in the northern Great Plains allowed Barred Owls to connect their eastern and western distributions across southern Canada. These increases in forests evidently were caused by European settlers excluding fires historically set by Native Americans, suppressing fires and planting trees. They apparently were caused, to lesser degrees, by European settlers extirpating bison (Bison bison), overhunting elk (Cervus elaphus) and deer (Odocoileus spp.) and, in some areas, extirpating beaver (Castor canadensis) and replacing native ungulates with livestock. Accordingly, it appears the range expansion was prohibited for millennia by actions of Native Americans and recently facilitated by actions of European settlers."

However, a more recent genetic study produced surprising evidence that the western Barred Owls came from a different population than the eastern birds:

Genomic Variation and Recent Population Histories of Spotted (Strix occidentalis) and Barred (Strix varia) Owls

Spotted owls (SOs, Strix occidentalis) are a flagship species inhabiting old-growth forests in western North America. In recent decades, their populations have declined due to ongoing reductions in suitable habitat caused by logging, wildfires, and competition ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"...we estimate that western and eastern BOs have been genetically separated for thousands of years, instead of the previously assumed recent (i.e., <150 years) divergence."

If that finding is confirmed, it likely invalidates much of Livezey's thesis, suggesting instead that a population of Barred Owls existed somewhere in the west (probably in the boreal forest of Canada) long before the European invasion. Why that population rapidly expanded into the Pacific Northwest in the 20th century remains an open question.

 

[Mendobirder]

All that background is important to understand before contemplating a management action that might be predicated on incorrect assumptions about how the owls got where they are. Is it appropriate to intervene if it's a natural evolutionary event? Will we commit to this intervention forever?

 

[Oldnintheway]

Is it appropriate to intervene if it's a natural evolutionary event?

No it's not! Thanks for this info, I hadn't heard anything about it. It sounds like USFWS is about to make another regrettable mistake.

 

[Scott98]

When it comes to "invasive" species, sometimes common sense goes out the window IMO. Eventually, the "invader" becomes indigenous. It reminds of the japanese honeysuckle bushes around here. They're considered "invasive" so gardeners are supposed to cull them. However, they came here in the 1800's and have been expanding ever since. The berries are a valuable food source for many, many different birds and creatures.

At some point, when do you recognize the new normal? There are some more rare native bushes being displaced by the honeysuckle, but it's too late. I see the Japanese ones growing deep in the wilderness, they're here to stay. It would be shameful to try to kill thousands of barred owls at this point.

 

[Mendobirder]

Indeed. In America the "nativist" community is very strong, driving a lot of public-policy decisions that frequently lead to poor outcomes. Many attempts to eradicate invasive plants have been conducted, and many more are under way or contemplated, even though very few have demonstrated any lasting success.
As a geologist myself, most of this appears to be an effort to stop evolution from proceeding. It always surprises me that biologists who study evolution and understand how it works, are so adamantly opposed to allowing it to continue. I do understand the disconnect between our technical understanding of, and our emotional connection to, the world in which we grew up. Nostalgia plays a strong role in our feelings about change.

 

[raymie]

You both seem to be making a lot of incorrect assumptions about invasive species and do not seem to fully understand this issue.

With that being said, I largely agree with you in this one specific case that there isn't much point in removing Barred Owls in the PNW.

 

[Mendobirder]

You both seem to be making a lot of incorrect assumptions about invasive species and do not seem to fully understand this issue.

Can you elaborate? What assumptions do you perceive we made?
Trying hard not to react to your condescending attitude... since the issues around biological invasions have taken up quite a lot of my time and interest over the past several years.
If you perceive that we have missed some essential points, please draw our attention to those, rather than sneering at our ignorance.

 

[MiddleRiver]

The problem I see here is that public opinion is driven my cuteness factor of what some call 'charismatic species'. What normal person would want an owl killed!? Well, imho, the conversation should be in purely scientific terms. If DNA suggests they've been here ('there' for me since european settlement, then yes, it's evolution in action. If they really are invasive and a result of more recent human effects, then how is it different than discussing House Sparrows or Starlings?

"Why are barred owls considered an invasive species in the western United States?
The Service evaluated the status of barred owls under Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species to determine if barred owls met the definition of an invasive species in the ranges of the northern and California spotted owl. The Service concluded it does meet the definition of “invasive” because the barred owl is not native to the range of the northern and California spotted owls, and barred owls were introduced unintentionally through human-caused changes to the previous barrier created by the generally treeless conditions of the Great Plains and harsh conditions in the northern boreal forest."

Of course, the devil is in the details. The anthropocene is a tricky minefield of unintended consequences. I hope the studies are substantial and well-vetted ;-)

 

[Mendobirder]

The problem I see here is that public opinion is driven my cuteness factor of what some call 'charismatic species'. What normal person would want an owl killed!? Well, imho, the conversation should be in purely scientific terms. If DNA suggests they've been here ('there' for me since european settlement, then yes, it's evolution in action. If they really are invasive and a result of more recent human effects, then how is it different than discussing House Sparrows or Starlings?

"Why are barred owls considered an invasive species in the western United States?
The Service evaluated the status of barred owls under Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species to determine if barred owls met the definition of an invasive species in the ranges of the northern and California spotted owl. The Service concluded it does meet the definition of “invasive” because the barred owl is not native to the range of the northern and California spotted owls, and barred owls were introduced unintentionally through human-caused changes to the previous barrier created by the generally treeless conditions of the Great Plains and harsh conditions in the northern boreal forest."

Of course, the devil is in the details. The anthropocene is a tricky minefield of unintended consequences. I hope the studies are substantial and well-vetted ;-)

Agree that public perception is often driven by emotional factors, such as physical attractiveness. Big brown eyes really swing the voters.
However, I think there is more to this decision than pure science. Invasions are a natural phenomenon; every widely-distributed species currently on Earth was "invasive" at some point in its evolutionary history. And there is nothing unique about human-caused (or human-facilitated) invasions; many other species have caused habitat alterations that facilitated invasions, and several are known to have moved species around and caused invasions. (And in any case humans are part of nature.) So whether the Barred Owl is invasive or not (and clearly it is) should not be the deciding factor, in my view.
That view is reinforced by the possibility that the invasion may have had nothing to do with human alteration of the landscape; as I pointed out earlier, the conventional narrative about the westward movement of Barred Owls has been called into question.

How indeed is this different from House Sparrows or Eurasian Starlings? Both have been the targets of massive governmental projects intended to reduce their numbers or effects, all of which failed quite spectacularly. Instead, both have recently been declining for other reasons, following the usual trajectory of invasions. We always panic in the early stages of an invasion, predict doom for native species, and then fail to notice when those predictions do not come to pass and the invaders themselves suffer population declines - as happens more than three-quarters of the time in non-island ecosystems.
Both House Sparrows and Starlings are declining significantly in their home ranges, even as their populations elsewhere expanded, and this is also a characteristic of many invasions. In some cases the species that is considered an invasive nuisance is a threatened species in its original range.

The bottom line is that the distinction between native and non-native is entirely artificial. I have yet to see any definitions of those terms that do not privilege a moment in time, which implies that everything was perfectly ordered at that moment. Nature of course does not work that way.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Agree that public perception is often driven by emotional factors, such as physical attractiveness. Big brown eyes really swing the voters.
However, I think there is more to this decision than pure science. Invasions are a natural phenomenon; every widely-distributed species currently on Earth was "invasive" at some point in its evolutionary history. And there is nothing unique about human-caused (or human-facilitated) invasions; many other species have caused habitat alterations that facilitated invasions, and several are known to have moved species around and caused invasions. (And in any case humans are part of nature.) So whether the Barred Owl is invasive or not (and clearly it is) should not be the deciding factor, in my view.
That view is reinforced by the possibility that the invasion may have had nothing to do with human alteration of the landscape; as I pointed out earlier, the conventional narrative about the westward movement of Barred Owls has been called into question.

How indeed is this different from House Sparrows or Eurasian Starlings? Both have been the targets of massive governmental projects intended to reduce their numbers or effects, all of which failed quite spectacularly. Instead, both have recently been declining for other reasons, following the usual trajectory of invasions. We always panic in the early stages of an invasion, predict doom for native species, and then fail to notice when those predictions do not come to pass and the invaders themselves suffer population declines - as happens more than three-quarters of the time in non-island ecosystems.
Both House Sparrows and Starlings are declining significantly in their home ranges, even as their populations elsewhere expanded, and this is also a characteristic of many invasions. In some cases the species that is considered an invasive nuisance is a threatened species in its original range.

The bottom line is that the distinction between native and non-native is entirely artificial. I have yet to see any definitions of those terms that do not privilege a moment in time, which implies that everything was perfectly ordered at that moment. Nature of course does not work that way.

Totally agree ;-)

I used to be involved in some historic preservation (architectural) projects. The trickiest part is deciding what 'moment in time' to restore the structure TO. Sometimes, for financial reasons, compromises had to be made. But it was also often a minefield. An example is Thomas Jefferson's academic village - the 'Lawn' at University of Virginia. Right now it's lined with magnificent old trees in front of the colonnades and pavilions. Of course it was not so in TJ's time and the trees are in way of the architectural lesson that the buildings offer (per his design intent). 'True' architectural historians have pointed out that the trees ought to be removed. You can imagine what a pic of chainsaw wielding arborist taking down a 100+ yr old tree would look like on evening news!

The issue of charisma is VERY real. I have friends that keep chickens (rural farmland) and who will kill a fox in a heartbeat. Some I suspect would also shoot a Red-tailed Hawk. Of course most of us cringe at that, but are ok with coyotes or other 'less desirable' species.

I could never shoot an owl :-/ But someone is going to have to face that decision!

 

[Farnboro John]

If the genetic evidence is to be believed then the story of the European facilitated invasion is straight up rubbish. Maybe that means the cull shouldn't go ahead. However, what is the story on the Spotted Owl? I had understood that a principal driver of its decline was logging of old growth forests. So:

• what is proposed to reverse that reason for decline?
• is it also the case that whatever replaces old-growth forest facilitates Barred Owls? If it does, then without reversing the habitat availability even a cull won't work.

So what's the long-term plan?

John

 

[Mysticete]

This link highlights the relationship between barred owls and spotted owls

Removal of barred owls slows decline of iconic spotted owls in Pacific Northwest, study finds

CORVALLIS, Ore. – A 17-year study in Oregon, Washington and California found that removal of invasive barred owls arrested the population decline of the northern spotted owl, a native species threatened by invading barred owls and the loss of old-forest habitats. The conservation and management...

today.oregonstate.edu

Obviously habitat protection is also an important piece of the picture, but it's not going to matter if the Barred Owls invade that habitat and outcompete them.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Good link.
Agree with habitat needs to be prioritized.
Tough ethical call.

 

[Farnboro John]

This link highlights the relationship between barred owls and spotted owls

Removal of barred owls slows decline of iconic spotted owls in Pacific Northwest, study finds

CORVALLIS, Ore. – A 17-year study in Oregon, Washington and California found that removal of invasive barred owls arrested the population decline of the northern spotted owl, a native species threatened by invading barred owls and the loss of old-forest habitats. The conservation and management...

today.oregonstate.edu

Obviously habitat protection is also an important piece of the picture, but it's not going to matter if the Barred Owls invade that habitat and outcompete them.

It seems obvious to me that the removal programme is vulnerable to funding and policy changes and in any case unless the ecological barriers that used to prevent Barred Owls from exploiting the old growth forest habitats are restored the Spotted Owls are ultimately doomed. I suspect that the requirement is for very large continuous tracts of the old habitat as the Barred Owls will always be able to survive better in fragmented habitats that favour them rather than the perhaps over-specialised Spotted Owls.

I can't help remembering that during the Ruddy Duck extermination campaign in Britain a number of other species that a birder might not consider similar (e.g. grebes) got shot: I reckon an attempt at wide-area Barred Owl elimination by shooting could finish off the Spotted Owls.

I am also very dubious indeed about calling a range-expanding native species an alien invader. That is likely to be exploited by e.g. wolf-haters.

John

 

[01101001]

Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis) :: xeno-canto

xeno-canto.org

Whatever happens, Spotted Owl as a species won't go extinct (there are isolated pockets of other subspecies in southern California, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico). It might be too late for Northern Spotted Owl anyway unless the culls are maintained forever, which doesn't sound cheap nor sustainable. Couldn't the most threatened subspecies be translocated to some isolated, Barred Owl-free location?

Meanwhile, the authorities should do more to stop the persecution of Spotted Owl: it's still restricted on XC and eBird (logging interests?).

EDIT: I also have mixed feelings about its invasive status, although the concept of being invasive in the species native range is not foreign to conservationists:

Prosopis spp. are different from most invasive species because they are highly invasive in both their native and introduced ranges.

(Mesquite - Wikipedia)
Much of it due to land use changes.

 

[NorthernHarrier]

I want to make clear up front that I have no idea what the proper solution to spotted owl population reductions should be, and I have no idea whether the proposed barred owl removal plan by the government is justified or the best solution to the problem. However, it seems that there are a few facts that should be acknowledged in the debate over the proposed plan just announced by the Fish & Wildlife Service ("FWS").

First, as some have pointed out here, the genetic evidence from at least one study seemed to show that the long-assumed theory of the reason for the spread of barred owls to the western USA, that of the spread of European settlers westward across the continental divide and the resulting cutting of old-growth forests, is not necessarily the true explanation for most of this phenomenon. The alternate theory that the barred owls in the west instead were already established in the west before the more recent population expansion of barred owls into spotted owl territories seems to be supported, at least superficially, by this one study, although the authors of the study admit there are uncertainties in their conclusions necessitated by the method of data sampling used. More importantly, the results of that study do not explain why the barred owls (wherever they originated) expanded into spotted owl territories in the last 100 years or so. In other words, it is possible that either or both theories accounting for the original distribution of barred owls in the western USA could be true, but neither explains why the recent invasion of barred owls into spotted owl territories took place and continues to expand.

Second, the idea that the invasion of barred owls into spotted owl territories is somehow "natural evolution" that should without question be allowed by humans to take its natural course without our interference seems to me to be putting a spin on things, to say the least. Whatever the reason for the expansion of barred owls into spotted owl habitats in the last 100 years, it is quite an assumption to assume that this movement was prompted by "natural evolution," rather than by changes in the environment caused or set into motion by human development and other human actions. After all, there were great increases in human development and industrialization in western Canada as well as in the United States in the last century, and we know from many wildlife population studies that even small changes in the environment caused by human activity can result in large changes in wildlife populations in a relatively short period of time. And we also know that there is no place on earth that has not been significantly changed by human activity at some point - even the most remote areas have been altered by humans to an extent that there are no more ecosystems that carry on as they did before human settlement across the globe and human-made changes to the environment. In addition, the environments of the Pacific northerwestern USA are affected significantly by human-induced environmental changes in Asia and Europe, as well as more close to home. For all these reasons, it seems to me quite a leap to conclude at this point that the invasion of barred owls into spotted owl territories is simply natural evolution that has not been significantly affected (or effected) by human activity. This acknowledgement should cause any responsible government to ask the question of whether we have a moral and/or practical obligation to consider addressing the problem, as is the FWS, rather than taking the passive approach of accepting the impacts of human activity without regard to the consequences.

Lastly, I think in analyzing whether the proposed plan by the FWS is a good idea or a bad idea, we should acknowledge the fact that the FWS is not proposing the rather drastic and costly action of "removing" barred owls simply because barred owls invaded the territories of spotted owls, as House sparrows or starlings invaded the territories of native birds across the USA, and that the FWS would like to prevent a resulting decline in spotted owl populations. Rather, the FWS is saying this:

"Due to the rapid and ongoing population decline of northern spotted owls, it is critical that we manage invasive barred owl populations to reduce their negative effect on spotted owls before northern spotted owls are extirpated from large portions of their native range. Therefore, action alternatives need to provide for rapid implementation and result in swift reduction in barred owl competition." [copied from the FWS website]

In other words, the FWS is saying that they are taking this action because they are very worried that northern spotted owls might be extirpated without such action, and because they obviously think the resulting loss of the (sub)species in that ecosystem would be a significantly negative outcome worth avoiding - not simply because of the barred owl invasion and a decline of spotted owl numbers. We can debate about: 1) whether the FWS is correct in its assessment that the survival of the spotted owl in the Pacific northwestern USA is currently at serious risk due to the invasion of barred owls; 2) whether or not the loss of biodiversity caused by the extirpation of the spotted owl there would be a critical loss for biodiversity in the relevant ecosystem; 3) whether the impact of the loss of the spotted owl in that ecosystem would justify taking the drastic action of killing barred owls to avoid such an outcome; and 4) whether there are any practical alternatives to killing this particular invasive species for carrying out its removal (I doubt it, given the limited resources of the FWS). However, let's at least give the FWS credit for doing what it actually did in proposing this plan with at least an articulated justification, and let's not suggest that they did so without regard to the serious moral and practical dilemmas inherent in adopting a plan calling for the killing of a large number of wild animals.

[edit: added a few clarifications based on the comments of 01101001 to make clear I’m talking about the subspecies of spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest, rather than spotted owls in general. I’m talking about the spotted owls mentioned in the original post in this thread - the population that prompted the FWS to issue the plan now posted online for public comments.]

 

[01101001]

because they obviously think the resulting loss of the species would be a significantly negative outcome worth avoiding

It's the matter of a subspecies rather than a species, and what role does (Northern) Spotted Owl play in the ecosystem in which it could not be replaced by Barred Owl (the two species are closely related and look similar--though sound different--so it could be that only birdwatchers will notice the difference anyway)?

EDIT: So, I think some (Northern) Spotted Owls should be moved to a sufficiently isolated location if possible.

 

[NorthernHarrier]

It's the matter of a subspecies rather than a species, and what role does (Northern) Spotted Owl play in the ecosystem in which it could not be replaced by Barred Owl (the two species are closely related and look similar--though sound different--so it could be that only birdwatchers will notice the difference anyway)?

EDIT: So, I think some (Northern) Spotted Owls should be moved to a sufficiently isolated location if possible.

I was actually talking about the loss of the species from that ecosystem. While it is certainly also about the loss of a subspecies of the total species population in the USA, as you know there aren’t a lot of spotted owls elsewhere in the USA. I was lucky to see one of them roosting over a dry creek bed in southeast Arizona in 2008.

I don't know the answer to your question (about what role the spotted owl plays in the ecosystem that can’t be replaced by the barred owl). I never have claimed that the spotted owl plays a role in that ecosystem that can’t be replaced by the barred owl, but I would imagine that question has come up many times among scientists and among government and non-government wildlife program analysts since the decline in spotted owl populations and the expansion of barred owls into spotted owl areas were first recorded.

 

[Oldnintheway]

I would say that there is no species on this planet, flora or fauna, that humans have not impacted and the impacts have rarely been positive. IMO their reasoning for this action is a stretch, at best. These kinds of interventions rarely go well. Count me firmly against.