After all this confusion on various approaches to viability, it seems like a breath of fresh air to go back to ESA..
See this AP story on the spotted owl here,
“Plan to save spotted owl could be double-barreled”
Here are my two favorite quotes:
Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist for the conservation group GEOS Institute, said it was about much more than the owl.
“We are talking about an ecosystem that is unraveling from too much logging in the past,” said DellaSala. “We may not have saved enough of the ecosystem.”
How would you know when enough is “saved”? And how do you figure the “ecosystem” is “unraveling” from a change from one species to another? Seems like a hoot-o-centric posture. Based on the same logic, I guess that since Eastern Seaboard has lost the chestnut species and it has been replaced by others, those ecosystems must have already “unraveled.”
Forsman said it would be incredibly difficult and expensive to try to kill all the barred owls, and raises a host of ethical questions because no one is sure whether their migration was natural or the result of human actions.
It seems to me it’s a problem if the ethics of killing them depends on how their ancestors got there, because it is likely that it is partially due to natural and human factors, and we will never know the percentage for sure. With climate change a lot more creatures are likely to be in new places (or places they have been in the past, but not recently). Some of them will outcompete endangered species. I think we have to consider the investments to do these things, such as kill species that are successful, and ask whether there might be other investments that would be better for the good of the environment (biomimicry beaver dams? Everyone probably has a favorite..)