Chuck Sheley just published my editorial “Hoot Owl Biology and the US Government” in the April issue of Smokejumper Magazine: http://nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Editorials/Smokejumper/Zybach_20250401.pdf
This editorial had been published previously in the October 30, 2024 Salem, Oregon Capital Press: http://nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Editorials/Salem_Capital_Press/Zybach_20241030.pdf
This current editorial is based on a series of articles, editorials, and presentations I did on the topic in 2013 titled “Spotted Owls and the Spotty Sciences that Spawned Them,” including a post to this blog on June 19 of that year, which got 33 Comments: https://forestpolicypub.com/2013/06/19/spotted-owls-the-spotty-sciences-that-spawned-them-5-questions-2/
Here is the Text:
In Charles Darwin’s 1859 Origin of Species, he describes “race” as members of the same species that typically develop different characteristics when separated geographically over time. Human races were the common focus and “scientific” discussions reflected the bigoted prejudices of that time.
In 1942 a German ornithologist, Ernst Mayr, defined animal species as “genetically distinct populations of individuals” capable of mating with one another and producing viable offspring.
These were the definitions my classmates and I were taught in public grade schools in the 1950s, and in public high schools and colleges in the 1960s.
When the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was adopted in 1973, 36 birds, 22 fish, 14 mammals, six reptiles, and six amphibians were initially listed: 84 animals in all, and each a distinct species. Today there are more than 1770 designated ESA species listed as threatened or endangered in the US, and more than 635 foreign species: 2,400 total!
Of these totals, only 57 species that have been considered “recovered” and 11 considered “extinct” were delisted in the past 51 years. This is a success rate of less than 3%; and an average of listing more than 47 new ESA species a year, while removing only one. The cost to taxpayers can be measured in the billions or trillions of dollars, depending on accounting method.
The barred owl is the most common brown-eyed owl in North America and has been popularly known as a “hoot owl” for many generations. Sometime by the 1950s these birds began expanding their range into the Pacific Northwest and breeding with native spotted owls, producing viable young called “sparred owls.”
The spotted owl had been listed by the ESA as endangered in 1990 and the supposed cause of its low population numbers was claimed to be logging. This determination resulted in dozens of successful “environmental” lawsuits being filed from that time to the present with the specific focus of stopping the sale and harvesting of commercial timber, and particularly on public forestlands.
In 2007 US Fish & Wildlife hunters began systematically killing barred owls and sparred owls on an “experimental” basis. The sole purpose was to control the breeding process in order to maintain genetic purity. Only these were wild owls, not domestic plants or animals, and ethical concerns were raised immediately. And then ignored.
A little over 10 years ago I wrote about this problem in a lengthy article that I also posted to a national blog of (mostly) retired US Forest Service professionals for discussion. I then presented this perspective in two lectures to graduate students, staff, and professors at the College of Forestry and then the Department of Fish & Wildlife at Oregon State University.
These efforts resulted in some meaningful discussions in the public forums, but immediate and adversarial claims of being a racist during my university lectures. Which was my whole point.
I had used polar opposites of the human species — a Pygmy and a Swede — to compare their differences in physiology, vocalizations, diet, coloration, appearance, and preferred habitat with those of spotted owls and barred owls. I was challenging current scientific theory and government policies with documentation, but my work could be safely ignored because someone called me a name.
The cost to US society for the purpose of keeping these brown-eyed cousins from having sex has simply been too great for too many years. The massive economic damage from spotted owl lawsuits — almost entirely funded by taxpayers — is generally well recognized: tens of thousands of lost jobs in the forest industry and US Forest Service; hundreds of sawmill closures; billions of dollars in lost revenues to the US Treasury, states, counties, and schools; and the resulting degradation of our rural communities, roads, parks, and services.
And, as predicted, millions of acres of so-called “spotted owl critical habitat” have gone up in flames, killing millions of wildlife and polluting the air with deadly smoke.
My thought remains that we need to stop playing God with hoot owls and let nature take its course. As Darwin pointed out, nature favors the “survival of the fittest,” and in this instance that seems to be sparred owls.
Not to be too picky, but I am or was an evolutionary biologist/population geneticist and Ernst Mayr was one of the leading lights of our scientific discipline.
His book Populations, Species and Evolution was required reading for our graduate pop gen classes. That’s one reason I am more of an evolutionary process person than a “the way organisms were in the past was the right way” person. It’s funny how ecological processes are thought to be important to keep going, evolutionary ones, not so much.
Also story from yesterday
“A bipartisan group of 19 members of Congress want Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to scuttle the plan, saying the cost could top $1 billlion.”
“costs too much” https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-03-11/politicians-call-on-trump-administration-to-halt-plan-to-kill-barred-owls
So, “we need to stop playing God with hoot owls and let nature take its course”, but keep playing God with the forest ecosystem by logging it with the hope of preventing wildfire?
Hi Jake: I don’t know why you are afraid to use your real name, but to answer your statement, all animals — including people — use available resources to survive. Logging is done to provide housing, furniture, cooking and heating fuel, artworks, etc., etc. I’m not sure that anyone does it solely “with the hope of preventing wildfire,” but if done properly it can greatly reduce the risk and severity of wildfires, and toxic smoke, for a given area — a proven “fact” and not a “hope.” But mostly there are many far better reasons to log than just wildfire mitigation.
Jake forecast the collapse of the Black Hills National Forest in 2002.
I’m not surprised. Did it collapse?
I’m an anthropologist and you absolutely show exactly who you are by the example you chose and your choice of words. Do words matter? They do, to every single person who reads this board whatever their political beliefs. It’s not a matter political correctness, wokeness, whatever. You chose to communicate with the terms and poor example you did and I hear exactly how you are positioning yourself in daring anyone question you with “name calling” (calling it what it is.)
For years I read this blog for the litigation roundup, engage thoughtful planning discussion, and benefit from the wisdom of old timers. No wisdom here anymore, hasn’t been for months, so no reason to visit any longer. It’s bleak when reading a site that provided an incredible education all those years comes down to this as the agency is gutted.
Thank you, Sharon, for the service you have provided for so long. Thanks to those who put together the litigation roundup and update on plan revision, policy, and projects.
Farewell.
The effects of barred owls vs. NSO on forest wildlife communities is not comparable. BOs are a generalist, hovering up a very high diversity and abundance of prey species, while NSO are specialists that focus most on a few prey species. The result is that carrying capacity for BOs is 4 times higher than NSO in the same location and there is evidence BOs will have an effect on the distribution of other species.
The species distinction between NSO and BOs follows accepted ornithological principles and has been made by taxonomists. The line between species is not easily drawn and there are many definitions of a species, each has its own issue, but none results in a clean distinction. Take a ring species for example, adjacent populations can breed with one another, but populations that occur farther apart cannot. Your pygmy and Swede analogy is not a good one, as both are considered Homo sapiens, not separate species. Barred owls and NSO are more analogous to Neanderthals and humans, with NSO being the Neanderthals in the analogy.
Regardless, NSO are a listed subspecies, so the point about the definition of a species is moot to the NSO vs. BO issue. Also, the ESA also allows for distinct population segments to be listed, which is a level below a subspecies.
I also agree with the commenter above. Not sure why I bothered responding. This forum has gotten worse. This is dim-wit pseudo-science and the responses by the author to commentors is often thoughtless and includes name-calling. I have mentioned this before, but it’s never going to stop. I am sure he’s going to say something snarky about how I am staying anonymous, which is what his responses typically turn into. I have already written my response, but after this, I am done bothering.
I’m sorry you are having a bad experience and I am now moderating.
I have many thoughts on this myself, being an evolutionary biologist but I will get to those when employee news settles down.
I thought you might be interested in this article I ran across yesterday about Neanderthals in the Jerusalem Post.. what if we determined that we should kill off Sapiens so that Neanderthals should remain pure?
Maybe you can follow up on your hypothetical when you come back to this. My limited knowledge in the area suggests that genetic diversity is a good thing to preserve from the standpoint of adapting to changing planetary conditions.
Hi Jon: My thought is that genetic diversity is guaranteed with changing global conditions, as clearly evidenced by documented history and biology. The pursuit of racial purity should be an objective of a zookeeper, rather than a government, is my point and opinion.
Thank you, Brother.