Lawmakers Challenge Federal Plan to Eradicate Barred Owls, Citing Cost and Ethical Concerns
A coalition of 19 bipartisan lawmakers has ignited a fresh wave of controversy surrounding a federal government initiative aimed at drastically reducing the population of barred owls along the West Coast. In a sharply worded letter addressed to U.S. Department of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, dated March 7th, the lawmakers implored the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to immediately cease all spending on its contentious Barred Owl Management Strategy.
The plan, finalized in August 2024, seeks to systematically eliminate an estimated 450,000 barred owls, which the USFWS considers an invasive species posing a significant threat to the survival of the native northern spotted owl. The spotted owl, native to Washington, Oregon, and California, has been listed as endangered since 1990 and currently faces an alarming population decline, with only approximately 15,000 individuals remaining in the United States.
The core argument presented by the lawmakers centers on the exorbitant financial burden associated with the Barred Owl Management Strategy. The letter alleges that each barred owl cull would cost around $3,000, resulting in a staggering total expenditure of over $1.35 billion over the planned 30-year duration of the initiative. They contend that such a vast sum represents an "inappropriate and inefficient use of U.S. taxpayer dollars." The USFWS plan itself however does not provide these specific financial details.
Beyond the financial concerns, the lawmakers also raise serious questions regarding the ethical and ecological implications of the strategy. The letter asserts that there is no historical precedent for the successful implementation of similar wildlife control plans. Furthermore, the lawmakers challenge the classification of barred owls as an invasive species, arguing that they have become an integrated component of a dynamic ecosystem.
The USFWS, in response, issued a statement acknowledging the congressional correspondence and affirming that the Department of Interior "takes all correspondence from Congress seriously and carefully reviews each matter." While declining to comment directly on the specific concerns raised in the letter, the agency pledged to provide further information on the matter "at the appropriate time."
The Barred Owl Management Strategy involves a controversial method of lethal removal. Specialists are permitted to attract barred owls using recorded calls and then shoot them upon their approach. In areas where firearms are prohibited, the owls can be captured and euthanized. The strategy emphasizes that these procedures will be conducted only in a limited portion of the identified regions, encompassing over 24 million acres, and that only trained specialists will be authorized to carry out the removal. The USFWS claims the methods employed are designed to ensure a swift and humane kill, minimize the risk of non-fatal injuries to barred owls, and reduce the possibility of harm to other species.
However, this plan has not only received condemnation from politicians, but it has also faced opposition from environmental organizations and animal welfare groups. In November of last year, Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy filed a lawsuit in Seattle, Washington, challenging the legality of the Barred Owl Management Strategy. The organizations allege that the USFWS violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to adequately analyze the environmental impacts of its strategy and by rejecting reasonable alternatives. The lawsuit remains active and is progressing through the legal system.
The organizations followed up with a request to then President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in December, requesting an examination and termination of the plan, according to a press release from Animal Wellness Action.
The debate surrounding the Barred Owl Management Strategy highlights the complex challenges inherent in wildlife management and the conflicting perspectives on how best to balance the needs of different species and ecosystems. Supporters of the plan argue that the removal of barred owls is essential to protect the endangered northern spotted owl from extinction. They maintain that the barred owl’s aggressive behavior and competitive advantage have created an unsustainable situation for the native species.
Conversely, critics of the plan contend that it represents a misguided and ultimately futile attempt to manipulate ecological processes. They argue that the barred owl has already become integrated into the West Coast ecosystem and that attempting to eradicate it will have unintended and potentially detrimental consequences. Furthermore, they raise concerns about the ethical implications of killing large numbers of animals, particularly when the long-term effectiveness of the strategy remains uncertain.
The issue also touches on broader questions about human intervention in natural systems. As climate change and habitat loss continue to disrupt ecosystems around the world, wildlife managers face increasingly difficult decisions about how to prioritize conservation efforts and manage competing interests. The Barred Owl Management Strategy serves as a stark reminder of the complexities and controversies that often arise in the pursuit of these goals.
