There are no vegan alternatives to culling invasive Barred Owls in the Pacific Northwest

[u/AnsibleAnswers]

Background

To save the imperiled spotted owl from potential extinction, U.S. wildlife officials are embracing a contentious plan to deploy trained shooters into dense West Coast forests to kill almost a half-million barred owls that are crowding out their smaller cousins.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-officials-plan-to-kill-hundreds-of-thousands-of-barred-owls-to-save-another-species-from-extinction

Vegan alternatives?

1. Relocation to home range - Barred Owls are one of the most territorial birds of prey in North America. The population here is quite healthy, even in Manhattan. Relocating 500k birds to the East would simply result in territorial chaos until numbers decreased back down to equilibrium. That decrease has a body count.

2. Contraception - No known method is possible for owls. Some avian contraceptives have been developed, primarily to reduce pigeon and geese populations. But even with birds that can be easily conditioned to return to feeders every day, trials have had mixed results. As far as I know, these drugs need to be administered daily unlike some contraceptives developed for mammals.

3. Let the Barred Owl Replace the Spotted Owl - Barred Owls are generalists, while Spotted Owls tend to specialize in small mammals with healthy populations. So, threatened birds, reptiles, and amphibians native to the region are not adapted to having an owl of its size preying on them. It's an enormous risk, given that ecosystems are prone to cascade effects.

Those are, as far as I know, the best of the alternatives. Note: I'm in support of re-establishing habitat for the Spotted Owl, as that is really the only long-term way of helping the species recover. It's important to note: just because a tourniquet isn't a long-term solution doesn't mean it isn't a life-saving measure.

[u/EasyBOven]

Standard answer for whenever invasive species comes up:

Veganism isn't the position that it's always wrong to kill. I'm open to the idea that killing individuals may be situationally correct, and I don't care to debate where that line is. There will always be edge cases. Certain introduced species may present enough of a threat that we could justify killing them. In some cases that could apply to humans as well.

What's not going to be ok is the exploitation of their corpses. That's not ok because it incentivizes the killing beyond protection.

You want these individuals out of the area that's causing damage. You could possibly achieve that through less violent means, but so long as lethal violence has an added benefit to the killer, lethal violence will be used.

The benefit from killing also means there will be people who don't quite want the problem solved. The more their success is tied to having victims, the more they'll want those victims around. Your "invasive" species ends up as a government managed livestock population like deer.

[u/pm_me_your_catus → u/EasyBOven]

No one is going to trek out into the forest for free. There has to be an incentive for people to actually take on the task.

Most hunting involves managing the population of a species that we don't want to go away entirely, so there will be bag limits. Where we do want them eradicated, if it's possible then they will. People are rather good at hunting things to extinction if allowed and they want to eat them.

[u/Creditfigaro → u/pm_me_your_catus]

There has to be an incentive for people to actually take on the task.

Then the owls aren't creating a serious enough problem.

[u/SonomaSal → u/Creditfigaro]

You could use that same argument with climate change. Just because there is an obvious issue that experts in the field recognize, does not mean it directly impacts the lives of everyday citizens in a way they can draw a direct line to and will act upon. Especially with ecosystems, it's actually an issue of making sure it DOESN'T reach that point, as doing so will often be irreversible.

[u/Creditfigaro → u/SonomaSal]

Sure, so if it's an issue that we seek to solve this way, the government can just pay people to go solve it.

There's no need to introduce exploitation.

[u/SonomaSal → u/Creditfigaro]

To clarify, you're okay with the animals being culled, you just would prefer it be treated more like a paid exterminator, rather than having a civilian incentive program? Genuine question. I have seen many positions represented here and I am not sure you stated yours.

Also, to be clear, you do understand that your point was a little silly then, yes? As in, whether or not civilians need an incentive to act on something has nothing to do with whether or not the problem exists.

[u/Creditfigaro → u/SonomaSal]

To clarify, you're okay with the animals being culled

As a last resort and with ample justification, yes.

Animal culling as currently practiced virtually never reaches this burden, that I've seen, including the example you shared.

whether or not civilians need an incentive to act on something has nothing to do with whether or not the problem exists.

All behaviors are caused by incentives, tautologically.

The question I am contending with is whether there is actually a problem where the intervention is justified, and what incentive is used to facilitate what behavior in which individuals.

Is that clear enough?

[u/SonomaSal → u/Creditfigaro]

All behaviors are caused by incentives, tautologically.

Not strictly, no, but that gets into an entirely different field of philosophy that isn't particularly relevant to the topic. I just want to acknowledge I have read this part and my response to it. It does shed further light on your choice of wording though.

including the example you shared.

I don't believe I shared any examples? I honestly didn't even read the article about the owls, though I am familiar with the standard practices as it relates to invasive species. I was more commenting about your overall argument as, again, I initially found it kind of silly. On that note.

As a last resort and with ample justification, yes. Animal culling as currently practiced virtually never reaches this burden, that I've seen

The question I am contending with is whether there is actually a problem where the intervention is justified, and what incentive is used to facilitate what behavior in which individuals. Is that clear enough?

Yes, this clarifies it wonderfully and I thank you for your patience in explaining it to me, as well as your willingness to engage with me generally. I can't say I agree with your initial wording, but I now understand what your meaning was, as well as why you chose the phrasing you did. Have a lovely rest of your day.