Habitat For Hoo?
In a battle of owl vs. owl, wildlife managers must choose sides
The northern spotted owl is an icon of the Pacific Northwest. With limited predators and ample prey, the bird once enjoyed a relatively comfortable existence in the dense, damp forests of Washington state. Over the past four decades, however, it has been fighting for its survival.
Spotted owls rely on old-growth coniferous forests for habitat, a reality that sparked the “timber wars” of the 1980s and early ‘90s that pitted environmentalists against Washington’s timber industry. By 1990, the spotted owl was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, a designation that restricted logging and other activities that could disrupt the owl’s habitat. Despite environmentalists largely winning the owl wars and significantly reducing timbering in the region, spotted owl populations have continued to decline dramatically. Something else was encroaching on their habitat—the barred owl.
During the mid-20th century, barred owls migrated from their native forestlands in the eastern United States westward. Today, the species is well established in the forests of Washington. Known as “flying coyotes,” barred owls eat almost anything and are excellent hunters. They also produce more young and therefore often out-compete their spotted owl cousin, posing a serious threat to the region’s native populations.
To counter the invasion, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented a program to remove barred owls from the landscape. After spotted owl populations continued to fall, the service proposed a dramatic escalation.
“Removal program” sounds innocuous enough, but the reality is a bit grimmer. To balance the population sizes, the service proposed to shoot more than 400,000 barred owls over the next 30 years.
Killing one species to save another might seem cruel or subjective, and to some degree, it is. Yes, because the spotted owl is federally listed, the service is required by law to make efforts to recover it. If left to nature, the barred owls would likely overwhelm spotted owl populations, outcompeting or perhaps interbreeding with them. But is the service’s plan the best way forward? Ultimately, it will spend over $200 million killing a species of owl that arrived to the region too late to be considered native. So with help from the federal government and American taxpayers, the spotted owl will try to survive to fight another day.
Olympic Gridlock
Rethinking how we fund national parks can improve your next visit
At Washington’s Olympic National Park, snow-capped peaks tower over a landscape teeming with diverse wildlife, from mountain goats and Roosevelt elk to gray whales and sea urchins. The mountains give way to temperate rainforests that sprawl toward rugged cliffs overlooking the rocky coastline. A drive up Hurricane Ridge or a hike through the Hoh Rain Forest can leave you awestruck by the park’s natural wonders.
Of course, that’s assuming you can get past the front gate. There, it’s become common for would-be visitors to sit idling in a line of traffic 30 cars deep for hours before being granted entry. With crowds overwhelming the most popular areas, park managers have instituted a “one-in, one-out” visitor policy. A recent afternoon visit revealed an estimated wait time of three hours to the Hoh Rain Forest, with overflowing trash cans and portable toilets serving as the only amenities in sight. Is this the best we can do for America’s best idea? Not by a long shot, thankfully.
In response to booming visitation, several parks have instituted inventive practices to improve visitor experience. Whether it’s a reservation system in Glacier that’s easing congestion on its famous Going-to-the-Sun Road or an infrastructure upgrade in Zion to better facilitate visitor flow at the park’s south entrance, creative thinking is helping several parks keep pace with their popularity.
These types of improvements, however, require innovative funding solutions as well. PERC’s new report, “A Path Forward for America’s Best Idea: Lessons Learned for Our National Parks From the Great American Outdoors Act,” outlines recommendations to enhance the Interior Department’s stewardship of America’s treasures by rethinking how to tackle the maintenance backlog, implementing smarter approaches to user fees, and charting a more defined path for the parks’ long-term financial health.
Meet the New Neighbors
Living with grizzlies will require working with landowners
The grizzly bear is an iconic symbol of America’s wildlife. The creatures are massive (adult males can weigh up to 600 pounds), shockingly fast (they can sprint at speeds of up to 40 mph), and can be deathly dangerous for anyone unlucky enough to startle one in the woods. Terrifying statistics aside, the bear also represents some of the best of America—a rugged, wild, and impressive creature, unique in its power and revered for its strength. After being hunted to near extinction in the 19th and early 20th centuries, grizzly populations today are rebounding.
Unsurprisingly, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to reintroduce the ferocious bear into Washington’s North Cascades has been met with mixed emotions. Some conservationists and wildlife advocates cheer on the idea, noting that reintroduction would help solidify the bear’s recovery by expanding its current range to more of its historical territory.
Others view reintroduction differently. Rural ranchers and farmers recognize the potential for conflict. From livestock loss to the threat of human mauling or death, living among grizzlies comes at a real cost. Reintroduction, therefore, can be tricky.
To successfully reintroduce grizzly bears to the North Cascades, limiting human-wildlife conflict must be a priority. The landowners and communities who will bear the costs of living with grizzlies should be viewed as partners and considered in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s management decisions.
Two ways for the agency to take a cooperative approach would be to focus reintroduction and recovery on federal lands and limit regulations the species would trigger on private lands. Likewise, regulations should adapt as the new population grows and its range expands. Additionally, compensating landowners for any losses they experience can and potentially increase wildlife tolerance among locals. Conservation organizations are well poised to be partners in a compensation program, essentially paying for the conservation outcomes they would like to see.
Ultimately, successful wildlife recovery depends on making imperiled species assets, rather than liabilities, to the communities that have the greatest influence on their long-term survival. Grizzly bear reintroduction should follow this ethos, aiming for both the bear and its human neighbors to thrive, side by side.
