Donate

Should We Kill One Species to Save Another?

| February 4, 2014 | 262 Comments
  • Share:
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email
Northern spotted owl in Oregon. Photo by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services

Northern spotted owl in Oregon.
Photo by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services


To respond to the Do Now, you can comment below or tweet your response. Be sure to begin your tweet with @KQEDEdspace and end it with #DoNowPredator

For more info on how to use Twitter, click here.


Do Now

Should we kill one species to save another? Why or why not?

Introduction

The northern spotted owl is native to the Pacific Northwest living in old growth forests ranging from Northern California to Southwest British Columbia. Today, it’s rare to spot these owls. Logging and land conversion of their habitat has contributed to a decline in their population. Their low numbers led the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service to list this species as threatened in 1990. Although logging restrictions were put in place in the old growth forests where the spotted owls live, and loss of this habitat has slowed, the owls are facing another challenge.

Enter the barred owl. The barred owl, originally from the Eastern United States, is an owl that looks a lot like the spotted owl, but is larger and more aggressive. It began showing up in northern spotted owl territory first in Canada in the late 1950s and has since extended its range into California — outcompeting the northern spotted owl for food and nesting areas.

To help recovery efforts of the northern spotted owl, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service has begun conducting experiments to kill barred owls in some areas where the threatened birds live, in hopes of increasing the northern spotted owl population. If this experiment is successful, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may consider larger efforts to kill the barred owl.

This tough decision has sparked a lot of debate, and some opponents say the government can’t morally justify killing one species to save another and it is best to let nature take its course, while others argue we are under obligation to help these threatened species since human activity caused their decline in the first place. Although controversial, predator management — the practice of killing competitor or predatory species to save threatened or endangered ones is not unprecedented. For example, last year Florida opened up python hunting in the everglades to kill introduced pythons that are preying on native species. Similarly in 2011, the U.S. Geological Survey led a new effort aimed at mass killing lake trout in Yellowstone. The lake trout are an introduced species that eat the native cutthroat trout — a fish on which many other animals depend for food. Are these measures justified? Do you think we should kill one species to save another? Why or why not?

Resource

NPR radio segment To Save Threatened Owl, Another Species is Shot
In desperation to save the rare northern spotted owl, biologists are doing something that goes against their core — shooting another owl that’s rapidly taking over spotted owl territory across the northwest.


To respond to the Do Now, you can comment below or tweet your response. Be sure to begin your tweet with @KQEDedspace and end it with #DoNowPredator

For more info on how to use Twitter, click here.

We encourage students to reply to other people’s tweets to foster more of a conversation. Also, if students tweet their personal opinions, ask them to support their ideas with links to interesting/credible articles online (adding a nice research component) or retweet other people’s ideas that they agree/disagree/find amusing. We also value student-produced media linked to their tweets like infographics or more extensive blog posts to represent their ideas. Of course, do as you can… and any contribution is most welcomed.


More Resources

WUFT article Florida’s Python Problem Continues
Learn more about the effects of Florida’s python hunting challenge in the Everglades.

The New York Times article In Yellowstone, Killing one Species to Save Another
Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey implanted radio transmitters in the invasive lake trout which lead hunters to areas where the fish can be killed en masse.

Center for Invasive Species Management resource Center for Invasive Species website
Explore information about invasive species management in Western North America.


Explore: , , , , , ,

Category: Do Now, Do Now: Science

  • Share:
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

About the Author ()

Andrea is the Science Education Manager for KQED. She joined KQED in 2007 to coordinate education and outreach for the public television series Jean-Michel Cousteau: Ocean Adventures. Between working on Ocean Adventures and joining the QUEST team, she developed the educational resources for the 4-hour documentary Saving the Bay. Andrea graduated from UC Berkeley with a B.A. in Environmental Science and earned her M.A. in Teaching and Multiple Subject Teaching Credential from the University of San Francisco. Before arriving at KQED, she taught, developed, and managed marine science and environmental education programs in Aspen, Catalina Island and the Bay Area.
  • Miranda Burcham

    I believe we should take the risk to kill some of a species to rescue another from extinction because as long as we aren’t wiping out the entire species or killing too many,they should be able to recover in numbers as well as the endangered species. And sometimes human intervention is needed to save animals,even if we have to kill others to do so.

    • LillyC_Per3_BoydBence

      While I see where you’re coming from I just don’t think that its right to kill the other species because they’re trying to live as well what give us the right to mess up there way of living? I think that If we want to save both species we move one somewhere where they can repopulate and thrive. What are you’re thoughts ?

      • BellaP_3boydbence

        I agree completely with your statement. I think diversity in the world is very important and we can help by helping another species out. Even if it means killing but not totally getting rid of another species.

    • Dylan_L_period3Bence/Boyd

      I understand what you are saying but it is wrong. Nature needs to take its course. There is nothing wrong with new species coming in. Animals were just fine before humans came in. In fact when humans came in nature got all screwed up. Because of us so many animal have become extinct.

    • BellaP_3boydbence

      I agree completely with you, we want this world to be diverse and this is one of the ways we can help. I agree with you on not wiping out the entire species but we should kill some of them. I don’t like that we have to kill other animals but if it is to help another it is worth the risk.

    • MarkL_3BoydBence

      I disagree. I understand that it’s may seem necessary to save one of the species. But, there are risks in both ways. However, killing the barred owl population straight way is just that. Leaving nature on it’s own however, may result in another alternative.

    • madisono-2boydbence

      Miranda,
      I somewhat agree with you. Yes, I do think we should help the Spotted Owls regain population but, I do not think that we should kill another species to help that. There are many other ways we can help the Spotted Owls, like, putting them on the endangered species list, taking some in to an endangered species center and protecting them so they can regain some of their population. A huge thing we can do for them is to not shelter them too much. This is because, we can not protect them from the ever-changing world when they are in the wild, like a parent can not protect their child from everything that life may throw at them, you have to go through and then you will benefit from doing so. The same goes for the owls. No, I don’t want the Spotted Owl to go extinct but, I also don’t want to shelter them so much that they don’t know how to survive in the wild.
      In conclusion, I don’t believe there is a reason to harm one species to save another, since, there are many other ways to help the issue.

    • Tayla_k_4BoydBence

      You make a great point, but have you ever considered the option of moving one species to another location where they can adapt? This way both species are still alive.

    • Rachael P. 2nd BoydBence

      I agree with you on how sometimes human intervention is needed. Animals aren’t able to adapt to new surroundings or new problems that surface as quickly as humans. It normally takes some time and evolving to develop traits that help them to survive. These spotted owls don’t have that amount of time. Their numbers were already low when the barred owls showed up. If we can’t restore the numbers of the spotted owls then we must lower the number of the barred. Now, that doesn’t mean we kill the species all together. That would defeat the purpose of trying to save species from going extinct. If we could just lower the barred owl’s population enough to where the spotted owls still have a fighting chance of surviving, then the spotted owls can be saved from extinction.

    • David_N_2

      Thank you for your view, Miranda Burcham.
      I have to slightly disagree with you, though. I think that we, as humans, have interfered with nature enough, but you have brought up a good point. We should try to save a certain species of animals but without having to kill another species. We have no right to decide what must live and what must die even with animals. We can attempt to preserve the Spotted owls by setting up a different habitat for them, but nature has its own system. I believe that would should back away as of now and wait for a more transparent result, and when things get bad, then we can start to act.

    • KaraP_Per2_BoydBence

      I disagree, we shouldn’t kill any animals just to save another. We interfered enough, thats why there is a problem in the first place. We destroy their habitats, which is a contributing factor to the low population of Northern Spotted Owls. As you can see on the chart below, we cause many animals to either go extinct or become endangered.( found on http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/utoday/dec10-08/extinction ) If we want to fix what we have done then it is to late. However, we can and should try to prevent it from happening again. We can preserve the habitats that are left, and we can make it illegal to hunt them. That would be the best option because killing the Barred Owls would not necessarily fix the problem and then we would have killed them for nothing. We can make laws, but at the end of the day nature will decide.

    • brittneyd_3boydbence

      I agree that human intervention may be necessary, but I don’t think we need to kill them just to save another. I think that we should just put the northern spotted owls in a sanctuary in order to save their species, and just release them back when they have repopulated.

  • Jeremy Famorcan

    One species shouldn’t be killed in order to save another. Nature should just take its course. If we kill too much then the other species could also become extinct. Another way is to take the endangered owl and move them somewhere else where they could repopulate.

    • LillyC_Per3_BoydBence

      I agree with you I think letting nature take its course is the best option.I never even thought of moving them somewhere where they can thrive and be safe to repopulate.I wonder where we could move them thats not to different then where they live now.

      • BellaP_3boydbence

        I disagree with your statement. I think that we should kill some of one species to help out another. I’m not saying we kill all of them, but just enough to get the other species up and running again. Like I said in one of my previous comments maybe we don’t have time to get the endangered species to another location or habitat. It’s not only the spotted owls that are going endangered,many other animals are and that makes it harder for every endangered animal to move to a different location or habitat.

    • Lukep_3boydbence

      You make an excellent point. We should move it to another place and let it repopulate. That way both species and continue to live in peace, that way there is no more killing. Then the species would get off the endangered species list, and many other benefits would come from this.

    • MarkL_3BoydBence

      I completely agree with you. The article says that “The barred owl, originally from the Eastern United States, is an owl that looks a lot like the spotted owl.” Since it looks the same, this may result in killing both species if this does happen.

    • BellaP_3boydbence

      I disagree with your statement, I think that we should kill some of one species to help out another. I’m not saying we kill all of them, but just enough to get the other species up and running again. Like I said in one of my previous comments maybe we don’t have time to get the endangered species to another location or habitat. It’s not only the spotted owls that are going endangered,many other animals are and that makes it harder for every endangered animal to move to a different location or habitat.

    • IsabellaV_3boydbence

      Jeremy Famorcan,
      I agree with you to an extent. I feel like we should let nature be and see what happens to the owls. You also make a good point about how we can accidentally kill too many owls to where they become extinct, but if the Spotted Owls are in that much danger to the point of extinction, then I think it’s okay to go shoot the Barred Owls to limit their population. Not to kill off the species, but to control their population.

    • DorianM_3boydbence

      Jeremy i agree with you in a way we shouldn’t be killing those animals but we aslo shouldn’t just sit there and let the spotted owls be extinct we should come up with a way to preserve the spotted owls without killing another. right now the are having a lawsuit to decide what there gonna do “The Friends of Animals lawsuit to stop the project is still pending.”
      http://ijpr.org/post/killing-one-owl-species-save-another

  • RobinHood82

    How did the predator owls get here? Did we bring them, or did they migrate on their own? We should find methods other than killing them, such as helping the endangered owls repopulate by moving them to other environments. “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

    • Neethi

      I agree….I think that there is a lot more to the backstory here….I do want to know more about why the owls even decided to migrate in the first place!

    • Miguel_A_Period2

      I don’t really understand the point of your quote. Are you saying that we should not help out because it’ll end up with us losing our perceived vision? Or are you stating that sacrifice is worth making everyone as a society vague and oblivious? Whatever you intended, I really don’t think intervening is the best solution.
      Nature is beautiful, and nature is cruel. Let things happen.
      It’s all for the greater good.

  • Alberto Garcia

    I believe that we should attempt to find other solutions to solve the problem because killing a certain species to save another is not the best solution.

    • Neethi

      I agree — we should not resort to an extreme response to the situation.

      • BellaP_3boydbence

        I agree that killing another species isn’t always the best thing but do we have time to find a habitat for them or relocate the endangered animals? It’s not only the spotted owl that is endangered .There are many other animals in the world that are going extinct and sometimes we don’t have time to think of other options. I don’t like that we are killing these creatures but if its to save another, don’t you think it could be worth it?

    • Melody_M_2

      I agree with you I think that we should find a different solution instead of killing a certain species to save another because you’re still killing off anther species and I think some how we can find a way to make them coexist instead of killing them. And I don’t think that it is fair to save one but kill that other.

    • Miguel_A_Period2

      Well what do you suggest? Throwing nature off balance isn’t a good idea since nature is nature and we should not change it. We don’t have dogs walking humans, now do we? If we choose to do something because we think it’ll help, we’re either going to humbly embrace the reward or deal with the consequences. As a dominant species, we will do what is best.

    • Luke_A_Period3

      I couldn’t agree more, a solution other than genocide should be found.

  • Joseph Manguera

    I dont think killing one species to save another would be okay to do. Sure, you’d save that species, but then you’d cause the other to die out. Maybe we can find a way for them to coexist, that way we can save them both.

    • LillyC_Per3_BoydBence

      I absolutely agree with you we need to be thinking what about the other species ? Is it really fair to save one and not the other ? I definitely think that finding a way for them to coexist is the way to go.

    • MarkL_3BoydBence

      It would be great to find a way for both species to coexist. However, it’s don’t think that’s an option. “The barred owl, originally from the Eastern United States, is an owl that looks a lot like the spotted owl, but is larger and more aggressive.” and “…outcompeting the northern spotted owl for food and nesting areas.”

    • madisono-2boydbence

      Joseph,
      I agree that if we were to kill one species to save another, it’s not really doing any good because, yes, you may have saved that particular species, in this case the Spotted Owl but, you also killed off the other species (the Barred Owl), therefore you are not gaining anything. Finding a way for these to species to coexist would be great but, we also need to think about if this would be as beneficial as we think it would be. If we shelter the species too much then it will take a while for them to re-adapt to their natural habitat and at the same time evolve and learn how to live with this new species. This is only harming them and that’s the opposite of we want to do. I think that we should do all that we can and need to but then, we have to step back and let nature take over and run its course.

    • brittneyd_3boydbence

      I agree with you. Killing off one species defeats the purpose of trying to save another. I think that if the northern owls had an advantage, they could survive. Maybe if we had sanctuaries for the northern owls they could begin to safely repopulate and survive.

    • IsabellaV_3boydbence

      Joseph Manguera,
      I agree with you that we need to find a different way to save the Spotted Owls. There are other ways that we can save them, for example, we can put them on the endangered list, or move them to a new habitat. Unless the Spotted Owls are in that great danger zone, then kill SOME and LIMIT their populations. Its useless to completely kill one species to save another because in the end one species dies either way.

    • CJ_Bute2boydbence

      I agree I with you Joseph Manguera that killing one species to save another is not okay. Because just like we are killing over 3,600 barred owls just to save spotted owls. It’s not worth killing that many species, especially when they both are going to be harmed anyways.

    • JoelR_Per 3_BoydBence

      I agree that killing other animals would not be okay. Since the barred owls are more aggressive than spotted owls they would dominate even if we evened out the population. I think by making man made habitats we can help provide the perfect environment for not only the owl, but other species as well. If we interfere we don’t give these owls a chance to adapt. Killing to save is a pointless idea because if things turn out wrong your going to have too save 2 bird species instead of one.

    • KaraP_Per2_BoydBence

      I completely agree, killing one species might solve one problem but it will create another problem equally as bad, if not worse. Some species go completely extinct just because of habitat loss. As you can see in the following graph, that it actually the main cause of extinction.( found on http://www.bio.utexas.edu/faculty/sjasper/Bio301M/endangered.html ) So if we decide to kill one species of owls then they both might go extinct.

  • Nathan Cao

    Obviously, the owls there cannot coexist. There are a few options to consider. The first of these is: Which species should we kill? Personally, I don’t think it is right to kill one species for another. I propose a solution of making a man-made environment for the newcomer owls. This way, both species can be preserved.

    • Neethi

      Nice compromise! I like that you’re trying to avoid the radical approach of killing off one species for another.

    • Lukep_3boydbence

      You make an excellent point. They can not coexist. As proven in the article the new species of owl is killing the spotted owl, making them go on the endangered list. I like your idea of making a man-made environment for them. That way both can be saved and continue to live in peace. That way the spotted owl gets off the endangered list and repopulate, and the other species makes a new home

    • CarlosR_3BoydBence

      FINALLY. Someone that has some sense, a man-made habitat would be a beautiful idea. Man-made habitats and sanctuaries have had a number of success in London, Africa, Colorado, and more!

      Go to these links to read about these sanctuaries and about animal conservation.
      London- http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/wildife-london.html#cr
      Africa- http://www.goeco.org/area/volunteer-in-africa/south-africa/wildlife-sanctuary-expedition
      Colorado- http://www.wildanimalsanctuary.org/home.html

    • Tayla_k_4BoydBence

      Excellent Idea! Making a manmade environment or moving the into another location where they can naturally adapt and survive is a much better solution than killing a species to save another. This way both species can stay.

    • EmilyA_Per3_boydBence

      I really like your idea. But if we do a man-made environment, the owls might die off more because they wouldn’t be used to it. Or we could in fact relocated the endangered owls to somewhere thats easier for them to live but somewhere like they used to live.

    • ClaireB_period2_BoydBence

      I agree there has to be a way to help endangered species survive without hurting
      another species. As you can see by this chart the spotted owl is not close to
      being extinct. If people leave the species alone then maybe the population will
      increase for the spotted owls. I understand that more barred owls are moving
      into the area, but killing them will not solve the problem for keeping the
      spotted owls alive.

    • emily_p_2shuttle

      Nathan,

      I agree with you 100%, it’s not about saving one, it’s about saving both (if possible). It is not our job to step in and kill other birds, it’s our job to step i and keep them from death.”The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may consider larger efforts to kill the barred owl.” That is not something they should consider. It is not morally right for them to kill one species to save another.

    • alexm_3boydbence

      I have to completely agree with you. I feel like the government feels that it would just be easier and faster to just kill the other species of birds to help save the endangered, but why not keep them both? This is the perfect solution to keep both of them healthy and alive.

    • JTM_3boydbence

      I don’t Agree with that. The resin is why should we spend money on a species that is not native to the area. If they are messing up the ecosystem then the foreign species must go because that is not natural and the effects effect all of us.

  • FresnoRaisin97

    I say death to the west coast owls. If there are bigger and better owls coming in from the east, then who are we to intervene? If we kill the bigger owls then we just end up with a bunch of weaker owls over on the west coast. Plus, if we kill the east coast owls, we still have a bigger problem: half of the owls are dead and half are living comfortably… only the weaker owls are the ones who end up living. This doesn’t really seem to agree with “survival of the fittest”. Therefore, I think it is best to just let nature run its course and see how things pan out.

    • Neethi

      Interesting point, bringing in Darwin’s theories as well….

    • Dylan_L_period3Bence/Boyd

      I disagree with your statement. You clearly are very vicious. We have no right at all to intervene with nature. So I say life to the west coast owls.

    • CarlosR_3BoydBence

      See I wouldn’t be as crude to say “death to the west coast owls”, but I can say that we should let nature run its course and let the fittest survive. Invasive species are a problem and they’re causing a lot of issues everywhere. There are Asian carp flooding our rivers and lakes in the U.S., Canada geese flying over seas to Europe, and Brown rats dominating Asian streets and sewers, and we can’t go killing anything because this is natures way. (for list of invasive species http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_invasive_species)

  • Celeste McBride

    I think that the west coast owls are worth protecting because it is worth preserving biodiversity. With species going extinct left and right, I believe that we should try to preserve biodiversity when faced with phenomena like this: where climate change is driving one species to come into competition with another.

    • David_N_2

      Thank you for your opinion, Celeste McBride.
      I have to disagree with you on this case, and I believe that we should not interfere with what have already done so. We humans have irreversibly changed the globe with our pollution and growing population, and because we have done this, we have caused catastrophes like this. Of course some species will go extinct, but that is just what nature is all about. We should protect the Spotted owls by all means, but we should not extinguish another just to save one. What good is it if we killed off Barred owls and protect Spotted owls and vise versa? Either way, one species of animals will die, therefore we must let nature go on without our “help”.

    • Alice_B_4boydbence

      I completely agree with you! The NPR article said this: “”If we don’t do it, what we’re essentially doing, in my view, is dooming the spotted owl to extinction,” says Lowell Diller, senior biologist for Green Diamond, a timber company.” which makes sense to me–biodiversity is important, and we must do what we can to preserve it as its our own fault.

    • BellaP_3boydbence

      I agree with you completely, if we can preserve biodiversity then we should, we should take that chance. “the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service has begun conducting experiments to kill barred owls in some areas where the threatened birds live, in hopes of increasing the northern spotted owl population.” When you notice this look at the word “Increasing” if we can increase the spotted owl population then we can have both animals. I don’t think that the barrel owls should all be killed but enough to increase the spotted owls chance for survival.

    • Rachael P. 2nd BoydBence

      I agree with you that there are so many endangered and extinct species that we can’t just watch from a far and let more and more wildlife die. If there is anything we can do, we should do it. Humans causing this problem in the first place gives us the obligation to try and fix the mess created. The barred owl population is higher than the spotted owls. If we need to get rid of some of the barred owls to balance it out then I think it should be done. I don’t believe the whole species should be killed because that would be getting rid of a species to save another, which would end in neither a gain or loss. If there is a way to balance it out then we just saved two species, one from over populating and another from extinction. That is a win win on both sides

    • TrinityS_Per3_BoydBence

      I completely agree! If there is a chance that a whole entire species of animal will cease to exist, then we better do all that we can to stop that from happening. Although the ways of doing that aren’t cost effective, time effective, or beneficial in any way aside from ensuring the life of another animal, I feel that it’s worth it. At least to some degree. If the barred owl starts becoming extinct, then we should halt fire and do whatever we can to save them. But if nature tries to take its course and ends up killing off an entire type of animal, that’s worse than humans trying to lessen the problem at hand. Attached is a graph showing the relation to the decrease of land and how much room is left for the creatures who need a home.

    • EmilyA_Per3_boydBence

      I agree we should protect the owls but, WE shouldn’t kill the other owls. Maybe relocate the barred owls instead of kill them off. Or maybe do a little bit more the to west coast owls.

    • Riley_R_1BoydBence

      I don’t agree with you because I don’t think we should have to kill another species just to save the West Coast Owls. It’s just not worth it. I would encourage saving the west coast owls if it didn’t involve killing another species.

    • emily_p_2shuttle

      Celeste,

      although you do have a good point, we are killing another species to save one. By trying to save an endangered species, you are killing more owls than what would die naturally. In the article it says that some believe, “it is best to let nature take its course”. I agree with that statement because eventually, they are gonna die.

    • Tclark-2boydbence

      Celeste,
      I agree we should take steps to preserve nature, but we also have to realize nature has to take its course like stated in the article. A lot more owls are going to die than necessary if we try and control nature. At this point we can try and protect what northern spotted owls that are left but we have to realize there isn’t a lot more we can do.

    • Luke_A_Period3

      Do you believe that we should kill animals to save others? If it were humans and we had to kill humans to save another race of humans would we do it? No, we would find a solution to allow both people to live side by side.

    • ErinB_2boydbence

      I disagree. Just because its worth protecting the biodiversity, doesn’t mean its the right thing to do. If we want to save a species, that doesn’t mean we kill another. It’s ironic. To save a species from dying off we kill another…? Thats not right. We need allow nature to take its corse.

    • Lbateman_2boydbence

      Why should we save this species it is survival of the fittest out in the wilderness and if a species can’t survive then let it die. It is a cruel world out there and humans are just building more and more so the species can either adapt or die in the process of it.

    • NWeix-1stboydbence

      I completely agree, it is us, not nature, who got these owls so deep in, it’s our job to get them out.

    • JTM_3boydbence

      I agree, The owls have a nitch to do and if they don’t do that there is no telling what could go wrong. I think if we put them on the endangered list that would help.

  • Forrestofthetrees420

    It’s not any of our business to get in the way of nature. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service should not even exist. Being as we are animals ourselves, living with a god-complex about us. We have made it our business to get in the way of what nature was intended to do. Cut off the weak, or “survival of the fittest.” To be animals ourselves, does it really make any sense to get in the way of what nature was intending? It was none of our business to intervene in that.

    • Kyle_C_3boydbence

      I strongly disagree because the barred owl isn’t even native to California. And it is all of our business because we are the only ones that can protect the northern spotted owls. I say we protect the northern spotted owls and relocate the barred owl back to the east coast where it is NATIVE to and that way nothing get killed, hurt or injured. And the barred owls live where they originated from and the northern spotted owls get to live in peace where they originated from.

    • CarlosR_3BoydBence

      I believe that we shouldn’t play with nature as well. Nature is tough and only the fittest do survive. So killing the Barred Owl would just be fighting with nature. But to say that The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service shouldn’t exist is almost silly. They’re preventing the destruction of animal habitats from logging companies and people who don’t care for nature. As humans we have put several species on the endangered list (list of endangered animals per state http://www.fws.gov/endangered/) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service is just trying to help now.

    • Alice_B_4boydbence

      As stated in the article and as I’ve said in other comments, human activity caused this. Nature is not taking its course. Survival of the fittest/natural selection is more focused on changes in the environment that come as a result of natural organic patterns, not people causing climate change that interferes with the way the world works. “The owl population crash finally began in the 1980s, about the time the environmental movement was finding its footing.” Since it was first noted around the time people became aware of climate change, it’d be kind of silly not to assume that it’s more than a coincidence.

    • Tayla_k_4BoydBence

      I agree with you, we should not get in the way of nature. Humans that try helping nature and the species in it only hurt nature in the process. Killing off a species to save another one is definitely getting in the way of nature.

    • ChristineP_4BoydBence

      I agree with you! In the article it reminds us that “human activity caused their decline in the first place.” So who are we to decide who lives and who dies? Humans need to stop getting in the way, and let things happen naturally. Every time we intervene, it gets worse.

    • Rachael P. 2nd BoydBence

      I agree with you that sometimes we do get in the way of nature. In this case us, people are the ones who created this mess in the first place. We were the ones who cut down the homes of these spotted owls making their population by default decrease. They were struggling for a while and it got worse when the barred owls showed up. While that was not a cause of human interaction, how do you think it would have ended up if the spotted owl population was never wavered from our action of destroying their home? I believe they would be doing better off if we never got involved in the first place. Sadly, that is not the case. This is why we must get involved. We must try to fix what we started. We don’t have to kill the barred species. I believe there are other options like animal reserves or zoos; some place where they can live but not disrupt the unbalanced environment that is unraveling in Northern California and Columbia.

    • David_N_2

      Very correct, Forestofthetrees420.
      Indeed, we are animals ourself and we have interfered with nature’s business, but it is impossible not to do so because we live with nature. We have polluted and distorted the balance of nature, and “fixing” it will only make it worse, or so it seems. Though, I believe we should try and reserve the Spotted owls without exterminating the Barred owls. A biologist said: “I hate it every time I go out and do it.” and so he should. Killing of the sort should never be acceptable because, either way, one species will die off.

    • Lukep_3boydbence

      You are oh so correct. It was none of our business to begin with. We have made it our business when it wasn’t even ours to begin with. We shouldn’t get in the way of nature. But, the choice isn’t up to us. “Cut off the weak, or “survival of the fittest.” To be animals ourselves, does it really make any sense to get in the way of what nature was intending?” right here you make a good point. This is what nature is and we can’t always prevent that from happening.

    • ClaireB_period2_BoydBence

      Forrestofthetrees420,
      If
      we mess with nature it can affect the way that they live. Species need to learn
      to adapt to their surroundings. For example a fish would die if it didn’t have
      gills to breath under water. “Animals that don’t learn to adapt to their surrounding
      either died or became extinct.” If we want to help species survive we need to
      let them adapt to their surroundings.

    • Tclark-2boydbence

      Forrestofthetrees420,

      I agree that we need to let nature control it’s self, however I think we do need services to make sure people know and understand we need to take a step back. Nature is that way for a reason and we need to understand and accept that. Here is a link to the U.S. Fish and wildlife service. http://www.fws.gov/

    • Ryan_R_2

      I strongly agree with you. It’s none of our business to interfere with nature. We should let nature take its course. Killing one thing just to save another is pointless. Both result in death. In the article it reminds us that “human activity caused their decline in the first place.” So who are we to decide who lives and who dies?

    • AshmeetS_3BoydBence

      I must agree with this because sometimes it just depends on survival of the fittest or even nature itself. To be animals ourselves, does it really make any sense to get in the way of what nature was intending?” right here you make a good point. This is what nature is and we can’t always prevent that from happening.

    • JohannaS_BoydBence2

      Yeah, I see where you’re coming from and it makes complete sense to me. It seems as though humans are always in search of ways to gain more power, and for some that power comes in over animals. We shouldn’t try to play God or anything, but rather step back and let what’s going to happen happen.

    • Luke_A_Period3

      I agree with you. We should let nature do natures thing.

    • ErinB_2boydbence

      I agree with you. killing another species to save another isn’t reasonable, because then one species would die one way or another. In the end it wouldn’t make sense. Nature needs to do its thing.

    • NWeix-1stboydbence

      I disagree, as I feel that, as per moral obligations, since we drove these owls so far by non-natural methods, it’s only fair to help them out of it. If your entire city was destroyed by a few owls looking for bricks, and then other human’s beat you up as per “Survival of the Fittest”, I’d say that’s just to cruel. Same here, we destroyed their home, so it’s only right to fight back on the invaders.

    • MarcusO_Per4_BoydBence

      I agree with some statements that you said like how we shouldn’t protect animals from other animals that were there naturally but it is our business to protect nature from people who’d want to harm it.

    • JasminR_3BoydBence

      I agree with you we shouldn’t get in the way of nature. If we die one species then the other well become endangered, or if we die one species then the other well overpopulate. But listening to the podcast I have learned it is legally required to help endangered species.

    • Shemar_D_2

      I kinda disagree with you I think the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service should exist but just work in moderation. Survival of the fittest is the way of nature. We shouldn’t interfere.

    • JacobG_2_BoydBence

      %100 agree with you, Us being humans it is only natural that we get in the way of life and how nature works and interacts. WE should just stay out and let nature do nature.

    • JacobF_Per4_BoydBence

      I agree and disagree. The US Fish and Wildlife Service isn’t just for killing invasive species. I do agree that we shouldn’t get involved in stopping it though.

  • Asia_32

    Should we kill one species to save another? i don’t think it is in our power to deiced what species lives and dies.we could put them on the endanger spices list when there number get low to protect them from humans but we cant/should not kill other species to save west coast owls. the government can’t morally justify killing one species to save another and it is best to let nature take its course.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/25/bighorn-sheep-mountain-lions-yosemite_n_884593.html
    in this article it talks about the same question,kill a species to save another, about killing mountain lions to save big horned sheep.

    • Dylan_L_period3Bence/Boyd

      I agree with what you say. Its not our decision to decide. As much as it must suck to sit back and watch nature do its thing we have to. The killing mountain lions to save sheep that you say at the end is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

    • Kyle_C_3boydbence

      I agree with you but I think we should just sit back and watch one species kill another especially because the barred owls are not native to that area. So I think we should relocate the barred owls back to where they came from in the east coast of the United States. Once that is done we keep a close eye on the northern spotted owl to repopulate.

    • madisono-2boydbence

      Asia,

      I agree that we should not kill one species just to save another, either way one species is dying, so how is that beneficial. I do believe we can take precautions and put the Spotted Owl on the endangered species list and try to do all that we can to help them repopulate. After that, there isn’t much we can do, except let nature run it’s course. But, a good thought/question is, if we try and try and try to shelter the Spotted Owl or any endangered animal, is it really benefitting them as much as we think? In my opinion, no, it is not benefitting them as much as we may think. Yes, it helps if we shelter them so they can regain some of their population but, if you don’t release the species back in to the wild how are they supposed to evolve and adapt to the ever-changing that is our world. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/ This link is to a website called, “Center for Biological Diversity”. The article is called “The Extinction Crisis”, it talks about how the epidemic that has been and currently is taking place.

    • ChristineP_4BoydBence

      I agree with you Asia. It isn’t morally right to kill off one species to save another. Nature should takes it’s course without us humans affecting the outcome.

    • TrinityS_Per3_BoydBence

      I find that I have to disagree with you on that statement because if there is lack of action, the spotted owl could get added to this list of birds, http://www.50birds.com/birds/extinct-birds.htm and that’s the last thing any environmentalist would want to happen. I think that if we have the power to help, then we better do all that we can to even out the playing field. Even if there’s a certain amount of irony that comes with protecting one bird by killing another, I’d rather do that than sit by and watch a species die.

    • JoelR_Per 3_BoydBence

      I agree with you, because by killing other species we would put more species endangered. Instead we could provide these birds with suitable living environment so that they can repopulate. National parks protect many animals which can be found here: http://www.npca.org/protecting-our-parks/wildlife_facts/. I think this would be the most peaceful way to save animals without hurting other animals.

    • IsabellaV_3boydbence

      Asia_32,
      I think it’s best if we let nature take it’s course. I believe the best that we can do is to put them in the endangered list or move them to a new save habitat. I don’t think that we should kill all of them.

    • CJ_Bute2boydbence

      I agree with you Asia that we don’t have the power to decided what species lives and dies. Natural Selection has been a problem since caveman times and that issue has always resolved itself in some way. What if this new species is a good thing? The two owls are pretty similar, just with mild differences according to the article.

    • Riley_R_1BoydBence

      I agree with you that we should not kill a species just to save another because we don’t have that power and that would be just plain wrong.

    • emily_p_2shuttle

      Asia,

      I agree with you, because either way we are killing a species endangered or not. As you said “the government can’t morally justify killing one species to save another” its not our place to do so

    • Tclark-2boydbence

      Asia,

      I agree with your points. I don’t think we can morally justify killing a species. It important to let nature run itself and not step in unless absolutely necessary. It just isn’t worth it to take the risk of stepping in and hurting more that we help. This article talks about how humans want to control nature and the effects. http://www.wild.org/blog/can-we-stop-trying-to-control-nature/

    • AshmeetS_3BoydBence

      Yes..I totally agree with you because we do not have in our hands who lives and dies. We could put them on the endanger spices list when there number get low to protect them from humans but we cant/should not kill other species to save west coast owls. I think we should not kill them all just make a new habitat for them and move on.

    • Ryan_R_2

      You’re right, we don’t have ANY power over who dies and who doesn’t. Killing one thing to save another is honestly pointless and stupid. Both results end in death. We should just let nature take it’s course, because everything hapens for a reason.

    • brittneyd_3boydbence

      I agree that killing one species wouldn’t be right, and I think that we should either move the owls to a new location and/or put them in a sanctuary so they can safely repopulate.

    • JohannaS_BoydBence2

      Asia,
      I completely agree with you here. I think you make a good point by bringing in that other article with a very similar issue. I think the fact is, that some of these animals are going to be hunted and may die out, but it’s not in our jurisdiction to decide otherwise.

    • DorianM_3boydbence

      Asia i agree with you its not are choice to chose what species lives and dies. We should do are best to save the owls without having to kill another.

      in this website it shows that the peopple who are suppose to kill the other owls really to do that it’s not morally right “Then I was faced with this moment like, OK this is what I came here for. I’m supposed to shoot this bird. And you know it was really difficult to finally pull the trigger.””

      http://ijpr.org/post/killing-one-owl-species-save-another

    • LawsonZ_3BoydBence

      I partially agree. I agree in the fact of we cant decided what lives and dies but I do think we can help an endangered spices. This could be by hunting the hunters or by relocating them to another place.

    • JasminR_3BoydBence

      Asia_32
      I agree with you we killing one species to shouldn’t be kill to save another species, but government can kill some barred owl. “It is legally required to help endangered species” said the podcast.

    • MarcusO_Per4_BoydBence

      I agree humans should let nature run it’s course while we keep things that humans to to endanger them.

    • AlexW_2boydbence

      I agree, we do not decide what lives and dies. If a superior invasive species out lives an inferior one, that’s nature’s way. Now if we (humans) were the cause of the owls’ endangerment, then we should put laws on it. This is not our fight.

    • DevonD_2boydbence

      I completely agree with you Asia that we just need to let this run its coarse that this kind of thing may not happen a lot but we dont need to kill an animal or a bird just to save another animal of the same/different kind. Like when you were talking about how they were killing mountain lions to save big horned sheep. Well 1st of all a mountain lion eating a big horned sheep thats apart of nature everything live and dies . It might be going endangered but we dont need to kill the predator to save the victim.

    • Shemar_D_2

      I agree too if you look at the statistics you can see that the barred owl population is evening out and the spotted owl population is increasing again.

    • JacobG_2_BoydBence

      I completely agree with you asia, We do not have the power to do this and it would be wrong and irresponsible for us to do so. Things like these are not in our power.

    • MaggieS-2boydbence

      I agree with you i think we should let nature take its course becase we could throw off a whole ecosystem by killing off other animals.

  • Lukep_3boydbence

    Should we kill one species to save another? That isn’t up to us to decide. We don’t control what species lives or dies. The best we can do is put them on the endangered species list. Take the spotted owl above for example”This tough decision has sparked a lot of debate, and some opponents say the government can’t morally justify killing one species to save another and it is best to let nature take its course, while others argue we are under obligation to help these threatened species since human activity caused their decline in the first place.” But, when we let nature take its course it can spiral out of control and then we intervene to make sure it doesn’t again. Its all up to the people who are experts in this field. They can decide to kill one species to save another but then that species will go extinct, how will they feel.

    • NWeix-1stboydbence

      Keep in mind the stronger owls are NOT native. They migrated from canada, and thus have members left behind there. Thus if we were to fight off the ones living here’s we’d have 2 species on a lower brink rather then a loss of an entire species of owls. This map displays where they (Barred Owls) Lived, proving they aren’t native to California.

  • Amanda Stinger

    i believe that they shouldn’t kill off one species to save another. let nature take its coarse. Put some of the Northern spotted owl on the endangered list and do the best to save them but other then that don’t do anything else. http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/joncgabriel/govt-to-kill-3600-owls-to-save-other-owls. In the article it said that the government would have to kill 3,600 barred owls to even out the numbers between the barred and the spotted owls. That just seems unjust. survival of the fittest, right? The northern spotted owls are just not becoming equip with what they need. Not adjusting to the environment changing. Let nature take its coarse. Don’t kill another species just because you like the other owls better.

    • madisono-2boydbence

      Amanda,

      I agree that we should not kill off one species to save another and to let nature run its course. It is unjust to kill the Barred Owls just to save the Spotted Owls for many reasons. In the end, it will harm both species, the Barred Owl population will have decreased majorly and yes, the population of Spotted Owls may increase but, they will not have adapted to the ever-changing environment they live in, which could really harm them in the long run.
      Here is a link to the ‘Defenders of Wildlife’ website, it tells us what we can do to help and a few facts about the Spotted Owl.
      http://www.defenders.org/northern-spotted-owl/what-you-can-do

    • Kyle_C_3boydbence

      I agree with not killing the species to even the numbers but I think we shouldn’t just sit back and watch a the barred owls basically kill off the northern spotted owls, its just not fair. And I know what your thinking “life’s not fair” well if you could do something to help someone, wouldn’t you? It’s like that, we can do something to help so we are going to want to help.

    • Alice_B_4boydbence

      You can’t call it survival of the fittest when humans essentially set this up to happen. The Smithsonian magazine said, “As climate chaos disrupts migration patterns, wind, weather, vegetation and river flows, unexpected conflicts will arise between species, confounding efforts to halt or slow extinctions.” Human activity is the direct cause of climate change, so we’re disturbing the natural patterns of these animals. 3,600 is, honestly, not that many in the grand scheme of things. Plus, the article never cited the reason to decrease the barred owl population as being because they like spotted owls better, but rather because the spotted owl is endangered and the barred owl is far from it.

    • alexm_3boydbence

      I have to agree with you but I don’t think they want to kill the other owls just because they like the spotted ones better. They want to save the spotted owls because they are endangered and they don’t want them to become extinct. Although, I do agree that it’s wrong to kill the other species just to save the endangered, I’m pretty sure it would be the same if the 2 species were switched.

    • CJ_Bute2boydbence

      I agree you Amanda Stinger that we shouldn’t kill a species just to save another species. For example to killing barred owls just to save the spotted owls, both of these species will get harmed eventually. Since the population of barred owls will decrease and the spotted owls will increase. Which makes them harder to adapted to the changing environment, so that means that barred owls will eventually become extinct then the one’s who were killing them will be sorry. I mean, do you really want to kill over 3,600 just to save spotted owls? It’s not worth killing these species.

    • ChristineP_4BoydBence

      I totally agree with you! In the article it reminds us that “human activity caused their decline in the first place”. That should show us that we need to stop intervening with them and let nature do it’s own thing.

    • TrinityS_Per3_BoydBence

      I see some of your point, but I must disagree. If nature takes is course, that could define the end of the spotted owl. And once a species is extinct, there’s no bringing them back. I do agree that killing all of those barred owls isn’t very efficient or morally right, but I find it better to the alternative. In the attached link, there is a list of great birds that have gone extinct from lack of action that was taken to save them. I’d hate to see another bird get added onto this list because of ignorance.

      http://www.50birds.com/birds/extinct-birds.htm

    • AlexW_2boydbence

      I agree, people should not intervene with nature. If a species is not fit to survive, then it’s not fit to survive that’s that. “Survival of the fittest” Charles Darwin saw the animals change their features to survive in their environment.

    • EmilyA_Per3_boydBence

      I agree with what you’re saying because we can’t go kill our neighbor for bullying someone we like? Or just march right up to the school and tell someone to stop or kill someone. We should let nature take action, not us.

    • Riley_R_1BoydBence

      I agree with you because I am strongly against killing animals. Just like you, I think that we should just let them die on their own. I think we should try to save them, but if it involves killing another species, then we shouldn’t try to save them.

    • AshmeetS_3BoydBence

      I agree and disagree at the same time If nature takes is course, that could define the end of the spotted owl. And once a species is extinct, there’s no bringing them back. I do agree that killing all of those barred owls isn’t very efficient or morally right.

    • ClaireB_period2_BoydBence

      I agree that humans should
      not kill a species to help and endangered species. “Some opponents say the
      government can’t morally justify killing one species to save another and it is
      best to let nature take its course.” What if humans started killing other
      humans just because they moved in the same area as them? The animals have to
      adapt to their surroundings. When you help the animals adapt now, in the future
      they might rely on you to help them adapt in a different situation. By helping
      the species now it will make it harder in the future and more species will
      suffer from it.

    • JoelR_Per 3_BoydBence

      Amanda,

      I agree with you that we shouldn’t be killing other animals to save another animal. We should let nature take it’s way, but sometimes the outcome can be displeasing. According to: http://www.defenders.org/northern-spotted-owl/basic-facts the spotted owl’s population is around 2,360 pairs or 4,720 individual birds compared to a growing number of barred owls. Since barred owls are more aggressive even if we evened up the population, barred owl’s would dominate over the spotted owls. The good thing though is if the spotted owl’s survive they would probably adapt to the new environmental changes and will be better suited to handle other types of competition.

    • Miguel_A_Period2

      Yes. Nature should run its course. But as a part of nature, we do what is instinctively an idea. We’re going with our gut and doing what we see fit. Wolves eats rabbits and man kills wolves. It happens.

    • Tclark-2boydbence

      Amanda,
      I agree with you, there are sometimes when humans just shouldn’t step in and let things be. I think this is one of those times. We need to take some action and save as many northern spotted owls as we can and be aware of them, but in the long run it is better to just let nature run it’s course. As seen in the graph attached the northern owl population is decreasing while the barred owl (the invasive species) is increasing.

    • Ryan_R_2

      I agree with you! We should let nature take its course. Killing one thing, will be just as bad as letting the other die. It is not our duty to decide what lives or dies. Everything happens for a reason, and nothing happens that isn’t supposed to.

    • JohannaS_BoydBence2

      Amanda,
      I completely agree with you. When you have to kill off 3,600 of any type of animal, isn’t that just as bad as “letting the Spotted owls die”? In fact, I wouldn’t consider it that even. We’re not responsible for the taking care of and keeping of other species, so let nature run its course.

    • AndreaO_per4_BoydBence

      I agree with you…we should let nature take its own course and not force it! It is unjust to kill some species just so save another like you said the government would have to kill 3,600 barred owls and that is not fair for them because what they do its their nature and we cant change it.

    • DorianM_3boydbence

      Amanda i argee with you it’s unjust for the government to kill one animal to save another it’s just unjust and wrong I argee with you let nature take its coars

    • LawsonZ_3BoydBence

      I do not believe this. Only because the reason they are endanger is because we got ride of their environment. But you are correct when you say we need to save them but I feel that we have different methods in doing this

    • MarcusO_Per4_BoydBence

      I agree in some cases of your stance on the topic. If the reason that the animal is endangered in the first place due to human interaction such as destroying their environment. Then we should step in but if animals are putting an other animal species out of existence then those animals are going to either evolve and adapt or die out.

    • Lbateman_2boydbence

      I agree that we should just let mother nature do her thing and kill off the species like she did to the dinosaurs.

    • DevonD_2boydbence

      Amanda I agree with you we need to let this run its coarse. We will always keep an eye on the population of the spotted owl. Maybe even we can figure out a way to help out the spotted owl species from becoming extinct. There are many situations where they are killing animals to save others when they could either save the endangered species or maybe even relocate if they need to. I believe that they dont need to kill an owl just because of its actions.

    • Shemar_D_2

      Yes I completely agree survival of the fittest. Let nature take its course and we will see what happens in the end, it will probably end up working out.

    • RaagP_4BoydBence

      I agree with you. So do a lot of people. Nature should be allowed to do its thing. We can’t interrupt it work. That is changing up all the laws. A friend of mine told me that if we started saving animals then we are manipulating nature. We can just say that ‘we like these species lets save em’. There will no longer be ‘Survival of the fittest’

    • JacobG_2_BoydBence

      I agree with you Amanda, Nature should take its course and this should happen with the human touch meaning let nature do its work with us getting in the way of it.

    • MaggieS-2boydbence

      I agree i think we should let nature do its thing. But i think we should save the spies in other ways not just killing off others. Ecosystems are very fragile and we dont want to ruin those because that could have long term effects.

    • JacobF_Per4_BoydBence

      I agree completely. Natural selection would be the best way to deal with the problem. If we try and control it it’ll probably end worse.

  • CJ_Bute2boydbence

    Killing another species to save another one is not up to us. We don’t have control of what species die and what spices don’t die. Plus even if we did, I believe we shouldn’t kill another species just to save another one. Because a innocent species doesn’t deserve to be killed just to save another species. Just like in the audio it states that “the Northern spotted owl are having problems, so this guy save them by killing barn owls. Now, the experiment group is going to kill over 3,600 barn owls, but another group said to stop the experiment, because at some point you are going to have to let nature takes it’s course. Also the government shouldn’t decide to kill this species just to save another one.” This means that killing another species will cause lots of problems. Plus if you want to save the species, then don’t kill another one just to save one because that is basically not saving the species. Also these species can become extinct soon, then you feel bad.

  • madisono-2boydbence

    Clark University’s Bill Lynn, ” people recognize that there is a crisis for the Spotted Owl and that Barred Owls are part of a cause of that crisis and so they have reluctantly, essentially justified, the experimental removal of Barred Owls.”
    We should not be killing one species just for another species benefit, it could possibly, result in both species becoming extinct and it is not morally correct.

    As said by Elizabeth Shogren (NPR), “Dillard said, ‘humans have altered nature so much already, people can and should fix the mess they have made.'” This does not mean that we have to kill the Barred Owls ‘to fix the mess that we have made’, there are many other options. One option is to put some of the Spotted Owls in an endangered wildlife center so they can repopulate without having to kill off another species.

    But, just because there is a larger population of Spotted Owls doesn’t mean the problem is solved. This is because, if you just released the owls in to the wild again then history could repeat itself, and the Spotted Owls’ could be at risk of extinction once again. This being said, there is not much we can do about this issue with out possibly harming another species. One thing that we can do is having more “areas of protection”. But other than that, as said by Friends of Animals, attorney, Michael Harris said, “…At some point you have to allow the species to figure out a way to co-exist or for nature run its course…”

    I have attached a graph that shows the decrease in “protected land”.

  • MadelynR_3boydbence

    Should we kill one species to save another? No, because we don’t chose
    what lives or dies. We should be letting animals live freely with out the worry
    of surviving, because killing animals to protect another is just adding another
    animal as endangered. “This tough decision has sparked a lot of debate, and some opponents say the government can’t morally justify killing one species to save another and it is best to let nature take its course.” In this quote it’s stating that we should
    let animals be free instead of interfering with Mother Nature. In addition, there
    has been a lot of debate concerning this issue.

  • LillyC_Per3_BoydBence

    Freedom works says “The federal government is upset that spotted owls are disappearing. So they’re going to kill 3,600 barred owls to even the score.”
    “Seems like a textbook example of natural selection, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has decided to step in and play Darwin. Since it’s too expensive and time-consuming to trap the barred owls, they have decided to kill them.”
    This really upsets me the fact that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has decided to kill 3,600 barred owls because its cheaper then doing what I think would be the right thing to do and find a way to let them coexists.I believe that we can possible take some northern spotted owls to a place where they can thrive and repopulate.Killing the other species is NOT the answer.I don’t find it it fair at all to kill off so many of the other owls just because they are the more aggressive species they deserve to live too.

    I think that the government needs to stop being cheap and think about whats right.

    here is the link to that article that I read http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/joncgabriel/govt-to-kill-3600-owls-to-save-other-owls

  • BarrettC-3periodboydbence

    I personally don’t know because i would say both yes and no. I would say yes because you don’t want the Spotted Owl to go extinct. But you don’t want to kill off the Barred Owls. I mean I understand the solution that the Wildlife Service is doing and it makes sense, but what if there are other things that are killing off the Spotted Owls. If the Barred Owl is a small piece of the cause of the extinction, then why kill them. So they need to observe before they go to action and start killing owls.

  • Dylan_L_period3Bence/Boyd

    This is such a hard question to answer. I dont think it is right to kill one species to save another, but if that doesn’t happen the species might possibly die. Overall I think that we should just let nature take its course. So my answer is no. We should not kill one species to save another. Before humans were around, back when nature was pure, animals did what they do to survive. Now that we are around nature isn’t the same. We are protecting certain animals for some reason. http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/threats-to-wildlife/invasive-species.aspx This website talks about why invasive species are so dangerous. I think that they are over exaggerating. Invasive species do not pose that much of a threat. Period.

  • Kyle_C_3boydbence

    This is a interesting topic but I don’t think we need to kill a species just to keep another one. And I also don’t think we need to kill just to kill unless they are just repopulating very fast and uncontrollably and they are not native from that particular area. I think we should only kill if it is like the last resort and I mean LAST resort. One thing we could do is relocate the species that is pushing the other animal out of its habitat. I know that could take a long time but I think that is the safest and most eco friendly way to stop all this madness.

  • Tclark-2boydbence

    This is a really hard call to make because I can see from both perspectives. On one hand letting the invasive species take over doesn’t just endanger the one species it is “competing” with, it affects all the other organisms in the area affected. As we have all learned ecosystems are a chain, If you kill one link in the chain and don’t replace it the entire chain is broken. So if the new species cannot replace the now extinct one we haven’t just lost one species we have endangered all the rest in the chain. Almost everything in nature is interconnected as explained in this artice (http://articles.dailyamerican.com/2012-08-16/ourtown/33238442_1_mother-nature-wine-wasp) This is certainly supports movement to kill the invasive speices.

    On the other hand killing of animals seems morally wrong and it seems better to just let nature run its course without stepping in. There are countless times humans have tried to step in and “fix” something in nature, an example being genetically modified food. (http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php) While there are certainly many potential pros with GMOs as pointed out by the article there are many health concerns and enviromental safety concerns. It is certainly similar to the debate over invasive species. Messing with nature can have unintended and devastating results. While some may say it is worth it to take the risk, I personally don’t think it is.

    The decision to kill an invasive species should be somewhat of a case by case decision in order to make the best and smartest decision. In more drastic situations it may certainly be the best option to kill the species, but the earth survived many, many years without us to kill off invasive species. I think letting nature run its course while still trying to protect or relocate as many of the native species of owl as possible in order to preserve the species is a good option for this example.

    We can learn from situations like this for the future and prevent more invasive species from entering an environment in the first place. We also need recognize that there is a time period as shown by the graph below that the invasive species can be removed from an environment before completely taking over.

  • David_N_2

    Personally, I can’t decide whether I agree or disagree with the shooting of the Barred owls because I support both natural occurrences and the protection of endangered species, though both cannot coexist. While the Barred owl is overtaking the territory of native birds, we cannot let this issue walk by. Even so, we cannot interfere with the course of nature as we have already so grievously did. If you read the article I have provided, then you would understand that: If one was to live, than the other must die. We humans have disrupted the balance of nature far enough, and we should not try and “fix” this problem. This is a natural event of nature. Mr.Diller said: “It’s very upsetting to see that happening, and there’s nothing that’s gonna stop these expansion of Barred owls from continuing…” which is undoubtedly true. Indeed, it is excruciatingly upsetting to see such beauty fly of as another flies in, but that shouldn’t be a reason to interfere. Even though the Barred owls have invaded the Spotted owl’s territory, it is hopeful that the spotted owls will move to another location and be at peace.

    http://discovermagazine.com/2005/feb/earth-without-people#.UvrLpL_5eJc

  • BellaP_3boydbence

    I think we should kill off a good amount of species to save another, but not too many. If we don’t kill some of one species the other one will never last. Either way one species is going to die. Do you want one species to go completely extinct or would you rather save both of them by killing some of one species? Using the owl example above, Freedom works says “The federal government is upset that spotted owls are disappearing. So they’re going to kill 3,600 barred owls to even the score.” Hints the last three words, even the score. If we don’t even this score in this example the Spotted Owls will go extinct. As an animal lover it pains me to say kill such a beautiful creature but if it is to save another species I think that it could be worth it. I think we should kill one species to protect the endangered species.

  • Riley_R_1BoydBence

    I don’t think we should kill one species just to save another because that is just plain wrong. If they are going to die, then we should let that happen. We should try to save them, but if involves killing other things, then we should just let them die on their own. “This tough decision has sparked a lot of debate, and some opponents say the government can’t morally justify killing one species to save another and it is best to let nature take its course.” I agree with this because it says that we shouldn’t kill animals to save other animals. I am strongly against animal abuse, animal cruelty, and killing animals.

  • CarlosR_3BoydBence

    See killing animals to make room for others is wrong. Nature is tough and cruel and we as humans have made it tougher and crueler. Animals have to be more fit to survive and we can’t stop invasive species from killing off other animals. These animals cannot co-exist amongst each other so the only solutions without killing would be to let nature take its course or build a habitat for these owls. But I did some research and found that these owls aren’t too important to keep around. With another similar species of owl coming in, their presence wouldn’t be missed. Barred owls would still consume the amount of rodents, smaller birds and reptiles that the spotted owls ate, so really what could be so bad about these Barred owls?

  • JoelR_Per 3_BoydBence

    I don’t think we should kill another species just to save another. If we kill other animals just to save another were making the population of other animals decreases. As of October 2009, 1,361 plants and animals in the United States were listed as threatened or endangered. According to: http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Wildlife-Conservation/Endangered-Species-Act.aspx. We can’t kill more animals just to protect these plants and animals. Well just be adding to this big list. As of 2013 there are 5,689 animals that are endangered according too:http://www.statisticbrain.com/endangered-species-statistics/. We should try to save animals by making more national parks. I think this would be the best peaceful way to protect animals.

  • Melody_M_2

    I don’t think we should kill one species just to save another because you’re still killing off another animal. But I think we should kill some of the species to save one but not all of them. Making one animal go completely extinct for another animal doesn’t make much since. Like killing the barred owl will fix the problem but you are still killing the animal and I don’t think that is right.

  • MarkL_3BoydBence

    I don’t think it’s right to kill one species to save another. That would be unfair. It’s best to let nature work this out by itself. It seems that when a group of people try to alter nature, they regret it later. I came across another article that speaks about this same subject from a few years ago. (http://www.npr.org/2011/06/12/137090033/killing-one-owl-species-to-save-another.) In the article, an expert quoted claims that “To try to control barred owls across a large region would be incredibly expensive, and you’d have to keep doing it forever because if you ever stopped, they would begin to come back into those areas.” In conclusion, I don’t think it’s right to kill off the species and according to the article I linked, there’s no point in it anyway.

  • alexm_3boydbence

    I believe we should not kill another species just to save another. What’s the point of trying to save an endangered species if your only increasing the chance of the other species getting endangered by killing them. In the audio it stated, “stop the experiment, because at some point you are going to have to let nature takes it’s course.” I have to totally agree with what was said because he is right. In the end its all up to nature, and if you really want the endangered species to survive, I’m sure there is other ways to save them with out killing an innocent species of owls.

  • Alice_B_4boydbence

    “Since human activity caused their decline in the first place”, it is u to us to take responsibility for this species and do what we can to save it. If that means capturing and killing some of a thriving species, so be it. This is our fault, and we have to be held responsible for our actions. Since they both fill the same niche, there would no major effects to the food chain or the survival of those who prey on the spotted owl or what the spotted owl eats. The other species of owl shouldn’t be completely killed off, but instead limited so that the northern spotted owl has a chance to survive.

  • ClaireB_period2_BoydBence

    We should not kill a species to save another. Humans started to kill species to help another specie, but this is affecting animals more each day. As it stated in the resource, “You have to let a species coexists or nature to run its course.” This means species
    need to solve problems on their own and to adapt to changes I their ecosystem.
    When we help an endangered species we are creating more problems than what we
    stared with. The best way to stop more problems from happening in the ecosystem
    is to stop killing animals to help another species survive.

  • brittneyd_3boydbence

    I think the northern spotted owls should just be located and put in a sanctuary until they can repopulate. “The Northern Spotted Owl is considered an “indicator” species, in that the presence or absence of the owl is a direct indicator of the health of the forest ecosystems in which the species resides.” .
    It may not be necessary to kill off all of the barred owls if this can be accomplished.

  • IsabellaV_3boydbence

    I honestly don’t know if it’s worth killing one species to save another or let them die out because I can see from both sides of the case.

    If we look at it this way, it’s ironic to kill one species to save another because either way, one of the species are going to die. If you completely wipe out the Barred Owls, they die. If you don’t do anything the Spotted Owls will die. It’s probably best if we let nature do it’s thing, stop messing with it, and see what happens to the Spotted Owls. “At some point you have to allow these species to either figure out a way to coexist or for nature to run its course” Michael Harris stated in the article.This is also a survival of the fittest situation. You can’t say “we did this, so we have to fix it” Yes, humans did this to the environment, but we’ve been doing this for decades. Other species have survived. It’s pretty much apart of nature now, sadly, but in the end the stronger and faster invasive species are always going win over the native species.

    But if we were to look on the other hand, if we don’t kill or control the population of the Barred Owls, the Spotted Owls will eventually die out due to competition of resources. We have the power to limit the population of the Barred Owls to save the Spotted Owls from extinction. In the article Bill Lynn said, “People recognized there’s a crisis for the spotted owl, that barred owls are part of the cause of that crisis and, so, they reluctantly, essentially justified the experimental removal of barred owls” The Barred Owls can also ruin the ecosystem because since there are so many of them, their resources are limited. If they continue to grow, the population of their food source can possibly decrease. Once their resources of shelter and food decrease, then they die, too.

    Personally, I don’t know which one is the correct one to do. I have a graph here that shows multiple invasive species that have come into the coastlines of Great Britain.

  • JTM_3boydbence

    I feel like that if there is an invasive species in the area that is causing problems they should be removed because it messes up even us as a humans. In Louisiana Nutria rats are destroying the cost line and swamps and the economy is taking a huge hit because the state lives and makes money off the coast.

    Go to website for more info. http://www.businessinsider.com/nutria-rat-destroying-louisiana-2013-5

  • Tayla_k_4BoydBence

    Should we kill one species to save another? Why or why not? I think that killing one species to save another is not the right thing to do, but also letting a species go extinct is not the right thing to do either. “Today, it’s rare to spot these owls. Logging and land conversion of their habitat has contributed to a decline in their population.” I think that they could maybe try moving one species to another location where they could adapt well and continue living and surviving. But if that wouldn’t be possible, then I say no, it is not ok to kill off one species to save another. We cannot interrupt the path nature takes, humans are doing that. Trying to be helpful but hurting in the process. In this case i think that they should just leave nature to itself and not kill the owls. https://www.google.com/search?q=endangered+species+list&safe=active&espv=210&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=olH8UoyoCePb2AWh5IGgCA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1254&bih=611#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=AgXU61TaCXyKSM%253A%3BTVqyT6MM42m-cM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.project.org%252Fimages%252Fgraphs%252FEndangered.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.project.org%252Finfo.php%253FrecordID%253D268%3B596%3B369

  • Rachael P. 2nd BoydBence

    Currently there are two species competing against one another for food and shelter in order to survive, the spotted owl and the barred owl. In the world of nature that is a common tactic but in this case the normal routine is polluted. The spotted owls are endangered because of humans tearing down their homes. Now the population is at larger risk of dying off with the arrival of the barred owls. With the population of spotted owls in California and Columbia declining, something must be done in order to save the species from extinction. This is why I believe we should lower the population of the barred owls to save the species of the Spotted Owls.
    This isn’t the first time this type of situation has occurred. As mentioned above in 2013 Florida allowed python hunting in order to lower the population of pythons in the area so they wouldn’t endanger the other species who were already living there. In Florida, people would release pythons out into the wild.This upset the balance of the habitat. With the added species the food chain in that environment was caught off guard and prey of the new arrivals(pythons) began to decrease faster than they could reproduce. Much like the problem with the owls this started because humans got involved. So, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conversation Commission decided to hold a competition for people to go python hunting in order to try and fix the disturbance that was created. The competition was very successful and all together 68 pythons were found.“It’s unknown just how many Burmese pythons live in Florida, but catching 68 snakes is an “exceptional” number, added Kenneth Krysko.” The reason for providing this information was to help the argument that sometimes when people make a mistake involving wildlife it needs to be fixed by the same people who started it, instead of letting nature and animals die. If we don’t step in to help these owls they will end up going extinct which will mess up the food chain in that environment. These spotted owls survive on a diet that consist of flying squirrels, wood rats, mice and other small rodents. Without the spotted owls the population of these animals listed will end up increasing more than decreasing causing over population. If we can get rid of just enough of the barred owls then the two owl species could possibly find a balance within sharing the same environment. The barred owls don’t necessarily have to be killed instead they could be taken to an owl reserve or a zoo even. Balance needs to be restored and the only way for that to happen is if humans step in.

  • ChristineP_4BoydBence

    We should not kill off one species, to save another. Let nature happen naturally. If we intervene, it will only create more problems. “This tough decision has sparked a lot of debate, and some opponents say the government can’t morally justify killing one species to save another and it is best to let nature take its course.” This quote mentions how the government can’t morally justify killing off one species to save another. If the government can’t morally justify it, then we shouldn’t try to. Nature should be natural.

  • TrinityS_Per3_BoydBence

    Although there is a cost to killing of one animal to ensure the survival of another, I believe it’s necessary to decrease the population of the barred owl by force. If Mother Nature takes its course, that might cost the very existence of the spotted owl, which is the same as looking at the problem and then ignoring it. I understand those who see all life as a very sacred thing, but I am also valuing the lives of the owls being pushed out of their homes. And even after some of the barred owls die, they are so territorial and aggressive that they’ll come back in no time. Because of the decline in nearby forests, the animals have no where to go, and they are forced to do things that they wouldn’t naturally do. Attached is a video link which looks at this issue with a lighter heart, while still remaining on top of the main problem. There is also a line graph showing the relation of the forest decrease and the amount of land available for the owls.

    Video: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/432583/january-28-2014/spotted-owls-vs–barred-owls—david-yarnold

  • AlexW_2boydbence

    I believe that we should let mother nature take her course and leave the animals alone. Charles Darwin came up with the theory of natural selection.”Survival of the fittest.” He examined the finches and he saw how they adapted to their environment. Those owls that are endangered have to either move to a new ecosystem, adapt to their current ecosystem, or die. We should not kill the invasive species, because the endangered species is not fit to survive.

  • EmilyA_Per3_boydBence

    Should we kill one species to save another? Why or why not?
    Well, no. Because if we kill one species then we should at least try to even the number out. Because the government can’t actually just go and kill something, or owls, because one is dying off. It actually is very immoral, but I understand why they’re trying to even the number out. But, honestly it shouldn’t be up to the government to bring a species back

  • emily_p_2shuttle

    The northern spotted owl is in danger, the barred owl is also coming into the picture. The barred owl is “is larger and more aggressive”. People shouldn’t be worried about the northern spotted owl dying out. Yes, it is very sad to lose another species, but if you think about it, all species will be gone one day. There are species that depend on the barred owl to survive, so if we killed the barred owl, we would also be killing another species and so on and so forth. So we should not kill one species to save another.

  • Ryan_R_2

    Should we kill one species to save another? No, because we don’t chose
    what lives or dies. We are not god, or mother nature, so we should just let nature take its corse. We shouldn’t be taking one animal out of existence, just to save another. Either way we lose.

    • KaraP_Per2_BoydBence

      I agree, it is a lose lose situation. However, we would lose more if we chose to kill one species, because that could end up killing two species. According to the chart below them main reason for extinction is completely our fault. We are destroying their habitats while we become more and more urban. So even it we did kill off the Barred Owl, the Northern Spotted Owl still doesn’t have much of a chance of living. Also, why would we spend all this trouble over an owl when there are so many other extinct animals in the U.S. and all over the world ( as shown in the chart below). We are making to big of a deal of this, we just need to trust nature and let it be.

  • Guest

    Should we kill one species to save another? No, because we don’t chose
    what lives or dies. We should be letting animals live freely with out the worry
    of surviving, because killing animals to protect another is just adding another
    animal as endangered. “This tough decision has sparked a lot of debate, and some opponents say the government can’t morally justify killing one species to save another and it is best to let nature take its course.” This quote mentions how the government can’t morally justify killing off one species to save another. If the government can’t morally justify it, then we shouldn’t try to. Let Nature do it’s thing!

    • AndreaO_per4_BoydBence

      I agree with you, we need to let animals live freely in their habitats without the worry of someone come and kill their whole pack or themselves. We need to leave species alone because then the animal world wouldn’t function the way its supposed to.

    • BarrettC-3periodboydbence

      Guest, we should let nature do it’s thing, and I agree that if we kill the Barred Owls that they too could become extinct. But we need to find out possible ways to help the Spotted Owls without killing the Barred Owls.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/260150/killing-owls-save-owls-lou-dolinar

    • JasminR_3BoydBence

      I agree with you when you animals should ”live freely”. You Quoted the podcast and say how the government can’t morally justify killing off one species to save another. In the beginning of the podcast said Its is legally required to safe a endanger species. So the government has the right to kill the poor owl, But That would endanger the other owl like you said.

    • trevorosterhoutbenceboyd

      i agree with you because like you said it not our job to dession who should live and who should die i think it nature disstion

    • SydneyA_Per4_BoydBence

      I agree with you. Everything happens for a reason. We shouldn’t kill off another species to save another. We can’t be selfish. Let nature run it’s course.

    • AlexW_2boydbence

      I disagree, nature’s way, survival of the fittest, and all of that junk. I believe we should preserve the biodiversity in our world. Let’s look the Holocaust. Adolf Hitler and the rest of the Nazi Party claimed that their race is superior and as a result 6,000,000 Jewish people died. Those owls from the east must be stopped.

    • RaagP_4BoydBence

      Yes! If we change up nature, we are changing some serious laws/theories. For example, if we bring back another species by a mass reproduction we are throwing out the theory of the survival of the fittest into the trash.

    • JTM_3boydbence

      I under stand your point but that dose not make since. If one species was occupying and area first it has a role or nitch in its ecosystem witch effects every other animal in the ecosystem including us as humans. In Louisiana Nutra Rats are destroying the swamp and is kill of this species of grass that lives in the swamp. The grass is wear the craw fish lay there eggs and now that the grass is going away the number of craw fish have went down so there for the economy has been hit hard.

    • MaxP_3boyd_bence

      I somewhat agree with you. It’s wrong to mess with or disrupt nature. But that is exactly what these Barrel Owls are doing. So to prevent nature we must lower the population of the Barrel Owls to have the Northern Spotted Owls population rise. To me, learning from the Asian Carp invasion, I don’t want that to happen. And I think the entire U.S. has learned too that when you don’t react fast enough it’s too late. Now Asian Carp don’t have a animal that feeds on them and are rapidly reproducing and very close to The Great Lakes. So too keep other rare birds and insects protected from whats happening in the chart below, I think it’s acceptable to kill one species to protect another, only if the species getting killed is a non-native invasive species.

    • MaggieS-2boydbence

      I agree with you guest. I think we shouldent choses who dies and who lives i think we should let nature do its own thing. We could throw off the whole ecosystem by doing this.

    • Trent_H_Period3 Boyd?/Bence?

      Very true, we can’t change nature decision of killing an entire species. We must sit back and watch but not intervene.

  • AshmeetS_3BoydBence

    Should we kill one species to save another?I think not because we should be letting animals live freely the way they live. We don’t choose who lives or dies in this world. If we kill other animals to save others we just make more of a mess. “This tough decision has sparked a lot of debate, and some opponents say the government can’t morally justify killing one species to save another and it is best to let nature take its course.” This quote mentions how the government can’t morally justify killing off one species to save another. If the government can’t morally justify it, then we shouldn’t try to.

  • KaraP_Per2_BoydBence

    Killing one animal to save another animal won’t solve any problems. Would you rather have the rest of the Northern Spotted owls die (already endangered) or would you rather have thousands of Barred Owls die so that maybe some of the Northern Spotted owls can live? Who is to say which owl is “better”? Even if we killed off all the Barred Owls, the Northern Spotted Owl would most likely still be in danger “As a result of declining habitat, there are fewer than 100 pairs of Northern spotted owls in British Columbia, Canada, 1,200 pairs in Oregon, 560 pairs in northern California and 500 pairs in the state of Washington.” (found on http://www.defenders.org/northern-spotted-owl/basic-facts ) As you can see the Barred Owl isn’t the only reason the Northern Spotted Owls population is dropping, it is also habitat loss. So maybe instead of killing off a whole different species to save them, maybe we should be more focused on preserving their habitat. After that nature will take its corse. If we decided we need to kill Barred Owls, then they will definitely die but if we don’t then there is still a chance that they both can live, and there will definitely be less dead owls in total. “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” ― Charles Darwin ( found on http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/survival-of-the-fittest ) As humans we change our environment a lot, we are the reason the Northern Spotted Owls are endangered, but they can either adapt to manage the change, or they will die. Natural Selection is a part of life, we can’t avoid it.

  • Miguel_A_Period2

    It’s all very hard to really answer in a definitive way that allows everyone to be appeased.
    Some people may choose that it’s wrong, some people may choose that it’s right. People worry over population, while some people worry over morality.
    Honestly, I think that there are two ideal ways to solve this conundrum. Nature and conclusion.
    Survival of the fittest and natural selection are the basic Darwinian laws that state whether or not a certain species shall survive in their environment. The rare owls are clearly a weaker type which nature has selected to be diminished in comparison to the aggressive owls which are clearly the stronger type. Nature is playing out the classic tale of the strong and the weak. One shall survive and the other shall fall. We cannot intervene in this act for it is wrong. Some say that because we caused it we SHOULD “help out”. I say, let nature run its course. You can argue that we have to fix what we created. But I argue that we TOO are part of nature. Nature isn’t just limited to the animals that roam in the forest, just like technology is not limited to the current smartphones of today.

    As a part of nature, we are a dominating species and we should continue that way.
    The U.S Wildlife and Fish Service is conducting its own experiments in order to see whether or not killing the aggressive owls so that the rare owls can survive. We don’t really know what the outcome of doing this is just yet, but we can only hope that it’ll help the rare owls. So, I say to just wait and see. If we can intervene and do something useful, so be it.
    In conclusion, I have to answer, “Should we kill one species to save another?”. People can debate on and on over what is right and what is helpful, but I say to either intervene since we are “obligated” to act, or to let the beautiful thing that is nature run its course and be the end of it.

  • JohannaS_BoydBence2

    I believe in situation, killing off one species to save another is not necessarily the correct thing to do. Nature has a way of doing things so that it can sustain itself and keep various ecosystems cooperating together. I think instead of killing off these predators, we should fine a way to introduce them to a new food source that would keep them from the endangered species, or take some less violent action to re-locate either the invasive barred owl, or the owls that were there first.
    If any of these things were feasible, then I say that would be the best route, but if not, I believe we should let nature take its course. Like I said earlier, nature seems to have a way of sorting things out so they work, so we should let that happen. If we try and interfere too much, we could also do some more potential damage somehow.
    I believe that humans are rash and reckless often when it comes to things like this. So if we are really insistent about saving this one species, we should be really careful not to harm others in the process, and I don’t just mean the barred owl. We could be doing unknown harm to another species without even realizing it until it’s too late.
    So I stick by my original statement, that the best course of action is no action at all.

  • JasminR_3BoydBence

    I don’t think we should kill one Species to save another. By doing this we are not help the environment. We should be the animals live freely and nature flow like it should. By killing the barred owl by popular of the spotted owl will increase causing overpopulation of the spotted owl. It is “legally required to help endangered species” says the podcast. completely kill one Species is not the way to go kill some or removing some would help, but completely kill the whole species is cruel and unnecessary. I find the a infographics about the barred owl and a graph.

    • AndreaO_per4_BoydBence

      I agree with you, by killing animals we are not helping the environment at all, we need all these species for “the circle of life” …as some might call it… for the world to function. We need predators to eat other species so that nature can work. And I also agree that killing some or removing some is better.

    • BarrettC-3periodboydbence

      I agree just let nature do what it does. But if they don’t want the spotted owl to go extinct, then they could raise them and let their numbers grow. Just like what Guest said oboe you.

      http://www.wfpa.org/sustainable-forestry/fish-and-wildlife/northern-spotted-owl/

    • trevorosterhoutbenceboyd

      i think your right because they came in and i think that both should live in order save one owl specie i think nature should do what nature intended

    • LawsonZ_3BoydBence

      I do not agree with you. This is because you say that if you kill one the other will become overpopulated. This is not true because over population comes from having a normal population and having the hunter be absent.

    • MaxP_3boyd_bence

      I disagree with you. Who says the spotted owl will over populate, it will just re-populate. I will agree to killing of another species only if a non-native invasive species is killing off a native species. Below is a chart that shows where Asian Carp are invading. The U.S. is concerned about this because when they hear noise from a engine they jump, and it’s like a 20lb bowling ball with their hard skulls flying at you. This is a danger to little kids and really everyone. Asian Carp have injured and even killed people, and they are going to keep killing if we don’t stop them.

    • SydneyA_Per4_BoydBence

      I agree with you. We shouldn’t be selfish and try to save another species when we will just be killing another. Everything happens for a reason.

    • Lbateman_2boydbence

      I agree that we shouldn’t kill the species so that another could survive. Just lower the population of the species so that the other one at least has a fighting chance, but other than that I do not think that we should intervene

    • HunterE_Per 2_BoydBence

      I agree with you saying we shouldn’t kill the barred owl. THAT I agree. But I don’t think we should “let nature run its course”. I think we need to do something for the spotted owl. They need help. You would want help if you were in their position, right? I say help the poor things. And if we don’t help them, then how are we any better than the barred owls killing them off?

    • Trent_H_Period3 Boyd?/Bence?

      I totally agree with you, we must let nature takes it course and let it just happen no matter what.

    • MadelynR_3boydbence

      I completely agree we shouldn’t be killing one species to save another, because we aren’t helping the environment at all. When killing a different species its making that population of owls go down. I also agree with the fact that we should let the animals live and roam freely.

    • MichelleS_3_boydbence

      I agree. If we are trying to help endangered species then we shouldn’t be killing one of them off to help another. We need to leave nature alone and not interfere with it. Since we were the cause of this situation then I believe that we must take action that is beneficial to both species. I think that if we repopulate one of the species then this would be more beneficial to both species rather than killing off one of the species.

  • DorianM_3boydbence

    :

    Our big question is should we kill one animal
    to save another. The northern spotted owl is in danger but do we
    kill the barred owl even though it “is larger and more aggressive”. I
    believe it isn’t right to kill the barred owl it isn’t are
    choice to make we shouldn’t be messing with the wild life it isn’t right we
    should be saving the Northern spotted owl instead of
    killing another species of owls. Its not right to kill of a species to
    save another species. We need to find a less violent way to protect the northern spotted owls and all the other owls across the world. We should start taking what’s
    left of the northern spotted owls to shelters so they can reproduces and make a big population instead of killing the barred owls.

    • BarrettC-3periodboydbence

      I agree, that is an excellent idea. I hope that the wildlife serves people have this in mind because you can’t kill of a different species just because it’s bigger and more aggressive. That’s just nature. You can’t change nature. But you can help prevent or help out nature to do what is right.

    • alexm_3boydbence

      I agree, we should just let nature take it’s course because it is wrong to mess with the animals. We should most definitely find other solutions because I doubt killing the species is our only option. I do have to agree with you that we should take them to shelters and let the reproduce.

    • trevorosterhoutbenceboyd

      i agree with you because nature selection should run it closures so you are in fact right in my opinion

    • SydneyA_Per4_BoydBence

      I agree with you. Nature should just run its course. There are reasons why this species is dying off and the other is surviving. We shouldn’t bother nature. We should just let it run it’s course

    • ErinB_2boydbence

      I agree with you. We need to let nature do its thing, instead of getting involved. If they want to protect the Spotted owls, they shouldn’t start killing the Barred owls; they can find less harmful ways.

    • DevonD_2boydbence

      Guest I completely agree with you that we dont need kill one if we can repopulate the other. Its not right to kill an animal even if they are tearing another species away. We can come up with many different ideas to help save a species than to kill another.

    • MaxP_3boyd_bence

      I somewhat agree with you. We should spend more time trying to save the Northern Spotted Owl but I think that the way to save it is to exterminate the Barrel Owl, or at least migrate it back to it’s original home. If we don’t their could be some major consequences. We didn’t properly address the Asian Carp invasion and now they are a enormous problem. They are very close to getting into The Great Lakes, and since they rapidly reproduce and eat food native species eat they are trouble. And they jump out of the water when they hear a boat motor. So I think it’s good to kill one species to protect another if only the species being killed is a non-native invasive species.

    • HunterE_Per 2_BoydBence

      Yes. We shouldn’t just let them die off right? I think we need to actually do something to save them. Why should we stand back and let it happen? These owls are live things. Not specks that we just allow to live.

    • Trent_H_Period3 Boyd?/Bence?

      Very true, we shouldn’t just kill one species to save another just because we can’t bare to see an animal that we love go. “If you love something let it go”

    • Nicholas_M_Period1

      I agree we need to find an alternative solution to save BOTH species. I believe the solution is instead of eliminating the invasive species we should capture some and relocate them. We will also have to capture some of the native species to make sure they don’t go extinct before we can get rid of the invasive species.

    • JacobF_Per4_BoydBence

      I agree, but I don’t think we should intervene. We should let natural selection set in and if worse comes to worst we can get involved and protect the spotted owls.

    • MichelleS_3_boydbence

      I completely agree. Instead of killing one species to save another we should repopulate one of them to a different area. We need to make a decision that will be beneficial to both species and not just be beneficial to one of them.

  • AndreaO_per4_BoydBence

    Should we kill species to save other species? No, It is not fair for other animals to be killed so we could save some other species. Animals should be allowed to live freely in their habitat. “This tough decision has sparked a lot of debate, and some opponents say the government can’t morally justify killing one species to save another and it is best to let nature take its course.” We should not be killing animals just so that we could save another…we should let nature decide by itself, even though some species are in danger of extinction we should allow their predators to “do them” and not kill them

  • DorianM_3boydbence

    Our big question is should we kill one animal
    to save another. The northern spotted owl is in danger but do we
    kill the barred owl even though it “is larger and more aggressive”. I
    believe it isn’t right to kill the barred owl it isn’t are
    choice to make we shouldn’t be messing with the wild life it isn’t right we
    should be saving the Northern spotted owl instead of
    killing another species of owls. Its not right to kill of a species to
    save another species. We need to find a less violent way to protect the northern spotted owls and all the other owls across the world. We should start taking what’s
    left of the northern spotted owls to shelters so they can reproduces and make a big population instead of killing the barred owls.

  • LawsonZ_3BoydBence

    I do believe that we need to step in. Some people say that we should let nature do what it does. But the problem is with that is that we have moved the owls and put them in a bad situation. Also evening the balance is a very big thing in nature. And those are the main reasons that I believe we need to help the endangered species.

  • Luke_A_Period3

    Killing one species to save another is wrong. Natural Selection will let the earth run its course. We do not need to waste time or money killing of birds, just to save other birds, or any species for that matter. If a species goes extinct, that is not the end of the world. We should let nature do natures thing. We spend to much money killing animals instead of saving them, as shown below.

    • Luke_A_Period3

      Better Image Quality

  • Guest

    If we humans are the cause for certain animals extinction, for example destroying their environment or moving animals to new locations. This is when we should step in and try to keep them from dying off. If an animal is going extinct due to an another animal that is there not due to humans, that animal species has to either evolve or die out. That’s just nature.

    • RaagP_4BoydBence

      I agree. Natural selection must take place. If we are involved in the reason they are dying out, then we should try to help them out. But, if species are being eaten up faster than they are reproducing, then those species will have to evolve or die out.

    • Nicholas_M_Period1

      Sometimes a certain species is crucial within an ecosystem for it to maintain homeostasis. If homeostasis isn’t maintained within the ecosystem it can cause even MORE animals to go extinct which could in turn throw the ecosystem further out of homeostasis and it turns into a viscous cycle. For this reason I believe we should intervene if we see an animal is going extinct.

    • MichelleS_3_boydbence

      I agree. If we are not the cause of the decrease or increase of a species then we must not interfere. But if we are the reason of the species increase of decrease we must do something that is helping the species without hurting them.

  • trevorosterhoutbenceboyd

    i think that killing one animal to save another is wrong because natural selection should run it corse and let nature because that one specie is in trouble so it nature corse

  • Guest

    I believe that nature should not be messed with. And theres a reason why, the Asian Carp have entered the waters of Illinois. In 1993 catfish farm owners used them to feed on algae and plankton. But in 1993 there was a massive flood and the Asian Carp escaped, ever since then they have been rapidly reproducing and eating other wildlife’s food. In effect the other species starves and dies off. Turtles, crappie and other species are dying everyday due to Asian Carp. So if one spieces is not native and is ruining the balance of that food chain or eco system, only then will I agree to kill of another speices.

    • RaagP_4BoydBence

      I agree with you completely. Frankly, we should help mother nature if there is disturbance and its not going away. If the eco/food system gets messed up and after a few years it is not going away, then we should help.

    • Nicholas_M_Period1

      It’s completely possible that then we didn’t have the proper means to get rid of this carp and now we do have the proper means of fixing this problem. You’re right that this has happened and these Asian Carp are truely reeking havoc on that ecosystem but we need to prevent this from happening and fix it if it does happen not just let it be.

    • HunterE_Per 2_BoydBence

      I do not think we should just let these owls die out. They are living things, not something that we just allow to be here. They have homes and families just like us. If humans were being endangered by some other species, wouldn’t you want help? If so, then why is it any different for these owls?

  • MaxP_3boyd_bence

    I believe that nature should not be messed with. And theres a reason why, the Asian Carp have entered the waters of Illinois. In 1993 catfish farm owners used them to feed on algae and plankton. But in 1993 there was a massive flood and the Asian Carp escaped, ever since then they have been rapidly reproducing and eating other wildlife’s food. In effect the other species starves and dies off. Turtles, crappie and other species are dying everyday due to Asian Carp. So if one species is not native and is ruining the balance of that food chain or eco system, only then will I agree to kill of another species. It is appropriate to take action on a non-native invasive species, the U.S. agrees. The U.S. has began electrocute waters containing Asian Carp, I see this as a last ditch effort. They are acting appropriately, guarding the entrance to The Great Lakes. If the Asian Carp reach The Great Lakes and populate, there is no stopping them. So the U.S is doing the right thing, which proves my point. It is only acceptable to kill a species if they are non-native and invasive. Below is a chart with where Asian Carp are today, area invaded are marked with red dots.

  • MarcusO_Per4_BoydBence

    If we humans are the cause for certain animals extinction, for example destroying their environment or moving animals to new locations. This is when we should step in and try to keep them from dying off. If an animal is going extinct due to an another animal that is there not due to humans, that animal species has to either evolve or die out. That’s just nature. ““This tough decision has sparked a lot of debate, and some opponents say the government can’t morally justify killing one species to save another. “

  • SydneyA_Per4_BoydBence

    I believe that killing off another species to save another is wrong. Just like everyone else has said natural selection should just run its course. There is a reason so many species have died off and the others have survived. If it means that a rare species dies off then so be it. We shouldn’t be selfish just because a species is going to go extinct. We shouldn’t interfere with nature.

  • ErinB_2boydbence

    We should not be allowed to kill one species to save another. I believe that everything on this Earth was placed here for many reasons. All these species are apart of things with major importance like the food chain and the food web which is not only important to, but important to us. If we kill one species it will turn into a chain reaction; one will wipe out another, and another, and another. We need to allow nature to do its thing, with out jumping in and trying to help.

  • Lbateman_2boydbence

    I do not believe that we should kill a species to save another. It is like mother nature and the dinosaurs it happened and there is nothing we can do about it or should do about it. I think that we should just let mother nature do her part in killing off a species. I would like one good reason why we should interfere with mother nature and upset the balance of the ENTIRE world.

  • DevonD_2boydbence

    Should we kill one species to save another? No, because we cant just kill a species to save another. In the article when they were saying that the barred owl came down from Canada to California and was starting to populate that area more where the spotted owl usually is. You cant just kill a species to make room for another. Even though the barred owl from the east is forcing the spotted owl out of its territory doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to kill the owls so that the spotted owl can still live there. Killing these owls isn’t changing anything eventually the same species will probably end up coming back . We really only need to help the endangered species to repopulate. Maybe the U.S Fish and Wildlife service can take some of the spotted owls so that they can have them repopulate. Killing the owls wouldn’t be the best idea , but helping the endangered species out would.

  • NWeix-1stboydbence

    I honestly feel that, since we put these animals in such danger via our ignorant actions to start, it is our duty as humane beings to save their lives by forcing the other owls out. Those owls migrated, so they should have at least some remnant of their species in their former habitat. So, it’d be a fair scenario.

  • Shemar_D_2

    I think that nature will go on its own course and we don’t have to interfere to protect natural predators. We shouldn’t have to kill a species because it’s more aggressive. Even though they are invasive so are we .”we are under obligation to help these threatened species since human activity caused their decline in the first place”. We aren’t really obligated more as we should just be safe.

  • RaagP_4BoydBence

    I do not think that we should kill one species just to save another. I think that because its all natural. I mean that its all natural. Darwin created a theory of natural selection, or survival of the fittest. We would be disturbing natures law by doing this.

  • Nicholas_M_Period1

    I believe we can come to a compromise on this issue. Instead of eliminating the invasive species we should capture some and relocate them. We will also have to capture some of the native species to make sure they don’t go extinct before we can get rid of the invasive species. We can then breed them both within captivity and then release them in their native habitats. If we do this we can save BOTH of these species.

    • nathanl_period4_boydandbence

      But if the invasive species is there because there is no longer enough room in there natural habitat then they would simply move back down again, therefore doing nothing for either species.

  • HunterE_Per 2_BoydBence

    Let’s think rationally here. Why kill a species to save one when we can literally just take the endangered species and put them somewhere else? That way, we keep both species from killing each other, and they can both prosper. No harm done to either of them. Sure, we’d be moving that species somewhere else, but I’d say it’s a lot better than just killing the other species like they don’t matter. A life is a life. No life is more important than any other.
    And plus, why punish the barred owl for doing what it was taught to do? I bet they were taught, from when they were born, to protect and prosper. And, from the looks of it, that’s what they’re doing. Why kill them for that?

    I say just take the spotted owl and move it somewhere else, but have it be the same climate. Will it take more effort? Yes. But will it be a better and more of a moral choice? Most definitely.

    • Kobe Hutchinson

      Yes, but thats a whole lot of money, and the Barred owl is an invasive speices, which means that it’s not supposed to be there in the first place. The article doesn’t say were eliminating Barred owls from the ecosystem, we are just controlling the population of Barred owls in old growth forest, where they aren’t supposed to be anyway.

  • JacobF_Per4_BoydBence

    I think instead of eliminating the whole species we should try and limit the breeding. While it isn’t natural for the invasive species to be there killing the prey the prey will adapt. It may take a long time, but they will adapt and both species will be able to survive and thrive in the same ecosystem. If that doesn’t work we should help the species repopulate.

  • Trent_H_Period3 Boyd?/Bence?

    I think that it would be wrong to eliminate one species just to save another, it would be pointless. We can only watch to see what happens through this process and let nature do what it needs to do no matter what the outcome is. We can’t get rid of an animal’s species just for the reason that they are doing they’re doing their job. Some people may think that it would be morally wrong to just watch as one species is killed but that doesn’t make it right to kill that other species off.

    • RaagP_4BoydBence

      “If you love it, let it go”

  • JacobG_2_BoydBence

    Should we kill another to save another? No we should not for many reasons. In this quote “The real cure for our environmental problems is to understand that our job is to salvage Mother Nature. We are facing a formidable enemy in this field. It is the hunters… and to convince them to leave their guns on the wall is going to be very difficult.” Now this may not be directly connected to the topic but it gives a good perspective on what exactly can and does happen the these incident animals. The picture that is attached to this is a wide rang of animals that are killed each year around. From many different incidents, from testing with rabbits all the way to killing cows for food, with these actions comes great harm to thee animals as well as the discouragement form the community. When all of this comes to the topic of deciding weather or not to kill another species to keep or save another we should go through with it. The balance of nature is sacred and it has been that way for thousands of years should be kept that way. Messing with it could lead to bad things and some people don’t realize that.

  • MichelleS_3_boydbence

    We should not kill one species just to save another. I dont believe that we should kill the barred owl. We need to let nature do its thing and not interfere with it. We should not get involved. We can’t mess with nature and decide what needs to be reduced and what needs to stay. No species is better than the other. I agree with RaagP_4BoydBence when he said in his post,”Darwin created a theory of natural selection, or survival of the fittest. We would be disturbing natures law by doing this.” By decreasing one of the species that is putting them at a chance of becoming endangered too.

    Instead of killing the barred owl, we should just repopulate the spotted owl to a similar climate like the one their use to. If we do this then we can save both species. I believe that it would be a way better choice to repopulate the spotted owl instead of killing the barred owl to save the spotted owl. These are both very beautiful creatures and we should try our very best to save them both while doing what is right.

  • MaggieS-2boydbence

    I dont believe we as humans should step in. I think that we should let nature take its corse. Last year we learned about natural selection. This is when animals die/survive baised on ‘survival of the fitest’ I beileve that if we go in we are distroying this. We must stay out and let nature do our thing becuase our affects could start a chain reaction of other events. Such as in the future killing other animals or even killing off some of the forest and even worse throwing off the whole ecosystem.

  • Kobe Hutchinson

    We are not “eliminating” barred owls. we are controlling their population, as there are droves of them. There are a lot, and keeping them out of only old growth will not kill barred owls off. We are helping the spotted owls from when we screwed them over earlier. This wont cause extreme enviromental damage, if any at all.

    • nathanl_period4_boydandbence

      While it is true that we caused a lot of problems for the spotted owls, if the reason that the barred owl is over running them is not our fault we should let nature run it’s course.

  • BDELPHIN

    This tough decision has sparked a lot of debate. but i believe that we should not kill another species we should just let nature take it course and let god decide what he wants too do with the animals i think that killing another animal for no reason is just bad i mean think if that was you and they were killing off the human race thats not right. http://blogs.kqed.org/education/2014/02/04/invasive-species-predator-kill/

    • nathanl_period4_boydandbence

      While i agree that we should not interfere with nature, it is quite possible that it’s our fault that the Barred owls are invading the spotted owls land. If that is the case then it is our job to step in and correct the problem.

  • John Clark

    Once a part of Florida’s pet trade, they now threaten South Florida’s natural ecology, and they’re slowly slithering up the state. stated in the WUFT article the animal is dangerous to not only other animals but people too.

    Was physically attacked by another (the attack must be physical, offensive words alone are not enough) or witnesses another person being physically attacked by a third party
    Did not attack the other person first
    Believes that the use of force is or was necessary to prevent the danger from occurring or continuing
    Did not use more force than was reasonably necessary to avoid further injury

    stated in the article below, it doesnt only stand for people, it also stands for animals that could be harmful to my well being, if an animal is coming at me to harm me im not going to stand there and let it happen

    http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/self-defense-lawyers.html

  • Brenton Jakeway

    The hunters removed a total of 68 snakes, almost as many eggs as a snake lays in a single spring.( WUTF article ) the snakes are producing more eggs than there are being killed, there for the fact that were killing them to save others isnt harming their population, just helping manage such a strong preditor. ‘There, strangled in a neck snare, was one of the most majestic birds in America, a federally protected golden eagle.’ stated in the article below. hunters killing other animals is alot more humane than trapping them or killing them in another way.

    http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/28/4450678/the-killing-agency-wildlife-services.html

  • Pingback: KQED: Should We Kill One Species to Save Another? | Grace's Journey Through AP Biology

  • Pingback: Should We Kill One Species to Save Another? | ❊ Madison Schmidt ❊

  • Pingback: KQED: #DoNowPredator: Should We Kill One Species to Save Another? | apbiovet

  • Pingback: Do Now Predator | Biology is the Remedy

  • Pingback: Killing a species to save another? | Explore Dream Examine- Biology

  • nathanl_period4_boydandbence

    Wether or not we should kill one species to save another is dependent on why one species in invading the others territory. Is it because they naturally moved down there? Then this is just nature taking it’s course and we should not interfere. However if it’s due to the irresponsible action of humans that the new species is there? Then we not only should but HAVE to fix the error we caused. In Mexico a species of fish called Lion fish took up residence in the reefs around Cozumel,Mexico. They have venom tipped spines and had no natural predators in the area. There population boomed and they became a danger to all the surrounding species in the area. The reason hey were there was because people who liked the look of them bought them as pets or got them for there aquariums then set them free them into the ocean on a different continent in an environment much like there own in which they had no predators but a large amount of prey. So residents in the area taught some fish to eat them, hunted them and worked hard to correct the situation.

  • Hunter Robertson

    I don’t think it’s necessary to kill off an entire species. It’s not our job to play God in this world. I think we should just let time do it’s job. We don’t need to force unnatural deaths/extinctions.