Arnold, C. (2016, February 29). Invasive Species: California Biologists Are Killing Invasive Barred Owls to Help Spotted Owls: Nature World News. Trending Topics | Nature World News. Retrieved August 24, 2016, from http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/20284/20160229/invasive-species-california-biologists-killing-barred-owls-help-spotted.htm.

Beginning in 1985, the Northern spotted owl, native to Northern California, began declining in population when the larger barred owl, an invasive species from the east coast, began challenging it for habitat and food supply. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sanctioned an experiment to track its decline and measure the negative impact of the barred owl. This experiment included contractors for the Service obtaining licenses to capture and kill the barred owl in certain regions. While the killing-involved experiment was controversial to several individuals of the environmental science community, the results have shown a positive spike in the Northern spotted owl’s population size, a positive sign.

This article poses a tricky question: is it ever acceptable to kill one species in order to save another? In this case, I believe it is; both species must be preserved, but the barred owl already has a large population on the east coast while the Northern spotted owl does not. Maybe it might have been possible to catch the barred owls and release them on the east coast, removing them from California region by region. However, I do see that that might have been very expensive and minimally effective as they are winged animals and difficult to contain. This poses yet another series of questions: what would have happened if this event had occurred prior to human existence? Might it have been better to allow nature to run its course, even at the cost of a species going extinct? Or did humans artificially introduce the barred owl to West coast in the first place and were responsible to remedy the mistake?