Majority of New Jersey residents struggle with inflation frustration, stress and anxiety

The Biden-Harris administration is facing significant backlash over a controversial plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to kill nearly 450,000 barred owls to protect the endangered spotted owl. The mass killing, which would be the largest of its kind in the world, has sparked outrage from animal welfare groups, birdwatching organizations and conservationists, who argue that the plan is not only inhumane but likely ineffective.

Barred owls, native to North America, have been expanding their range, due in part to climate change and environmental degradation. This expansion has led to increased competition with the spotted owl, a species already threatened with extinction. The USFWS' plan aims to reduce this competition by eliminating a significant portion of the barred owl population. However, critics say the strategy is flawed, arguing that killing such large numbers of owls will not solve the underlying problems that threaten the spotted owl's survival.

Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy, denounced the plan as a never-ending “killing treadmill” with no clear end or long-term benefits for the spotted owls. The scope of the plan, which covers 24 million acres, is too large, and there is a high probability that even after the mass killing, surviving barred owls will simply repopulate the areas and continue the competition.

Animal rights activists are preparing for litigation, pointing to numerous deficiencies in the USFWS's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). They argue that the agency failed to thoroughly consider nonlethal alternatives such as population control measures, species translocations or breeding programs for the spotted owl. Instead, the agency opted for a solution that will take decades to implement and cost an estimated $225 million, making it one of the most expensive wildlife management projects ever.

Hilary Franz, Washington's public lands commissioner, voiced her opposition to the plan, highlighting the uncertainty about its effectiveness and the ethical concerns surrounding such a large-scale cull. The plan's legal weaknesses, coupled with strong public opposition, suggest this issue could escalate into a major legal and political battle.

As the government moves forward with this controversial strategy, the outcry from environmental groups and the public is likely to grow louder, challenging the notion that mass killing is a viable solution to ecological problems. The debate over this plan highlights the complexity and ethical dilemmas of wildlife management at a time of rapid environmental change.