EPIC was honored to take part in a panel discussing the controversial Barred Owl removal project recently approved in the Pacific Northwest. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has finalized a carefully considered plan to remove up to half a million federally protected barred owls over the next thirty years to protect the imperiled northern spotted owl. Scientific research has shown that barred owls, an invasive species in the region, are outcompeting and displacing spotted owls, pushing them closer to extinction. This plan is a necessary intervention to restore balance and give spotted owls a fighting chance at survival.
The panel featured a robust discussion among conservationists, legal experts, and ethicists, with perspectives from both supporters and critics of the plan. While some animal rights advocates have challenged the project in court, EPIC and other environmental organizations recognize the urgency of this action and have moved to defend the plan against legal opposition. The discussion explored the history of barred owl removal efforts, the scientific basis for the project, the lawsuits seeking to block it, and the broader ethical considerations of active wildlife management.
Though this issue remains a point of debate among environmental and animal rights advocates, the panel fostered a space for open and respectful dialogue. With passionate voices on both sides, the room was alive with engagement, kindness, and even moments of laughter.
Stephen Hernick, Managing Attorney in the Wildlife Law Program with Friends of Animals, opens the panel by summarizing the case, setting the stage for the other panelists, while simultaneously injecting his own objections to the plan. Watch the video:
Next, Jessica Blome, an attorney with Greenfire Law, presents her arguments in opposition to the project. Watch her statements below:
After two complex presentations from the opposition, our Executive Director, Tom Wheeler, takes the stage to voice his support for the plan. Watch below:
To conclude the panel, Avram Hiller, a philosophy professor at Portland State University, explores the ethical aspects of the case. Watch their insights:
Overall, the panel effectively highlighted the differing perspectives on the case. Notably, it was a three-to-one split, with Wheeler facing opposition yet handling it with grace. He presented a compelling argument in support of this controversial plan, backed by persuasive evidence. After Hiller’s presentation, the panel opened the floor for a Q&A session, sparking a deeper discussion on the ethical implications of the plan. As Wheeler navigated the complexities of advocating for a project as contentious as species culling in the Northwest, you could hear opinions begin to shift.
Comments