Fine Feathered Fraud; Bird-Brained Law Cries Out for Reform

Owls have a reputation for being brighter than the average bird. But we doubt they realize it when they stray across an international border, migrating, say, from Northern Mexico into Southern Arizona. So what sense does it make to count Arizona’s population of cactus ferruginous pygmy owls separately from Mexico’s population when trying to determine whether the birds need federal protection? It make no sense — which is why it’s part of the Endangered Species Act.

Arguably the most powerful of federal environmental laws, the ESA permits the Balkanization of the world’s pygmy owl population, as if there were such a thing as "American" or "Mexican" pygmy owls. That’s why we welcome a proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the owls from federal protection. There aren’t a lot of the diminutive birds in Southern Arizona, which seems to be the northern edge of their range. But the owls are plentiful south of the border. And what sense does it make to penalize property owners in Arizona to protect a species that’s in no real danger of extinction?

It makes sense only to activists who are using the owl, as they use many federally protected species, as pawns in their anti- development agenda. And this explains why the proposal to de-list is bound to be fought tooth and talon. The de-listing is not only the sensible but the legal thing to do, since the owl’s listing was already thrown out by the (very liberal) 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals, which in 2003 ruled that the federal government erred by failing to account for owl populations south of the border. De- listing would not lead to an open season on owls in Arizona; an international migratory bird treaty already makes killing one a crime.

The silliness surrounding pygmy owl protections is one example of why some in Congress are pushing for changes to ESA. But it pales in comparison to what’s going on in the Pacific Northwest, where owl researchers and federal officials are pushing a plan to shotgun thousands of barred owls migrating into the region, in an attempt to defend the turf of less aggressive spotted owls. Spotted owls served as useful pawns in the largely successful effort of anti-logging groups to cripple the timber industry in the region, based on claims that the cutting of "old growth" trees was destroying the bird’s habitat. The real culprit for the spotted owl’s decline isn’t logging, however, but a rival owl invading from elsewhere, the barred owl. This news comes too late for timber workers and towns that lost out because of spotted owl-related logging restrictions.

Now the federal government is choosing sides in the battle of the owls, and has approved an experiment in which one species will be killed to protect the other. "If the experiment shows removing barred owls allows spotted owls to reclaim lost territory, it could lead to shotgunning thousands of barred owls in Washington, Oregon and California" according to a recent wire service story.

Protecting rare plants and animals from human beings is one thing. But we’ve crossed a line and strayed into strange new territory when we interpret the ESA as granting human beings the authority to intervene in a natural rivalry between species.

At least one Forest Service biologist recognized the wackiness involved in trying to save one group of owls by declaring war on another. "Assuming you find removal (of the barred owl) is working, and spotted owls move back into their territories, are you prepared to do that for the next 10,000 years?" he asked attendees at one recent owl conference. "Because as soon as you stop, you’re right back where you started."

But just think of all the new field biologists, owl trackers and owl hunters the federal government would have to put on the payroll if the war on the barred owl lasts 10,000 years.

Is this an insane country, or what? We have to stop the madness now. It’s time to bring much more common sense to federal efforts to protect endangered species.

Artfully done

Acting boldly carries risks, but the rewards are all the sweeter when they come. The Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center proved as much with a just closed exhibit focusing on master glass artist Dale Chihuly. We congratulate center president Michael De Marsche and other show organizers and funders for the success. Those who missed Chihuly’s amazing, sometimes minding creations should hang theirs heads. But they can also take solace in the fact that the arts center has some other exciting shows ahead, including Andy Warhol, James McNeill Whistler and Peter Max.

Because success frequently breeds success, this is an exciting and hopeful time for the center. "We’re in the strongest financial shape we’ve been in many a year," De Marsche told The Gazette earlier this week, after the show took in more than $1 million. "What’s really exciting is that you can now invest in other exhibitions. You can get momentum."

Momentum indeed. The Chihuly show — which drew more than 77,000 visitors, boosted membership by 3,700 and shattered the center’s one- day attendance record — seems to signal a renaissance for the 69- year-old institution. It shows that Springs residents can get excited by the fine arts, and that they will turn out for a well- conceived and executed event.

Some people like to paint locals as a bunch of Philistines who would rather attend monster-truck pulls than art shows (not that there’s anything wrong with monster-truck pulls). But this soundly refutes such caricatures and should give encouragement to local arts patrons.

Congratulations again to De Marsche and others who helped bring Chihuly’s creations to Colorado Springs on a job, and a show, well done.