UK Nature and Environment

Thanks for sharing this. When I saw the headline, I knew there was going to be at least one better solution to the problem, but it was going to have an economic cost.

The western United States is going to kill half a million Barred Owls to try to save the endangered Spotted Owl. The Barred Owls have only moved in due to the destruction caused by the timber industry and climate change. Studies have showed a number of factors, like those I just mentioned, and also the more niche requirements of the Spotted Owl losing out to the more aggressive and adaptable Barred Owls. The only avenue that is being pursued is the owl killing, not better industry regulation. There has been legislation passed to protect the environment somewhat, but there are some major loopholes that still let the same destructive practices continue though.

How they expect to save the owl while still allowing the very specific habitat it needs to be destroyed is beyond me, and seems to be the same kicking of the can down the road that you mentioned.

Can you explain the skin test and why it doesn't work?

I don't defend the hunters themselves, I agree killing exotic species for fun is terrible.

I do defend the countries that have a regulated exotic hunting industry though. People will kill these animals regardless, and having an organized and legal avenue to do so has positive benefits, even though that doesn't make sense at first. Many species are saved, as people will spend a ton of money to kill something fancy (again, this is crazy to me) and rather than giving money to poachers, the money goes to conservationists. Why do conservationists let people kill the animal they're trying to save? Because they keep track of how many animals there are and only allow a certain number to be hunted. They take the money from that, and use that to fund their conservation. Where else would they be getting money to do the conservation? It is a steady and reliable source of money to fund the protection of animals. These crazy rich people know if they shoot all the endangered whatevers, then they can't do it anymore, so they just pay the money and get a plush experience instead of risking something illegal and having a difficult and uncomfortable time.

Think of it like illicit drugs. People will do it anyway. If it's legal, it can be monitored, it can be done much more safely, and profits can go to getting people with drug problems help, for example. Yes, people are still doing drugs, which we could debate all day long if that's ok or not, but the system as a whole is better because we actually know what it going on and can work with known, factual data, as opposed to guessing what is going on.

I hope that was helpful and non-controversial. I don't promote the process, but I do see it as a net positive, the same as I don't support heroin, but support safe injection sites and needle exchanges as I see those as a positive alternative to not having those things.

veganism is almost as bad as hunting for fun to be fair