The Spotted
Owl Wins against Bush Administration
August
19 , 2005
The spotted owl of America’s
northwest (California, Oregon and Washington) has
won once more the case against the government in
a court of law. The owl had been off the news for
over a decade, yet it had continued all the while
to haunt the giant logging companies. For, their
operations could be stopped any time if some environmentalists
noticed that the felling of trees was destroying
the owl’s nesting place. That is exactly what
happened in 1994 when a US District Judge stopped
logging in the old-growth forests of the area -
the habitat of the spotted owl.
The corporate-friendly Bush Administration had allowed
last year the harvesting of timber in the region
without complying with the requirement of surveys
to ensure that it did not include the owls’
habitat. A Federal Judge has now ruled against the
Administration.
It was the decline of the spotted owl population,
noticed in early 1990s, that put it at the center
of a controversy involving the government, the environmentalists,
the land developers and builders, the logging companies
and the officials concerned with forest fires. They
kept pulling in different directions. Some argued
that economic development should hold sway over
all other considerations, others contended that
the protection of environment and of natural habitats
of various species was of paramount significance.
The owl would, meanwhile, sit in its high perch
totally indifferent to the heat and bustle of human
concern for him. Occasionally, it would flutter
its wings and toot in a deep voice to call its mate
to the nest so that it could be off to catch its
prey, mostly some unwary mouse or an adventurous
squirrel. The environmentalists would give whoops
of joy on spotting the owl on the ecstatic flight
back to its nest with the prey clutched tight in
his claws.
Perhaps it would not be so inappropriate for one
to draw in his mind a parallel with the political
and bureaucratic owls back home who sat in their
lofty ivory towers and schemed on how to catch the
kickbacks and commissions and transmit them surreptitiously
to their foreign hideouts. Their naïve or mercenary
followers would invariably give, like the naturalists
of this country, whoops of joy on the leader’s
return from foreign jaunts after shopping sprees,
escape from the scorching summer heat of native
land, accords of clandestine commitment to external
masters, or from self-imposed exile to avoid imprisonment.
As for our spotted owl, the amusing situation arose
from a 1973 law passed by the US Congress. Titled
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), it lays down that
all species and even plants, facing the danger of
becoming extinct, must be protected regardless of
the economic cost.
Any citizen or group can petition to the Fish and
Wildlife Services (FWS) to place a species on the
endangered list. If the petition is rejected, the
petitioner can sue the FWS. But, who wants to get
entangled in litigation?
The FWS has therefore added some 50 plants and animals
to the list every year until recently. Over a thousand
petitions are still pending with the Service.
The spotted owl was put on the list of endangered
species in 1994. It has been prohibited since then
to cut down trees 30 inches or larger in diameter
since the owl selects for its nest the tallest trees
– its ‘mansion’ or ‘luxury
apartment’. For the peace, comfort and privacy
of the owl, the forest canopy covering 300-acre
perimeters around known nesting areas is to be left
totally undisturbed.
Environmental groups have fought successfully to
put more land off-limit to logging than was perhaps
envisaged by the lawmakers while passing the Endangered
Species Act. Many timber companies say they cannot
afford to retool their mills to accommodate the
smaller trees. This has put the timber industry
in retreat. Some companies had to declare bankruptcy.
Unmindful of the havoc it has caused, the spotted
owl selects the tallest and thickest trees for its
habitat. The timber industry too depends for its
survival on these very trees. In the conflict of
interests, the spotted owl has clearly won the case
with the environmentalists serving as its self-appointed
attorneys.
That has, however, given rise to another problem.
As the biggest and most marketable trees are put
off limits to logging, sawmills are disappearing
and with them the financial incentives to clear
out the deadwood and dense stands of small trees.
This unavoidable neglect has been turning the forests
into giant tinderboxes. The irony is quite obvious.
To save the spotted owl, the trees and the underbrush
are left intact increasing manifold the risk of
fires destroying what the law and the ecologists
have sought to protect. If there is a fire in its
suzerain or fiefdom (Jagir), the owl would simply
fly off to another habitable tall tree, perhaps
laughing under the wing on the contra-productive
concern of bird-watchers.
Our political luminaries who are perhaps gifted
with a bit more of the animal cunning, have already
built nests abroad for such emergencies or just
for vacation - London is still their favorite haunt
and haven - despite the recent bitterness caused
by the suicide bombers.
The Endangered Species Act has caused havoc in the
lives of farmers too. A few years back, it was reported
that a farmer in Winchester, California, let us
call him Joe, had struggled for years on his small
farm to make ends meet for his family of wife and
three children crammed into a one-bedroom house.
Since his children were fast growing up, he felt
he must add some more area to his house. He had
worked hard, suppressed many desires, and saved
some money for the building material. He therefore
applied to the concerned Department for the permit
to add a couple of rooms to the house.
He received the shock of his life when he was informed
that his request could not be approved as his land
fell in the area classified as protected area for
the Kangaroo rat. To protect this rat, no less than
78,000 acres of land, 60 miles east of Los Angeles,
had been declared off-limit to the people who lived
there. Since the rat was on the list of endangered
species, any human activity that might constraint
the freedom of the rodent could bring a prison sentence
and as much as $100,000 in fines!
“For Sale” signs went up on many ranches
in the area.
Joe was stunned to read the official rejection of
his simple request. The only recourse, he was told,
was to hire a biologist to survey his property,
at a cost of up to $5,000. If even a single rat
was found there, he would be out of luck. If the
area was rat-free, he could develop his property,
provided he paid to the government “mitigation
fees” totaling nearly $40,000 to buy an equivalent
piece of land elsewhere for a rat preserve.
“That is ridiculous”, Joe said, “I
can’t afford any of that.” So he and
his family continued to live crammed in their tiny
house.
