I accept it that government takes actions that pick winners and losers sometimes when it's got no business doing so, but this seems a little extreme:
To save the imperiled spotted owl, the Obama administration is moving forward with a controversial plan to shoot barred owls, a rival bird that has shoved its smaller cousin aside.
[. . .]
The government set aside millions of acres of forest to protect the owl, but the bird’s population continues to decline — a 40 percent slide in 25 years.
[. . .]
The plan to kill barred owls would not be the first time the federal government has authorized killing of one species to help another. California sea lions that feast on threatened salmon in the Columbia River have been killed in recent years after efforts to chase them away or scare them failed.
Maybe this shouldn't bother me as much as it does. After all, there are times when we ask government to take sides, as in, "Help us keep those nasty Asian Carp out of Lake Michigan." But choosing one specices over another seems more justifiable when there is some human benefit involved. Cattle may not be any more deserving of life than coyotes, but ranchers have a strong economic interest in thinning out the ranks of coyotes. Choosing one owl over another seems like an arbitrary bow to diversity for diversity's sake.
