Should People Kill One Animal to Save Another?

Should People Kill One Animal to Save Another?

Since ancient times, owls have been called many things, such as mysterious. These birds can be found in many parts of the world. And today, one kind of owl is causing a problem in forests of the northwestern United States.

Barred owls are a large species native to eastern North America, but they began moving west at the start of the 20th century. By 1973, large numbers of barred owls had arrived in the western state of Washington. Later they moved south into Oregon and California.

In parts of the Pacific Northwest, the owls are now believed to be causing a drop in the population of a smaller, less aggressive bird: the northern spotted owl.

In many ways, the barred owl is the spotted owl’s worst enemy. The barred owl has more babies per year and eats the same animals, like squirrels and wood rats. And their numbers are now larger in many parts of the spotted owl’s traditional territory.

David Wiens is a biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, a federal agency that studies the Earth and its natural resources. He and other officials are doing something unusual to protect spotted owls: killing barred owls.

It is a controversial, experimental program. More than 2,400 barred owls have already been shot.

Wiens is the son of a well-known bird expert and grew up with a fascination for birds. He has mixed feelings about the program.

“It’s a little distasteful, I think, to go out killing owls to save another owl species,” he says. But he adds, “We knew that barred owls were outcompeting spotted owls and their numbers were growing too fast."

To catch barred owls, officials put digital bird callers on the ground. Then they step back and wait as several sounds from the devices fill the air. All of this happens in the dark of night.

Barred owls dislike other birds in their territory, so they will fly down and chase other owls out. That is when Wiens and his team try to shoot them.

The federal government has been trying for years to save the northern spotted owl. Some years ago, this bird was at the center of a huge battle over logging rights across Washington, Oregon and California.

In 1990, the northern spotted owl was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and appeared on the cover of Time magazine. Then, officials suspended logging on millions of hectares of forests to protect the bird. But the spotted owl population continued to fall.

During that time, researchers began to study another threat: Larger, more aggressive barred owls were competing with spotted owls for food and space and pushing them out of some areas.

Now comes this final effort to see whether the government can save spotted owls.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launched the experiment a few years ago. It has raised questions, such as: How much is it possible to reverse a drop in population that has been happening for years, caused in part by human activity? And, as climate change continues to push species out and affect how and where plants and animals live, how much should people get involved?

Just as with other conservation measures that involve killing one animal to save another, the program has also led to legal questions and debate. Still the Fish and Wildlife Service has a permit to kill up to 3,600 owls and, if the program works, could decide to expand its efforts.

In four small study areas in Washington, Oregon and California, Wiens and his team have been killing barred owls to see whether the native birds return to their land once their competitors are gone. Small efforts to remove barred owls in northern California and Canada’s British Columbia have shown promising results.

Wiens now sees his gun as a research tool. He said that, by getting involved, humans “may be able to achieve more biodiversity in the environment, rather than just having barred owls take over and wipe out all the prey species.”

But not everyone agrees.

Marc Bekoff is a professor of ecology and biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He strongly opposes the experiment and says humans should find another way to help owls. Bekoff notes that there is no way to see it as a good thing “if you’re killing one species to save another.”

Michael Harris directs the wildlife law program for Friends of Animals, a nonprofit group. He thinks the government should direct its attention on what humans are doing to the environment and protect habitats rather than blaming barred owls.

Some Americans see a responsibility to get involved. They note that humans are to blame for activities like logging, which helped lead to the drop in spotted owl numbers. But other people just see a losing situation.

“A decision not to kill the barred owl is a decision to let the spotted owl go extinct,” said Bob Sallinger. He is conservation director with the nonprofit Audubon Society in Portland, Oregon.

If reducing the barred owl population improves the number of spotted owls, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife may consider killing more barred owls as part of a longer-term effort. Enough success has been noted that the experiment already has been extended to August of 2021.

I’m Dorothy Gundy. And I’m Bryan Lynn.

Words in This Article

controversial – adj. relating to or causing much discussion, disagreement or argument

fascination – n. the act of being very interested in something or someone

logging – n. to cut down trees in an area for wood

reverse – v. to move backward; to make something the opposite of what it was

conservation – n. the protection of animals, plants and natural resources

wipe out – v. to kill or destroy someone or something completely

ecology – n. the field of biology that deals with the relationship of organisms to one another to their environment

Task 1. Listen to the record of the article.

Task 2. Write out the new words paying attention to the pronunciation.

Task 3. Fulfill the Quiz - Should People Kill One Animal to Save Another?

Task 4. Write 5 questions to discuss the article.

Task 5. Write a rendering of the article.

Note - to fulfill these tasks go through this link⤵

Quiz link ⇒ https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/should-people-kill-one-animal-to-save-another-/5138216.html

Video link ⇒ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9tnEGAk0TE

THE ESCAPE

THE ESCAPE

 by S. Maugham

I have always been convinced that if a woman once made up her mind to marry a man nothing but instant flight could save him. I have only once known a man who in such circumstances managed to extricate himself. His name was Robert Charing. He was no longer young when he fell in love with Ruth Barlow and he had sufficient experience to make him careful; but Ruth Barlow had a gift (but should I call it a quality?) that renders most men defenceless, and it was this that dispossessed Roger of his common sense, his prudence and his worldly wisdom. He went down like a row of ninepins. This was the gift of pathos. Mrs. Barlow, for she was twice widow, had splendid dark eyes and they were the most moving I ever saw; they seemed to be ever on the point of filling with tears; they suggested that the world was too much for her, and you felt that, poor dear, her sufferings had been more than anyone should be asked to bear. If, like Roger Charing, you were a strong, hefty fellow with plenty of money, it was almost inevitable that you should say to yourself: I must stand between the hazards of life and this helpless little thing, or, how wonderful it would be to take the sadness out of big and lovely eyes! I gathered from Roger that everyone had treated Mrs. Barlow very badly. She was apparently one of those unfortunate persons with whom nothing by any chance goes right. If she married a husband he beat her; if she employed a broker he cheated her; if she engaged a cook she drank.

When Roger told me that at last he persuaded to marry him, I wished him joy.

“I hope you’ll be good friends,” he said. “She is a little afraid of you, you know; she thinks you’re callous.”

“Upon my world I don’t know why she should think that.”

“You do like her, don’t you?”

“Very much.”

I couldn’t say less. I knew she was stupid and I thought she was scheming. My own belief was that she was as hard as nails.

Roger introduced her to his friends. He gave her lovely jewels. He took her here, there, and everywhere. Their marriage was announced for the immediate future. Roger was very happy. He was committing a good action and at the same time doing something he had very much a mind to.

Then, on a sudden, he fell out of love. I do not know why. It could hardly have been that he grew tired of her conversation, for she had never had any conversation. Perhaps it was merely that this pathetic look of hers ceased to wring his heart-strings. He became acutely conscious that Ruth Barlow had made up her mind to marry him and he swore a solemn oath that nothing would induce him to marry Ruth Barlow. But he was in a quandary. It is always awkward for a man to jilt a woman. People are apt to think that he has behaved badly.

Roger kept his own counsel. He gave neither by word nor gesture an indication that his feelings towards Ruth Barlow had changed. He sent her flowers; he was sympathetic and charming. They made up their minds that they would be married as soon as they found a house that suited them. The agents sent Roger orders to view and he took Ruth to see a number of houses. They visited house after house. They went over them thoroughly, examining them from the cellar in the basement to the attics under the roof. Sometimes they were too large and sometimes they were too small, sometimes they were too expensive and sometimes they wanted too many repairs; sometimes they were too stuffy and sometimes they too airy, sometimes they were too dark and sometimes too bleak. Roger always found a fault that made the house unsuitable. Of course he was hard to please; he couldn’t bear to ask his dear Ruth to live in any but the perfect house. They looked at hundreds of houses; they climbed thousands of stairs; they inspected innumerable kitchens. Ruth was exhausted and more than once lost her temper.

“Don’t say that,” he answered. “I beseech you to have patience. I’ve just received some entirely new lists from agents I’ve only just heard of. There must be at least sixty houses on them.”

They set out on the chase again. For two houses they looked at houses. Ruth grew silent and scornful: her pathetic, beautiful eyes acquired an expression that was almost sullen.

“Do you want to marry me or do you not?”

There was an unaccustomed hardness in her voice, but it did not affect gentleness of his reply.

“Of course I do. We’ll be married the very moment we find a house. By the way I’ve heard of something that might suit us.”

“I don’t feel well enough to look at any more houses just yet.”

“Poor dear, I was afraid you were looking rather tired.”

Ruth Barlow took to her bed. Every day Roger wrote and told her that he had heard of another house for them to look at. A week passed and then he received the following letter:

Roger,

I do not think you really love me. I have found someone who is anxious to take care care of me and I’m going to be married to him today.

Ruth.

He sent back his reply by special messenger:

Ruth,

Your news shatters me. I shall never get over the blow, but of course your happiness must be first consideration. I sent you herewith seven orders to view; they arrived by this morning’s post and I’m quite sure you will find among them a house that will exactly suit you.

Roger.

Task 1. Read the text be ready to discuss it paying attention to the words in bold.
Task 2. Write linguo-stylistic analysis of the text. 

УСТНЫЕ ТЕМЫ К ЭКЗАМЕНУ /МАГИСТРАТУРА 2 КУРС ФО

УСТНЫЕ ТЕМЫ К ЭКЗАМЕНУ /МАГИСТРАТУРА 2 КУРС ФО

1. DETRIMENTS AND BENEFITS OF TV (TV as a REFLECTION of  REAL LIFE)

2. MASS MEDIA IN THE ERA OF INFORMATION EXPLOSION

3. THE PROBLEM OF TOLERANCE

4. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

5. EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IN GREAT BRITAIN

6. DAHESTAN IN THE FOCUS OF GLOBAL PROBLEMS