The Northern Spotted Owl of the Northwest has been on the rapid decline over the last 10 years with over 50% of the population being wiped out. The 200 year old forest that is home to the owl has become a multibillion dollar logging industry that has created jobs for thousands of workers. As a result of logging however, roughly 10% of the original forest remains intact leaving limited space for the already dwindling number of owls in the region.
In response to this decline, environmentalist petitioned the US Fish and Wildlife Service to place the owl on the endangered species list arguing that as an indicator species the Northern Spotted Owl is a gauge of the health of the ecosystem that provides its habitat. After being labeled as threatened on the Endangered Species list, millions of acres in the Pacific Northwest were protected to help slow or even reverse the decline in numbers.
As a result, logging communities that were dependent on the resources generated from the timber sales are shutting down forcing families and businesses to leave the area. Many people that are suffering from the effects are fighting back pointing out that the revenue generated from the old growth forest outweighs the impact on the environment. The numbers indicate a very valid point, 65% of the wood in the west is derived from the timber harvested in the area and without timber harvesting in the old growth forests 28,000 jobs are at risk and the price of timber sales with increase dramatically.
This then leads us to the basis for our research. We want to look at the possible outcomes to this conflict and potentially find the best result for either side by imposing game theory strategies.
In a debate which pits man against nature it is hard to see just how much each side feels they would be affected by a loss in the conflict. Each side in this case believed that there was a crisis for their respective parties. The logging industry and its employee’s feared profit and job loss if their ability to log old growth timberland was restricted to the point that environmentalist groups wanted in order to protect endangered species like the spotted owl. In logging towns across the Pacific Northwest logger’s way of making a living and in some cases familial values going back generations were deeply rooted in logging and a restriction in logging would be a threat to their livelihood.
On the other side there are environmental groups standing up for the rights of species, such as the spotted owl, that are endangered who rely on the old growth forests for habitat. Spotted owls are indicator species which are a good indication of the health of the forest and with the dwindling numbers it shows detrimental impact to the old growth ecosystem. Knowing the speed at which old growth forests were being cut environmentalists believed that there was a serious threat to the norms of a system that has existed in the areas for thousands of years.
Sense Making
The environmentalists want the loggers to stop harvesting old growth forests because they say that continued logging is destroying the habitat for wildlife to such an extent that many species are threatened by extinction. The logging companies say that if they stop logging the forests they will be out of the job with no source of income and their communities will collapse. A compromise needed to be reached both to keep the timber workers employed and to save face in the eyes of the environmentalists.
Meaning Making
The environmentalists want to stop the logging to attempt to allow the spotted owl population to make a recovery and remove it from the endangered species list that it had been placed on in 1990. The old growth forests are the habitat that the owls live in.
The timber workers were worried about lost jobs. Some logging towns had been reporting increased numbers of homeless, alcoholism, and suicide due to the logging cutbacks. The timber companies are planting six new trees for everyone that they cut down and are hoping that the second growth forests will be good habitat for the spotted owls.
Sources:
Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez “Ethics and the Spotted Owl Controversy”
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v4n1/homepage.html
Elizabeth Arnold “Saving the Spotted Owl: Benefits of Recovery Effort
Remain Complex, Controversial”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3815722
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
How sensitive issue it is and Decision making - Northern Spotted Owl Conflict
In case of Timber Company, they consist that they can lose their entire life if they stop logging timbers. Many workers may become losers who suffer from alcoholism, homeless, and suicide, so they will experience a hard time to recover their normal life. On the other hand, environments insist that humans or they should protect spotted owl from the crisis of extermination. Both workers and spotted owls are very important because both are living things. However, I want to point out that someone can take out an arguing point about which is more important between human and animal life. This arguing can be a very hard and sensitive point to say immediately.
If you agree with Timber Company, environments will say that if we leave off clear cutting, not only spotted owls will disappear from the United States, but also the number of extinguishing species will be increasing more and more. This process will destroy the ecological balance, and then this breaking down will reach to human life someday, in not too far future. When we consider the impact of logging in terms of long run, clear cutting of timbers actually threatens ourselves.
If you agree with Environments, workers of Timber Company will say that who bear the responsibility of losing their job and life. Who can guarantee their immediate living to be continued? Is less important their life? It sounds possible that if someone provides workers with new jobs and the same amount of wages, they can stop logging right now. However, who can provide that many jobs for workers? Further, Timber Company says they planted new trees for second forests. It means that they considered aftermath of their logging, which means that their logging is not a unilateral to spotted owls.
2 Players: Environmentalists, Timber Company
4 Options – if two players have to do at least one thing right now, what they can do will be selected from either “Push on what they want” or “Make some buffers such as negotiation”.
Environmentalists(Player1)
Op1. Strong Action to stop logging
Op2. Negotiation (Allow to cut some parts of timbers)
Timber Company(player2)
Op3. Keep cutting timbers
Op4. Negotiation’ (Not clear-cutting, Remain some parts of timbers)
Post a Comment