The spotted owl of America’s Northwest, comprising California, Oregon and Washington, is back in the news. Early last month a US District Judge stopped logging in the old-growth forests of the area which is the habitat of the spotted owl and a variety of other wild animals and birds.

It was the decline of the spotted owl, 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 spouse 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 owls back home who sit in their lofty ivory towers and scheme 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 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. Who wants to get entangled in litigation? Nor, can the government here fix up the judiciary by sending a strong-arm squad to raid the court!

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 latest verdict to stop logging in the Northwest is also in response to petitions of a dozen associations of ecologists.

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 ‘palace’. For the peace and comfort 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 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 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. Ours, being gifted with a bit more than animal cunning, have already built nests abroad for such emergencies or just for vacation -London is still their favorite.

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 residence. 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 received the reply saying that his request could not be approved as his land fell in the area classified as protected area for the Kangaroo rat. I have not seen this rat, nor have I any desire to see one.

To protect this rat, no less than 78,000 acres of land, 60 miles east of Los Angeles, has 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 injure 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 continue to live crammed in their tiny house.

Joe might or might not want to change place with his rat. But, Amir Din and 60 per cent of his compatriots living below the poverty line, and Ramu and other ‘Dalits’ comprising 46 per cent of his country’s population, might jump at the choice.