Two environmental advocacy groups, Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy, have filed a lawsuit against the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) over its controversial plan to cull nearly 500,000 barred owls. The groups argue that the plan, designed to aid the recovery of the endangered spotted owl, represents an extreme and legally flawed approach to wildlife management.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenges the agency’s approval of the Barred Owl Management Strategy. According to the complaint, the strategy wrongfully categorizes barred owls as “invasive” to justify their large-scale lethal removal across 24 million acres, including federally protected lands such as national parks.

The plaintiffs allege that the plan violates multiple federal laws, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The MBTA, part of an international treaty aimed at conserving migratory bird populations, requires specific permits for activities impacting these species. The groups claim that FWS did not provide an adequate rationale for issuing the MBTA permit.

The environmental review underpinning the plan identified lethal removal as the only proven method to boost spotted owl numbers. However, the lawsuit argues that this assessment sidesteps significant contributing factors, notably extensive habitat destruction due to logging. Furthermore, the suit raises concerns about unintended harm to other wildlife that may occur during the culling operations.

Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy are requesting the court to nullify FWS's approval and mandate a more thorough analysis. “The Service’s effort is underfunded, uncoordinated, poorly designed and doomed to fail,” reads the lawsuit.

Represented by Animal & Earth Advocates PLLC and Greenfire Law PC, the plaintiffs contend that the plan's flaws make it legally unsustainable and potentially detrimental to broader ecological systems.

The FWS has not commented on the lawsuit as of this report.