Although it was projected to cause the loss of more than 30,000 jobs in the Pacific Northwest's rural communities, logging was greatly reduced in 1994 to protect the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). After implementing the plan, jobs were lost. Debate exists, however, as to whether the recovery plan was wholly responsible for the loss of jobs. In addition, the owl population continued to decline. Based on the information provided, respond to these questions in your posting:

 

Was the loss of jobs worth the attempt to save the owl population, even though it seems to have been unsuccessful?

Is it possible to have a healthy environment and a healthy economy?

It is always worthy attempt to save the owl population at the cost of loss of job. It is possible to have a healthy environment and a healthy economy.

Step-by-step explanation

First of all, thank you for posting a question of natural and national importance. Job at the cost of loss of any natural population can't be justified. Owl is a nocturnal organism and is very important biotic component of environment. It is important link in food web and component of biodiversity, hence their loss and reduction in number may cause natural imbalance. owl also play important role in fruit ans seed dispersal.

Restriction on logging can be explained as brave and timely decision for the protection of owl species. It may result loss of job to large number of people but in long term it is essential for healthy environment. The person who lost their job may opt for other kind of job after some training but drastic reduction or complete loss of any species can't be replenished. From moral point of view, all organism have equal right to enjoy their life.