Burrowing owls forced from on-campus habitat

By Troy Simpson

The habitat for a small population of burrowing owls was destroyed due to the development of new facilities on campus.

Some students and faculty say that the university's lack of accommodation for the species shows that the administration is more concerned with developing new land than it is with caring for the environment.

"I think they're definitely showing their priorities," said senior Thomas Garvey. "They're deciding they want a larger campus rather than thinking in terms of the environment; pretty flowers are more important than a threatened species. They're all about social justice but what about environmental justice?"

Santa Clara removed the last of three man-made burrows in December because development of the previously vacant areas of Bellomy Field, the Support Services Building and Sobrato Hall eliminated most of the birds' habitat. Future plans to upgrade and remodel the Acoltti Way entrance to campus also include renovation to the area of one of the previous burrows.

Assistant Vice President of University Operations Joe Sugg said that because university grounds could no longer support the burrowing owls, Santa Clara purchased 9.25 acres of 110 total acres of land near Byron, Calif., at a cost of $9,000 per acre for the purpose of creating a wildlife preservation.

"The small rodents and things that the burrowing owls eat no longer live [on campus], so the area can't support continuous growth of the burrowing owl," said Sugg. "We thought that [the land near Byron] would provide a safe environment in order for them to live in perpetuity. The deeds to the land were given to the Department of Fish and Game, which seemed to be a better solution. Now your grandson can come back 40 years from now and that 110 acres will still be protecting endangered species."

Although Sugg said that Santa Clara purchased the land for the habitation of various species, Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Amy Shachter said that the university was required by law to purchase the land in return for developing the habitat of a species under "special consideration" of the state, and that Santa Clara never intended to relocate the on-campus population of burrowing owls to the preserve.

"They just put one-way doors on [the burrows] and then the owls moved on," said Shachter. "They did not capture and relocate the birds in any of the instances. They were basically left homeless."

Sugg said that the decision against caging and relocating the birds was made by the Department of Fish and Game, not Santa Clara.

"[The Department of Fish and Game] considers caging them an inhumane way of doing things, so they just release them," said Sugg.

Although the Department of Fish and Game followed a specific protocol for removing the birds, Shachter said that the original decision to end the on-campus habitat of a species under special consideration implies that university officials are not thinking in terms of the environmental effects of their decisions.

"[Locatelli] used the term 'well-educated solidarity' in his convocation," said Shachter. "Solidarity with whom? Well-educated solidarity could just be interpreted as solidarity with other human beings that are struggling, but is that really what it means? Is that what well-educated solidarity should look like, or shouldn't we interpret it with solidarity with all living things? Isn't that a little more consistent with what we want to be as an institution?"

Regardless, Shachter said that a decision to allow the owls to remain living on campus might not have benefited the species as a whole anyway because the owlets wouldn't have had anywhere to live once they left the nest.

"It's very possible that for that species, having and maintaining the breeding pair on this campus is probably not the best plan," said Shachter. "For the individual owls, though, it's actually sad because there really is no place for them to go."

Garvey said students are rarely informed about many university decisions such as the ones regarding the burrowing owl, and that the administration has a responsibility to keep students, faculty and staff informed.

However, Shachter said that regardless of how well university officials conveyed the decision about the burrowing owl habitat, the process in which the decision was made harbors a greater issue.

"I think the fundamental problem is not this decision, it's the decision-making processes on this campus and how we are choosing to not integrate ideas of environmental sustainability into some of these overarching questions," said Shachter. "I think our institutional behavior should, on every level, reflect the values and mission of the university. I honestly believe if it really truly did, we would probably still have burrowing owls on campus somewhere in a valued place."