Doesn't it seem a bit contradictory that the folks that slap a sticker of Darwin's fish with legs on their bumpers don't really subscribe to the evolutional theory of survival of the fittest. The spotted owl is a perfect example. For nearly two decades environmentalists have been trying to protect this doomed bird. Yet despite the fact that the spotted owl became the poster child for saving old growth forests, we have old growth forests yet few spotted owls. In fact the 1.1 million of acres of forest land allowed to grow into old growth timber since the spotted owl graced the endangered species list hasn't helped their numbers, spotted owls are rapidly declining. After all these years, all the federal funds and all the timber families destroyed by the spotted owl endangered species designation, we finally learn that the barred owl is responsible for their demise. Now biologists want to shoot barred owls, and I find it odd I haven't heard a peep of protest from the environmental community about the injustice of killing one animal for the sake of another. Yet in the eyes of the arrogant activist they, not nature think they have the right to choose which animal should lose. I'm Susan Allen and this is Food Forethought.