Subject: Re: introduced birds
Date: Jan 19 15:02:42 1995
From: Dennis Paulson - dpaulson at ups.edu


In response to Mike Patrick's posting about introduced birds:

Mike: "A most interesting response to the suggestion that introduced
species be considered acceptable came from several individuals. Including
flat out denial of some species' right to exist in this continent. What I
would like
to take exception to is the statement "We have not learned much from the
starling and english sparrow, I guess." Indeed we haven't! Considering our
(American culture, a derivative of European) own trounce across the terrain
I am disappointed that most of us take such an exclusive view of other
non-natives in the continent."

And: "But I cannot bring myself to exterminating the 100's of Starlings
now in my neighborhood. Why? Because "nuisance" is all a matter of
perception."

Mike, I'm not sure what you mean by some of these statements. Are you
saying that just because white humans came from Europe and essentially
"took over" North America that it is OK if starlings do the same? Are you
suggesting that any problems caused by introduced animals are OK, just
because they're here (and "they are not going away") or just because we
mess up the world in the ways we do? I may be misunderstanding, but I
don't see that rationalization at all. I guess that's where we differ in
attitude. Probably because I grew up in southern Florida, where introduced
animals and plants were among the most serious environmental problems, I
consider starlings in about the same category as industrial pollution,
whereas perhaps you consider them living beings with whom we share the
earth and thus we must treat with respect. I subscribe to that belief
about nature entirely, but it is tempered with an attitude that "what we
screw up, we can unscrew," and I think getting rid of starlings from the
Americas--a condition entirely caused by human actions--could be considered
in the same category as cleaning up pollution sources.

I make this argument not in any way from a dislike of starlings, which I
actally think are cool birds. I'm not even among those who argue that
starlings extirpated bluebirds from this area (I think it was the growing
up of clearcuts and the collapse or cutting of snags that were probably
mostly responsible), and I think that some of the native species (the crows
you mentioned, gulls, and others) probably have much more severe effects on
the environment (mostly on other species) than the introduced ones (which,
as you wrote, are often strongly associated with much-altered
environments).

BTW, starlings are not at all limited to human-altered areas. They nest
essentially everywhere in Washington, including old-growth forests, edges
of mountain meadows, cliffs in the sagebrush steppe. They are very
adaptable.

On rereading your posting, it seems you are arguing that it's perfectly OK
if human symbionts are with us everywhere. Black rats, house mice, rock
doves, German cockroaches, plague fleas..... They "belong" with us, so
don't worry about trying to get rid of them?

I suggest that anyone with any interest in the effects of introduced
species on ecosystems read some of the literature about Hawaii, the West
Indies, the islands off New Zealand, and other places where these effects
have been especially severe. They are true horror stories, and they have
certainly convinced me that NO INTRODUCED SPECIES should be a general
philosophy for ecosystem management (I know this is a philosophy for some
bird listers).

Mike again: "Is anyone game for developing a healthier view (i.e.
realistic acceptance) of the true impact that we have on our environment?
The native peoples of this continent have enduring philosophies honoring
the coyote and crow; both of which are highly adaptive, intelligent,
opportunistic, etc., much like Homo sapiens sapiens."

It was so easy to admire the "intelligent, opportunistic" species in the
old days (and of course we still admire them; they are most like us). BUT,
in those old days native peoples were here in minuscule populations,
coyotes and crows could scarcely have done anything to condemn themselves
to people, ecosystems were in a balance that had had a long time to become
established, so the prey of coyotes and crows had had a long time to adapt
to them. When we because of our activities make the world better for
species A (crows, gulls, starlings, Canada geese, too many etceteras just
among birds) so that we are making the world *worse* for species B (or
sometimes B, C, D, E, F, etc.), it's as difficult for me to rationalize
*that* as being OK (as I have the feeling your message states) as it is to
rationalize that cutting down all the old-growth forests is OK (after
all--people cut down old-growth forests, people transport and subsidize
starlings).

My gut feeling (and I hope I don't get too many backs up) is that one of
the flaws of the animal-rights movement is that its philosophy that
"individual life is above all" flies directly in the face of a greater good
that I might call environmental wisdom. It's a greater good because it's
for the benefit of the entire environment and all the species that inhabit
it, and it's for the benefit of all of us who love "nature" as a whole that
is greater than the sum of its parts. If we can't control (=kill)
starlings (which, say, we have good evidence are eliminating purple martins
from some state or county) because we are concerned with the life of each
of those starlings, I think we are missing some point or other.

Sorry to be long-winded about this, but it's an important subject to me.

Dennis Paulson phone: (206) 756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax: (206) 756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail: dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416