On Mon, 19 Jun 1995, Scott Richardson wrote:
>
> How do Tweeters feel about bird populations relying on human intervention
> for this kind of short- or long-term nest-site availability?

My feeling is that humans are notoriously fickle, and that we may do more
harm by attempting to provide *long-term* assistance (and then abandoning it)
than by cutting off the help after short-term recovery efforts have achieved
adequate success (as determined by scientists, not politicians ;-).

>
> I recognize this question has the potential to lead to a number of
> tangential threads, which is fine, but there is one specific question on
> my mind:
>
> When considering a change of status for a threatened or endangered
> species, should the type of potential nest sites available (i.e.,
> natural versus artificial) be among criteria for downlisting?
>

Hence, yes the availability of adequate natural nesting sites/habitat should
be a requirement for downlisting. We don't want to save a species from the
brink of extinction just to make them dependent on our future good-will.

Of course, for those species that can gain from our copious amounts of waste
and habitat disruption (European Starlings, Rock Doves, etc.) we need only be
ourselves!

--
Michael Patrick
University of Washington Medical Center
Department of Radiation Oncology, RC-08
1959 NE Pacific St.
Seattle, WA. 98195
mike at radonc.washington.edu
(206) 548-4536