Mike,

Yes, raptors - probably most birds - lose a high percentage of their
annual 'production'. Walk the beaches during a year when the Common
Murres bring off a lot of chicks - the beaches will be littered with
dozens and hundreds of chick mortalities per mile. Life goes on, and the
longer-lived birds have more chances to replace themselves.

But, when a population is diminished (harvest, habitat loss, pesticides,
etc) we get to the point where every individual that makes it is
important to the overall population, if for no other reason than
preserving genetic diversity.

I think that the monies spent on caring for a sick or injured Peregrine
might be well spent. I'm not so certain that the thousands of dollars
spent on rehabilitating common murres and surf scoters during the
Nestucca or Tenyu Maru oil spills here in Wash or the MILLIONS spent
rehabbing common birds in the Exxon Vadez spill, and hosing down the beaches
- which probably did more harm than the spill - are worth the effort. It
makes a lot of people feel good to save an individual grebe, clean it up
and release it, but I doubt it has any effect in the scheme of things.

We don't see the bucks spent on harriers, red-tails and screech owls that
we do on Peregrines and Bald Eagles (and now, Marbled Murrelets, etc
etc.) The critters that aren't macro-charismatic? !Nada!

On Fri, 23 Jun 1995, M. Smith wrote:

> Allow me to be the spoilsport, please...

> Why the expenditure of so much energy and resources on a species which we
> *know* loses about 80-90% of its young in the first year anyway? Raptors
> are known for dying in their first year, why don't we just expect it, and
> let it go at that? Yes, yes, yes, peregrines are neat birds, I'll agree,
> but it seems that the raptocentric (nice word, huh? I think I just made
> it up) tendencies of some folks make them ignore reality. Raptors must
> be in excellent shape to make it on their own, no? Isn't that what
> natural selection is all about?