Hi Tweeters,

Michael R. Smith, that ol' Devil's Advocate, queries:

(snip)
>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?

and Fred Bird weighed in with:

>Why rescue peregrines?
>PR - PR - PR!
>Why else?

I think there's more to either question, so I'll incorporate my response to
both in the following.

Natural Selection? In an urban environment? Many of the the stresses on the
urban Peregrine populations are unique. Their natural libraries of instinct
and training are insufficient to help them cope with those differences.
These birds would probably not be experiencing these stresses if we had not
hacked their parents into the cities, therefore part of our *consequent*
duty to them lies in helping the kids and them survive what they would not
naturally encounter, at least until or unless they learn big city ways.

That discharging that responsibility doesn't hurt public relations is a
happy accident; neither is the increased public awareness of urban wildlife.
Loved that story out of Detroit or Cincinnati or somewhere years ago of a
trucker who stopped traffic *on a busy freeway* because a dazed, disoriented
youngster had landed on it and held traffic up until the local wildlife
specialists came out to rescue the poor little mite. This instance of
protective tenderness touched me, still does.

Selection? Maybe for nicer humans.


Michael Price
Vancouver BC Canada
michael_price at mindlink.bc.ca