Hi Tweeters,

Michael Smith says:

(snip)
>Yes, true for other cities, but certainly not Seattle. The adults
>weren't hacked into Seattle, they came on their own (unlike cities in the
>east). Secondly, Seattle probably wouldn't have had peregrines nesting
>there 500 years ago either, where are the cliffs they need? Certainly
>one would show up now and then to eat, but seems unlikely that they
>could nest in the sandy cliffs we have here. So Seattlites really
>*haven't* altered our area to diminish Peregrines, the construction of
>buildings has provided structure that was absent before.

First, whether Seattle's falcons were hacked or wild, my main points stand:
regardless of the city's name, urban stresses can be qualitatively different
to natural hazards, and often beyond the Peregrines' natural capacities to
adapt, so the standard principles of 'natural' selection need to be
re-interpreted in terms of the demands of an artificial, only
partly-analogous environment; and, if we release or actively encourage
residence & breeding in a city through nestbox placement, then our *duty* to
these birds is a *consequence* of our decision to intervene in 'natural'
process; walking away from the birds would be irresponsible. To me, that is
the crucial issue.

I agree that raptorcentrism (*great* term!) means other, less charismatic
species get the short end of resources, but it was not this point to which I
was responding.

>Not to say that Seattlites haven't done anything to help the decline of
>the birds in the first place however...

Oh dear, double negatives always bestonker me--they always seems to be
saying the exact opposite of what they actually *are* saying...

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