Scott Ray:
>However, in practical terms, hasn't it turned out indeed to be
>"condoricide?" How successful has this plan been to increase the wild
>population of Condors?

No, the population of condors in the world has increased, so it can't
be "condoricide", though the lack of condors in the wild is indeed
very, very sad.

How successful has this plan been? We don't know, yet, do we? Are
you ready to declare it a failure? I'm not. A potential failure,
yes.

We also don't know for sure what would've happened if we'd left
them out. That could've ended in extinction, years ago.

When they brought them in, I was concerned about the fact that
they were putting all their eggs in one basket. They seemed
to feel there were only two baskets (all in captivity to maximize
chances for captive breeding to work, or all in the wild to maximize
the chance for survival). So, if they'd left them out I would've
been concerned about them putting all their eggs in that basket.

Mostly I wish much more had been done much, much earlier so that
the dilema had not arisen.

THAT is the true tradgedy of American Conservation of the condor:
it took far too long to take action. There were no good choices
by then, IMO.

And, as far as Steve Herman is concerned, if his preferred choice
had been followed and the wild population had gone extinct, I
might well have ended up posting to tweeters "looks like Steve
was wrong".

But in no circumstance can I imagine equating him with Lt. Calley
just because his informed, best professional opinion turned out
to be in error.

So, can we shitcan the name-calling and demonization over this
issue and either 1) drop it or 2) talk turkey and stick to the
facts, instead of acting like turkeys?


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>