At 11:17 PM 5/8/98 -0700, Kelly Mcallister wrote:

>I went and got a copy of the Wall Street Journal with the
>Seattle Bald Eagle article (I got it because I received a
>phone message indicating it was a bad article and that I
>contributed to the awfulness of it all with a quote of mine
>that was used). The reporter was clearly pursuing his own
>vision of a story on Bald Eagles achieving "pest" levels in the
>Seattle area. So, most of the article is on eagles harassing
>birds in captivity at the Woodland Park Zoo, eagles killing
>puppies, eagles raiding heronries, and eagles simply being the
>territorial and sometimes aggressive predators that they are.
>The article did end with a quote from one woman who is inspired
>whenever she sees an eagle outside her Mercer Island home.
>So, it wasn't entirely anti-eagle.

I suspect this is simply meant to be background support for
those who seek the end of the ESA.

The WSJ is, after all, a conservative journal. They rarely
cover conservation-related topics, but when they do, they universally
paint a picture that seems to have little to do with reality. My
personal experience suggests that writing a letter to the editor
is a waste of time. Not only have I never gotten a rebuttal
letter published, but on the (few) occasions I've tracked responses
in the LOE columns to one of their anti-conservation/anti-wildlife
pieces I've ever seen them publis ANY rebuttal letter.

>Does
>a species have to be entirely attractive and noble to be worthy
>of conservation?

No, but there's no need to aid one's enemy's, either. I would never
bother talking to a WSJ reporter about such issues, because it's a
given that the story will come down with a preordained slant that will
be 180 degrees opposite of my conservation-oriented world-view.

>
>With delisting on the horizon and the soon-to-be relaxing of regulatory
>actions on the behalf of eagles and eagle habitat,

And these actions, too, are in part political pre-emptive strikes in the
battle to retain a meaningful ESA.

I'm not saying they're unjustified as eagle populations have rebounded here
in the PNW. But the timing of delisting is without doubt being played for
maximum political effect (as it should be, IMO).

> "Why does a
>species have to have a squeaky clean image to be considered worthy
>of conservation?".

I don't believe a species needs to, and this is where writers like the
WSJ example miss the mark. If your statement represented what the public
at large bases its conservation desires on, then the Yellowstone wolves
would never have been reintroduced nor would there be such incredibly
high levels of support in public polls for retaining them, as we've
learned after the recent, unfortunate federal court decision calling for
their removal. The anti-wolf crowd has played the "bloody predator, killing
for joy, heartless, eating the guts out of poor baby bison while it squeals
in its death agony" card over and over again - with no effect. I don't
think the public believes wolves lie with Bambi and eat dried dogfood. I
think they're very much aware of how such animals make their way in the
world. Those who spew the "sadistic killer" image would agree, I think,
because much of their writing seems filled with frustration, of the "I
just can't seem to get people to understand what hateful, bloody, sadistic
killers these animals are!" variety.

A vast number of people seem to admire predators, which after all seem to
be built with beauty in mind - strong, swift, and powerful. I think most
folks accept this image and would be more shocked by the images I'm exposed
to as a raptor trapper who is constantly amused by how clumsy and incompetent
young birds of prey are. Far from the deadly, swift, efficient killer image
lies my memories of a red-tailed hawk stooping on a pigeon lure from 100 ft,
missing by yards, slamming into the earth, and sliding in a cloud of dust
until being brought to a halt by the trunk of a mountain mahogany. Or the
young kestrel stooping vertically on a house sparrow, which apparently didn't
learn how to stop a stoop from momma, as it plunged vertically at full speed
right into the ground headfirst. After it woke up (I couldn't move, being
paralyzed with laughter) it kinda shook its head and looked around in
genuine confusion - "what did I do wrong?".

I don't think stories of predation shock or dismay many of the public, but
knowledge that they're just as incompetent as your average human might!

I think a more important question is "how do we get the public at large to
become concerned with the preservation of the mundane, non-charismatic
species?" Like certain butterflies whose demise signals the extirpation of
an entire, though limited in range, ecosystem?




- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net