Hellow again,

I think Don as a strong arguement for the actions taken. I should add to
my comments that I don't know if the WDFW captured the bird to "save it"
from all the loonies out there. I don't think the WDFW was doing anything
less than honest. In catching and removeing the bird from down town
Everett and thus saving from the crazies in the world, is at least a
secondary result of the capture, which, for me, is a good reason.

Russell

On Sat, 21 Nov 1998, Don Baccus wrote:

> At 12:43 PM 11/21/98 -0800, Nigel Ball wrote:
> >Russell (and others) are right, of course. However, if that was the reason,
> >then the statement that the capture was to check the bird's health was less
> >than honest.
>
> Well, not necessarily. There are two parts to the question:
>
> 1) do you capture it to assess it's health? Personally, I think this was a
> reasonable thing to do, as we have little data, perhaps no data (anyone no?)
> on the health of spotted owl kids that wander far, far from the beaten path,
> and given its endangered status, if the owl were ill giving it care seems
> justifiable.
>
> Would the public have been happy if the owl had been left alone, then found
> starved a week later? Seattle's peregrines are healthy and raise young, a
> dead spotty would hardly be a public mascot to brag about in comparison with
> the pride of Seattle bird life.
>
> 2) once captured, where do you release it? With most species, you might just
> do a quick check on the bird - weight will tell you if the bird's been hunting
> successfully, you can look for parasites, etc - then just toss the bird.
>
> But ... I can understand why, once the decision was made to check on the
> bird's health and to give it vetinary care if necessary, WDF&W would choose
> to relocate it elsewhere. The reasons tossed around here, i.e. the likelihood
> that some bozo might shoot it, it might get hit by a car, etc are strong
> arguments
> for releasing it in more reasonable habitat once question #1 is answered in
> the affirmative.
>
> So their statement that "we took it in to check its health" can be entirely
> honest and the true reason why they brought the bird in, while common sense
> does
> make me, at least, think that after having decided to do so it made no sense
> to re-release it next to a busy road. Doesn't refute their statement as to
> why they brought it in at all.
>
>
>
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
> Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
> http://donb.photo.net
>