Tweets,
After reading the comments on publicity I have several thoughts, which are
my own. The following comments are also in responses to statements and may
attack those comments but are not attacking those people making those
comments. Now for my thoughts.
First the comment was made that we need to protect animals from our own
species. This is the only problem facing imperiled species, human
involvement. If a maniac shoots an owl or greedy minds destroy a
important tract of land, it hurts the species; each to varying degrees.
As for the comment of attacking the need to educate people. What is the
difference between sudents wanting to learn about a cool owl in the UW
quad or a gun wielding maniac? Education and a willingness to learn. Those
people with malice towards that bird are that way because they do not
understand and consequently do not care about a Snowy Owl (or another
species). I bet those students or other people are now more apt to care
about the fate of such owls or other critters. With more education and
personal experiences we have more concerned citizens and less gun wielding
wackos. I do not think that pointing out the exact location of a sensitive
species is good to the general public, having good experiences like the
Everett Spotted or Seattle Snowy are good experiences for people. The next
step is to get those parties really interested in their fate to keep their
eyes open when they are outdoors. I learn numerous things every day when
I'm out doing field work and I'm in the field where I should know more
than most non-wildlife people. That does bring me to the most inflamatory
point of all, but it needs to be said. I love reading tweeters, but there
is no requirement of being on the list. Somebody said they would not call
up the local paper but would post it on tweeters. Nobody can know if there
is a lurker on the list who does not have the best intentions in mind.
Most people on the list are great but broadcasting something on the list
is like telling some couple hundred stangers, you have no idea who is
listening.
For my last beef, when you relocate someting, you are giving it a better
chance of long-term survival that it probably had (I'm talking about
relocating animals that are in possible peril). As for the Everett Owl I'm
sure somebody said it before but I'll repeat it. All young animals
disperse from the natal areas eventually, all juv. or imm. animals have a
high degree of mortality (generally highest mort. is in the 0-1 age
class). So no there is no certainity that transporting the owl helped, but
biologists are geared to using their knowledge to give animals a better
shot of survival in the the disturbed and highly managed world that we all
live in.

Scott Downes
sdownes at u.washington.edu
Seattle WA

"Birds don't read bird books. (That's why they are seen doing things they
are not supposed to do)." -Mary Wood