I haven't been following the "laser" thread all week, but heck it's
Saturday, and I feel compelled to throw my feeble opinion into the works
about the sub-topic of Scott Downes' non-native species.

If you make the argument that non-native species should be extirpated from
areas into which they've been introduced and/or expanded (intentionally or
otherwise), you must consider how many species (birds are only one example
of many) with which we'd have to contend. Perhaps we should only try to
kill off the ones that have grown to noticably inconvenience us and our
particular interests? Unfortunately, we have to be realistic.

Humans are responsible for the vast majority of floral and faunal
displacements either through deliberate action or accidental relocation.
In most cases, I believe we simply need to learn to live with the
consequences and let these ecosystems rebalance. In the case of birds
(Starlings and House Sparrows are the extreme -- and yes, the most annoying
-- example), I don't see the sense in sanctioning a futile killing spree
directed at the pipedream of actually eliminating them from our
populations. All you'll end up with is a bunch of suffering, dying, and
dead birds (whose actions, by the way, cannot be judged according to any
"moral" standard, as ours can). I don't think we'll ever be rid of them,
so our time is better spent promoting native species through provision of
custom bird boxes and other "brain-oriented" solutions. This is not to say
that those who prefer killing the critters aren't "brain-oriented", however
doesn't it make more sense to direct effort at solutions that are more
likely to help native species thrive *despite* the non-natives' presence?

Ned McGarry
Kirkland, WA
nmcgarry at gte.net