On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Ned McGarry wrote:

> 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?

If I gave the impression that I even thought that the laser topic was a
way to get rid of Starlings, House Sparrows, etc.. it was not my
intention. The statement I DON'T CARE is that I don't believe (my opinion)
that Starlings deserve the same careful treatment of anti-harassment and
careful actions that one should follow for native species. Since
government actions OK the removal of "pests" such as Starlings, I don't
think that care should be taken to make sure that one does not harm the
Starlings.
As far as letting the ecosystem re-balance, if that were to
happen usually all we wind up with is the invasive species winning out.
Once humans screw up an ecosystem (as most have been done) management must
be carried out to control our screw up. Leaving it alone would be
irresponsible in my opinion.
On a bird related note I saw a merlin outside the window this morning,
presuming the same bird as I had in late November.

Scott Downes
sdownes at u.washington.edu
Seattle WA