I went down to see the Iceland Gull yesterday morning, with the intention of
catching it and taking it to the PAWS rehab center (I'm not "from" PAWS;
that's just where I was going to take it, having volunteered there for a
couple years, although not regularly anymore, so I'm not any kind of
spokesperson or representative of them). But after talking with other
people watching the gull (including a bird rehabber with 40 years
experience), and seeing the bird myself, we realized (as did Dr. Paulson)
that its wing has been broken so long as to be unfixable, and that it would
undoubtedly be euthanized right away. That being the case, I couldn't see
myself being in any position to be the arbiter of its quality of life and
how much longer it would live -- i.e., what is worse, being chased, captured
and enduring an hour's car ride in a small cage, then being put to death
swiftly, or a slower death in natural surroundings? Plus, in any event, the
bird was right at the water's edge, and it would have been extremely hard to
catch without swimming after it.

I would in the future still choose to try to save a "saveable" bird -- I've
done so multiple times. But given that its wing is almost certainly beyond
repair, especially given the length of time it's been broken (at least 12
days), I just couldn't bring myself to transport it (extremely stressfully)
to its certain swift death. I know I will continue to second-guess myself
about that decision -- it was a tough one. But I do totally agree with Dr.
Paulson that we are in no position to judge how much an animal is
"suffering" -- for all we know, they may have physical and/or mental
mechanisms which dull their pain and/or awareness in such circumstances.
The natural world is extremely brutal by human standards, in any event, and
I accept that -- although I will help an animal out when the opportunity
presents itself. But when the "help" would engender extreme stress, with a
predictable outcome of euthanization, is it really help? And there is also
the consideration that deaths in natural surroundings provide food for other
species.

As far as agencies' policies, PAWS runs strictly by State Dept. of Fish &
Wildlife (and other) regulations, and besides that they just don't have the
resources to go out and rescue animals, but rely instead on people to bring
animals to them (aside from a small volunteer "rescue team" during the busy
spring/summer baby season). They are lucky to be able to afford the food
and medicine and medical equipment they need -- there are no extravagances
or wasted funds up there, from all that I've seen, and they rely heavily on
volunteer efforts to help care for the animals. And by the way,
volunteering there is a birder's dream, getting to observe so many species
as up close as it gets.

Andrea Grad
Alki
agrad at helsell.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Kimball
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 9:05 PM
To: Tweeters
Subject: Re: Iceland Gull yes


I agree 100% with Jerry on this one. I was appalled that the injured bird
was left there merely because some birder might want to add it to his/her
list. As to nature taking it's course, Dr. Paulson states that he would
have taken any other bird to wildlife rehab, but that he didn't take this
one because someone might get angry at not getting to see it. So, the
injured gull was left to suffer and die, not because nature must be allowed
to take its course but because humane instincts apparently succumbed to
anticipated "lister anger." It's birding as sport, not nature, that's
having it's way in this case.

Steven Kimball
Federal Way, WA
sdkimball at earthlink.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20000121/78aa7850/attachment.htm