Mr. Kimball -

I agree with you completely... Especially about what
better place to discuss birding ethics than with Birders.

Hear, Hear....

Peter Sullins
In The Village of Silver Firs
Everett, WA
mail to: TheSullinsFamily at earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Kimball <sdkimball at earthlink.net>
To: Tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2000 11:07 AM
Subject: Iceland Gull and ethical birding


> Dear Tweeters and Dr. Paulson,
>
> I was going to let this issue die, but the postings on
this subject have
> become increasingly gratuitous so I would like to refer
everyone to that
> part of Dr. Paulson's post to which I responded initially:
>
> "It's too bad that it's injured and can't fly. If it was
any other species,
> I would have made an attempt to capture it and get it to a
bird rehabber
> (Olympic Wildlife Rescue in Olympia would be the best
one), but I thought a
> whole lot of birders would be robbed of their chance to
see such a
> beautiful bird (and I might get run out of town on a
rail)."
>
> And here was my response:
>
>
> "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."
>
> Now Dr. Paulson has since responded indicating that the
above was a joke (!)
> and that actually he chose not to capture the birds for
reasons
> substantially different than those in his original post.
However, I, as a
> reader of this list, unfortunately, can not divine reasons
which people
> chose not to include in their posts and must respond to
what they actually
> write. Thus, it was the POSITION EXPRESSED in Dr.
Paulson's message that I
> responded to and I haven't heard a refutation in response.
My position was
> and is: It is immoral not to help a creature that is
injured and suffering
> (read : "in pain") merely because some other birder might
wish to add it to
> their list.
>
> As to accusations that such concerns are moralistic and
out of place on this
> list, my response is that such concerns are ethical and
where better to
> discuss just what ethical birding is than on a list that
is supposed to be
> about birding?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Steven Kimball
> Federal Way, WA
> sdkimball at earthlink.net
>
>