In response to Peter Sullins's comment that we should try to save the life
of every creature in trouble, I would suggest we do a little arithmetic
here. A duck lays up to 20 eggs a year for perhaps 8 or 10 years. Only two
of those possibly 200 eggs need to reach reproductive age for the duck to
have replaced herself and her mate in the duck population of the world. How
desirable would it be for even half of all duck eggs to produce adult ducks?
Those fuzzy little ducklings are so cute, and it is definitely painful to
watch a raccoon stroll out of the bushes and eat one or two while the mother
frantically tries to intervene. But the raccoon is a wild creature, too,
and it is its nature to eat whatever it can catch, even if the victim is
cute and fuzzy. Baby raccoons are charming, too; but if each mother
raccoon raised three or four of them every year for six to ten years, the
world would shortly be awash in raccoons. Something has to prevent that;
it's a natural process.

The situation is even more extreme with animals like salmon. I know, the
case is somewhat different with an injured adult bird, but I think the same
logic applies. Unless the animal is a member of an endangered species,
whose genes may therefor be vital to the survival of the species, or unless
the injury has been caused by humans, we are wiser to keep our hands off.

It simply does not make sense, either practically or theoretically, to try
to save the life of every creature who would die without our intervention.
Animals die, as do people, and their deaths are part of the natural order of
things. I do not think our humanity is demeaned when we accept the fact
that life has an end as well as a beginning and a middle.

What we need to do is to provide the opportunity, through habitat
enhancement and other techniques, for as many creatures of as many species
to live as fully as possible. Then we should leave them alone. This means
non-invasive birding and bird photography, curbing our domestic animals --
especially the feral ones -- , being careful about disposing of hazardous
objects like plastic pop-can holders, etc. It also means letting life end
when the time comes.

Dan Lindsay, Bellevue
susandan2 at earthlink.net
----------
From: "Peter Sullins" <thesullinsfamily at earthlink.net>
To: <rrogers at halcyon.com>, "Tweeters" <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Iceland Gull
Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2000, 10:24 PM


Mr. Rogers -

I would suggest allowing any living creature to die without exerting all
effort to its survival makes us no different than savages. Do we only
protect and preserve creatures on the Endangered Species List? Or do we at
least attempt to help and preserve all wildlife no matter how prevalent it
is?

We, as humans, have capacity and standing whereas animals do not. It is
incumbent on us, it seems to me, to exercise that responsibility at every
opportunity and not hide behind "they're abundant". After all, it's the
"they're abundant" attitude that's got us into many of the problems we
currently enjoy - there's enough trees, water, land, etc.

Enough already... Help the critters... Witnessing their deaths without
trying to help only lessens us as individuals.

Peter Sullins

Peter Sullins
In The Village of Silver Firs
Everett, WA
mail to: TheSullinsFamily at earthlink.net
<mailto:TheSullinsFamily at earthlink.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: Russell Rogers <mailto:rrogers at halcyon.com>
To: Tweeters <mailto:tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 03:49 PM
Subject: Re: Iceland Gull

Derek,

I will respond to your remarks. Please do not take any of my comments
personally.

I applaud the enthusiasm of most of the remarks regarding the capture and
rehabilitation of the injured and suffering gull. However, I believe, most
are overly passionate and under informed. Some of your comments in your
message below are mistaken or simply wrong.

To begin with your argument that the Iceland Gull should be captured and
rehabed because it is rarer than a Spotted Owl has no merit whatsoever.
Spotted Owls are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act and
Washington Administrative Code (232-12-297) for threatened and endangered
species. Iceland Gulls are not. Iceland Gulls are as common as icebergs in
their normal distribution. Spotted Owls are in such significant decline that
the survival of each individual is important to the long term viability of
the species. Your argument for rescue has no merit from the "birding" point
of view that it is a "rarity" as well. The moment that it is taken into
captivity, it can no longer be "counted" on any life or state list (see the
ABA rules for birding).

The only thing that the capture of the gull will do is satisfy our need to
do the most "humane" thing as we possibly can. In my opinion, Dennis Paulson
and Andrea Grad have given well sounded argument for leaving the bird where
it is. There is no need for me to duplicate what they have said. The
arguments for taking the bird have been somewhat moralistic and a bit on the
preachy side.

I don't know about British Columbia, but in Washington State, no public
funds go to wards the rehabilitation of wildlife. You are right that a
disproportionate amount of resources go to dogs and cats. But that has
nothing at all to do with government policies. I should point out that the
capture of the Spotted Owl in Everett was not a rehabilitation effort. It
was, taking the bird from a place where it was certain to parish, and moving
it to a place where it might have a better "chance" of survival. It should
be noted that survivorship of most juvenile birds is pretty low no matter
where they are, but again, this is a species where the best available
science has told us that if forest practices and current trends don't
change, it is likely to go extinct. A Gyrfalcon, as you say, would get more
attention than a gull. That is because, as with the dogs and cats, people
like them more than gulls. People make that call, not government.

If anyone should be offended by your remarks, it should be a complacent
electorate. In a liberal democracy, they are the ones who make the
decisions.

Sincerely,

Russell Rogers

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Rogers and Mary Moore
6637 Glenwood Drive SW
Olympia WA 98512
(360) 709-9870
mailto: rrogers at halcyon.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------

D Marven wrote:
Hi tweeters
I was going to stay away from the "kumliens" debate because of severe
backlash from my last postings, but something Ruth Sullivan said got me
a little worked up. It is to do with capture of the gull and that is
that agency's or who ever you want to call them won't attempt to catch
the bird because of it status. If it is endangered yes they will get
involved, i do hope that this is the right interpretation Ruth.
Well i ask all you tweets out there what is the rarer bird in Washington
State, Spotted Owl or Kumlien's Gull.
What would happen if a Gyrfalcon was hurt and was standing in the middle
of the group of Gulls.? Also remember cats and dogs are not protected
species, but they seem to get looked after, and take up most of the
money
These people who run these agency's or wildlife recovery places rely on
our money (public money) for there survival and living so please let
them know that all animals are equal, it's just some species who lack
less brains than others make the rules.
I hope this does not offend any tweeters out there, but i hope it
offends others who make the rules. Derrick

Derrick Marven
Duncan B.C.
home of the hybrid
marven at home.com

Ruth Sullivan wrote:
>
> Hello Steven and Tweeters,
> The way i heared this afternoon from a birder, There was already people
> what try to rescue this Gull.One person was from Paws.This bird is in bad
> shape the way i saw it yesterday, closing his eyes all the time with the
> wing hanging pretty much down. I did not see this bird today and stayed
> almost to 5.30 PM when all the Gulls comming in from the river to settle on
> to the roofs. I remember how birders criticized the agency who took the
> Spotted Owl in Everett to transfer the Owl in to the wild.This discussion
> went on for days " HOW DARE TO MOVE THIS OWL".I found all my Owls in the
> wild and mostly alone.I was happy this Owl was removed so fast.This Gull is
> not an endangered Species, so therefore no Agency would help without a
> private Party would take over. And i think this was the case today when
> this people trying for the Iceland Gull to capture.
>
> Ruth Sullivan
> Tacoma
> godwit at worldnet.att.net
> ----------
> > From: Steven Kimball <sdkimball at earthlink.net>
> > To: Tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> > Subject: Re: Iceland Gull yes
> > Date: Thursday, January 20, 2000 9:04 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <sanjer at televar.com>
> > To: <dpaulson at ups.edu>
> > Cc: <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 12:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Iceland Gull yes
> >
> >
> > > Dennis Paulson wrote:
> > > snip
> > >
> > > > 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).
> > >
> > > I don't mean to start a big controversy but I think the welfare of the
> > bird
> > > would have precedence over some birders wanting to see it and add it to
> > their
> > > list.
> > >
> > > Of course there are those that believe in nature taking its course, so
> I
> > guess
> > > it is all a matter of opinion.
> > >
> > > Jerry Converse
> > > Grand Coulee, WA
> > > mailto:sanjer at televar.com <mailto:sanjer at televar.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >