Subject: Iceland Gull
Date: Jan 23 23:49:18 2000
From: Russell Rogers - rrogers at halcyon.com


Steven

Actually, I disagree with you. The first line of Mr. Sullins remarks to me were

as follows.

"I would suggest allowing any living creature to die without exerting
all effort to its survival makes us no different than savages"

As you, yourself, argued to Dennis Paulson that e-mail messages should be read
at face value, you have to admit that "any living creature" should mean just
that.

I stand beside my earlier statement to Mr. Sullins' response to me that the
above statement is moralistic. As a society and as individuals, we make that
choice of life and death every day, day in and day out, whether you like it or
not. Sometimes the results of our choices are direct, as in leaving an injured
gull to fend for itself, and sometimes they are indirect, as in the tropical
habitats loss due to the coffee and orange juice that we drink. It does not
mean that we are "savages." It means that we made a choice.

Sincerely,

Russell

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

Steven Kimball wrote:

> Re: Iceland Gull
>
> Dan,
>
> Peter Sullins, if you will read his message carefully, did not argue that
> one ought to try to save all injured creatures, but rather that your choice
> of whether to help one or not ought not to be determined solely by whether
> the species is endangered or not.
>
> Steven Kimball
> Federal Way, WA
> sdkimball at earthlink.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dan Lindsay
> To: Tweeters
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 9:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Iceland Gull
>
> 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>