my point was that the "caspian tern problem" is the direct result
of human activity. that was the only (apparently) subtle point that
i was making in my message.

the fact that some people have axes to grind and willfully misinterpret
people's observations in order to publically grind those axes is not
only disingenuous, but dishonest, in my opinion. if a person is unclear
about printed comments, that person has the right to ask for
clarification. however, quoting a misunderstood passage as a launching
point for a political agenda that is only peripherally related is
ridiculous.

i shall restate my earlier reply; your misinterpretation of my
observation belongs to you and to you only.

Deborah Wisti-Peterson email:nyneve at u.washington.edu
Department of Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash, USA
Visit me on the web: http://students.washington.edu/~nyneve/
<><><>Graduate School: it's not just a job, it's an indenture!<><><>


On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Paul Webster wrote:

> Dear Deb,
>
> 1. You wrote: "rice island [sic] is an artificial island. it is the
> result of dredging
> activity in the columbia river to deepen the channel for barges
> and other large boats. it isn't as though the caspian terns have
> traditionally nested on this island because, after all, without
> human activity, this island would not exist in the first place!"
>
> 2. Lauren Braden sensibly replied: "I always find this perspective
> interesting... that birdwatchers can be dismissive the protection of
> these birds because they nest on an
> artificial island.
>
> The Caspian terns nest on an artificial island because we have impacted
> natural habitat nesting areas. Swallows nest under bridges, bluebirds
> and wood ducks nest in man-made boxes, ospreys nest on telephone poles,
> and woodpeckers nest in snags that people purchase from landscapers for
> their backyards! Do these birds not deserve protection?"
>
> 3. You replied: "i was making an observation. your interpretation of
> that observation
> belongs to you and to you only."
>
> I think this reply is disingenuous. It tries not very subtly to evade
> the responsibility for the position it takes: namely, that biologists
> have the right to harrass creatures (in this case the Caspian terns)
> which try to live anywhere human beings have disturbed the natural
> environment. Lauren Braden's reply was very much to the point [i think].
>
> Paul Webster
> PWebst25 at concentric.net
>
>
>
>