Dear Tweeters,

The discussion about Caspian Terns is turning into an argument about what is
the difference between observation and opinion. Here is a thought-provoking
quote, with no axes to grind, from W.K. Heisenburg (thanks to Roger Orness):

"WHAT WE OBSERVE IS NOT NATURE IN ITSELF, BUT
NATURE EXPOSED TO OUR METHOD OF QUESTIONING."

Now for my axe grinding - here is Deborah's initial observation:

> rice island 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!

Is Deborah implying that since the island is artificial, it is ok to move
the terns off of the island? If that is the case, her statement is not just
an observation, it is also an opinion based on incomplete observation of all
of the factors that are affecting the terns and salmon.

Deborah, do you have an opinion on whether it is ok to relocate the terns,
and what observations do you base that opinion on? Helen Ross, Lauren
Braden, Don Baccus, Mike Patterson, Paul Webster, and many others have made
several important observations that should be considered. It is not as
simple as "since the island is artificial we can do whatever we want with
it". I also agree with their opinions on the subject!

Greg Pelletier
Olympia, WA
mailto:greg at halcyon.com