On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, G&T Pelletier wrote:

> 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

where did i write such a stupid statement? if you go through all of
my messages, nowhere will you find that i have ever written such a
statement as this one that you wrote above, that i pasted here for
easy reference;

"since the island is artificial we can do whatever we want with
it".

those words belong to YOU.

my message was originally part of a conversation where "the tern
problem" was being discussed as if it arose out of nowhere, or so
i thought. my message was written to provide what i considered
to be another data point that had not been previously stated, or
at least not made clear.

my message is as follows (to avoid further semantic corruption);

"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!"

my point was, is, and always will be that people caused this problem.
the terns are merely doing any living organism has always done; take
advantage of a great (for them) opportunity.

most of the other tweets' comments are interesting reading, allowing
me to fill in gaps in my knowledge and to further think about and
define the scope of this issue. i thought that i, too, had a piece
of information that would be valuable to this discussion. unfortunately,
it appears that i was wrong (as usual whenever i send anything this
list). nevertheless, the reasons for your sudden and unprovoked attack
upon me for comments that i never made are a complete mystery to me
(do you dislike my bird trip reports THAT MUCH? if so, why won't you
just admit it instead of attacking me like this).

i will always have a BIG problem with being misinterpreted and pointed
to as the example of what is wrong with certain birders. this was
completely inappropriate and i do not deserve such treatment. i did not
say anything that supports the comments made at my expense and
attributed to me as representing my own personal opinions. in fact, i
have never stated my opinion on this issue -- and after this undeserved
verbal assault, I NEVER WILL! -- so no one out there can accurately
represent my opinions regarding this topic. furthermore, NO ONE likes
to be misunderstood or misrepresented and i am definitely no exception.

and last, but not least, greg said (pasted here for easy reference);

"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."

i don't recall ever stating any reaction whatsoever regarding your
colleagues' comments and diatribes. i certainly have not said anything
about the quality of your colleagues' observational skills. please
share the message or messages where i stated these things because i
seem to have lost it.

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!<><><>