Tweets,

I mostly just sit and browse through the titles that
bombard my email address about once a week before
deleting the bulk of them, unread. This starling issue
has caught my attention, however. I have to say that
Blanchard's email on starling traps did not offend me
in the least, although I could see how it may offend
someone's sensibilities. I think that if a person
disagrees with the content of the email, then don't
abide by it's instructions. There are those of us out
there who feel that non-native species, brought about
by humans for whatever reason - deliberate or not -
should be dealt with by humans. We should make every
effort to correct our mistakes.

Do those that disagree feel it unnecessary to attempt
to control/eliminate populations of feral pigs, goats,
rats, snakes, mongoose, etc... on islands where native
bird, herp, mammal, plant AND insect populations, have
either been wiped out or are in the process of being
wiped out? What about bullfrogs here in the PNW and
elsewhere? They are partly responsible for decimating
native frog and turtle populations. What would one
suggest as an alternative, if the killing of these
animals is not attempted?

How can a person see the destruction caused by these
animals and then complain about the proposed deaths of
them? Yes, they were brought there by ignorant humans.
No, it is not the fault of the non-native animal that
it thrives in habitats they are not native to. But if
we let them go about their business and not interfere
while they deplete nests of eggs and nestlings, inhale
native grasses that native species of birds, insects,
and mammals depend upon, and eat up everything in
sight, then all that will be left are those non-native
species you fought to save. How can the ultimate
destruction of an entire ecosystem, brought on by
humans, be justified?

Starlings compete with native bird species for food
and nesting sites in an aggressive manner that cannot
be dealt with by many species of birds. If starlings
were the only problem to deal with, then other birds
would probably be able to manage regardless. But
native bird species often have to contend with
cowbirds as well, whose populations have grown from
their restricted habitats of short-grass prairies of
the midwest to basically the entire United States, up
through SE Alaska, and down through Oaxaca, Mexico;
loss of habitat through logging and agricultural
practices (coupled with cowbirds can be devastating
for bird populations!), as well as energy necessities;
the use of chemicals for various human necessities
such as lawn care and pesticides, paper mills and
other industrial plants (Motorola, Intel, Boeing,
etc...) all play a role in making survival more
difficult for native birds. And there's so much more
that I am not listing.

Obviously killing all starlings isn't a feasible
solution. But if a person can put a dent in a local
population of starlings, then perhaps that might give
just the edge bird species in the area need to raise
up their young successfully. I think that if you
haven't the stomach for killing starlings, then simply
don't kill them. I have to applaud those that are
concerned enough about dwindling bird populations to
do SOMETHING, including the killing of starlings.

I've had my say. Thanks.

Lisa Gardner
Olympia, WA

__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/