> Falconers, as users of the resource, probably shouldn't be taken as the
> unbiased final authority on what the impact of a new state quota might
> be.
>
> Paul Webster
> Seattle
> paul.webster at attbi.com
>

I think, for one thing, the time has come for us and the State to stop
referring to wildlife as a "resource". Using this term encourages thinking
of living beings as things which can be counted, and when the count reaches
a certain number those that are "extra" can be destroyed or "taken" (another
euphemism with the same resultant thinking). We spend a great deal of time
writing about the obviously conscious interactions among birds and yet
depersonalize them by referring to them as "the resource". They are
fundamentally not *our* resource - they are beings with just as much right
to life as any of us, if not more, since each of their species is much more
critical to the survival of all the others than is ours. Deer are not here
for us to hunt, trees aren't here for us to make into boards. We need to
stop this way of thinking. Arcane practices like capturing a wild bird and
keeping it imprisoned should be banned. When everyone can go to the store
for food, there is no longer any excuse for falconry or whaling. Regarding
falcons, when there was only one successful known nest, clearly this species
is at a minimum in this region and should enjoy protection from kidnapping
for the purpose of being held hostage, as this is what these people are
doing. They contribute nothing to the species. They're not even attempting
breeding programs. Exactly what are such "sports" or "hobbies" other than
animal abuse for personal amusement?

Christine
Everett