Subject: WNV and Crows, etc.
Date: Sep 21 15:52:37 2002
From: Joaw9 at aol.com - Joaw9 at aol.com


In a message dated 9/21/2002 12:59:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
nyneve at u.washington.edu writes:


> so the human risk from WNV is extremely
> minimal, however, the birds run a much higher risk, although no one
> is really sure what the mortality is since we cannot know the full
> extent of the damage from WNV in wild bird populations (we can, however,
> assess it indirectly through bird censuses, surveys and whatnot).
>
I have been in Massachusetts for a week and thus do not know what all
has been said in this WNV thread (so forgive me if my two cents has been
covered).
Diseases come and go and animal populations (including birds) surge
and wane as the individuals within species either die, or survive and
propagate. It seems to me that what affects bird populations far more
seriously than a disease like WNV is habitat loss. Endangered bird species
would have a better chance of surviving diseases if there were more birds of
each species and there would BE more birds of each species if their habitat
were not being destroyed at an alarming rate. (Who are you selling YOUR
property to?) I am so sick of the media's (and therefore the human masses')
knee-jerk reaction to the WNV.

Jo Waldron
Everett, WA
joaw9 at aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20020921/d45c58ce/attachment.htm