Hello again,

I feel that I was sticking to the topic. We are discussing whether or not
it is appropriate to maintain what you refer to as "artificial populations".
My point is, that I take exception to the term "artificial population" when
it is only applied to one facet of human activity, that being bird feeding.
I brought up the Garry oak situation, because I think it's a good example of
human caused changes in bird distribution. Are Vesper Sparrows, Western
Meadowlarks, Western Bluebirds or Lewis' Woodpeckers on Vancouver Island an
"artificial population" because native peoples altered their environment?
Those birds would not have existed there at the time of European
exploration, had the native peoples not been altering their environment in a
substantial way. Are Purple Martins in the east an "artificial population?
They haven't nested anywhere but in man-made nests since before the
Europeans arrived.

There are numerous other ways that human activities have changed bird
distribution and numbers. Are all of them negative just because they are
human caused, or does only bird feeding fit the bill? I have yet to see any
evidence that the feeding of Anna's hummingbirds is having negative effects
upon this species, or others. That in fact, was the original question. I
think it's a worthy question, and should be discussed. If there are negative
consequences, then it should be discouraged. But simply saying that a change
in distribution is negative, ignores all of the human caused changes in
distribution to birds, that we view as positive.

One other thing. It is a condescending and offensive notion that native
peoples in the NW lived what you have termed a "subsistence lifestyle". It
ignores the fact that a productive and functioning economy existed before
contact. the cultivation of camas was not a just a "subsistence" activity.
Camas was a valuable commodity in a vibrant trading economy. Groups in the
Georgia basin cultivated far more than they needed as food, often using
slave labor, because groups in areas without access to it, paid dearly for
it. Prestige and power in many of these groups was based in large part on
accumulated wealth. Sound familiar? The biggest difference between these
groups and our own culture, is in the notion of humans being separate from
their environment. And that, is where I begin to have a problem with this
notion of "artificial populations".

thank you,

Guy L. Monty
Parksville, BC