well there are plenty of reasons to protect corvids - from a legalistic - and in my view lowest - perspective, its against the law to kill native songbirds- all corvids are protected under the migratory bird act of 1918. thats a pretty old law.

second - over-abundance is a meaningless phrase - an argument from the point of view of someone who generally wants to do something that requires a violation of the law.

third - biologists, lawyers, corporate clients, judges, juries, birders, are not the arbiters of life in general and do not really have the ground upon which to judge the need or role of other species - in fact, it could easily be argued that human intervention in this regard has usually turned up fairly bad results - think of starlings, buffalo, passenger pigeons, gypsy moths, antibiotics, nazism -

but really my view is shaped by nothing legal, for it may come to pass one day that the law favors killing -

ravens made the world - they opened the clamshell the people jumped out of - they bargained with the sun for light - they made deals on our behalf - they still show us where we might find the food that sustains us - they lead us toward what we seek - in exchange they ask only for a piece of the action - which is their due - killing ravens is to renege on our deal with the universe, just as we are currently doing with salmon, penguins, polar bears, albatross, glaciers, mangrove, manatee, everything - and we are now learning first hand what the consequences of that betrayal are and will be.

well thats my response to the idea of illegally killing ravens (or legally for that matter)

take care

monte merrick








On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:31 PM, Kelly McAllister wrote:

I don't know the conventional wisdom but me and another local Puget Sound lowlands biologist believe that Ravens are on the increase in the lowlands and have been for quite some time. Interestingly, I was asked by a lawyer, some years ago, to explain why it was a concern that her client had killed Ravens. The client, an organization, had been cited for killing crows and ravens. The lawyer had a pretty good argument concerning crows, appealing to the judge (or jury, I'm not sure which) that they were over-abundant and harmful to many aspects of modern life. Ravens, on the other hand, were more difficult for this lawyer to get a handle on. So, she was asking why we should be concerned about illegal killing of ravens. I know what my response was. I'd be curious how others would have responded.

Kelly McAllister
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawn Bailey" <dawnsdog at rainierconnect.com>
To: <Tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:17 PM
Subject: [Tweeters] Ravens!!


Hi Tweets,

When I got home this evening 14 Ravens flew over our house. This is a record for me, as the most was two flocks of 6 two years ago on the 1st of the year.

I did see 4 fledged Ravens about a month ago, so they are staying around and raising young right here finally.

Very cool!


Dawn Bailey
Eatonville, WA
dawnsdog at rainierconnect.com

"Life isn't a succession of urgent nows, but a listless trickle of why should I's?"
~ John Wilmot, Second Earl of Rochester

_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters


_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters


"I long ago lost a hound, a bay horse, and a turtle dove, and am still on their trail. Many are the travelers I have spoken to concerning them, describing their tracks and what calls they answered to. I have met one or two who had heard the hound, and the tramp of the horse, and even seen the dove disappear behind a cloud, and they seemed as anxious to recover them as if they had lost them themselves." - henry thoreau