Hello, tweets.

As I was quoted by Margaret, and as I started this whole thread, I
would like to make sure my statement isn't misconstrued to mean I
disapprove of starling control. It's not their fault they are here,
nor is it really our fault (you and me), but it may still behoove us
to become involved in making up for their original introduction by
some long-gone member of our species. Perhaps I am in a different
camp than Margaret, as I think that conservation is more important
than the lives of individual animals.

We are in a time, as far as I can see, where "wildlife management"
very often involves controlling one species to help another one
survive and prosper. We can all think of examples, and I suspect that
such "management" will be increasingly necessary in our ever more
disturbed world. Alternatively, we can say "who cares," and let the
world work it out for itself. I would prefer to be a bit more
proactive than that, if for no other reason than the very attractive
goal of No More Extinctions.

For example, I wouldn't be a bit disappointed if, tomorrow, all the
mongooses in Hawaii disappeared (I assume everyone realizes they
aren't native there). Of course, they won't, so they continue to
persist and damage what native species remain in the lowlands of the
islands. They have completely extirpated small animals that live or
nest on the ground in many island areas. They're cute, I really have
enjoyed them as individual animals when I've seen them, and I would
be unlikely to want to kill one myself. But if I lived in Hawaii, and
I realized a family of mongooses was decimating native lizards in my
yard, I might change that attitude. (There are no more native birds
in the lowlands for them to decimate.) Perhaps because mongooses do
no major damage to human economies, they aren't controlled in the
islands, and of course it's anybody's guess how they could be. If
they ate pineapple plants or macadamia nuts or tourists, however . . . .

But there are many examples of "control" just based on the effects of
introduced species on native ones. Nenes (Hawaiian Geese) almost went
extinct, and apparently mongooses were at least one of the causes.
The birds were brought back from the brink only by a combination of
trapping mongooses and installing mongoose-proof fences at individual
nest sites. Predator control has also been carried out for nesting
Piping Plovers (from gulls, crows, and foxes, not mongooses) and
other ground-nesting birds. So the people who are involved in these
sorts of programs sometimes deem that the benefits of saving a
species, either regionally or globally, outweigh the costs of killing
even other native species to do so. This is a very different way of
thinking than the "predator control" of the past that involved
putting out poisoned baits for coyotes and the like all over the
landscape, when there was an attitude that these predators killed not
only livestock but also small game birds and mammals that were
pursued by hunters (darn it, I did have to use the H word, but this
post is not about hunting).

This makes the point that so often our major efforts toward wildlife
management involve control of species that damage human economies -
not damaging wildlife, not damaging people directly, but damaging our
economies (e.g., livestock). Just think of crop-eating insects. Think
of rats in granaries. Think of starling megaroosts that have been
wiped out (starling poop is then considered a hazard to human health,
so I guess this is considered direct harm to people). Think of the
huge efforts to control sea lampreys in the Great Lakes, primarily
because they threatened sport and commercial fisheries.

Think of the efforts to control Caspian Terns in Washington, because
they (supposedly) threaten salmon populations. Would we care about
salmon if they weren't such an important commercial and sport fish? I
don't think so. If the terns ate only suckers and minnows, they would
surely be left alone, neither shot nor dispossessed from their
nesting colonies. Perhaps the protests against killing birds on
tweeters could be directed toward the federal Wildlife Services,
which for years has been legally killing hundreds or thousands of
fish-eating birds of all kinds (gulls, terns, herons, mergansers,
kingfishers, grebes) on the Columbia River under the guise of salmon-
predator control.

To go back to starlings, if we are trying - as conservationists - to
retain populations of as many native birds as possible, and it turns
out starlings displace woodpeckers and other hole nesters to the
point of threatening their populations, then I would sign on without
hesitation to reducing starling populations. Perhaps the most high-
profile case of this sort of wildlife management has been the
trapping and killing of tens of thousands of cowbirds from
midcontinent to allow Kirtland's Warblers, Black-capped Vireos, and
other species to breed successfully without the threat of brood
parasitism, which appeared to be significant in their decline. This
program has been controversial among ornithologists and birders but
apparently has indeed been of benefit to these endangered species.

Here's a book on the subject: Turning the Tide: The Eradication of
Invasive Species. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Eradication of Island Invasives. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species
Survival Commission No. 27, 2002. I haven't read this, but it is full
of stories of the problems of invasive species, mostly on islands.
Recall, of course, that an invasive species is native somewhere, so
it's not as if it was put on the earth just to cause trouble. Rat
control is a pervasive theme here, as introduced Norway and black
rats decimate nesting bird populations. I don't think starlings are
anywhere nearly the threat that these rats represent to other species
on islands, but someone who knows more than I do might have entirely
valid reasons for thinking starling control had become essential to
save some wildlife species. Like all things we do as a society, these
decisions should be open to discussion.

Dennis Paulson

On Jan 25, 2008, at 12:00 PM, tweeters-
request at mailman1.u.washington.edu wrote:

> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:27:35 -0800
> From: "Margaret Parkinson" <margparkie at comcast.net>
> Subject: RE: [Tweeters] at #$%^& starlings
> To: <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
>
> Thank you for your apology, Wilson. Nice to read someone with some
> awareness.
>
> I am unsubscribing from Tweeters this evening.
>
> Obviously, many members are not sensitive or even thoughtful enough
> about
> this matter; nor do they care enough about birds to consider non-
> lethal
> alternatives to problems.
>
> My position is the same as Dennis Paulson's when he wrote: "I
> often defend
> starlings to people who despise them, saying it's our fault they
> are here,
> not theirs, and that's entirely true."
>
> Anyway, although I have learned a lot from Tweeters and I have met
> some
> great people--I also am no longer willing to come across these
> horrible
> posts. As important as conservation is (and I consider myself a
> conservationist) the lives of individuals (human and non-human
> species) are
> also important. I am sorry to find that some birders do not value the
> individual lives of some birds.
>
> Margaret Parkinson
> University District, Seattle
>

-----
Dennis Paulson
1724 NE 98 St.
Seattle, WA 98115
206-528-1382
dennispaulson at comcast.net



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20080125/e40d7204/attachment.htm