[obol] Falcon rescue in progress in SF

[Don Baccus]

On May 19, 2008, at 10:53 PM, David Irons wrote:
>
> I am not trying to make "authoritative" statements about population  
> ecology.

I don't want to start a pissing contest but ... your post lacked the  
normal caveats that would typically indicate a non-authoritative  
statement.

"Even more stupifying is the effort to preserve the DNA of birds   
whose nesting strategy is apparently flawed."

I mean ... the tone here is quite definitive and doesn't indicate any  
lack of assurance about the correctness of your analysis.   
"authoritative" seems like a reasonable adjective.

>   As you accurately pointed at, the Peregrine recovery commenced as  
> soon as DDT was no longer being cast across the landscape, and  
> additional human efforts just sped up an inevitable process.

Though it's worth making crystal-clear the fact that its  
inevitableness was not apparent at the time reintroductions were  
begun.  Quarterbacking is always easier on Monday morning than on  
Sunday afternoon.

>
> Aside from trying to reverse the trends of habitat loss and  
> proliferation of toxins and greenhouse gases we produce, we should  
> stay the hell out of the way and quit trying to "rescue" wildlife.

As a matter of prioritization, habitat preservation (which requires  
minimizing climate change, among many other things) is by far and away  
the most important thing to do.

However, it's also true that human activities occasionally create new  
habitat.  Bridges, buildings and peregrines are a great example of  
that, and while we have to be aware that most human-caused change to  
habitat lowers diversity and tends to favor ecological generalists, we  
shouldn't ignore nor minimize the fact that this isn't always the case.

Peregrines don't care if their "cliff" is a chunk of steel bridge or  
building or natural rock with a crevice or ledge providing a flat  
surface and shelter from the elements.

And if we're going to feed tens of thousands of pigeons grain from an  
elevator on the Willamette, might was well watch peregrines eat a few  
of them, no?

Habitat enhancement and "rescue", as you put it, can work.  Great grey  
owls take to nest platforms and allow them to nest in areas where  
we've logged the old pines that would otherwise suffer heart rot and  
become snags with a nice hollow at the top.  While we can modify our  
harvest practices and do a better job of maintaining that habitat, we  
can't immediately reverse the effect of logging.  Nest platforms in  
otherwise good habitat's a good medium-term strategy.

Why give up because "rescuing" wildlife is "wrong"?

> Whatever mechanism drives attempts by Peregrine Falcons to nest on  
> this bridge will persist until this strategy proves either  
> successful or unsuccessful.  We need not attempt to help them along  
> or worse yet determine the outcome these nesting attempts.

Of course not.  And we don't have to take care of our sick and  
elderly, either.  We don't need to help victims of earthquakes and  
typhoons in asia, either, because after all they're "genetically  
flawed" for having chosen habitat subject to such huge destructive  
events.

*you* don't have to help these peregrines, and I'm not doing so.

But the notion that somehow it's morally wrong to do so is a bit  
insulting.  Who made you the judge of morality?

> We should focus on rescuing ourselves, not Peregrine Falcons.  I  
> think the media promotes these types of stories as evidence that we  
> are actually doing something to repair the ecosystem.  In the big  
> picture, efforts like this one (even if the young Peregrines had  
> been saved) are all but meaningless.  The health of the world  
> population of Peregrines was not going to be affected one way or the  
> other by the success of this one nest.

Well, have you read the story in question?  Is this an accurate  
portrayal of this story?  Or are you jumping to conclusions, just as  
you did when you peremptorily said "the story's inaccurate because  
peregrines aren't endangered"?

While the world population of peregrines isn't going to be affected,  
I'd say one can argue quite strongly from a biological point of view  
that this extension of range into urban habitat is both interesting  
and significant.  There are things to be learned here.
>
> Given the current rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, I don't  
> think we have time to waste standing around patting ourselves on the  
> back for trying to save a couple Peregrine Falcon nestlings.

This is a classic false dichotomy.  Global warming denialists use the  
technique constantly to promote the idea that we can't work to solve  
this problem because that money would be better spent feeding the poor  
in Africa.

If we're standing around patting ourselves on the back at least we're  
not driving our SUVs and putting more CO2 in the atmosphere, right? :)
>
>
> Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety. Help  
> protect your kids.

I don't have any kids, and even if I did, I wouldn't want to waste my  
time with Windows Live Family Safety when there are CO2 emissions that  
need a-reducin'!


----
Don Baccus
http://donb.photo.net
http://birdnotes.net
http://openacs.org