From: ditch@prefect.uucp (26217-ditch)
Subject: Re: raptor trapping season starts today in Miss
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 18:07:44 GMT

I tried posting this followup last week, but apparently my news
server only sent out the original article, not my edited version
with new comments.  Sorry if this topic is getting boring to other
readers of the group.

In article <1992Sep25.003828.11894@u.washington.eduTB:  toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:

RD: Can you supply believable documentation to support your statements
RD: in item #3?  Are there any published scientific studies that conclude
RD: that birds taken for falconry and subsequently released are "much
RD: better equipped to survive in the wild than before" and that "within
RD: 24 hours the bird has regained his fear of man?"  Also, what is your
RD: source for yuor statement that "most birds taken for falconry ...
RD: are released after one or two years?"

TB: You're correct to be skeptical, IMHO.

RD: I am not a falconer

TB: I am, since the early 1970s.

RD: nor do I particularly like the idea of people
RD: removing any species from the wild for whatever purpose.

TB: Probably you mean "individual of a species", since no matter

Yes, I meant individual; sorry for being sloppy.

TB: how good Steve is at hawk trapping he won't get all the
TB: world's redtails.  Since you oppose removing any wild animal
TB: from its habitat, I am wondering where you live that wasn't
TB: formerly the habitat for some organism.  This isn't a flame,
TB: but everybody kills (or causes to be killed) wild animals.

A valid observation, and I am concerned about ALL human impact on
other species.  My personal goal is to minimize my own impact, but
the basic act of existing obviously has side effects.  I see major
problems such as continuing expansion of human population, but have
little control over all of humanity and its collective actions.

The house I live in is in a fairly rural area, at least by NJ standards.
It was built 15-20 years before I purchased it, so at least I wasn't
directly responsible for any displacement.  I could have elected to
build a new house on former farm land or wooded lot, but I did not.

I drive a fuel efficient car (35 mpg over the 106K miles that I've
had it), and car pool for my birding trips as much as possible.
I lead birding trips for NJ Audubon by 12 passenger van, instead
of having people bring and drive their own cars.  I do not burn
lights in unoccupied rooms of my house, nor do I have lights on
outside unless I'm expecting someone to arrive.

But I'm still an American, and consume far more natural resources
than people in most other parts of the world.  Old habits and the
national life style are hard to break.

TB: Steve isn't planning to kill his redtail, but if he did
TB: the loss would be insignificant compared with any number
TB: of non-falconry related causes of redtail mortality.  About
TB: 80% of first-year redtails will not survive till spring.
TB: How could it be otherwise, when a pair rears 2-4 young per
TB: year, and may breed for a decade or more?  Assuming stable
TB: population numbers, a pair of redtails need only produce
TB: 2 surviving offspring from 20-40 young.  Since falconers
TB: are only allowed to take first-year birds, I submit that
TB: less "harm" is done to redtails by the handful of falconers
TB: in the U.S. than, say, electrical transformers.  Have you
TB: stopped using electricity to prevent the needless death
TB: of raptors?

Obviously, most red tails (or young of any other species) die
at an early age.  Does it matter if falconers take some of these
birds that are likely to die?  Can falconers know in advance which
birds would more likely survive in the wild so that they take only
those with the greatest probability of dying?  Would the red tail
species be stronger if a a more natural selection process were
allowed to function?  Since the number of falconers is small in
comparison to the total population of red tails, does any of this
matter?

I would place my impact on the environment due to electrical
transmission lines much lower than my impact from the burning of
fossil fuels; I try to limit my use of electricity as a result
of the overall impact.

TB: Why not worry about actual problems, like the redtail nest
TB: site that becomes a shopping mall parking lot and permanently
TB: eliminates a breeding pair, rather than criticize the taking
TB: of a falconry bird which is more visible, but far less
TB: permanent in its effect?

I do worry about the loss of habitat, and the expansion of ever
more urban areas.  The decline in the buiding industry is the
unheralded major benefit of the current economic recession.  Its
too bad that the American life style sees suburban growth as a plus
and not the minus that it is on the environment.

TB: Toby Bradshaw
TB: Department of Biochemistry and College of Forest Resources
TB: University of Washington, Seattle
TB: toby@u.washington.edu


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Richard Ditch, in the New Jersey "Wilderness"    Voice: 908-758-2284  |
| Bellcore, Room 1F416, 331 Newman Springs Rd, Red Bank, NJ 07701-7050  |
|=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=|
| Unix: prefect!ditch     |     INTERNET: ditch@prefect.cc.bellcore.com |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=