From: tara@socrates.umd.edu (Tara McDermott)
Subject: Audubon Society's bird "rescues"
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:51:46 GMT

I came across this article on the Audubon Society in the Summer '92
issue of PETA NEWS:

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control (ADC)
office poisoned dozens of herring and great blackbacked gulls on Jenny
Island, Maine.  At whose reccomendation?  Why, the National Audubon
Society, whose president, Peter Berle, has told the public, "Since
1900, National Audubon has worked to make sure that all Maine seabirds
are protected and that no species are lost."  The gulls' "sin" was to
nest on the island, which interfered with an Audubon project to
establish a breeding colony of common, arctic, and roseate terns and
"leave a [more] interesting...mix of bird species for future human
generations." 

DRC 1339, the avicide used on the gulls on Jenny Island, was
originally developed for use on blackbirds.  The poison works by
interfering with kidney function, causing death by a build-up of
bodily wastes.  Berle insists that gulls poisoned with DRC 1339 show
no signs of pain and "usually die on their nests in resting postures"
within 24 hours.  But other bird experts say the gulls take up to 72
hours to die, only two-thirds of them at home on their nests.  The
third that die elsewhere not only suffer themselves, but pose a threat
to other animals who eat their poisoned corpses."

I read this last week.  This morning on NPR I heard a story about the
Audubon Society poisoning gulls on another island where they were
trying to get puffins to land there and start a population (by placing
wooden puffins to fool them into thinking that there already WAS a
thriving puffin population - the only way they would come to the
island).  The gulls posed a threat to the future inhabitants.  Gulls
snack on puffin eggs and younglings, and basically pose a threat to a
puffin population.  The story ended with Japan showing interest, since
they have an endangered albatross species somewhere...

I can't help but feel outraged at their tactics.  On what basis does
an organization have the right to choose what species of animal takes
precedence over another?  The gull population has on at least these
two instances been targeted for decimation, because they are thriving,
and are in no danger of becoming extinct.  Endangered species then,
according to Audubon, take precidence over non-endangered species, at
expense of their lives.  

This seems to point to favoritism for a certain "race" of bird, much
like the Nazi's extermination of Jews, to let the Arian race take its
rightful place as dominant species (in a very general sense, of
course).  I'd like to see some discussion on this.  I agree in
principal that endangered species should be helped, but to do so at
the expense of another species is a very disturbing idea to me.  I 
could never condone this practice.  The gulls have just as much right to
exist as the puffins.

Tara
-- 
Tara McDermott             "Sweet and sweet is their poisoned note, the 
                               little snakes of silver throat, in mossy
tara@socrates.umd.edu            skulls that nest and lie, ever singing
                                    'die, oh! die.'"    - T. L. Beddoes
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals