>
> I don't advocate culling any species but I often question the wisdom
> of human intervention to sustain the life of members of a species
> not under threat that would otherwise die of natural causes.
>
> Peter
Peter
there are lots of ways of thinking about this.
One of the arguments people sometimes use when thinking about rehab is that
animals that have been harmed by human intervention should /ought to have
that harm ameliorated.
I'd be fairly sure that the bird Scot's partner bought home was a brancher,
that is a bird that has left the nest but is not flying yet. In times past,
in a bush that has an under story, such a bird would flap around in the
branches, up and down, gaining skills.
In our cities (where, it is worth noting, in every other way Noisys do very
well nicely) there usually is not understory and birds that fall can not get
back up to the nest. They may be fed the other birds but as long as they
can't get back up to the nest the bird is pretty much doomed.
It's one perspective anyway. I'm not sure I buy it all the time but I think
it's not bad.
Another reason for raising noisy miners is because they are good practise.
You know how to raise a noisy and there is every chance you can raise other
birds .. more 'worthy' birds. Most rehabbers will never have the opportunity
to raise a bird that is listed as threatened, but some will and everyone has
to start learning somewhere.
Scot - there is no reason why your bird should not be released. Many, many
noisy miners come into care every year, from just hatched up. As long as
they are fundamentally healthy they pretty much all get out there and do the
noisy miner thing.
cheers
storm
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1477 - Release Date: 01/06/2008
5:28 PM
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
