Which camp are you in! (1 Viewer)

[BayWren]

I volunteer for a raptor rehabilitation facility, so I understand the whole compassion thing just fine. However, I also understand the difference between trying to rescue something for its benefit, and trying to rescue it for your own benefit. Trying to rescue this Sora when I still have no idea what it needs rescuing from sounds more like the latter case. We usually have at least a few overwintering Virginia Rails here in northern Colorado every year, so I don't think a cold snap represents a dire threat.

A bird could be injured by a passing car, or a passing Sharp-shinned Hawk. Are these events truly equivalent, equally requiring rescue? I don't think so, but I know that there are a lot of people who think they are, and that any animal capable of being "rescued" needs it in order for us to demonstrate our compassion. However, not all demonstrations of compassion are consistent with a true nature ethic, one that understands life and death in a more ecological sense.

 

[chowchilla]

Let it kark.

 

[E.T.]

I do think we tend to overlook that we are part of nature too.

Supposing it were in the nature of one species of bird, to nurture and save another species - as wolves sometimes adopt. We wouldn't intervene because it is "nature" and "natural".

So some humans have an instict to nurture and save other species (maybe for purely selfish reasons of wanting to preserve things for his own satisfaction, or perhaps just because doing good (in that person's view) releases "feel good" hormones - seratonin and others). Then surely it is just as natural for a human to act in a certain way, and want to save it, as for a raptor to want to eat it?

[I have carefully avoided what I would do BTW]

 

[K Niall]

I say let nature take its course. There are too many example of human intervention in matters such as this, albeit with good intentions, have disrupted a balance and the bird or other animal tends to either became dependent on its rescuers or will not thrive as it should released back into the wild after recooperation.

 

[Guinness537]

Well put K Naill, add me to the let nature take its course camp.

 

[humminbird]

Then surely it is just as natural for a human to act in a certain way, and want to save it, as for a raptor to want to eat it?

Nobody said the feeling was not natural, however the question was what did we think. Having watched many shows that show just the type of situation you describe, it seldom ends to the benefit of either individual. And, certainly in the case of host birds for the Brown-headed Cowbird, who are forced to adopt young of another species, it does not end well even though I am sure the parents "feel good" all the time they are bringing food to the parasite.

We must also consider the impact to the species as a whole. Mother nature has, for eons, thinned out the genes of those birds that did not have the "sense" to go south by a very natural means. We have the ability to reason and must consider what our tampering with this process would mean.

 

[E.T.]

If it is nature take its course, how does that fare against Nature Reserves, Bird Sanctories, SSSSs, Bird rescue centres etc.?

 

[LabradorDuck]

If the bird appears healthy, it should be left alone regardless of how "out of place" it is. It may well survive, as others in this thread have said. Birds injured due to human activities should be rescued (if our activities are "natural," so is our choice to help minimize their impacts).

It becomes more tricky if a bird is sick or injured due to purely natural causes. Restoring its health and releasing it could encourage the same risky behavior (would a bird who almost froze to death from not migrating teach its offspring to migrate?), but an organization keeping it for public education, as they do with e.g. raptors who can't be released could be seen as beneficial. The point about scavenging species depending on natural winter-killed food is important, though. Of course, for a threatened or endangered species, it might be best to err on the side of keeping a wider gene pool alive.

 

[humminbird]

would a bird who almost froze to death from not migrating teach its offspring to migrate

Many birds are not "taught" to migrate, in fact I can think of very few that would still be with the adults come time for migration. With many birds this seems to be a direct genetic trait triggered by environmental conditions - which raises the question, would this bird pass this genetic trait (to migrate to an "innapropriate" (in our estimation) locale or not to migrate at all) to its young? What would the potential impact to the population be?

 

[prattw]

Many birds are not "taught" to migrate, in fact I can think of very few that would still be with the adults come time for migration. With many birds this seems to be a direct genetic trait triggered by environmental conditions - which raises the question, would this bird pass this genetic trait (to migrate to an "innapropriate" (in our estimation) locale or not to migrate at all) to its young? What would the potential impact to the population be?

Back in the late 1950s-early 1960s a number of state game and fish departments in the USA attempted to introduce "Coturnix quail" ("Quail" in the British sense) from various sources. The typical result of these attempts was that the birds did fine for a season, reproducing well and building a population, then migrated in the compass direction normal for their source population, and were never seen again. It took some departments repeated attempts before they acknowledged that a migratory bird would not develop non-migratory populations simply because they wanted one

Will

 

[jaco]

Plus, you're not allowed to pick it up, anyhow.

 

[Steve Arlow]

If the bird was clearly stuck in ice then there is no harm in breaking the ice so it can move freely and continue to feed and perhaps live a long and prosperous life. However if it then subsequently dies after being broken free of ice due to ongoing extreme weather conditions, predation etc then so be it, we have no control over that at all but I would rather give it a fighting chance, it deserves a chance at ongoing life rather than an uncertain chance if we left it alone.

If we can give it that chance then we should and I, in all good concience, certainly would. Perhaps yes I would get satisfaction out of helping the bird but not because I've done a good deed so I must feel better about myself but because I've helped something unfortunate continue its existance. We as human being have the ability to do the right thing and the wrong thing, make choices that lead to another creatures ongoing existance or not.

If we do something good and we feel better about ourselves this leads to doing more good things, conservation perhaps and who would argue that conservation is wrong because its not natural. Many things that need conservation are because humans have done something to put it in jeapody in the first place.

Doing nothing means just that, doing nothing but by doing something positive we are making a difference to something somewhere and that is a good thing.

Those that would do nothing in the guise of Natural Selection, everything dies, it happens in nature etc would be singing a different song if it were they stuck in the ice and there was someone else who could do something about, but didn't. They wouldn't want to kark it stuck in the ice safe in the knowledge of 'it was natures way', they'd want out. The difference is that we can call for help.

 

[Kevin Conville]

People rarely want to apply natural selection to Humans. We feed the starving, nurse the sick, take care of the mentally ill, and so on. None of which is necessarily helping the gene pool. Why are we so abiding to the rules of nature when it applies to a bird?

Does it ultimately matter anyway? Considering what us humans are doing to the planet? It seems like focusing on the tree while the forest is ablaze.

 

[humminbird]

I would not object to assisting the animal (any animal) if it is in a clearly threatening situation, and I resent the implication that because I would not help this animal I am uncaring. There is no clear threat to this animal - people talk of it stuck in the ice but I do not see this in the post. What I see is the assumption that, because the person (human) thinks it is in the wrong place at this time that it needs assistance. Based on this reasoning, we now have a very beautiful hummingbird stuck behind bars in a Chicago zoo because the Wisconsin Humane Society and the zoo's curator decided it was "clearly unfit to survive in the wild" (their words, not mine).
This is the attitude I object to - not the assisting of an animal clearly in need of help.

 

[Steve Arlow]

Perhaps it was my misenterpretation of 'Stuck' and -20degrees that I assumed that it was literally stuck. If its a case that the bird is actually not physically stuck but able to move around freely under its own power and doesn't look near death then no human intervention should be made.

Only where immediate action to save a bird at risk, i.e it was stuck in ice, should it be given, if there is no reason to believe the bird is at risk other than its very cold outside then leave it alone.

If its not stuck in ice or mud or whatever but it is showing signs of distress and human assistance would save its life then again I would not in good concience leave it to perish.

 

[humminbird]

Perhaps we should ask for clarification. I took "stuck" as lingering. Was this bird in fact unable to move?

 

[fugl]

People rarely want to apply natural selection to Humans.

I wish that were true! You obviously haven't been following the US health care debate.

 

[Kevin Conville]

I wish that were true! You obviously haven't been following the US health care debate.

Well, good point. But I am talking in the abstract. Where the rubber hits the road is another matter entirely and selfishness and politics rule the day.

If we want to talk about paradoxes and hypocrisies... well you know we'd be here awhile. Hell, we don't even know how to die gracefully in this country.

 

[melee antoinette]

Birds have been here far longer than man, and nature has done her business many times before us.