I excitedly opened my July issue of Mt Diablo Audubon Society Newsletter: The Quail to check on whether the beaver article I had written had been included. I wanted to spend the morning talking about the delightful connections I had made with audubon since speaking there, but I found that the same issue is plastered with horrific woodpecker headlines that I simply can’t avoid discussing this morning. The beaver story is a bright spot on a very dark horizon, and one that deserves our attention.
When we last visited the story I had told you that the mutuals in question had seen the end of days on their 50 bird-killing permit, and had decided to seek an additional permit, this one from the Department of Agriculture. This allowed the “trapping for scientific research” of 20 additional birds. I had thought this meant they would just be quietly killed off sight, but I had not truly considered the terrifying options in depth.
Audubon pursued the issue with USDA and received back two responses weighed down by their own great respect for their own very high ethical standards. One was from the US Department of Agriculture National Wildlife Services Research Center (NWRC). The other was from the Washington DC and the head of the Ornothological Council who wanted to further defend the very respectable credentials of NWRC scientists. Apparently the very highest ethical standards were applied to the pointless but ethical capture, ethical interstate transport, ethical detention and ethical interference of our acorn woodpeckers. After which time they will be ethically euthanized, or, if they’re lucky, spared to participate in other highly ethical experiments for years to come.
NWRC scientists, with the help of WS Operations field specialists, live-captured 20 acorn woodpeckers from the Rossmoor community in late May. Capture was delayed until after documented egg laying dates by acorn woodpeckers in this region. Care was also taken to not remove birds observed feeding young or sitting on eggs. The birds arrived at the NWRC in Fort Collins, Colorado, on May 27.
The birds will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of several deterrent calls for use in a nonlethal electronic deterrent device. The device is meant to prevent damage to utility poles and other structures. The birds are housed in both indoor and outdoor aviaries and are under the care of our Attending Veterinarian. Our research is conducted under strict scientific protocols and quality assurance standards. Results from this study, as well as others conducted by NWRC scientists, are published in peer-reviewed journals, usually within 1-2 years of a study’s completion.
Anyone feel like a biscuit? Not the stodgy kind mind you, I’m talking about the crisp horrific guantanamo acronymn Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) referring to the team of top military ethical physicians and ethical psychologists on hand to assist and guide the ethical interrogations. I know intimately how much controversy psychologists participating in these teams caused within the APA, so I can only imagine there are a few ornithologists out there that don’t feel cozy with the NWRC either. At any rate, we are told that supporters of these noble birds should be comforted by the fact that they will play an important role in key research. Like this study which has demonstrated that these electrical devices don’t work to deter pileated woodpeckers. It concludes that more research is needed, and any ethiclal scientist can tell you that in order to make sure the method is a complete failure in every way it must be painstakingly applied to all species of woodpecker.
Under provisions of our 2009 California Scientific Collecting Permit (#SCP-10561), we will euthanize the birds upon the completion of the study. Since these woodpeckers are housed in outdoor aviaries, we cannot ensure their isolation from other species or pathogens during the course of back into the wild is not allowed under our permit. If possible, we will use these birds in additional studies, thus alleviating capture of additional birds from the wild.
Of course the captured birds cannot be released into the wild after we finished tampering with them. They might carry pathogens from all the diseases they picked up during our ethical care. Never mind that we spent government money to fly them 1000 miles when we could have studied the woodpeckers in our own backyard. We cannot possibly return them to their native lands because Rossmoor doesn’t want them. Much better to just kill them, but look on the bright side, we might use them again before their deaths!
The Department of Agriculture has as little interest in (or respect for) wildlife as the older gentleman I watched this week trying to use his walking stick to club golden native trout while they spawned in an alpine stream. They both lack the pragmatic understanding of a sportsman, and are miles away from the complex inter-relations of a naturalist. When the man saw me watching in horror he explained “The damn things won’t bite!” Obviously failing to take the bait made them a prime candidate for clubbing. Through gritted teeth it was explained that the fish weren’t eating because they were busy making more fish for him to catch next year, and he grumbled off into the woods, deeply affronted at the inconvenience.
This is the USDA, whose first instinct is to destroy, and whose response to enforced inhibition of any kind is to grumble off into the woods and complain about the obstruction. They’ve shown equal sensitivity to beavers in Elk Grove, the woodpeckers in Rossmoor, the coyotes in Nevada, and waterfowl in Wisconsin. At their worst they are bullies and at their best they are ill-informed rhinoceroses trying to pick wildflowers. Take this example, where an APHIS coyote hunter, Gary Strader, was recently fired for reporting the illegal shooting of mountain lions by his buddies from a helicopter. Mind you, not fired for participating in the shooting, but fired for caring about it. These are the people taking care of those acorn woodpeckers.
Do I sound bitter?
