Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, September 17, 2009
Crime No Charges in Baby Seagull Murders
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:30 PM
The King County Prosecutor's Office announced this afternoon that they won't criminally charge two state troopers for climbing to the roof of a downtown ferry terminal on July 15, removing two young seagulls from a nest, and killing them. Adult gulls had been dive-bombing ferry passengers and employees at the Coleman Ferry Dock. However, Washington State Patrol regulations don't allow officers to respond to animal nuisances with lethal force unless the animals pose harm to humans.
"The crime of animal cruelty in the second degree requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual 'knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence inflicts unnecessary suffering or pain upon an animal,'" says the statement from County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg.
"The troopers killed the young seagulls quickly using their batons to deliver blows to the birds' heads," Satterberg's office continues. While smashing the brains of baby birds was "misguided... that does not make their actions malicious or criminal."
2
haha "baby seagull murders" what a shitty title
fuck seagulls they are annoying as hell, props to anyone to kills them young or old
fuck seagulls they are annoying as hell, props to anyone to kills them young or old
4
Not malicious? They should at least be fined.
Seagulls are assholes, but it's their city as much as it is ours.
Seagulls are assholes, but it's their city as much as it is ours.
6
god dammit, i can't figure out who i hate more...state troopers or seagulls....
my brain may explode....
is like Nascar Fans vs. Crows
or
Frat Boys vs. yappy dogs
my brain may explode....
is like Nascar Fans vs. Crows
or
Frat Boys vs. yappy dogs
8
They may not have violated state law, but it sounds like they've violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which is a federal offense.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/Regula…
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/Regula…
9
I guess I'm missing cause and effect. The gulls were dive-bombing passengers and employees in an effort to protect their chicks? Or were they just being particularly aggressive and therefore killing the chicks would make them go away?
10
@7: Yes, yes you can. Let me call up Dictionary.com!
Hey dictionary.com, what's the definition of murder?
So, I guess since it makes note of the statutory definition, it is indeed possible to kill a seagull "inhumanly or barbarously". I think a clubbing is well within that definition.
Thanks, Dictionary.com!
Hey dictionary.com, what's the definition of murder?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/m…
–verb (used with object)
4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6. to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.
So, I guess since it makes note of the statutory definition, it is indeed possible to kill a seagull "inhumanly or barbarously". I think a clubbing is well within that definition.
Thanks, Dictionary.com!
11
@7 FTW spot on.
Political correctness finally got the baton took to it.
Seagulls are a public nuisance. They are disease carrying rats with wings. Second only to crows as the most uncontrolled non native bird species in the state, they need to be culled and removed from the Colman docks. They have adapted their former wild instincts, and instead have learned to leach off of humans.
Thankfully the do-gooder liberal whackos weren't successful in their newest attempts to ruin the careers of some well intentioned troopers.
Moving on...
Political correctness finally got the baton took to it.
Seagulls are a public nuisance. They are disease carrying rats with wings. Second only to crows as the most uncontrolled non native bird species in the state, they need to be culled and removed from the Colman docks. They have adapted their former wild instincts, and instead have learned to leach off of humans.
Thankfully the do-gooder liberal whackos weren't successful in their newest attempts to ruin the careers of some well intentioned troopers.
Moving on...
12
What if we made them wear Seahawks hats for a year and a vest that said "Baby Seagull Killer" ....
that would work.
that would work.
13
I like the way you conveniently overlooked the very first definition, BC:
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
14
They were baby seagulls, not baby humans. Holy space christ, get over it. Now someone please accuse me of being speciesist or something.
15
Can we stop squabbling over semantics? The troopers violated federal law; like them or not, those birds are protected.
16
@8: Are seagulls really migratory?
@11: Whaaaaa..... seagulls and crows are non-native? Since when? The Eocene?
Please. Citations needed. Everything I thought I knew about birds is suddenly wrong.
@11: Whaaaaa..... seagulls and crows are non-native? Since when? The Eocene?
Please. Citations needed. Everything I thought I knew about birds is suddenly wrong.
17
If they'd killed a couple of bald eagles, I'd be pretty upset. But a couple of seagulls? Not so much. It's not like seagulls are an endangered species or something.
18
Oh, for fuck's sake, it's right there in the link I provided.
BIRDS PROTECTED BY THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
Gull, Black-headed (=Common Black-headed), Larus ridibundus
Bonaparte's, Larus philadelphia
California, Larus californicus
Common Black-headed (see Gull, Black-headed)
Franklin's, Larus pipixcan
Glaucous, Larus hyperboreus
Glaucous-winged, Larus glaucescens
Great Black-backed, Larus marinus
Heermann's, Larus heermanni
Herring, Larus argentatus
Iceland, Larus glaucoides
Ivory, Pagophila eburnea
Laughing, Larus atricilla
Lesser Black-headed, Larus fuscus
Little, Larus minutus
Mew, Larus canus
Ring-billed, Larus delawarensis
Ross', Rhodostethia rosea
Sabine's, Xema sabini
Slaty-backed, Larus schistisagus
Thayer's, Larus thayeri
Western, Larus occidentalis
Yellow-footed, Larus livens
BIRDS PROTECTED BY THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
Gull, Black-headed (=Common Black-headed), Larus ridibundus
Bonaparte's, Larus philadelphia
California, Larus californicus
Common Black-headed (see Gull, Black-headed)
Franklin's, Larus pipixcan
Glaucous, Larus hyperboreus
Glaucous-winged, Larus glaucescens
Great Black-backed, Larus marinus
Heermann's, Larus heermanni
Herring, Larus argentatus
Iceland, Larus glaucoides
Ivory, Pagophila eburnea
Laughing, Larus atricilla
Lesser Black-headed, Larus fuscus
Little, Larus minutus
Mew, Larus canus
Ring-billed, Larus delawarensis
Ross', Rhodostethia rosea
Sabine's, Xema sabini
Slaty-backed, Larus schistisagus
Thayer's, Larus thayeri
Western, Larus occidentalis
Yellow-footed, Larus livens
19
@13: That's in relation the noun, which is a specific statutory definition.
As a verb, murder is also synonymous with several other verbs with the only qualifier being premeditation. This would obviously include the noun and legal definition, but the term is sufficiently broad that one can "murder" an animal. You can also say "He murdered that taco!" or "Her dog murdered my couch" among other fun little turns of phrase. A taco is not a person, nor is a couch or a dog.
Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaail.
As a verb, murder is also synonymous with several other verbs with the only qualifier being premeditation. This would obviously include the noun and legal definition, but the term is sufficiently broad that one can "murder" an animal. You can also say "He murdered that taco!" or "Her dog murdered my couch" among other fun little turns of phrase. A taco is not a person, nor is a couch or a dog.
Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaail.
21
@ 17 Precisely how I feel !
@18 As someone who is intimately familiar with migratory bird laws, I'm not disagreeing that those birds exist on the current list.
However, that list is a bullshit list that was created to appease a BUNCH of special interest groups. Those types of gulls fall in to a classification of birds that are non song birds, and non waterfowl, and thus fall in a middle zone of a subset of bird species that are not easily classified in terms of management.
E.g, just because the birds exist on the Federal list, doesn't necessarily mean they deserve to be there.....
@18 As someone who is intimately familiar with migratory bird laws, I'm not disagreeing that those birds exist on the current list.
However, that list is a bullshit list that was created to appease a BUNCH of special interest groups. Those types of gulls fall in to a classification of birds that are non song birds, and non waterfowl, and thus fall in a middle zone of a subset of bird species that are not easily classified in terms of management.
E.g, just because the birds exist on the Federal list, doesn't necessarily mean they deserve to be there.....
22
RE: #16, 18, 20: Yes. Seagulls migrate. Mostly northern ones, like in Alaska, but probably here as well.
RE: #11, #16: Still researching that one.
RE: #11, #16: Still researching that one.
23
@21 I meant to also add... that many birds are listed as a "migratory" species, when that is not always the case across the board.
Their inclusion on that list, is more a matter of feel good politics for special interest bird watching groups, rather than practical law.
The gulls are in no danger of extinction, as their population levels have reached epidemic proportions, as the birds have completely changed their habits, territory, diet and breeding habits as they have adapted to human society.
Similar birds like starlings, canada geese, crows, and house sparrows could have the same argument made.
The existence of so many gulls actually hurts other species of birds, as the overly aggressive birds dominate a given area, pushing other birds out, killing their young, and destroying their nests.
Gulls in major urban areas are a disgrace that should be managed, even if Federal intervention is mandated. The problem is... since they are on that stupid list, local authorities often have their hands tied trying to manage their local problem. And trying to get past red tape and stupid Federal laws such as this, make it more of a hassle and expense than many municipalities can justify.
Or so it seems to me...
Their inclusion on that list, is more a matter of feel good politics for special interest bird watching groups, rather than practical law.
The gulls are in no danger of extinction, as their population levels have reached epidemic proportions, as the birds have completely changed their habits, territory, diet and breeding habits as they have adapted to human society.
Similar birds like starlings, canada geese, crows, and house sparrows could have the same argument made.
The existence of so many gulls actually hurts other species of birds, as the overly aggressive birds dominate a given area, pushing other birds out, killing their young, and destroying their nests.
Gulls in major urban areas are a disgrace that should be managed, even if Federal intervention is mandated. The problem is... since they are on that stupid list, local authorities often have their hands tied trying to manage their local problem. And trying to get past red tape and stupid Federal laws such as this, make it more of a hassle and expense than many municipalities can justify.
Or so it seems to me...
25
Ackham @20: If I sound frustrated, it's with the general ignorance of the natural world displayed on this thread. You shouldn't have to do research to answer the question, "are gulls migratory"? You can simply observe it: gulls are not nearly as plentiful in the winter.
I don't mean to get on your case, because I think you're new to the west coast, so sorry if I seemed to. But our ignorance of the natural world seems to be in direct correlation with our eagerness to kill or "cull" anything that annoys us.
In short, if you live by the sea, you live with seagulls. End of story.
I don't mean to get on your case, because I think you're new to the west coast, so sorry if I seemed to. But our ignorance of the natural world seems to be in direct correlation with our eagerness to kill or "cull" anything that annoys us.
In short, if you live by the sea, you live with seagulls. End of story.
26
Yeah, this isn't a state crime, it's a federal one. They're officers of the law - they should have followed it. There was not truly a good reason to kill those birds, and they probably could have gotten a permit anyway. Fucking dicks.
27
wtf are police doing handling this call? this is clearly a matter for animal control, and they would presumably know better than to beat them to death. fucking idiots.
29
At Reality Check - The migratory bird act covers ALL BIRDS that enter the United States except those specifically covered by state federal hunting laws, and those that are non-native. Nuisance birds are covered. They're dealt with under exceptions and permits provided by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Those gulls haven't changed anything you mention except perhaps some local distributions, and perhaps had an increase in population due to a fuckton of garbage we've left lying around. Seattle is ON THE SEA. Many species of gull like to nest here. We've provided them with some great real estate and energy income. OH SHIT, WE SHOULD KILL THEM.
I guess I'm full-on with Irena, here. She's made most of the important points.
Those gulls haven't changed anything you mention except perhaps some local distributions, and perhaps had an increase in population due to a fuckton of garbage we've left lying around. Seattle is ON THE SEA. Many species of gull like to nest here. We've provided them with some great real estate and energy income. OH SHIT, WE SHOULD KILL THEM.
I guess I'm full-on with Irena, here. She's made most of the important points.
30
And Reality Check, gulls have certainly not "completely changed their habits, territory, diet and breeding habits". Watch them! Sure, they'll supplement their diets with garbage (like us), but they live by the water for a reason -- to fish. And they haven't changed their territory at all; we've simply taken over their territory and they've refused to leave. Suck it up. As for their breeding habits, from what I can see, they do it exactly the same way on city rooftops as they do anywhere else. But it's true, they are adaptable -- just like us.
As for your point that "the overly aggressive birds dominate a given area, pushing other birds out, killing their young, and destroying their nests" -- surely you grasp the irony of this statement in light of the original post.
As for your point that "the overly aggressive birds dominate a given area, pushing other birds out, killing their young, and destroying their nests" -- surely you grasp the irony of this statement in light of the original post.
31
I've learned more about crows and seagulls in the last hour than in the previous year, thanks to this discussion, the links submitted, and my own wiki-strolling. This has been just plain fascinating.
Irena @25: You're too kind. Didn't mean to be a nuisance, was just geeking out. Gulls don't migrate where I'm from. Although I've come to the conclusion that gulls are filthy, carnivorous, mob-forming sky-rats, I promise I won't kill any.
RC @23: Yeah: I get what you're saying. All but for the part where you said crows and gulls are non-native. Nuisance, sure, but invasive? I'm skeptical. I promise I won't feed them.
Irena @25: You're too kind. Didn't mean to be a nuisance, was just geeking out. Gulls don't migrate where I'm from. Although I've come to the conclusion that gulls are filthy, carnivorous, mob-forming sky-rats, I promise I won't kill any.
RC @23: Yeah: I get what you're saying. All but for the part where you said crows and gulls are non-native. Nuisance, sure, but invasive? I'm skeptical. I promise I won't feed them.
32
If crushing an animal's skull in and killing it is not cruelty to animals, I want to know wtf is.
34
There are an awful lot of things that are more cruel than an instantaneous death. Are you capable of figuring it out for yourself, or do we need to send Michael Vick over to explain?
35
@29 I realize you don't personally know me... lol... but I have much more experience than you realize with the Migratory bird act. I understand the law inside and out. I deal with it every year. I had the entire Field Guide to Birds memorized at age 8, studied ornithology and wildlife mgmt in College before transferring, and have done summer field work with biologists at a Federal Wildlife research center as an intern.... just so you know ;) so sweetie... please don't dictate wildlife ecology concepts mmmk?
Gulls have indeed taken over many areas that are non native to their "native" traditional habitat. I have no problem with native birds inhabitating native habitat along the ocean, provided they are behaving in their native fashion, for example along the seashore at Ocean Shores, or even inland from there within a few miles of the sea.
However the type(s) of seagulls that inhabit inland Puget Sound are not native, and have been attracted here by the easy living afforded them by humans, after they have adapted their native inclinations at scavenging sealife to scavenging from humans and human waste.
@30 Irena, that goes for you as well. Please don't tell me to "suck it up" unless you can tell me you have more experience than I...and yes... I did grasp that irony. However that irony shouldn't provide them protection via a Federal law when they are changing the areas ecology with their presence, and negatively affecting other wildlife that they push out.
We can take this up at a SLOG happy if you'd like.. bu there is so much more to this.. I could never type out all the supporting logic and facts without typing a long novel.. and frankly I'm too tired anyways...
Cheers
-RC
Gulls have indeed taken over many areas that are non native to their "native" traditional habitat. I have no problem with native birds inhabitating native habitat along the ocean, provided they are behaving in their native fashion, for example along the seashore at Ocean Shores, or even inland from there within a few miles of the sea.
However the type(s) of seagulls that inhabit inland Puget Sound are not native, and have been attracted here by the easy living afforded them by humans, after they have adapted their native inclinations at scavenging sealife to scavenging from humans and human waste.
@30 Irena, that goes for you as well. Please don't tell me to "suck it up" unless you can tell me you have more experience than I...and yes... I did grasp that irony. However that irony shouldn't provide them protection via a Federal law when they are changing the areas ecology with their presence, and negatively affecting other wildlife that they push out.
We can take this up at a SLOG happy if you'd like.. bu there is so much more to this.. I could never type out all the supporting logic and facts without typing a long novel.. and frankly I'm too tired anyways...
Cheers
-RC
36
to add the general crabbiness this post seemed to inspire: there is no such thing as a "seagull". please make a note of it.
the migratory bird act is by no means blanket protection for these animals. gulls and other birds are routinely killed (for offenses real and imagined, mind you) at various places, like ferry terminals and dams, by licensed USDA hunters .
the troopers were pretty stupid to handle it themselves; if this had gone through the proper channels, no one would have heard a peep about it.
the migratory bird act is by no means blanket protection for these animals. gulls and other birds are routinely killed (for offenses real and imagined, mind you) at various places, like ferry terminals and dams, by licensed USDA hunters .
the troopers were pretty stupid to handle it themselves; if this had gone through the proper channels, no one would have heard a peep about it.
37
Birds don't feel pain like other animals. They don't have pain cells at all in their heads. My dad taught me that when we used to shoot seagulls with blowguns.
38
@35 Those are decent creds. So you won't be surprised if I ask you for a reference or citation for invasive gulls in Puget Sound. First I've heard of ANY gull being considered invasive in the US. A number of non-native gulls have established themselves in the northeastern US (Great Black-backed, Lesser Black-backed), but I'm unaware of either Western Gull or Glaucous-winged Gull (or Herring, for that matter) not having some presence in the Sound. Sure, maybe ONE of those three wasn't here, but they basically occupy the same niche. I'm aware that gull populations can affect some other birds, such as terns, but I've never heard of anyone promote a general gull removal program to "fix" that "problem". Your response to Irena suggests that you think we can fix ecological problems by messing with the symptoms. Rabbits and prickly-pears in Australia say otherwise. At this point, I'd rather have all species blanket protected in the US, and exceptions made as needed. States and municipalities tend to take a pretty short view of an animal species' interests compared to their own.
39
Sorry, Reality Check, but your slightly hysterical characterization of these birds as "disease carrying rats with wings" really undermines the idea that you are some kind of objective authority on this matter. Gulls pose no serious threat to the health and safety of people. I'm not saying they couldn't, especially in large enough numbers, but as it stands they are merely a "public nuisance" (as you say), which is not a good enough reason in my mind to let local authorities have at them. "Nuisance" is, after all, a subjective term -- something that's a nuisance to you is harmless or tolerable to someone else. That doesn't add up to a convincing case for clubbing them over the head.
That said, I'm all for population management of species that destroy habitat and spread diseases. Now who might be the worst offenders of that group?
That said, I'm all for population management of species that destroy habitat and spread diseases. Now who might be the worst offenders of that group?
40
STJA @38: "States and municipalities tend to take a pretty short view of an animal species' interests compared to their own."
Yep -- this is exactly why wildlife management needs to stay under federal control.
Yep -- this is exactly why wildlife management needs to stay under federal control.
43
@38 Why would I care to have any studies of that nature? What does that prove? One only needs to understand gulls and their native ecology to understand that hundreds of them concentrated along Coleman docks isn't a coincidence. I'm not implying they were never here natively. Rather, that over the last hundred years, they have evolved into a bird that has learned to seek food from humans amongst other things. We can indeed "fix" the problem with consistent efforts to scare gulls from coming close to humans. Efforts done to discourage feeding of gulls is a prime example of municipalities trying to encourage citizens to not make the gulls lose that natural caution. Until such time as gulls fear humans, we will continue to have that problem.
44
Cops enforce laws, and even laypeople (say, like me) know that you're not allowed to fuck with seagulls.
Not the crime of the century, but certainly an epic professional FAIL on the part of local law enforcement - doubly so considering that they know the number for Animal Control and there was no immediate need to kill juvenile and protected seabirds. Duh.
Not the crime of the century, but certainly an epic professional FAIL on the part of local law enforcement - doubly so considering that they know the number for Animal Control and there was no immediate need to kill juvenile and protected seabirds. Duh.
45
@ 39 My advocation and use of colorful words to describe action against the flying rats doesn't hurt my objectiveness in the matter.
Your advocation that gulls don't pose any threat to human health is ridiculous on its face. There is a reason they are called flying rats by many folks. Those "large enough numbers" you refer to, has been exceeded along Colman docks. That number is quite subjective, however safe to say, that when you simply walk down along the boardwalk, and pass thru onto any dock, and you have large amounts of fecal matter everywhere you look.... suffice to say the local "carrying capacity" has been exceeded. You do know what "carrying capacity" is right?
Your credibility on this issue was has been marginalized by the statement inferring that wildlife mgmt is done at the Federal live. In actuality the only "local" wildlife that the Federal government has any type of "management" authority is migratory birds or endangered/threatened species overseen by US Fish & Wildlife. The VAST majority of mgmt of wildlife is historically done by the states.
STJA's statement that "States and municipalities tend to take a pretty short view of an animal species' interests compared to their own." is laughable and shows a true ignorance at the lengths many states go thru to manage their wildlife populations.
Keshmeshi @ 41 you are a complete jackass moron. Thanks for the excellent contribution to this thread. Way to give it yor best effort. ;)
Your advocation that gulls don't pose any threat to human health is ridiculous on its face. There is a reason they are called flying rats by many folks. Those "large enough numbers" you refer to, has been exceeded along Colman docks. That number is quite subjective, however safe to say, that when you simply walk down along the boardwalk, and pass thru onto any dock, and you have large amounts of fecal matter everywhere you look.... suffice to say the local "carrying capacity" has been exceeded. You do know what "carrying capacity" is right?
Your credibility on this issue was has been marginalized by the statement inferring that wildlife mgmt is done at the Federal live. In actuality the only "local" wildlife that the Federal government has any type of "management" authority is migratory birds or endangered/threatened species overseen by US Fish & Wildlife. The VAST majority of mgmt of wildlife is historically done by the states.
STJA's statement that "States and municipalities tend to take a pretty short view of an animal species' interests compared to their own." is laughable and shows a true ignorance at the lengths many states go thru to manage their wildlife populations.
Keshmeshi @ 41 you are a complete jackass moron. Thanks for the excellent contribution to this thread. Way to give it yor best effort. ;)
46
If PETA can call fish "sea kittens" I can call seagulls "flying rats". We wouldn't be having this conversation about anybody who euthanized young rats using a field expedient method.
47
Reality Check: So you're saying there is evidence that gulls are spreading disease at the ferry docks? Please, share. I'm curious to see it. Because according to the story, the gulls were killed because they were annoying ferry passengers -- and that's it.
Listen, there's no need to be obtuse. The federal wildlife management I was talking about that so destroyed my credibility for you was exactly that of migratory birds. Remember, the subject of this thread? Also, give me a break with your "now bow to my superior authority" routine. There are plenty of people working in wildlife management (Canadian Wildlife Services, specifically) who would take you to task for referring to gulls as "rats with wings". Your opinion that gulls, crows, starlings and sparrows should be removed from protection and culled is merely your opinion; it does not stem from objective facts, or there would be agreement among professionals on the matter.
As for your criticism of STJA's concern about the way states and municipalities might handle this, once again you've missed the glaring irony which is the very subject of this post. Yes, I can't wait to see more of the ethical, responsible ways local authorities would "manage" bird populations. Those troopers at least tried to make it quick; from what I've seen elsewhere, as long as nobody's looking, local authorities have every reason to do whatever the hell they want.
Listen, there's no need to be obtuse. The federal wildlife management I was talking about that so destroyed my credibility for you was exactly that of migratory birds. Remember, the subject of this thread? Also, give me a break with your "now bow to my superior authority" routine. There are plenty of people working in wildlife management (Canadian Wildlife Services, specifically) who would take you to task for referring to gulls as "rats with wings". Your opinion that gulls, crows, starlings and sparrows should be removed from protection and culled is merely your opinion; it does not stem from objective facts, or there would be agreement among professionals on the matter.
As for your criticism of STJA's concern about the way states and municipalities might handle this, once again you've missed the glaring irony which is the very subject of this post. Yes, I can't wait to see more of the ethical, responsible ways local authorities would "manage" bird populations. Those troopers at least tried to make it quick; from what I've seen elsewhere, as long as nobody's looking, local authorities have every reason to do whatever the hell they want.
48
@ 43 What would that prove? Well, it would mean I might believe you. And since you're arguing, here, that would mean you win, if I believe, you right? I'm even WILLING to modify my position, or at least accept the credibility of yours, if you were to provide some evidence that your statement was not randomly pulled out of your ass after you failed to properly digest your wildlife management textbook.
Saying "one needs only to understand [blah blah blah]" is a weak argument. If there is a documented or documentable pattern of invasion and replacement of a species by these gulls, fine. But until you show me evidence I'm under no pressure to believe you.
I would agree with you that reducing gull feeding at Ivar's etc would be wise, and probably serve to discourage the birds from hanging out in that exact spot.
Saying "large amounts of fecal matter" is gross and scary, but it doesn't make a disease threat. Until such time as avian flu gets here, gull shit is not carrying anything that can remotely hurt people. It's just shit, and people think shit is yucky, so gull shit all over == yucky. More of a mild annoyance. Did you know that some countries mine and export seabird shit? For fertilizer? That goes on your food. Scary.
PS - it has nothing to do with carrying capacity. We're clearly under carrying capacity - I'm not seeing emaciated, dying gulls all over.
With regards to management, don't get me wrong, there are great people working in state governmental institutions (Depts of Natural Resources, etc) who do great work and care about what they are doing, and pay attention to all sorts of threatened and rare and interesting species. But a lot of other dickheads in municipal and state governments couldn't give a flying fuck about whether that feathered thing died or not, whether it was a flying rat or a merlin, as long as they can keep building or cutting down or whatever. They usually have a vested interest in those projects and not in protecting wildlife. (This is why we have a federal govt - to preserve common resources that smaller entities would not value.)
You're clearly of a view that wildlife needs to be managed. I'm not. I think if habitat is preserved and people get their shit together, most animals will be happy to manage themselves.
That's fine. Those are both great positions. What I don't need is you spreading misinformation about disease and gull ecology, or positing that "because everyone knows gulls are bad, it was okay for those troopers to break the law."
PS - Sweetie, don't try to out-ornithology me or out-science me.
More...
Saying "one needs only to understand [blah blah blah]" is a weak argument. If there is a documented or documentable pattern of invasion and replacement of a species by these gulls, fine. But until you show me evidence I'm under no pressure to believe you.
I would agree with you that reducing gull feeding at Ivar's etc would be wise, and probably serve to discourage the birds from hanging out in that exact spot.
Saying "large amounts of fecal matter" is gross and scary, but it doesn't make a disease threat. Until such time as avian flu gets here, gull shit is not carrying anything that can remotely hurt people. It's just shit, and people think shit is yucky, so gull shit all over == yucky. More of a mild annoyance. Did you know that some countries mine and export seabird shit? For fertilizer? That goes on your food. Scary.
PS - it has nothing to do with carrying capacity. We're clearly under carrying capacity - I'm not seeing emaciated, dying gulls all over.
With regards to management, don't get me wrong, there are great people working in state governmental institutions (Depts of Natural Resources, etc) who do great work and care about what they are doing, and pay attention to all sorts of threatened and rare and interesting species. But a lot of other dickheads in municipal and state governments couldn't give a flying fuck about whether that feathered thing died or not, whether it was a flying rat or a merlin, as long as they can keep building or cutting down or whatever. They usually have a vested interest in those projects and not in protecting wildlife. (This is why we have a federal govt - to preserve common resources that smaller entities would not value.)
You're clearly of a view that wildlife needs to be managed. I'm not. I think if habitat is preserved and people get their shit together, most animals will be happy to manage themselves.
That's fine. Those are both great positions. What I don't need is you spreading misinformation about disease and gull ecology, or positing that "because everyone knows gulls are bad, it was okay for those troopers to break the law."
PS - Sweetie, don't try to out-ornithology me or out-science me.
49
I agree with Irene here. Its really quite simple. There is no way these guys (who are role models by nature of their job, btw) should have been let off for killing these animals. Period. Live and let live.
The birds were defending their nest, for christ's sake. If these (enter your own adjective here) ferry workers who complained were not so dense, perhaps they could have realized if they waited another week or so they birds would stop diving at them as the chicks would be gone. What were they so scared of? A frenzied seagull attack? Their little WSF caps being stolen and dropped into the Sound?
If they truly wanted the gulls removed, why couldn't someone have called in animal control to simple gather the nest and take the babies to P.A.W.S., or even just down the way to Myrtle Edwards? What fools. Sounds to me like the Ferry workers were bitching to the cops about the gulls. Hell, they probably detest them anyway by now, dealing with them all day at work. Cops probably wanted to one up the ferry folk and dealt their blows to those babies like playing a real life video game. I fail to see how bashing the heads of several animals (non threatening babies at that) with a nightstick is humane in any way, shape of form. How can those people sleep at night? Sick.
The birds were defending their nest, for christ's sake. If these (enter your own adjective here) ferry workers who complained were not so dense, perhaps they could have realized if they waited another week or so they birds would stop diving at them as the chicks would be gone. What were they so scared of? A frenzied seagull attack? Their little WSF caps being stolen and dropped into the Sound?
If they truly wanted the gulls removed, why couldn't someone have called in animal control to simple gather the nest and take the babies to P.A.W.S., or even just down the way to Myrtle Edwards? What fools. Sounds to me like the Ferry workers were bitching to the cops about the gulls. Hell, they probably detest them anyway by now, dealing with them all day at work. Cops probably wanted to one up the ferry folk and dealt their blows to those babies like playing a real life video game. I fail to see how bashing the heads of several animals (non threatening babies at that) with a nightstick is humane in any way, shape of form. How can those people sleep at night? Sick.
50
I can't believe the posts on this board: I hate seagulls; therefore it was OK/awesome that they were killed!
Gee, let's hope you don't extend that line of thinking to everything you all hate. Personally, I think people who don't love birds are seriously sad sacks, but I don't want those people DEAD.
I happen to really love seagulls—I love watching and listening to them—and I agree with the earlier poster who says this is their city as much as ours.
Gee, let's hope you don't extend that line of thinking to everything you all hate. Personally, I think people who don't love birds are seriously sad sacks, but I don't want those people DEAD.
I happen to really love seagulls—I love watching and listening to them—and I agree with the earlier poster who says this is their city as much as ours.
51
@11 Reality Check: What it this about gulls not being "native" to Puget Sound? This post did not identify the breed of gull, so basically you are saying that NO GULL migrated regularly to Puget Sound before (I guess) man arrived? Please cite your source.
53
@52-
Parrot fever! No shit. That's pretty cool.
Also, I have to quote this:
"Biologist say the gulls perform a vital role in the Puget Sound ecosystem, scavenging opportunistically and eating dead things from the sea and the shore."
Win some, lose some.
Parrot fever! No shit. That's pretty cool.
Also, I have to quote this:
"Biologist say the gulls perform a vital role in the Puget Sound ecosystem, scavenging opportunistically and eating dead things from the sea and the shore."
Win some, lose some.
54
Reality Check - there are problems with just about all your posts. Here's one, in #35, where you try to establish your ornithological expertise:
"I have no problem with native birds inhabitating native habitat along the ocean, provided they are behaving in their native fashion, for example along the seashore at Ocean Shores, or even inland from there within a few miles of the sea."
You mention "inland" as in "within a few miles of the ocean" as if that were FAR for a gull. Like that's being uh, forgiving? Well if you paid attention in Ornithology, you'd know that many species of gull (note I don't use the "sea"gull term) live and breed, in huge colonies, very very far from the ocean. Mono Lake and Great Salt Lake come to mind. And many other places.
So if you "memorized" the "entire field guide" why did you not originally admit that many many species of gull are TRULY migratory, TRULY native of the Puget Sound and are TRULY not sea-dependent?
So, why did you transfer out of that program again?
And be careful, you are dealing with some career ornithologists who aren't transferring anywhere.
"I have no problem with native birds inhabitating native habitat along the ocean, provided they are behaving in their native fashion, for example along the seashore at Ocean Shores, or even inland from there within a few miles of the sea."
You mention "inland" as in "within a few miles of the ocean" as if that were FAR for a gull. Like that's being uh, forgiving? Well if you paid attention in Ornithology, you'd know that many species of gull (note I don't use the "sea"gull term) live and breed, in huge colonies, very very far from the ocean. Mono Lake and Great Salt Lake come to mind. And many other places.
So if you "memorized" the "entire field guide" why did you not originally admit that many many species of gull are TRULY migratory, TRULY native of the Puget Sound and are TRULY not sea-dependent?
So, why did you transfer out of that program again?
And be careful, you are dealing with some career ornithologists who aren't transferring anywhere.
55
Reality Check -
Quick, without checking your field guide, list 5 species of gull you might commonly see on the Puget Sound. Give distinguishing marks, and foraging strategies.
Just a reality check.
Quick, without checking your field guide, list 5 species of gull you might commonly see on the Puget Sound. Give distinguishing marks, and foraging strategies.
Just a reality check.
56
memorizing a picture book and dropping out of a science program aren't the most impressive credentials i've ever heard. ok, ok, i'm just pig-piling here.
anyway 54 is right. gulls are not seabirds at all. coastal at best, often nesting and relying on freshwater systems inland. and they've always been opportunistic scavengers. human habitat/gull relationships are not new - they've been feeding off our garbage for a long time.
as a bird nerd, i have to say the passion this post inspired is fascinating!
anyway 54 is right. gulls are not seabirds at all. coastal at best, often nesting and relying on freshwater systems inland. and they've always been opportunistic scavengers. human habitat/gull relationships are not new - they've been feeding off our garbage for a long time.
as a bird nerd, i have to say the passion this post inspired is fascinating!
57
Last post, I promise! But I call myself a "bird nerd" too. And while I'm no ornithologist, I care about gulls because I have spent a lot of time observing them. Watching them rear their young and seeing the chicks learning to fly is very cool. It changed my mind about them. I think if people could learn to see them as something more than just pests, they would understand gulls better and value them as fellow creatures who share this coast with us.
Sadly, I've also seen how property owners and security personnel deal with them. Like setting out unmonitored cages where pigeons, crows, and gull chicks are left to die of dehydration in the August heat. Or harassing them by literally chasing flightless chicks over the edges of buildings and letting them fall to their deaths. This whole "flying rats" idea compels people to commit horrible acts of cruelty, like ignorant schoolchildren.
Those who are hired to manage them need to come from a position of respect. It's selfish and irresponsible to treat them inhumanely.
Sadly, I've also seen how property owners and security personnel deal with them. Like setting out unmonitored cages where pigeons, crows, and gull chicks are left to die of dehydration in the August heat. Or harassing them by literally chasing flightless chicks over the edges of buildings and letting them fall to their deaths. This whole "flying rats" idea compels people to commit horrible acts of cruelty, like ignorant schoolchildren.
Those who are hired to manage them need to come from a position of respect. It's selfish and irresponsible to treat them inhumanely.
59
I got swooped and struck on the head by a seagull last summer walking by the Ivar's near the dock. Required 4 stitches and shots for weeks. There was a fire station right next to us; and the guys there said this happens all the time. Kudo's to the officers and coffee is on me next time I visit Seattle.
60
OMFG! This is like the apocalypse of stupidty merging with idiocy fighting against logic.
I seriously have so many things to say and no idea where to begin.
Let's start with the non-native species idiot who believes seagulls came in and took over territory that is not theirs. DUH! They were here before we were. I would venture to say they were everywhere they can be found before we were. What kind of moron are you?
Now on to the territory being overrun by seagulls. We are the cause of any population explosion for them. They eat what we leave lying around, adding to an increase in their food supply which equals more gulls surviving to have more gulls, etc etc.
They do not only eat garbage, thank you educated people who know this, as they are a sea species and survive MAINLY by fishing. They are scavengers, but it is not only our garbage they scavenge. They will eat anything that washes up on the shore or is floating on the water as well. Dead fish, crabs etc. We just gave them a larger supply of stuff to pick through.
Murder. I watched a battle of ideas over that one. Let's quantify this on a simple level for those who seem to have forgotten their basic grammar. Murder is defined by how it is used like every word. Legally is is defined in two ways precisely because of the individuals who use the semantics of the older world to deny existence to anything non-human. Guess what though, language changes which is why it has those two definitions. in the case of the state troopers, they murdered those baby seagulls because they committed an action, hence a VERB, not a NOUN.
–verb (used with object)
4.
Law . to kill by an act constituting murder.
5.
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
Looky looky. The second definition that is of legal import. The verb version, not noun. You see, you quoted a noun version when you spit out that stupidity about killing another human. Old world definition based on species prejudice. If it ain't a walking talking monkey it ain't murder! They committed the act of murder by smashing the skulls of the baby seagulls with their billy clubs. The reason it is barbarous is in the manner it was done. Yes animal control may very well have killed the baby seagulls, but they would have done it via euthanasia in the form of a gas or chemical means. Physically smashing the skull is barbaric and brutal.
barbaric [bahr-bar-ik] Show IPA
–adjective
1. without civilizing influences; uncivilized; primitive: barbaric invaders.
2. of, like, or befitting barbarians: a barbaric empire; barbaric practices.
brutal [broot-l] Show IPA
–adjective
1. savage; cruel; inhuman: a brutal attack on the village.
2. crude; coarse
These ideas are predicated on the idea of something suffering when it is crushed by a hard wooden baton. This is why some mentally deficient sub-human stated that they are just birds and do not feel pain. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/micros…
Answer: yes they do you illiterate boob!
It also happens to be, as mentioned before, a federal crime. It is not a federal crime because someone said hey let's appease someone by making this bird protected. It is a federal crime because assholes who do not believe in allowing at least some of a species to survive for future generations tried to kill out the species on the list.
I quote, "The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (aka MBTA) was first enacted to implement the 1916 convention between the United States and Great Britain for the protection of birds migrating between the U.S. and Canada. This offered much-needed protection to many bird species during a time when commercial trade in birds and their feathers was popular. Prior law in the U.S. that covered these areas include the Lacey Act (1900) and the Weeks-McLean Law (1913)."
Link to a wikipedia answer for you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_B…
Ie, the seagulls you despise were being hunted to extinction by fucktards who wanted their feathers for hats and the like. Britain (on behalf of Canada) and America acted to stop greedy shits from killing off another species for money.
Anyone here remember the dodo bird?
In summation: dumbasses with knee jerk reactions like they are just birds, birds don't feel pain, or who fucking cares? Do some research and shut the fuck up! It was murder, there is a law that has been broken, and they should be punished.
More...
I seriously have so many things to say and no idea where to begin.
Let's start with the non-native species idiot who believes seagulls came in and took over territory that is not theirs. DUH! They were here before we were. I would venture to say they were everywhere they can be found before we were. What kind of moron are you?
Now on to the territory being overrun by seagulls. We are the cause of any population explosion for them. They eat what we leave lying around, adding to an increase in their food supply which equals more gulls surviving to have more gulls, etc etc.
They do not only eat garbage, thank you educated people who know this, as they are a sea species and survive MAINLY by fishing. They are scavengers, but it is not only our garbage they scavenge. They will eat anything that washes up on the shore or is floating on the water as well. Dead fish, crabs etc. We just gave them a larger supply of stuff to pick through.
Murder. I watched a battle of ideas over that one. Let's quantify this on a simple level for those who seem to have forgotten their basic grammar. Murder is defined by how it is used like every word. Legally is is defined in two ways precisely because of the individuals who use the semantics of the older world to deny existence to anything non-human. Guess what though, language changes which is why it has those two definitions. in the case of the state troopers, they murdered those baby seagulls because they committed an action, hence a VERB, not a NOUN.
–verb (used with object)
4.
Law . to kill by an act constituting murder.
5.
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
Looky looky. The second definition that is of legal import. The verb version, not noun. You see, you quoted a noun version when you spit out that stupidity about killing another human. Old world definition based on species prejudice. If it ain't a walking talking monkey it ain't murder! They committed the act of murder by smashing the skulls of the baby seagulls with their billy clubs. The reason it is barbarous is in the manner it was done. Yes animal control may very well have killed the baby seagulls, but they would have done it via euthanasia in the form of a gas or chemical means. Physically smashing the skull is barbaric and brutal.
barbaric [bahr-bar-ik] Show IPA
–adjective
1. without civilizing influences; uncivilized; primitive: barbaric invaders.
2. of, like, or befitting barbarians: a barbaric empire; barbaric practices.
brutal [broot-l] Show IPA
–adjective
1. savage; cruel; inhuman: a brutal attack on the village.
2. crude; coarse
These ideas are predicated on the idea of something suffering when it is crushed by a hard wooden baton. This is why some mentally deficient sub-human stated that they are just birds and do not feel pain. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/micros…
Answer: yes they do you illiterate boob!
It also happens to be, as mentioned before, a federal crime. It is not a federal crime because someone said hey let's appease someone by making this bird protected. It is a federal crime because assholes who do not believe in allowing at least some of a species to survive for future generations tried to kill out the species on the list.
I quote, "The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (aka MBTA) was first enacted to implement the 1916 convention between the United States and Great Britain for the protection of birds migrating between the U.S. and Canada. This offered much-needed protection to many bird species during a time when commercial trade in birds and their feathers was popular. Prior law in the U.S. that covered these areas include the Lacey Act (1900) and the Weeks-McLean Law (1913)."
Link to a wikipedia answer for you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_B…
Ie, the seagulls you despise were being hunted to extinction by fucktards who wanted their feathers for hats and the like. Britain (on behalf of Canada) and America acted to stop greedy shits from killing off another species for money.
Anyone here remember the dodo bird?
In summation: dumbasses with knee jerk reactions like they are just birds, birds don't feel pain, or who fucking cares? Do some research and shut the fuck up! It was murder, there is a law that has been broken, and they should be punished.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (60) RSS