[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TAS BirdBoard ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by Toe on 09:26:57 02/10/10
In Reply to: Red-footed Booby posted by Jim Holmes
OK, I will chime in, but will not offend anyone. I think the point here is "affect of captivity", not "influenced by humans". The former does apply, and although ABA says it's coutable, if someone wants to not count it due to the former than their logic is sound. But, if someone refuses to count this bird due to "human influence on its feeding behavior", then I think a good point has been brought up about all the other birds whose feeding is influenced by humans.
I don't think it's behaving entirely different from other sulids in one sense. Northern Gannets are a plague at times for people fishing with live baits close to the surface, diving down and taking their baits or even getting hooked at times. A sulid, just like any other seabird (gull, tern, albatross, etc) will take an easy meal when it's presented. Just look at the plight of Albatrosses in the southern ocean at the hands of longliners. One could argue that their feeding behavior has been influenced by humans. What about Pelicans who choose to hang out at marinas asking for handouts instead of working for a living by diving on schools of baitfish?
So, the argument that this bird's (Red-footed Booby) feeding behavior has been altered by humans and is therefore not countable is not logical, since as I've alreay demonstrated how that would apply to a whole lotta birds in the world (take a look at a photo of birds following trawlers off S. Africa: http://www.zestforbirds.co.za/boat.JPG).
But, the argument that the behavioral change is a result of captivity and that is why it shouldn'b be counted is sound.
You decided now whether to count or not. Just make sure the decision is based on sound logic and consistency.
Toe
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TAS BirdBoard ] [ FAQ ]