Two, very contrasting articles from yesterday. One of hopeful and one of abysmal note.
The first piece is from New Zealand and describes how an airline pilot was able to safely and successfully maneuver and land a plane in order to avoid hitting a flock of geese:
This piece is significant because it suggests that when pilots are unfatigued, fully alert and paying attention, it is possible to avoid bird strikes even when unexpectantly confronted with the likelihood of one.
The second article is from Fenton, Michigan -- a place that has recently been in the news for seeking solution for its "problem geese." Apparently, Fenton has elected to "round up" the estimated 40 geese from Mill Pond this summer. And although the short article is remiss in saying what will actually be done once the geese are "rounded up" (i.e. send to slaughter, hunting range or gassed), one can be quite certain that any geese "rounded up" will shortly thereafter be dead:
(For other current articles and information, please go to our special FB page for geese:
The disturbing part of the latter article is that Fenton has been offered non-lethal suggestions for effective means of keeping geese at bay. But, Fention has instead elected to take the easiest, cheapest and infinitely cruel way out. -- Pouncing on flightless birds and whatever baby goslings they have during the molting season and sending them all to death.
The fact that this carnage will only cost the city "$1,000" suggests there are likely far fewer than"40 geese" which is a quote from last summer by a disgruntled resident who apparently hates geese.
A thousand dollars seems very cheap considering the costs of actual roundup, transportation, whatever method of killing and labor.
One wonders if it is only 10 geese (or even fewer) at Mill Pond?
The contrast in the two news stories is stark and revealing.
The first article describes that it is possible for pilots to avoid bird strikes -- even when, "A flock of geese had materialised right in front of the plane."
It is an example of a human taking responsibility for self and altering course (literally) rather than expecting nature and others to change for him/her.
This is actually a lesson taught in psychology classes or therapy sessions: "The only one you can control or change is yourself, not others."
Unfortunately, the second case (Fenton, Michigan) is example of humans, not only attempting to "change" nature (and "others") but actually destroying it. All because some people consider geese a "nuisance" and inconvenience near a lake front home.
The question is, why did such people buy homes near lakes where waterfowl live or frequent the places where geese swim or graze?
One would think it comparatively easy to avoid that which one does not appreciate or "like."
As noted yesterday, it is both, unreasonable and unrealistic to expect flock birds (such as geese) to "change" and behave like solitary predators (such as owls or hawks) to suit our whims and desires. It is folly and arrogance to expect nature to change and accommodate for us, rather than vice versa.
The only ones we ultimately "control" and have the ability to change are ourselves. -- PCA
***********
No comments:
Post a Comment