Yes, you heard that correctly. While originally brought to my attention by mArniAc with this story, I was glad to see my favorite avian advocate, Grrlscientist, take on the dilemma with this post on her blog.
It appears that the USDA killed two red-shouldered hawks in Florida because they were nesting on a golf course for the rich and intolerant. They had already removed the birds’ nest and eggs, the very reasons the raptors were being a nuisance to humans in the area: protecting their home and young.
It is quite disappointing that the federal government chose not to relocate the birds as had been done successfully with many others. Instead, because clueless, witless and selfish humans demanded they be removed by any means necessary because they were an inconvenience to golfers, they chose to shoot them both with a shotgun.
Is this the level of protection that animals can expect when the federal government claims they require protection? Once they become a problem for intolerant haters encroaching on their natural domain, the government itself will sweep in and kill them despite their protected status? And all because those with money cry foul and demand, I’m sure based on continued donations, that attention be paid to their unreasonable and selfish mandates?
I am horrified that we displace these animals, declare them protected because of that, and promptly kill them when humans continue to invade their space and threaten their offspring and habitats. Even more disheartening is the precedent set by the federal government that inconvenience and encroachment is reason enough to kill animals we already threaten and endanger. Like the death penalty, we tell people one thing and do another, yet “we” become exacerbated when the population continues doing precisely what our officials are doing because of the example and implied approval.
And you wonder why I hate people…