1. They don't constitue a serious threat? Is the writer an insurance liability expert, an ornithologist, or an expert in urban wildlife geography? If the answer is "none," then I'd go ahead and say that claim is useless. Since obviously this is opinion and not based on fact or any type of honest interpretation of data, perhaps the author should poll those who have survived a goose being sucked into a jet engine while a plane is in flight. Perhaps their opinion might differ about what constitutes a serious threat?
2. The statement that "even if they did pose a serious threat to air traffic, they shouldn't be pre-emptively removed." Comedy gold. Let's play "analogies" with that gem. "The bed bugs in your house shouldn't be pre-emptively removed." "Rats in your bedroom shouldn't be pre-emptively removed." "A serial killer who is let into your apartment by another guest shouldn't be pre-emptively removed." After all, none are a "serious threat" up until the point that they are suddenly a quite serious threat (and you are dead or on life support). Wow, that claim sounds pretty stupid, afterall.
There are plenty of intellectually honest reasons to be for or against lethal control of any animal. "Making a bunch of stuff up" does not qualify as an "intellectually honest reason."
© 2013 The L Magazine
Website powered by Foundation