LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Birds a symbol of conflict

The starling problem in Beaconsfield provides an interesting example of the relationship we humans have with species that we consider to be pests. The starling was introduced to North America by Eugene Schieffelin on March 6, 1890 so that the New World could experience the wonders of all of the birds mentioned in the collected works of William Shakespeare. Starlings thrive on the grubs that infest perfectly manicured mowed lawns and so have done quite nicely here. That same misguided quest for the transcendent is also in play in our approach to agriculture where not only pests but also crop losses due to pests continue to increase because of (and not despite) increasing quantities of pesticides dumped on mono-cultural, imagined-recreations of Eden.

The other most common bird in the suburban landscape, the European house sparrow, is now in peril of extirpation in its native range. Perhaps the Beaconsfield starlings will one day become a tourist attraction to those from more fortunate countries who manage to attain the sterile, lifeless paradise we seem to crave.

Peter Graham

Pointe Claire



Extensive measure

To prune the trees in Beaconsfield Court seems like an extensive measure to deal with a temporary problem. I’m no expert, but I believe the starlings are experiencing Zugenruhe, a sharp jump in activity during the onset of migratory response.

To decrease a species’ habitat in an already arid biosphere for the sake of saving “automobile paint jobs” seems excessive. And as for the chance of causing salmonella poisoning, I cannot imagine anyone licking the ground to obtain it.

I walk under the trees on Beaconsfield Court on a regular basis, and it is one of the thrills of waking under a tree so rich in life that is one of Beaconsfield’s hidden treasures.

I’m convinced that the Beaconsfield Court residents are more bothered with the noise the birds make than their health

hazard, and this move comes across as sly opportunism. I would urge the district councillors to consult with Le Nichoir Bird Rehabilitation Centre prior to making any conclusive decision on how to further decrease what precious little we have left in Beaconsfield.

Matthew Brett

Beaconsfield



Can’t have it

both ways

Women live in different ways in different countries. In some ethnic or cultural groups, women stay at home to prepare food for their family, and never venture outside their home alone without their husband or another male member of the family. In some countries, women are not allowed to drive a car, and they can't vote in elections. (Most of these countries don't even have a democratic system of government, so there is no vote for anyone, except for the powerful and the rich). It is usually custom in those countries for women to wear a veil, a hijab or a burka, at least in public or away from the gaze of men. So when women want to (or are forced to) wear a veil, a burka or a hijab, perhaps they should practise the culture (it is more of a cultural than a religious observance) of their own country.

Either women chose the modern western societies and its customs: the right to vote, the right to drive a car, the right to go out alone on the street without a male escort, and forget about the veil, burka or hijab. If they chose to wear the burka, hijab, or veil, then they should not drive, go out alone, nor vote. They can't have it both ways. Women want to benefit from the advantages of Western society but stick to the restrictions of Eastern countries and civilizations. I think they are going too far. This is not ‘reasonable accommodation.’

Ed Hoyer

Roxboro