| Pro |
Con |
Provide supplemental
calories for some cranes that hopefully
will provide a boost during a winter when natural foods are in
short supply
and whooping cranes are having to live off their reserves of stored
fat
|
Corn
does not provide a balanced diet because it does not contain protein.
|
Makes
cranes more tame |
Could
possibly boost production in the upcoming nesting season and
reduce additional mortality
(deaths) at Aransas
|
Possibly
makes cranes more vulnerable to predation while at the feeding
stations
|
| Possibly
increases intraspecific aggression (fights among members
of the same species) at the feeders |
Get cranes used to coming to feeders, which would be very advantageous
if there was an oil spill and we had to provide major amounts of
food
|
Increases
disease risk as other mammals and birds concentrate at
feeding stations. At the feeders we are seeing small flcoks of grackles
that could carry disease. |
Get
cranes used to coming to feeders, where we might be able to set
up
a capture station if we decide to attach radio transmitters or
do health checks on these cranes
|
Risk
of birds getting sick from eating moldy grain (alphlatoxin) if
the food gets wet |
Possibly
keeps cranes from pioneering to new areas on the coast since
feeders would tend to concentrate the cranes and keep them in a small area |
| What
actions might wildlife biologists take to minimize the factors
in the "Cons" column? >> |