b. release of predators on seabird nesting islands, which may kill adults or inhibit their feeding their young;
c. free running of pets (such as dogs and cats) over wetlands or wildlife habitat, because pets are predators and harass the wildlife which may be feeding;
d. flights of aircraft, especially helicopters, near or over seabird cliffs because such flights may cause serious damage to eggs and young;
e. hunting, because the game becomes timid and flees from those who might enjoy watching wildlife;
f. snow machines, because their presence is disagreeable to many and they provide easy access by which disturbing activities may reach into areas where wildlife would otherwise be undisturbed.
4. What limitations or alterations are needed in the existing legal institutions, such as the Marine Mammals Protection Act, the instruments implementing native land claims, the process of Alaska State lands withdrawal, the conditions for leasing State and Federal lands for development of mineral resources, and traditional rights of private property? All of these legal institutions are relevant to problems of wildlife survival and restoration, and within most of these institutions there exist conflicts between rights and benefits of special political interests and the husbanding of renewable common property resources.
Experience in Europe and in New England suggests that if reasonable limitations are set on human activities and that if adequate money charge is made against those who profit by economic development to defray full social costs, wildlife can continue to do well. In most cases where damage has occurred it is because those who administer the public institutions have failed to include consideration of the common property resources.
References
Ainley, D. G., and T. J. Lewis. 1974. The history of Farallon Island marine bird populations. Condor 76(4):432-446.
Ames, P. L., and G. S. Mersereau. 1964. Some factors in the decline of the osprey in Connecticut. Auk 81(2):173-185.