Actually the human-scent claim seems to be a myth. Most birds have a quite poor sense of smell. Blog post quoting a biologist. Snopes.com confirms. However, unless they're very young indeed it's still best to leave them alone:
Possibly this widespread caution against handling young birds springs from a desire to protect them from the many well-intentioned souls who, upon discovering fledglings on the ground, immediately think to cart them away to be cared for. Rather than attempting to impress upon these folks the real reason for leaving well enough alone (that a normal part of most fledglings' lives is a few days on the ground before they fully master their flying skills), a bit of lore such as this one works to keep many people away from young birds by instilling in them a fear that their actions will doom the little ones to slow starvation. Lore is thus called into service to prevent a harmful act that a rational explanation would be much less effective in stopping.
Oh, we were mislead into taking the correct action. Fair enough I suppose. I had wondered why they were so sensitive and also why the advice was "don't touch" rather than "put on gloves". Consider me enlightened.
(Mind you the just so story justifying the myth lacks credibility. It seems more likely that the myth exists for the usual reason myths exist and the positive consequences are pure coincidence. Even so I can take their word for it regarding the observable consequences if not the explanation.)
My apologies if this doesn't deserve a Discussion post, but if this hasn't been addresed anywhere than it's clearly an important issue.
There have been many defences of consequentialism against deontology, including quite a few on this site. What I haven't seen, however, is any demonstration of how deontology is incompatible with the ideas in Elizier's Metaethics sequence- as far as I can tell, a deontologist could agree with just about everything in the Sequences.
Said deontologist would argue that, to the extent a human universial morality can exist through generalised moral instincts, said instincts tend to be deontological (as supported through scientific studies- a study of the trolley dilemna v.s the 'fat man' variant showed that people would divert the trolley but not push the fat man). This would be their argument against the consequentialist, who they could accuse of wanting a consequentialist system and ignoring the moral instincts at the basis of their own speculations.
I'm not completely sure about this, but figure it an important enough misunderstanding if I indeed misunderstood to deserve clearing up.