Opinion by Kip Hansen — 3 July 2024 — 2200 words
The National Audubon Society is a foundational conservation organization in the United States: “The National Audubon Society launched in 1905, on the heels of American conservationism and a growing movement to protect birds. As with many efforts to conserve nature, women led the way: The first Audubon Society was organized by two Boston environmentalists, Harriet Hemenway and Minna B. Hall, in response to the widespread slaughter of waterbirds, the gorgeous feathers of which were used to make women’s hats.” [ source ] Yes, that’s right, birds were being slaughtered all over the world to feed the fad of fancy-feathered women’s hats – some even having whole birds on them!
National Audubon has done some terrific work over the last 100+ years but more recently, since the turn of the century (20th to 21st), they have succumbed to the lure of climbing on the Climatism bandwagon – diluting their message and muddying their reputation. Worse yet, their current messaging and fundraising uses a toxic mix of Climatism and rabid Environmentalism – which I call Enviro-Climatism, a word I use to clarify that this movement includes the worst aspects of the present-day environmental movements and the wild apoplectic versions of the climate scare.
I have donated money to Audubon in the past and thus am on their fund-raising mailing list. Every day I get yet another plea for money based on some mostly-false scary claim about the fate of birds like these pulled from the last ten days or so:
“Birds are suffering from the impacts of climate change. Will you help?
It’s nothing short of a crisis, which means we don’t have a moment to waste in protecting them for generations to come. In fact, two-thirds of North American bird species, including familiar songbirds like American Goldfinches, are at increasing risk of extinction because of climate change.”
—
For birds like the Piping Plover, more frequent and intense weather events like storms and hurricanes are existential threats.
Climate change is putting birds at serious risk.
These beloved songbirds could disappear from two-thirds of their present breeding range.
Extreme weather like heat waves and storms endanger young birds.
We’ve already lost 3 billion birds in the span of a human lifetime.
—
“Birds like the Piping Plover are not yet safe from potential extinction and we need ongoing support from generous people like you to protect them.
The Piping Plover is a species at serious risk: Although the breeding population is increasing, the Great Lakes population is still just a fraction of what it once was. Habitat loss and degradation contribute to its decline, as does disturbance from people, pets, and wildlife near their nests. And it’s one of the two-thirds of North American species at increasing risk of extinction from climate change.”
But, we’re not willing to let the birds we love go extinct.
—
With their brilliant colors, bouncy flight, and musical call notes, American Goldfinches are summer favorites in open habitats across much of North America. But if climate change continues unchecked, they could disappear from two-thirds of their present breeding range.
In the midst of this code-red climate emergency—and as their very survival is threatened—birds rely on your support now more than ever. Two-thirds of North American birds are at increasing risk of extinction from climate change including beloved songbirds like American Goldfinches and vulnerable shorebirds like Piping Plovers.
—
Had enough? I have, and more…. Let me try and set a bit of this straight:
The American Goldfinch

This lovely little bird is a common sight at backyard birdfeeders across most of North America. The males are a brilliant yellow when in full-breeding plumage. I see them every Spring as they arrive in the U.S. Northeast and watch as they take on their breeding fancy dress colors.

The claim that Goldfinches might disappear is simply false. The latest IUCN Red List assessment for the American Goldfinch, reads:
“This species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion. …. The population trend appears to be increasing, and hence the species does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion …. The population size is extremely large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion…. For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern.”
They are not Vulnerable at all for any reason.
National Audubon uses this non-existent threat as a scare tactic to get donations out of the anxious, the “little old ladies with too much money” (I have a relative I am thinking of, who is a sucker for begging junk mail), and true bird-lovers for whom National Audubon was once a respected source of information.
The Piping Plover

This little shorebird is so cute that it fascinates beachgoers as it runs this way and that, avoiding the tiniest of waves as it picks and pecks at the sand for bits of food. I have written about plovers before, when they were benefitted by the aftermath of Hurricane/Superstorm Sandy.
The latest IUCN Red List assessment lists the Piping Plover as ‘Near Threatened” – that is, not actually threatened with possible extinction, but might be so soon – “A near-threatened species is a species which has been categorized as “Near Threatened” (NT) by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as that may be vulnerable to endangerment in the near future, but it does not currently qualify for the threatened status.” [ source ] “Near Threatened” is one of the three “Lower Risk” categories in the IUCN Red List hierarchy.
The IUCN assessment reads:
“This species has a small population which has declined significantly since the 1950s. However, there have been overall population increases since 1991 and the species’s population is thought to currently be growing at a slow rate. The population increase is however largely the result of intensive conservation management and thus it is likely that positive trends would reverse again if conservation action were to stop. Due to its high conservation dependence and the risk of future declines following any stochastic event, the species warrants listing as Near Threatened.”


The Piping Plover faces a number of threats.. They breed in the dunes along the seashores and lakeshores – and waterfront development and the intrusions caused by humans and their pets (dogs and cats) interfere with nesting and endanger brooding chicks. This sign has Piping Plovers as the right-hand image.
Increasing populations of the small falcon, the Merlin, a winning species, whose primary prey is other birds, are listed as a threat in Virginia.
Any disturbance of beaches during breeding season can disrupt Pipers, including conservation efforts, like beach replenishment, nest surveillance and beach-grass planting.
But, the bottom line for Piping Plovers is that while their breeding areas can benefit from some protections, they are not particularly at risk and certainly not in crisis.
In fact, two-thirds of North American bird species…are at increasing risk of extinction because of climate change.
All of these types of claims have some basis in fact, but, as you would suspect, are alarmist spins produced by advocacy organizations. Most of the data comes from a report called “State of the Birds 2022”, “The 2022 U.S. State of the Birds report was produced by a consortium of government agencies, private organizations, and bird initiatives led by NABCI (North American Bird Conservation Initiative).”
I have written here at WUWT about earlier versions of this report – “About those claims of declining bird populations due to ‘climate change’” and “Birds in Crisis?”.
There is no doubt that as land-use changes and local weather conditions change, cities are built, farms and ranches expand and, on the other hand, as much agricultural land is abandoned and reverts to transitional forests or grasslands, the populations of birds that inhabit these ecological niches will change. There are winners and losers, some individual species and types of birds have expanding populations and some have shrinking populations.
In the latest State of the Birds , the NABCI offers this overall picture:

In this we see that waterbirds of all kinds are booming. Western Forest Birds are long-term steady. Eastern Forest Birds, Shorebirds and Grassland Birds populations have leveled out and stabilized in the last decade. And, a number of birds types declining, some very steeply. Note that in keeping with Enviro-Climatism memes, NABCI has labelled some species “Tipping Point species”.
The sources for the data for this (and previous reports) are explained as: “This report describes population change for 259 species of North American birds summarized from 5 surveys: the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS, 176 species, Sauer et al., 2020), the Christmas Bird Count (CBC, 60 species, Meehan et al., 2020), the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey (WBPHS, 14 species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2021), the American Woodcock Signing-ground Survey (SGS, 1 species, Seamans and Rau, 2021), and International Shorebird Surveys (ISS, 9 species, Smith and Smith, 2022).”…
The bird counts may all suffer from the same problems recently found in monarch butterfly counts, which I explain in this essay: “Modern Scientific Controversies 2024: The Monarch Wars — Part 1”, to wit; the counts are performed by volunteers who count at specified locations on pre-determined days, year after year. Neither the butterflies or the birds are informed of the locations and dates in advance and may miss their appointments or simply pass by at another time or another location.
There are conflicting reports on some of these trends. For instance, the category “Sea Ducks”: in the NABCI report, it says: “Sea ducks face elevated threats from climate change, including effects on food resources, altered predator communities, and rapid changes to breeding habitats.” And show a sharp declining trend of “30%”.
But, the specialized conservation group “Sea Duck Joint Venture” contradicts that statement, explictly saying “…for most species of sea ducks, we cannot accurately estimate abundance, relative densities, or population trends, nor determine abundance objectives.”
And the oft-repeated claim:
“Three billion birds lost 1 in 4 breeding birds have been lost from the United States and Canada in the past 50 years.”? [ State of the Birds 2022, page 4 ]
We have this from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology:
“In the United States alone, there are 60 million to 100 million free-ranging, unowned cats. These are non-native predators that, even using conservative estimates, kill 1.3–4 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals each year in the U.S. alone (Loss et al. 2013, Nature Communications).”
This does not include the number of birds killed by 58 million owned pet cats allowed to roam free at least part of the day. In the 50 years covered by the NABCI claim, cats would account for between 65 and 200 Billion birds killed (by feral cats) and untold billions more by pet cats.
The reports of “3 billion birds lost”, repeated in Audubon fund-raising, pales by comparison.
These are staggering numbers, yet there is very little real pressure from National Audubon or NACBI , nothing in the The State of the Birds report, calling for laws and regulations to prevent this rampant slaughter. The topic is somewhat toxic for National Audubon as illustrated by the 2013 kurfluffle over a Ted Williams Op-Ed in a non-Audubon publication, resulting in an official apology from Williams.. A search of the National Audubon’s magazine reveals that Audubon took a strong stand on cats in 2013 thru about 2015:
“So let’s be clear: Audubon’s long-standing view, strongly supported by the best available science and laid out in a resolution by our board of directors, is that cats – particularly feral cats – are a leading cause of bird deaths. Audubon strongly believes that cats belong indoors. That’s safer for them and for birds.”
After 2015, their magazine is silent about the cat issue, until recently, with two articles in the Spring 2024 issue in support of keeping pet cats indoors [ here and here ], but no lobbying campaigns for legislation or regulations.
Bottom Lines:
National Audubon is among the many advocacy organizations that are using exaggerated and, in some cases, outright false claims of crisis and disaster to extract money from the gullible and from the caring.
I find it extremely offensive. In the case of National Audubon, they could make perfectly reasonable requests for money for the support of their good, helpful, and useful projects and programs. They do have programs that actually improve the situation for various birds, such as protecting wildlands and breeding sites.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
Please take note that this Opinion piece applies to National Audubon, and not to the many affiliated regional and local Audubon clubs and groups, which generally all do great work, educating children and adults about birds and helping to maintain safe places for the birds to live and breed.
Of course, National Audubon is not the only advocacy groups to use fear as a motivator in fund raising, it is just the one that appears in my email stream regularly with outrageous misleading claims.
If you are a bird lover, support your local Audubon chapter and bring fund-raising the abuses of National Audubon the attention of your local people.
And, keep your cat indoors – or at least prevent it from free-roaming.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jump on that bandwagon ! /s
Just like the ASPCA .
The national groups are crap .
I think that CEO take home pay is probably as good an indicator as any of the nature of charities. For many,not all charities, it’s a matter of public record. Given that the CEOs need to live in expensive places and need to hustle big donors in a costly environment, I’m willing to call $200,000 a reasonable take home. In the case of the ASPCA when I looked up the pay plus benefits it came to over $900K. We give money to two local animal shelters instead.
FWIW, the internet assures me that the CEO of the National Audubon Society took home a bit over $700K in 2021. Not likely we’ll be sending money to THAT operation any time soon.
Charity begins at home.
Nonsense from an uneducated blogger with NO educational credential and NO experience. And knows nothing about the impact of climate change on birds. WUWT, stop treating your readers with garbage like this.
Audubon has been a generic Green Blob organization since the 1970’s , at least. An organization that purportedly favors birds, but also advocates for wind turbines, is not favoring birds as such.
But, the MA Audubon doesn’t like wind turbines next to ITS property- one in western Wokeachusetts. It has one property- with other private land on a hill behind its property. The other owner wanted to install wind turbines- this was several years ago. The Audubon chapter fought it. I don’t think it ever got built. Tough to fight Audubon. In this state alone, they have something like 140,000 members!
Do enlighten us. In exactly what way is climate change impacting the extinction of birds.
Your explanation may not include modelling, estimates, predictions by “experts” or causes that are unrelated to changes in regional climates (e.g. land use changes, clearing of forests, draining of wetlands, etc).
So far your rebuke has consisted entirely of logically fallacious argument. It would seem that your pre-requisite for someone to expound upon this topic is to be a “true believer” in the climate emergency. Anything less would be heresy.
Some years ago, there was a report from Queensland, Australia, about a cadet platoon on a training camp. The commanding officer thought it would be a good training exercise to send them out with torches and live ammunition to see if they could shoot a feral cat. They shot 90.
We used to hunt swamps and bush blocks in the Wimera Mallee when I was younger. Killed many foxes and feral cats. Bagged a couple of big ginger tom cats when we did a bush block that was habitat for Mallee Fowl, even saw a couple of Mallee Fowl while waiting for foxes and cats.
This was done by a local shooters group, most of the “conservationists” didn’t want anything to do with us for some reason, even though we would regularly work to cull the feral species that were decimating local wildlife.
Be stewards of the earth. Other than ourselves, who can do such good works? Every other species will just respond to and take advantage of the environment, resulting in potentially deep population cycles, that if combined with other environmental changes bring the risk of extinction.
Meaningful conservation efforts are often initiated by the far-thinking hunting community. Kudos to you.
“Nonsense from an uneducated blogger with NO educational credential and NO experience”
Yes, your posts always are.
Warren the beetroot… stop posting garbage, idiotic comments like this.
Do you agree that if The National Audubon Society really cared about birds…
.. then it would be out there campaigning ferociously AGAINST wind turbines and solar farms.
Or don’t the countless high-level species mangled and toasted by these despicable contraptions matter to them !
Well, if the organization actually reported truthfully about many bird habitat disruptions and what the birds do as a result they would have far less material to sanction their claims of need for more funds.
This is somewhat like the pika in the western US where certain “experts” only counted pika populations in higher (supposedly cooler) elevations, assuming the population increases at lower elevations were of individuals too stupid to survive The Climate. That is somewhat like the dumb park and beach goers in the UK that refuse to panic when the Met forecast 68 F heat waves as extreme emergency situations.
We put this out to educate readers on what the post normal Dark Side has done to what were exceptional American organizations. It also teases out Luddites that are too crude and empty-minded to be accepted by either side of the disagreement Read your remarks again for intelligent content. Up your game if you want to fit in anywhere.
You and the others on WUWT can cite no authoritative science for your gibberish, nor can you come up with any on your own. If you disagree, show it NOW.
Poor beetroot, can’t point out one single thing in Kip’s well referenced main post that is incorrect.
So rants mindlessly.
You are an intellect-free non-entity. !
The Great Greening of the Planet has increased biological productivity on land an in the sea, expanded habitat, including our own: bumper harvests have doubled and redoubled, 70% attributable to a 40% increase in CO2 courtesy of fossil fuel burning since 1950. Birds love the increased seeds, bugs, worms, mice, fish, etc.
No links needed for a lazy commenter that badly needs to do research of his own before commenting on the world’s most highly decorated science site -see international awards in the side panel. Although your knowledge-free offerings suggest you to be an unquestioning vessel already filled up by government authorities, I hope you can find your very own way. If your researches find you still wanting to combat sceptic views, your free here, unlike most places to come and have at us. But, please have a ‘take’.
The only “decorations” WUWT has received are from other Deniers. It’s a JUNK science site.
Great argument with lots of data to back up your claims
Well done you
Indeed a perfect green comment. A personal attack with no substance.
Warren Beeton
As the 2 examples have ranges which cover dry, almost desert regions, freezing/wet and subtropical regions, I suggest that climate is the least of their problems. Perhaps you could put forward other examples where bird species are affected by climate ”change”?
We await to enjoy your superior knowledge in this matter.
I await any citations of authoritative scientific sources By YOU
Plenty in Kip’s post. Lots of data and links you could learn from if you were capable.
ZERO from you.
We can be absolutely guaranteed that Kip’s knowledge in this field is infinitely larger than your..
The quality of trolls appearing on WUWT is falling at an alarming rate. Probably caused by climate change.
“Probably caused by climate change.:
Yep, for those who are unfortunate enough to catch it, it is a severe mental illness.
Nice. No backed up facts, just an ad hominem attack.
just an ad hominem attack
Warrens MO.
How about some from YOU?
A mind-shrivelled beetroot. A deep red dried turnip. !
You cannot counter one single thing Kip has posted….
Not even a feeble attempt !
“the impact of climate change”
The whole CO₂ climate change thing is a crock.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
LiG Metrology, Correlated Error, and the Integrity of the Global Surface Air-Temperature Record
One can stay the tool of the crock purveyors and power absconders, or one can regain one’s dignity and independence of mind by thinking one’s way out.
“WUWT, stop treating your readers with garbage like this.”
Are you asking to be banned ?
😉
Very nice Kip. False statements, misleading information, unsupported claims and outright lies is what I see from conservation groups anymore. I don’t take any chances, I won’t support any of them.
Better to laugh than cry. Decades ago I bought a parody ‘button’. It said ‘nuke the seals’. A little catchier than ‘ban chlorine’ that came much later, and terribly prophetic of the corruption of the environmental movement.
The problem seems to be true of lots of different kinds of groups.
Support your local groups that you can get to know.
My county’s local chapter likes wind turbines, solar panels and supports the banning of gas in buildings. I sometimes go to the monthly meeting if I learn there is an invited speaker with an interesting topic. A couple of years ago one talked about rescuing rattle snakes. Last year one was on Pygmy Rabbits.
Idiots all.
I’d be interested if someone gave a talk on the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog..
Taking any animal out of a urban area and releasing it out into the wild it the hallmark of a fool. They all fail to realize the out in the wild if that area can support the animal you are releasing they will already be one there and that one will have a territory which is defends from interlopers and need to, to survive. Adding another means, one must die or be driven out said territory cannot support two. The reason there is urban wildlife it the rural areas are all ready full and the less prime urban areas are all that are left.
There is a sign on the Port Aransas, Texas beach next to the south jetty which says that you can be fined or even go to jail for driving through a flock of birds. These are often difficult to avoid laughing gulls, laughing because they are largely freeloaders. I presume that there would have to be evidence for carnage but there are many public and private organizations going to great lengths saving birds. The evidence is not the best and studies few but they are probably the greatest marine fish predators even including humans, at least where the latter are called civilized.
The population graph is interesting since the most hunted are at the top of the increasing list. Skimmers seem dumb because they nest low on the beach and early summer storms wipe them out as I saw once. The ornithologist Bent once called some heron “tame or stupid.” We are also practicing catch and release, among others, for sharks with increasing populations even the large predatory ones, but some don’t fare too well. I once read that you are more likely to get killed by a falling coconut than a shark, one of many extraneous examples.
hd ==> In defense of the sign, I have seen reckless yahoos intentionally drive at and through flocks of shorebirds to see how many they can hit, laughing and throwing their empty beer cans at them as well.
With Rockefeller and Ford Foundation money you know the organization is absolute trash.
Let me get this straight-climate change is endangering the bitty birdies…who are descended from the dinosaurs that survived the asteroid strike 65 million years ago. And have survived glaciations and super warm eras-Roman, Medieval, etc. Who writes or believes this drivel? Jeez. BTW-I have flocks of goldfinches around my house…
I thought Audubon was a racist who owned slaves and had to be cancelled.
THE AUDUBON SOCIETY of Portland has officially flown the coop: the local conservation group’s new name is the Bird Alliance of Oregon, dropping the group’s slave-owning namesake. I’ve not seen a summary report on this issue. The local chapter I know of did not leave the coop.
There are a few that have fallen out of the nest.
Glad we have recognized experts to provide us with that definition. Otherwise, us knuckle-dragging Luddites might never have figured it out.
Yeah, they are “Near Threatened” because they say they are “Near Threatened.
The birds are threatened because of Human-caused Climate Change, because they say they are threatened by Human-caused Climate Change.
Phil ==> Ah, yes….but that is the official definition, directly quoted.
I know, I just thought the circular logic was, well, circular…and humorous.
And this sort of thing is why I’ve not given one single dime to any wildlife or conservation organization in decades. I used to support at least a few of them (only occasionally Audubon) but as soon as they started climbing onto the climate change bandwagon back in the late 90’s I abandoned them all.
I’d love to know what all of these loons think that birds and other animals did in the past when the ice caps spread and then retreated over and over in the past….gold finches and plovers must have survived those events. As did polar bears.
Kip we are usually on the same page for these issues.I researched bird populations in California for 25 years and was horrified by the fear mongering about the loss of nearly 3 billion birds, so I wrote a blog post Hopefulness Despite 2.9 Billion Lost Birds https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2020/04/hopefulness-despite-29-billion-lost.html
Jim ==> You do great work and I always appreciate your posts here (and everywhere).
Like you, I only want to see factual information on the natural world — which does have some problems that we humans can and should help with.
Trumpeting on about “it’s a crisis” is unhelpful and, as most people realize it isn’t, harmful to the reputation of otherwise useful organizations.
When good conservation groups get sidetracked by Enviro-Climatism, they lose their way.
The Audubon Society, like so many western organisations, has succumbed to Jerry Pournelle’s iron law of bureaucracy:
In any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:
Those who are devoted to the goals of the organization.
Those who are dedicated to the organization itself.
In every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization.
This is an interesting claim but sounds difficult to me. This 1.2% would obviously need to cover many, non-connected habitats. It could not, of itself, ameliorate the problems of invasive species nor threats like feral cats. If tried, it would probably evolve into a major administrator, employee, and budget machine that would work hardest to protect and grow itself, sniveling animals be damned.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=1.2+%25+of+land+area+to+provent+wildlife+extintion&atb=v344-1&ia=web
Andy ==> That Reuters piece refers to this study: Conservation Imperatives: securing the last unprotected terrestrial sites harboring irreplaceable biodiversity
you really should add the third group: Those who are dedicated to themselves, aka grifters.
this group contains the unethical/immoral shapeshifting liars that guide the first two groups along by their noses.
Mike ==> GREAT SciFi writer was old Jerry.
Thanks, Kip. I had no idea that National Audubon was up to no good, too. Not surprising, though! Sigh. Hope you and your family are well this summer. You’re the best! Warm wishes. Bill
Bill ==> Well, they do do some good work — but their fundraising outreach is embarrassing and harmful.
Like so many conservation groups, they have fallen prey to the allure of easy money through Enviro-Climatism’s scare tactics.
Excellent point about he methodological faults of population studies. Be that as it may–
Re: cats vs birds– estimated adult pop in US ~20B; let’s be generous and allow that life expectancy of a bird in the wild is 3yrs, so we would expect ~ 7B to die each year….So is that 3B cat kills annually an extra 3B or just part of the 7B?….
How fast does the slowest antelope have to run in order to survive?….A little faster than the fastest lion….It’s a Jungle out there.
Habitat loss is the only real problem MotherNature is facing.
guido ==> Cats are a HUGE problem for ground- and low-nesting birds. Cats eat the nestlings as if they were gummie bears. The cats really can’t help themselves — it is instinctual. Cat lower the reproductive success of these types of birds thus keep the populations far below what they would be otherwise.
Coyotes, foxes, wildcats? ….If feral domestic cats is huge, then loss of habitat is huger. The plow and the bulldozer have left virtually no natural grassland left in the US. Ground nesters can’t nest among row crops or masticating cattle…..Even if we concede that feral cats are too hard on birds, what would the rodent population be without them? Balance of Nature.
guido ==> What are you suggesting? Of course land use change is huger, but we humans cannot, will not, give up farming and ranching: we need to eat.
We can and do do such things as creating wildlife preserves and national/state parks.
We also could restrict cats to our homes and our own properties. Where they can, if you allow them, catch rodents to their hearts delight without unduly affecting songbird populations.
The antelope only needs to run faster than another antelope. That is why animals herd and scuba divers dive with a buddy.
It would be fraud but they have a “report” to cite. They have their own “facts”.
They “own” the “facts.”
Coal, oil and gas saved a lot of bird population thru reforestation. America has more forests today than 200 years ago, because they are no longer being logged large scale for heating and energy.
ferd ==> Yes, forest areas are expanding across the United States — abandoned farms and ranches as well become transitional forests.
At one time our province in Canada had a bounty on crows. Songbirds were everywhere. Then the green blob decided this was a bad idea because crows are good at cleaning up garbage.
Now we have no songbirds. Instead the constant cawing of crows. And the crows have learned to open garbage cans, so garbage gets strewn every where. Especially with garbage now mandated to paper bags.
Blackbirds seem to be the only species able to deal with crows. Hundreds of blackbirds will mob any crows that enters their territory to rob their nests. So crows and blackbirds, but no songbirds
Nothing to do with climate change. Rather the success of crows in cities where garbage is a plentiful food source.
I do agree with them that pets shouldn’t be allowed to roam off someone’s property.
Jeff == we have long [ mostly ] agreed that pet dogs should not be allowed to roam away from their owners property,and should have the same rule, in law, for cats.
My recollection is that the Audubon Society in the 1960’s was quite a proponent of the dodgy science of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”, ultimately leading to the deaths of millions from malaria and the emergence of the pseudo-environmental movement.
Kelly ==> The Carson thing blamed bird population declines on DTD — the science, even then,was iffy at best — but is still stated today, nearly everywhere, as if it is proven and accepted fact. Go figure — hard to kill a popular meme.
I find it funny, in one of the Audubon counts they were elated the the predator bird count was up but could not understand why the song bird count was down. They could not see the connection. The blame humans first crowd has blinders on, so please don’t confuse them with facts.
mal ==> a good point but not all predator birds prey on other birds. The Merlin certainly does — we occassionally get one in my backyard….all the birds at the birdfeeders scatter and dive into the bushes (where they are safe) while the woodpeckers freeze and remain frozen for 10 or 15 minutes.
Seems that the Spotted Owl in Oregon is still in danger. Larger, more aggressive owls are still moving into the ‘spotted’s’ territory.
The government’s solution? Gov. employees with shotguns – kill 500,000 or more of the invaders. (Five hundred thousand birds, and more if necessary.) That’s what I read this morning at Yahoo. Did a search – different source:
https://fortune.com/2024/07/03/us-officials-shoot-kill-barred-owl-spotted-owl-endangered-extinction/
(Whoops – subscribers only for the full article.)
Tombstone ==> Thus goes the utter madness of the Endangered Species Act — in violation of the very nature of, well, Nature. If the Spotted Owl is being out competed by the Barred Owl — so be it.
Leave the owls alone!
Cats in the yard are ok – in my experience they are preying on the four footed rodents. We used to have a neighbour’s cat spend every night in our yard. We had lost our electrical power three times within a two week span, squirrels and chipmunks frying themselves on the transformer. before we had such population control. And the occasional larger than a mouse finding a way into our old house to steal dog food. Doesn’t happen now that we have a couple of feline rescues.
People should be inspired to see other’s points of views and come to mutual understandings if they want to be honest. We’ve a number of blue jays around, who terrify every smaller bird except for woodpeckers. Remember squirrels are also a danger to nestlings. Therefore, they may be competing with the blue jays – which may explain why I’ve seen a blue jay knock a squirrel off a branch while a cat is waiting below. Or the bird is just amused.
The complexities of the web of life are endlessly entertaining. Human hubris less so.
No one ==> Your cats in YOUR yard are OK with me…it’s your yard, after all. Your cat in MY yard is not OK, just like your dog (or your kids, for that matter) who is/are welcome only by invitation.
Domestic cats, owned or feral, are not just “another part of nature” — they are little happy sweet killing machines, given an unfair advantage by being feed and cared for by humans. Despite which, even when not hungry, they still kill billions of birds each year, in the U.S. alone.
Like politics and the Climate Syndicate and all of many activist movements, it is all about money, power, and control, and is rarely, if ever, actually about the subject being touted.
Humor tripped over yesterday.
I am a second-hand vegan. Cows eat grass. I eat cows.
If you want to save the animals, stop eating their food.