"Winged Thugs"

The following comment was received in response to Birds of Prey and Rollers...
Mike,
Perhaps you haven't read the part in the NBRC response where they mention that Racing Pigeons are also a staple in the diet of these winged thugs. It's a little further down where you may have stopped reading. Perhaps you chose to omit that bit of knowledge to help your argument. Much like the popular media, which as we all know is fond of Paris Hilton and simultaneously makes even the most profound event a circus presentation of cliches and quantities measured in terms of SUVs and football fields all the while grinning through manicured mandibles, you have chosen to ignore that the sport of Pigeon Racing is also being decimated by the same urban feathered opportunists. The reason that statement was put into the response by the NBRC is to show that there are more domesticated breeds affected than just Roller Pigeons. Not only domestic breeds, but wild bird populations are being destroyed systematically, with the protection of the government. These breeds and wild species don't exhibit the USFWS's unwarranted "professionally" ascertained label of having a "genetic defect" (sarcasm intended). This is important because there is a chasm of difference between Roller Pigeons and Racing Pigeons. Of course you probably didn't want to introduce that complexity into your "reading".
Migratory birds, which entails everything from Cooper's hawks to Grackles, have one thing in common; THEY MIGRATE. They move on based on seasons and food supplies. The 1918 law which was agreed upon by the North American nations was intended to prevent any one of these countries from poaching too many of the same species, like the Passenger Pigeon. The law was passed in 1918.....almost 90 years ago, when circumstances were very different from today. To blindly believe that continued conservation in the direction of raptor populations would not at some point cause a tipping of the scales in the favor of the raptors is to be truly closed minded. At the very minimum no biologist to my knowledge and definitely no one at the USFWS has ever come out publicly to raise the possibility that this may be the case. I can only guess that it would greatly work against them when they next seek increased funding. But that's another thread that needs development. Don't ever be lulled into believing that your public servants don't have a built-in biased when it comes to their findings, studies, and reports, when their budget is sacrosanct and it is their raison d'etre.
Racing pigeons are bred for speed, endurance, strength and determination. They are thoroughbreds of the sky and they don't roll, they don't have the "genetic defect" that these idiots at the USFWS like to say Rollers posses. Really, how irresponsible to make such a statement. They, of any domestic or wild prey species, logic would dictate, should stand a better chance than rollers, and even better than most wild bird species. However, they don't. Any racing homer breeder would need several digits to count his yearly losses. This speaks volumes of the density of cooper's hawks specifically. That racing homer enthusiasts are being systematically quartered by these aerial wolves should give you some glimpse as to the real "HAWK PROBLEM". Unlike their rural counterparts, urban cooper's hawks come in multiples. They attack from several angles concurrently. There is usually more than one lying in wait for a meal to pass by. Roller or not, they destroy the habitat they have claimed theirs. They jump from tree to tree, like a rolling plague of locusts, eating song bird nestlings en masse. It doesn't matter that the birds being eaten have that much meat on them. Any biologist specializing in avian species will tell you the same. Cooper's are opportunists and will clean out a thicket of nesting birds regardless of age. They are even known to eat other hawks' nestlings.
However, like the media outlets that try to drum up readership, it's not a compelling story when the weaker side has as strong an argument, though just out of reach because of the obscurity of the demographic group, as that of the government's. You choose to recognize that it is only Roller Pigeons that are being taken out because it is easy to criminalize people already facing prosecution. You mislead your readers into believing your poorly researched article is somehow valid. They applaud you as if on cue. Have we not learned, time and again, to seriously question your government's findings? How many innocent people have to rot in prisons, wrongly convicted by your government. The government is composed of individuals, like you and me. Each with his own agenda, each with his god given set of flaws and vices. In other words, they are human.
That because they have a "genetic defect", which, by the way, no knowledgeable and honest biologist will ever stake his career on since nothing is a defect but instead a mutation, that because of this Roller Pigeons somehow deserve, in some twisted way, to be slaughtered, well, that's as blind as believing your load of feces. Well, Mike, astute as you might think you are, you strike me as being similar to these reporters who love to toss around emotionally charged comments based on little or no knowledge of the actual subject. Sure you have a bit of an audience here, on this blog, who, like well trained guest audiences, applaud you when you say those oft tossed about phrases that seem to be ingrained in the typical American response pattern. You are a weak Oprah, even a Springer of the blog world. Congratulations.
For your education, Cooper's Hawk populations have indeed exploded. One study from the USFWS itself states that they have banded over 50k Cooper's since the mid 70's, and they further claim to only recapture 10% of those previously banded. Further, by the Audubon Society's own count in their Christmas Bird Count, since 1970 Cooper's have gone from a total "observed" number of about 700 to close to 7300. Observed is the key word. The number per party (observer) hour jumped from 0.0162 to 0.0645. That number is more important than the raw numbers since it is an indication of the density of this population of hawks. That is a massive increase. Further, Cooper's hawks are traditionally very hard to count since they tend to stay in the brush when in rural areas, and in trees and between homes in urban areas. They don't fly in the open, or regularly soar like a Red Tail hawks. In the same Audubon Society CBC, summaries of certain regions with regard to the Cooper are quoted as stating that the Cooper's "population explosion knows no bound". With words like that coming from the same Audubon Society that last month listed the 20 species of common birds that are currently and rapidly disappearing from our environment, all of which are prey species to the Cooper's, you have to wonder who has done their research. I can certainly say that you didn't, Mike.
My response:
From fossils collected in California, New Mexico and Florida, Cooper's Hawks have existed in North America since at least the late Pleistocene (half a million years ago). Birds that constitute traditional prey items for these and other raptors somehow managed to flourish for tens of thousands of years in their presence, including the Passenger Pigeon. So contrary to your opinion, hawks are not destroying native bird populations. Conservatively, the estimated annual number of North American migratory birds that perish from colliding with human made structures during migration is 100 million. Some suggest this number is as high as a billion birds each year. As tragic as either figure is, the number one cause of the decline of bird populations is still habitat loss and fragmentation. Like the demise of the Passenger Pigeon, we’re to blame for this – not hawks. That there is shrinking (and/or shifting) habitat for hawks to hunt on is most telling in the context of your hobby, and though they seem to have adapted well to urbanized settings, collisions with man-made objects accounts for 70% of deaths in urban Cooper's Hawks. Roller Pigeon fanciers will not win the hearts and minds of birders and bird watchers by vilifying raptors with junk science and employing ad hominem attacks to anyone who disagrees with them.
References:
C. W. Boal, R. W. Mannan 1999. Comparative breeding ecology of Cooper's Hawks in urban and exurban areas of southeastern Arizona. J. Wildl. Manage. 63(1): 77-84.
W. A. Estes, R. W. Mannan 2003. Feeding behavior of Cooper's Hawks at urban and rural nests in southeastern Arizona. Condor 105: 107-116.
S. D. Emslie, J. D. Speth, R. N. Wiseman 1992. Two prehistoric Puebloan avifaunas from the Pecos Valley, southeastern New Mexico. J. Ethnobiol. 12: 83–115.
Cooper's Hawk image © 2007 Mike McDowell










10 Comments:
As an ornithologist and ecologist, I concur with Mike. The comment is full of emotional rhetoric, unsupportable facts, and the whiff of government-biologists-conspiring-against-us that is curiously so prevalent in writings of many groups and individuals that support non-native species. Just weird.
While I don't tend to trust the government (especially the current administration) it is pretty darn obvious that it isn't the raptors' fault that songbirds are in decline. I wonder if the commenter would care one way or the other about songbird populations if he wasn't trying (and failing) to use the decline to support his (spurious) argument?
I find it interesting that the commenter chose to cite the population explosion of hawks starting in the 1970’s to indicate a rising risk to hobby and songbird populations. This population explosion is specifically tied to the banning of DDT pesticides in 1972. The years of DDT use (from the mid 1940’s to 1972) saw decimation in the raptor population to almost extinction. The population of Coopers Hawks has just recently returned to the levels that they were at in the 1930’s. Citing the population increase from the 1970’s demonstrates a success… not a threat.
Today’s biggest threat facing Coopers Hawks is the loss of habitat. With fewer and fewer natural habitats remaining, these hawks naturally find themselves hunting in backyards and other areas visible to human observation. What other choice have we left them?
The argument against Cooper's Hawks reminds me of the anti-wolf rhetoric (they "decimate" big game populations, etc.) However, simple understandings of food web concepts show that the size of populations of top predators like wolves and Cooper's Hawks are dependent on the available prey base. For example, northern Alaska wolf numbers are limited by caribou numbers, not the other way around, and Cooper's Hawks are limited by the population of their prey. In other words, if there are indeed more Cooper's Hawks it is good news- there must be enough small birds in general to support the population. Cooper's Hawks can't magically eat every little bird in their habitat and survive. They take a percentage of songbirds, no doubt, but as Mike says, this has been going on for millennia and indeed predator/prey relationships have existed over time spanning geologic eras. Birds evolve strategies to deal with various predators, and predators in turn evolve strategies to capture prey.
If pigeon fanciers supplement this natural feedback system with their easy targets, they really can't blame the hawks for doing what they do. It would be like me training Labrador Retrievers to swim in the Farallon Islands and getting angry at the Great White Sharks for eating them instead of their normal seal diet, and demanding that the government grant me an exception to wildlife protection laws so I could kill them in order to protect my unnatural, un-vital activity.
Keep up the great work, Mike!
It is quite clear that anyone who flies birds without checking or investigating the possibility of predators in the area is totally irresponsible. It is not the raptors fault that a meal is being provided by humans who do not keep their pets under control.
Interesting debate. However, to put it bluntly, there is no justification for illegally killing raptors for their inherent need to eat. They don't hunt out of spite to take away to joys of a particular hobby. It seems to me that this is one of the risks involved in the hobby. Much like my golf ball ending up in the ruff, or my boat taking on water.
These people are priceless. Take a look at this post from a roller forum in response to my blog:
* * *
I have opinions on all of this, but the most important one is: #1) Nothing can be helped by a lot of stupid in-fighting like a bunch of kids. None of us have THE answer. #2) The use of bad language and name calling are STILL considered to be in poor taste and not acceptable here on Earl's. I know passions are high right now so have looked away, but it wants to escalate and that we don't want.
Here's something maybe we all can agree with. The dim bulb who wrote on the webpage that posted couldn't see why the Roller pigeon would be fascinating, but does love hawks that murder song birds? HUH? I've read also somewhere, they wonder why common birds like Robins and Meadow Larks are way down in the numbers, and point to lack of habitant and of all things global warming as the reasons for this....when every Roller flier in the country could tell them that the hawks (Coopers) which are bird killers are way too numerous now and as such, ARE a problem. The webpage writer almost scoffed at the remark that we have a hawk problem, I've got news buddy, we do!
It always amazes me when people can't see the other side of things and at least respect the other persons point of view. I wonder how they'd feel if they had to witness 35 of their pets killed, some only to have their brains eaten, by these killers.
I'd also bet that most roller men would do very well in any test given about nature and an understanding of same. All of the ones I know are keenly aware of the natural environment and are bird loves besides their pigeons and in many cases BECAUSE they were pigeon people first.
* * *
Heh. Now I'm a "dim bulb," but you do realize that name calling is always in poor taste!
Mike
man...These guys need to go back to school and take some biology or at least some outdoor lab class. Nature is checks and balances and ecosystems
work with that in mine. It amazes me how so many people do not get Prey and Predator workings in nature. I have friends who want to kill every snake they see and wonder where all the mice and rats are coming from...It just boggles my mind.
From the start I expressed skepticism I could be unbiased about roller pigeons versus raptors. Up until the Portland Audubon story, I had no idea the hobby even existed. Since then, I've spent quite a bit of time researching rollers on various forums and articles on the web. Well, it is sort of fascinating, but still a little bizarre from my perspective as a naturalist. Nevertheless, I think I can appreciate the enjoyment, effort, challenge, frustration, and also the emotional disappointment when a beloved pet pigeon is taken out by a bird of prey.
While I can recognize there's a problem when it comes to the hobby of flying roller pigeons, I’m positive hawks are not to blame for their natural behavior. First of all, these roller pigeons are a non-native species. One can't expect naturalists to respect the argument that native raptors need to be culled because a group of people are releasing non-native species into the wild that become food items for these particular predators. Raptors are not overpopulating and they are not the cause of declines in native bird populations. Judging from posts I've read on roller forums, there is a lot of ignorance regarding these points. One roller fancier stated that raptors are responsible for population declines in American Robins and Meadowlarks. Well, the fact is that the American Robin population is increasing – not declining. Ironically, American Robins are among the most preyed upon species by Cooper's Hawks. How it is that robins manage to flourish? Western Meadowlarks are declining because of the fact that tallgrass prairies have been dramatically reduced across their historical range. An incredible 99% of original North American tallgrass prairie is now farmland. So, American Robin - ubiquitous habitat generalist, thrives. Western Meadowlark – more specialized to a particular type of habitat, declining. Destroy the specialized habitat, destroy the bird.
Not one roller fancier has provided a reference to an ornithological study to back up their assertions. Not one has responded to my argument as to how it was possible for the Passenger Pigeon (and other birds) to thrive by the multi-millions before Cooper's Hawks and other raptors were persecuted by farmers, hunters and poisoned by pesticides. Not one seems to possess the honesty to give recognition to the fact that raptor populations reached near-extinction levels from DDT use before it was banned in 1972, and that banning such pesticides is the fundamental reason raptor populations have dramatically increased during the past 30 years. Instead, they have done little more than resort to name calling and refer to native raptor species as murderous birds, aerial wolves and winged thugs. Such callow piffle will not encourage naturalists to look at this hobby with an open mind. Furthermore, I think such sad rhetoric is curiously revealing in the context of what a few roller fanciers have been charged with in the USF&WS sting operation. To me, speaking personally, it really does seem like tacit approval in the illegal killing birds of prey.
Just as there are good birders and bad birders in our hobby, I am sure there are intelligent and law abiding roller fanciers who would never harm a protected bird of prey, or use the kind of language I've described here. They respect that with the enjoyment of their hobby comes an inherent risk of releasing such birds into the sky. Rather than vilify hawks and blame them, they understand natural predator and prey relationships. Sadly, I have not heard so much as a peep from this contingent of roller fanciers.
Mike
"They respect that with the enjoyment of their hobby comes an inherent risk of releasing such birds into the sky. Rather than vilify hawks and blame them, they understand natural predator and prey relationships. Sadly, I have not heard so much as a peep from this contingent of roller fanciers."
Hi Mike, I feel as though you and I must have spoken before because I agree completely with your point regarding the error in the thinking of some roller fanciers, who, after having released their domesticated birds into the “wild” would have the unrealistic expectation that a predator should not consider their birds prey.
I have been flying rollers since 1993 and in all that time I have lost less than 20 birds to bop. My “secret” to such low numbers is to monitor the sky before release, watch the activity or lack of activity in the wild birds, time of day (afternoons worst time for me), change-up my flying schedule from mornings to late afternoons, welcome the wild crows and starlings that nest nearby, and the single biggest factor is that after I lose a roller to a bop, I simply hold my birds in for anywhere from 1 to 3 weeks! Seems to work!
I do this so should the bop come back for another meal, there will be no rollers as prey and the eventually the bop will move along or not spend so much time in my area. I simply make a mental note of the time of day and adjust my flying schedule.
I have heard some guys say they have tried all the tricks and nothing works; I tell them that perhaps flying rollers is not for you, find a domesticated pigeon that is not a performance breed. This does not go over real well because some just can’t accept that the space/sky over their home is “the wild”.
I own and publish Roller-Pigeon.com, on this site we promote open discussion and often have heated discussion about this very topic. I personally and many others promote responsible flying and good citizenship.
There is a movement among responsible roller flyers (especially on my site) to not allow these loose-cannons to represent the roller pigeon hobby and ruin what is a very healthy, family fun, wholesome and educational experience.
I have appreciated the way you have presented this issue on your blog, it appears fair, opened minded and as a hand reaching out to another less-understood group of birders whose breed (pigeons) is not as romantic in the minds of the public as the falcon or hawk.
In today’s day and age, it is all too easy for some to condemn what they don’t know or understand and your approach has given me the comfort level to reach back. Thank you.
Quote From Your Blog
“Sadly, I have not heard so much as a peep from this contingent of roller fanciers.”
The last time I reached out to another similar site, I received several hate emails containing threats, warnings etc. I would hope this would not be the case here with your readership.
Sincerely,
Tony
PS: I have never trapped, killed or harassed a bird of prey.
<< Home