Bye Bye Blackbird: USDA acknowledges a hand in one mass bird death

[harvey007]

Source: Christian Science Monitor

It's not the "aflockalyptic" fallout from a secret US weapon lab as some have theorized. But the government acknowledged Thursday that it had a hand in one of a string of mysterious mass bird deaths that have spooked residents in Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, South Dakota, and Kentucky in the last month.

he USDA's Wildlife Services Program, which contracts with farmers for bird control, said it used an avicide poison called DRC-1339 to cull a roost of 5,000 birds that were defecating on a farmer's cattle feed across the state line in Nebraska. But officials said the agency had nothing to do with large and dense recent bird kills in Arkansas and Louisiana.

Nevertheless, the USDA's role in the South Dakota bird deaths puts a focus on a little-known government bird-control program that began in the 1960s under the name of Bye Bye Blackbird, which eventually became part of the USDA and was housed in the late '60s at a NASA facility. In 2009, USDA agents euthanized more than 4 million red-winged blackbirds, starlings, cowbirds, and grackles, primarily using pesticides that the government says are not harmful to pets or humans.

Read more: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0120/Bye-Bye-Blackbird-USDA-acknowledges-a-hand-in-one-mass-bird-death

[OwnedByFerrets]

1. Who the hell knows WHAT they are experimenting with or who

they are experimenting on. I trust very little that comes from OUR government.

[femrap]

18. If the gov't says it,

I very much doubt it.

I am not buying this crap.

[harvey007]

54. Here is the agency's website

The Orwellian name for their animal killing agency is "Wildlife Services." And their poisons are all "EPA approved" so of course they are "safe."

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/registration/index.shtml

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/foia/foia_reading_room.shtml

[valerief]

2. They spray it, we eat it. Autism rise? Move along. No speculating here. nt

[wordpix]

13. cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's...

[defendandprotect]

102. The insanity of our policies proves the suicidal nature of capitalism ...

and its exploitation of nature, animal-life and humans --

We have to stop permitting capitalist/elites to weigh everything by the

yardstick of a dollar bill.

Destruction of nature -- of which we are part -- is simply suicide!

[DesertDiamond]

115. Cancer EPIDEMIC in this country and they keep on with the poison. Now we know.

[Pale Blue Dot]

17. Oh jeez. Prove it.

Do double-blind, controlled studies and post your data. And if you don't understand why you need to do double-blind, controlled studies to prove your point, then learn.

It's terrible what the government did here - but to make the leap to autism and cancer, based on nothing but speculation, is ignorant and cruel.

[Lorien]

22. Aerial poisoning. Gee, how could such a thing have health effects on humans?

No need for double blind studies. Common sense will do (for a change).

[Pale Blue Dot]

24. Can you explain the purpose of double blind studies?

lol.

[No Elephants]

144. How many decades would a study have to last to prove this avicide causes cancer in humans?

Or Alzheimers?

Besides, who is going to pay for a truly independent study?

Besides, not as though scientific studies don't contradict each other.

Besides, what's cruel about saying ingesting stuff designed to kill 5000 or more birds at a clip is probably not healthy for humans? Cruel to whom? Manufacturers of things designed to kill 5000 or more birds at a clip?

I'm guessing it's less cruel to discourage folks, especially tiny folks, from ingesting things designed to kill 5000 or more birds at a clip than it is to dismiss any possible danger unless and until double blind studies prove or disprove something like this conclusively, by which time, many folks may be dead or dying.

[mopinko]

51. article didn't say that it was sprayed.

i think it would more likely have been a bait of some sort. a spray just wouldn't be practical.

[NickB79]

97. This particular poison is applied as bait, not sprayed

Fairly simple to find that information by Googling the poison mentioned in the OP.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/registration/content/56228-10%20DRC%201339%20Feedlot%2001-06%20watermarked.pdf

[midnight]

26. Pale blue dot do you have any data that would

suggest that this is a leap? Chemical spraying causing serious illness is nothing more than speculation and cruel? Here in Wisconsin 200 cows just dropped dead from pneumonia. Now I know it gets cold here, but we have never had 200 cows drop dead from the cold... They were all on the same farm....

[The Wizard]

65. All studies begin with speculation (NT)

[NickB79]

93. So do all crazy internet rumors. nt

[kenfrequed]

118. Where would we be?

If the coincidentalists were so easily swayed by the pesticide industry when Rachel Carson was observing the thinning shells of birds and tried tracing it back to DDT.

The frog deformities also come to mind when we see ample evidence suggesting farm pesticides are causing tetrogenic defects in that population, and yet the chemical industries scientists seem to be pushing hard with the theory that it is exclusively the work of a parasite. The pesticide companies have sang the same song with colony collapse disorder among honeybees.

Doubt is fine, but excessively defensive doubt makes me ponder motive.

[kenfrequed]

69. Curiously

Many pharmaceutical companies are no longer bound to do double blind tests any longer. In some cases single blind is adequate and long term consequences are not considered.

I don't know about autism, but if this particular 'avicide' is a neurotoxin rather than being tasty delicious alka seltzer, then I cannot imagine it being good to be repeatedly exposed to for human beings.

[NickB79]

96. It doesn't appear to be a neurotoxin

The active ingredient is listed as 3-chloro-p-toluene hydrochloride.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/registration/content/56228-10%20DRC%201339%20Feedlot%2001-06%20watermarked.pdf

It appears to be a straight metabolic poison rather than anything that would affect the nervous system.

[undergroundpanther]

117. Metabolic poison

Maybe one of the reasons we have such a sharp rise in metabolic disorders? As for the studies ever ask who PAYS for those studies and ever notice corporations hide and downplay results they don't want to hear,and don't want the public to hear too?

We have prescription drugs,chemicals in our drinking water what's a little more 3-chloro-p-toluene hydrochloride in the mix of toxic crap we drink and eat than was there before.

Ever hear of BODY BURDEN?

[No Elephants]

145. Oh, good.

[TZ]

120. Umm as a person in the Biopharmaceutical industry THATS CRAP

I'm so tired of complete and utter bullshit being made up by google idiots on the internet.
You do know that EVERY FUCKING DRUG on the market goes through AT LEAST 5 years of toxicity studies in animals BEFORE going into double blind placebo controlled long term studies that last 5-10 years.
There has been NO CHANGE in the requirement of new drug development since the GLP standards were adopted in the late 1970's. Except to tighten regulation. But its a lot easier to make SHIT UP? Isn't it.
By the way, do you make a habit of eating dead birds on the road? These birds are eating poisoned food (like you know rats do commonly) and the only way humans can be exposed is BY EATING THE DAMN THINGS.
The ignorance in this thread is frightening. Blackbirds and starlings are often poisoned because they are invasive species who by the way are helping to drive endangered songbirds out of existence because of their overwhelming numbers. Lets not even get into destroying food crops. But hey, small farmers don't need our sympathy right? They all grow food to POISON us...

[DirkGently]

123. "Runoff maybe hazardous to aquatic organisms in neighboring areas."

From the product label another poster in the thread linked. So, this poison can be carried to neighboring areas by runoff, and can harm "organisms" that come into contact with that runoff.

So, this poison states on the label that it poses a potential hazard to surrounding areas and "organisms" depending on how it's applied. How then can it be dismissed an environmental hazard?

More from the label:

"Do not apply when runoff is likely to occur. Do not apply directly to water, or to areas where surface water is present."


But piles of dead birds which have ingested this substance, decomposing in fields and ponds and roadways, are not hazardous?

It's not possible that the bait ever comes in contact with water or runoff in the process of poisoning the birds?

It's not possible that "aquatic organisms" which can be harmed by said runoff, in turn cause hazards, by being ingested by other creatures?

Poisoning programs have a good track record of avoiding unintentional environmental damage? Never get into groundwater? Haven't been linked to disease?

[kenfrequed]

124. Problems

I touched on two wholly separate matters in my post so I apologize if I was off-thread.


Now, as to your assertions about the thoroughness and absolute stringent caution in drug testing I would merely refer you to former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell, who has on numerous occasions discussed some of the flaws in weighting, seeding, and salting results.

http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n20.shtml

Aside from her complaints about the industry I have yet to find a specific law requiring that medications must go through double blind testing. Controlled studies and single blind appear to be the norm, and the regulations dictating what a placebo can be comprised of are not as specific or detailed as would be preferred.


As to your second point, you toss in so much over the top emotionalist anger that it is hard to see what you are precisely taking umbrage with. Inserting persistent toxins into the environment always has consequences and it can move beyond its target in unexpected ways. If you are creating an herbicide, insecticide, avicide, or any damned other poison, you do create one as being persistent or you are wasting your time. I would think that in the case of a bait-poison trap this would be all the more important since, logically, you have to wait for the bugger to actually eat or consume the poison and cannot rely on merely exposing the organism to the toxin.

I could of course be wrong about that part. But since you claim that one of these two areas is your field I would presume that you must have done research on one part or the other. I make no such claims but I do try to reason as best I can with my own modest intellect and my history degree.

[No Elephants]

146. 5 years is nowhere near enough to rule out a substance as a cause of cancer, Alzheimers, etc.

[awnobles]

77. Shouldn't the Gov do the "Gold Standard" study before

They expose us? Why have you placed the onus on the individual instead of the Gov who is actually exposing us. Has not history proven that these types of parallels between chemical exposure nervous system damage?

Your condescending tone indicates you believe you are mentally superior to the rest of us, this is known to science as a psychosis, ending in megalomania. You might want to get that checked.

[defendandprotect]

106. Right -- study the poison FIRST -- which is what sane countries do --

[DoBotherMe]

85. The question has to be raised and maybe

there will be a double-blind controlled study. I didn't know until I read this thread that the government was poisoning birds. Now that we know, hopefully someone will see if there is a correlation between this type of poisoning and environmental disease. Dana ; )

[defendandprotect]

107. We can't "poison" anything in nature without poisoning ourselves ... we are part of nature!

[DoBotherMe]

110. I know this, but if there needs to be a double blind study

before it is believed that poisoning birds poisons the rest of us, we now know that birds are being killed off by the government and it's a place to start. Dana ; )

[defendandprotect]

111. You "know" but then you deny it ...? We need some doubling up on common sense ... !!

[DoBotherMe]

114. I have no idea where you got that I am denying it

I believe there is a direct correlation between poisoning the earth and sick people. I'm not the one who has denied it and asked for a double-blind study. I was trying to be diplomatic with the denier. I'm not the person who started this ridiculous sub-thread of denial. Dana ; )

[defendandprotect]

104. Let's prove FIRST these poisons have no link to autism, cancers, disease ...

Throwing this crap into our environment and then waiting to see what happens

is a suicidal idea!!

[ElboRuum]

119. Well, true.

However, there is something to be said about being cautious when introducing biologically unfriendly substances into the environment. What kills one thing usually has at least negative effects on other things.

This is far and away not an attempt to draw any links. But one thing we do know is that introducing poisons into the body has the potential to do damage, even if that poison is intended for another species. We also know that introducing poisons into a mother's body while a fetus is developing can cause harm to the woman and to the fetus.

All living matter on earth is made of roughly the same stuff, and the closer it is to us on the evolutionary ladder, the more likely the substances which we use to kill those things will harm us. It's not a perfect assessment, but you don't see anyone making stew and flavoring it with Raid, just because we are far removed from insects biologically. We should be careful about what agents of this type we release into the environment, even in the absence of double-blind controlled studies.

It reminds me of the argument of environmental/climate change naysayers who say that since it is just a "theory" that we should do nothing of any consequence about it. Even if it were true, does that make the case against people wanting clean air and water? That somehow, because it doesn't impact the climate, that people should be okay with breathing toxic fumes and drinking tainted water? A clean environment isn't just necessary for the survival of humans on planet Earth, it is also simply more desirable to the quality of life on the whole and on an individual basis and that ought be enough for anyone.

[cottonseed]

23. Doesn't Jenny McCarthy own the science on autism?

[defendandprotect]

94. Agree -- and COREXIT was another suicidal idea - but a win for BP ---

Toxicologists: Corexit “Ruptures Red Blood Cells, Causes ...
Toxicologists: Corexit “Ruptures Red Blood Cells, Causes Internal Bleeding”, "Allows Crude Oil To Penetrate “Into The Cells” and “Every Organ System"
georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/07/...corexit...red.html - Cached

Nalco Holding Company -- associated with BP and ExxonMobil

[Evasporque]

3. Lots of birds had big die offs lately...

Falcons, Eagles, Seahawks....

[BobbyBoring]

78. Got something against

RAVENS?

[Pharaoh]

4. That is insanity!

Poisoning our own nest!

[texastoast]

81. Didn't you read?

We need a double blind test to prove that shitting in one's mess kit is a bad idea.

[glinda]

5. Pesticides are harmful period. How can they say it kills birds but doesn't kill pets? Idiots.

[quaker bill]

33. if your pet is a bird

Birds, due to their evolutionary path, have different chemical sensitivities than mammals or fish. Some things could be quite toxic to birds and relatively harmless to most other animals. Relatively harmless does not mean completely non toxic, just not toxic enough to cause marked illness or death. I am no fan of this sort of thing, but I did study wildlife ecology, evolution, and biochemistry in college.

Birds are quite sensitive to fat soluble organophosphates, and certain classes of fat soluble halogenated pesticide compounds which attach the bird's central nervous system, this has resulted in accidental mass kills, and resulted in a number of pesticides being banned for general agricultural use. Science accidentally learned which of these compounds would be very effective avicides.

Often there are ways to modify the habitat that are quite effective to disperse large flocks into smaller manageable groups, or have them choose to roost elsewhere. A fair amount of this sort of thing is put into practice around airports, where large flocks of birds would present a different problem.

[kenfrequed]

73. Err

The category of organophosphates also covers the class of neurotoxins that affects humans as well. And there are studies that suggest exposure to these chemicals may be affecting the rates of ADHD and Alzheimer’s as well.

[quaker bill]

131. Organophosphates

are a broad suite of chemicals. Some are designed as pesticides to mimic and supplant biochemicals in the central nervous system, like acetocholinesterace, in a way that blocks this neurotransmitter's function. Some are designed as herbicides which interfere with the synthesis of Chlorophyl in plants. There are many others. As it turns out the mammalian form of this enzyme is sufficiently different from the avian form that a sensitivity to certain organophosphates is very different between them. I actually did take biochemistry, plant and animal cell physiology, and aced all of them.

The point remains that avian species are much more sensitive to some chemicals than mammals. There is tons of research to back this up, I have read the pathology studies. The LD50's are massively different. There are specific histologic markers in the bird's brain and liver tissues used post-mortem to diagnose this sort of poisoning, and they are very sensitive to these chemicals at doses 100 times lower than humans and most mammals.

One need not approve of reality to recognize it.

[sasquuatch55]

37. Of course honey bee die off, and also I heard no crickets last summer.

nt

[KoKo]

6. Gotta Keep on Top of This One...If the Govt. seemed to "come clean" just think

about what THEY HAVEN't COME CLEAN ON...that we've know for years that get's exposed horrendous Experiments Against People and our Animals, Plants and Echosphere!

Hopefully our Environmental Action Groups will go at this with what they have. I donate to most of them...they better start doing something! :grr:

[defendandprotect]

108. Exactly -- this alledged confession may be a limited hang-out to cover up

something much bigger going on --

The report itself reflects the insanity of our programs at any rate!

[KoKo]

134. It's so sad that we all know what "Limited Hang Out" means these days..and

the dying goes on...and the coverups..go on. We have to hope that there is a backlash from our Biological Community of Scientists to stop this Misinformation. I'm still waiting..but, I do think it will come. Not all can be shills for research their whole lives. So many are Scientists because of "PRINCIPLES"...and they can only take so much when SCIENCE is TRASHED by the "No Nothings" paid for by Think Tanks/Lobbyists who spout crap on FAUX NEWS EVERY NIGHT AND DAY!

[FailureToCommunicate]

7. "It's not nice to fool (with) Mother Nature!"

[GoCubsGo]

45. Should have told that to the idiots who introduced this species to this continent in the first place

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=call-of-the-reviled

[Boudica the Lyoness]

48. Red wing blackbirds are native

to the US. When you put poison down willy nilly, it kills all birds, native or not.

[GoCubsGo]

58. There were no redwing blackbirds poisoned here.

This had nothing to do with the blackbirds that died in Arkansas.

[harvey007]

60. Search cattle feedlots near Beebe, Arkansas

I will bet you $100 that's where the poisoning took place.

It's happening here in Colorado as well....

Watch the video also -- the birds were poisoned intentionally by USDA. They've been doing this since the 1930's. Your tax dollars at work.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/01/20/solved-dead-birds-mystery-in-dacono/

[GoCubsGo]

86. This story was about birds in South Dakota. n/t

[Boudica the Lyoness]

135. I saw dead ones

piles of dead red wings. Do you think that they have some special fucking poison that only kills starlings?

[Boudica the Lyoness]

136. Oh shit

I forgot they were using the poison that only kills starlings. :sarcasm:

I saw dead red wings on the telly....

[era veteran]

82. No kidding

[sarcasmo]

8. Makes you wonder if this is what killed the fish in Arkansas?

[Nihil]

40. What? You think that a poison sprayed on the ground might somehow make it into a river?

You source of revolutionary fantasy you!

"Next up: How the rain only ever falls just above the rivers."

:evilgrin:

I also liked the "primarily using pesticides that the government says are
not harmful to pets or humans." ... what about the other pesticides that
were used in a secondary manner?

[Divernan]

50. The devil is in the qualifying adjectives or adverbs, and definitions of terms..

i.e, "primarily". As Bill Clinton said at his deposition, it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Ken Starr also failed to provide a definition of the term "sex" in his question re: "Did you have sex with . . .?"

So what is meant by the term "harmful" - and how the hell would govt./Big Chemical Industry manufacturers know exactly what degree of harm is effected by said chemicals when they have never been tested on humans or animals other than birds?

Here's evidence of yet one more chemical thrown into the witches' brew of the pollution that is the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. This chemical was sprayed over farmland. Where are the tests measuring the absorption into the food chain or leaching into the water tables?

[SOS]

53. Re: fish and humans

"DRC 1339 is an organochlorine. DRC 1339 is soluble in water
and is toxic to fish. Take care to avoid
contaminating streams, lakes, ponds, or other water
supplies."

"DRC 1339 has an LD50 of about 1000
mg/kg of body weight in mice.
Very little is known about the effects of
DRC 1339 on the skin or when it is inhaled, or about
the long-term effects of continuous exposure to low
concentrations of DRC 1339 over an extended period.
Consequently, stringent measures for protection
against skin contact and inhalation should be
undertaken, particularly in handling the concentrate."

http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/acvm/publications/notes/drc1339-bird-study-notes.pdf

It's perfectly safe!
Just don't breath near it or let it run off into the local lake.

[GoCubsGo]

103. No, it doesn't.

Only one species of fish died in Arkansas. Had they been poisoned, all the fish would have died, not just one species. The Arkansas Fish and Game people think the fish died from a virus.

[JudyM]

9. Outrageous.

USDA in the pocket of agribusiness. Sure, kill off 5000 birds rather than putting covers over the cattle feed. No problem, plenty of birds up there. And no danger of otherwise disturbing the ecosystem.

:puke:

[Celtic Raven]

12. You said it!

Cover the damn feed & leave the wildlife alone.

:nuke:

[Lorien]

21. +1,000. This kind of socialism for the greediest and least thoughtful

has GOT to end!

[ixion]

27. Exactly. It is outrageous.

:argh: :puke:

[lonestarnot]

10. Poison. I knew that.

[snooper2]

11. I'm scared to go to the dungeon now

:P

[theHandpuppet]

14. K&R

This thread should go to the front page!

[cliffordu]

15. Well, fuck. Not content with the Tuskegee experiments

and stuffing GI's too close to nuclear explosions in Nevada,
Not to mention the LSD experiments by the CIA.....


Now we're going to use the whole fucking population as test rabbits.

I wonder WTF we got next.

[KossackRealityCheck]

35. Offensive. Please DO NOT compare Black Men to black birds.

I'm a big supporter of animal rights, but I know that it is extremely offensive to compare humans to animals. It is especially offensive to compare a human experimentation atrocity, like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment to what most humans would consider a routine, if environmentally ill advised, pest eradication program.

The murder of Black men is not on the same moral level as the killing of black birds.

The same goes for the betrayal of our soldiers during the cold war nuclear experimentation era.

But it is especially offensive to compare African Americans to animals, as your subject line does, considering that for hundreds of years they were considered legally as like farm animals, and after slavery demonized as animals.

Please. Just. Don't. Do. It.

[Fokker Trip]

70. Not keen to wade into anything here but...

Nowhere in the previous posting is the word "black".

Where are you getting the "black" from? You seem really angered by something that wasn't said. The author mentioned 3 separate cases of the government using humans as test subjects without informing them, what difference does the color of the humans skin make?

You're assuming that the poster isn't concerned with the effects of these poisons on humans living nearby or drawing on the water from the area.

And ummmm Humans are actually animals, mammals to be specific. So how is it offensive to compare humans to animals when we are, in fact, animals?

Personally, I'd rather be compared to an animal(a cat perhaps) than many many humans that I've met.

By all means feel free to resume your anger, just wanted to make these few points.

[KossackRealityCheck]

101. History check

Do you know what the poster is referring to by "Tuskegee experiments"?

If yes, then how can he not be referring to Black Men?

If no, then maybe you need to use "teh google" before "wading into" a topic you may not be familiar with.

[cliffordu]

79. I am not comparing black men to black birds and if you actually

read the fucking post you'd know that.

I'm talking about the willingness of the government to expose humans to pathogens.

the birds are MERELY vehicle in this case, they get poisoned by whatever means and then

THE BIRDS CAN POISON THE HUMANS NEAR THEM

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE TRANSFER OF POISONS FROM HUMAN, TO BIRD, TO HUMAN.

Jesus. try and think before you lecture, before you inflate your huff, before you show off your sensitivity hubris.

[KossackRealityCheck]

105. I read you're post and the OP

and clearly you don't know what you're talking about. You are comparing the killing of birds to the killing of humans -- and in particular the killing of Black Men in the Tuskegee experiment to the killing of black birds.

Just. Don't. Go. There.

[cliffordu]

126. Or.What.

What.Will.You.Do.??

:rofl:

[KossackRealityCheck]

147. Rational people don't make threats

especially over teh internets, and I'm a rational person. I am telling you not to compare Black Men to animals for your own moral edification.

Then again, I've read your blog, and it seems to me that a person who spends lots of his time stuffing dollar bills into the g-strings of strippers and having bad sushi dates because he can't stand cheerful women -- and then "brags" about it by writing it out in his blog -- isn't likely to be very sensitive to concerns about how offensive his analogies are.

[cliffordu]

148. You are fucking well right about all of that.

'cept the part about conflating people with animals. You pulled that outta your......imagination.

You should see the porn I write.

No matter. Your hubris and 'morality' and delusions will have you chasing other members soon enough.

And the dancers here don't use g-strings for the dollar bill thingy, as they dance totally nude.

Ya just put the money on the bar.

But thanks for going over and looking at the writing.

How are the folks at CC??

[Boudica the Lyoness]

139. I got what you were saying.

:)

[cliffordu]

141. Thanks. Some just want to misunderstand.

[Bette Noir]

112. Thirteen years ago, one of my best friends died of cancer.

The most likely cause of the cancer was his father's exposure to radiation during military service during and after WWII.

They were white.

African Americans are not the only people to suffer under US policies.

[KossackRealityCheck]

121. I agree. Did you read my post?

I said it was wrong to compare killing birds to EITHER Black Men or our military, who were experimented on during nuclear tests.

The poster, however, put "Tuskegee experiment" in his subject line, and 100% of the victims of that atrocity were African American.

[riverwalker]

16. After "Silent Spring"

and all the other efforts of Rachel Carlson, we are still doing this? Unbelievable.

[craigmatic]

19. I'm not surprised. Our poison protection standards are basically trial and error.

[Lorien]

20. The USDA needs to stop killing native species for the profit of private corporations

not only is what they are doing highly immoral, it's long term consequences are not yet known.

[GoCubsGo]

46. Starlings are not a native species.

They are a highly invasive pest that has been causing great damage to native bird populations for over a century.

[ronnie624]

71. Pete Dunne, spokesman for New Jersey Audubon:

"It's an all-American bird — the quintessential American. It's an immigrant, it moved to the city and it usually gets its way,"

[GoCubsGo]

89. So what?

Doesn't mean it belongs here.

[NickB79]

100. The same could be said of kudzu vine

I wait anxiously to hear that a kudzu-vine-strangled forest is "all-American" :eyes:

[InvisibleTouch]

74. They may not be native, and yes, they are muscling in on the native niches...

...but the fact is, they are *here* now, and established. Animals do migrate and outcompete each other; that's part of the way evolution works. In this case the non-native birds were deliberately released, so it went a little faster, but it's the same thing that's been happening for millions of years as animals dispersed across the continents.

I don't want to see us lose the native species, but ecosystems are not fixed in stone - they change, and at some point we have to work with the change. Better to boost the natives with supplemental food and nest sites, IMO, than release a toxic agent that will affect them all. Wholesale poisoning of birds, regardless of species, is going to trickle down and damage the whole biome. Lots of carnivores will scavenge a dead bird if they find it, not to mention poisons getting into the soil and water. It sounds like once again humans are applying a simpleminded solution to a complex system.

[Fokker Trip]

75. Well said Invisible Touch, well said

Humans make a mess and then make a bigger mess trying to deal with the first mess.

The most important rule should always be:

First, do no harm.

[GoCubsGo]

88. And, you think that's okay?

Allowing an invader to "create it's own niche" at the expense of natives is a good thing? Really? The harm has already been done.

[InvisibleTouch]

113. It's not necesssarily "okay"...

...but it has happened. As you say, the harm is already done. Indiscriminately spreading poison will do even more harm, because it won't target just the invasive species. And starlings are so adaptable that the only way to eradicate them *all* would be to kill everything else along with them.

The early Cenozoic marsupial mammals of South America surely didn't find it "okay" when the placentals crossed over from the north and outcompeted them (all except for the possum, who bucked the trend, survived, and moved north), but it did happen. It's never a good thing, to my mind, to lose a species, but it happens in nature even without human interference. If we're to save the species who are left, it'll have to be by more creative means than simply scorched-earth poisoning campaigns.

[SOS]

132. The invasive species is Homo sapiens

"Some of the biggest death traps are surprising.
Nationally, domestic and feral cats kill hundreds of millions of birds each year, according to the government.

Pesticides kill 72 million birds directly, but an unknown and probably larger number ingest the poisons and die later unseen. Orphaned chicks also go uncounted.

And then there is flying into objects. The government estimates that strikes against building windows alone account for anywhere from 97 million to nearly 976 million bird deaths a year. Cars kill another 60 million or so. High-tension transmission and power distribution lines are also deadly obstacles. Extrapolating from European studies, the Fish and Wildlife Service estimates 174 million birds die each year by flying into these wires. None of these numbers take into account the largest killer of birds in America: loss of habitat to development."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/science/18birds.html

[onpatrol98]

91. +1

[ronnie624]

109. *

:thumbsup:

[pengillian101]

25. K&R n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

28. WTF?

All in the name of HFCS? Or, just corn. Grrrrrrrr



:grr:

[newfie11]

29. This doesn't surprise me. In SD the state Trapper uses cyanide

The State Trapper puts out meat (usually road kill deer) and when a coyote starts to eat it this triggers a spray that sprays cyanide into the mouth.

Now this is suppose to get coyotes but it also can take out anything that eats carrion,(Bald Eagles, Hawks, and family pets).

This can be done at the request of the land owner and it is also done in the Black Hills National Forest IF the coyote population gets out of hand. I lived 15 years in the Black Hills surrounded by National forest.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

30. This is getting to be a common pattern it seems.

The government claimed that Agent Orange was safe. They claim that there was less damage from the Deepwater Horizon and the Corexit than was feared. They say that food from the GOM is safe to eat and that the beaches are as pristine as ever. They say that GM food is perfectly safe.

These proclamations always seem to benefit the large cororations.......hmmmm, just a coincidence I'm sure. :sarcasm:

It's a good idea to have a lot of grains of salt handy when dealing with what OUR government tells us is safe.

How pathetic is this for a supposed world leader?

[Fokker Trip]

31. This makes me fell ill.

More and more quickly nature is dying all around us and the US government just piles on and accelerates the process.

Humans have NO RIGHT to kill every other living creature with impunity, NO RIGHT. The biblical attitude of "We own it all so we can do what we want with it" is fully engrained in our culture and it disgusts me.

Those beautiful birds. Our species makes me sick.

[MorningGlow]

42. And, ironically, the biblical attitude is misinterpreted

Too many people think the bible said "man is smartest and can do what 'he' wants with animals", when in reality it said "man has a larger brain and a conscience and so should TAKE CARE of all the other animals".
Sick sick sick, I agree, Fokker. And welcome to DU! :toast:

[SOS]

62. Exactly

It's the twisted interpretation of the word "dominion".
The next question must be: "What kind of sovereign"?

Queen Elizabeth is the British sovereign and has dominion over the United Kingdom.
Should she protect and defend her subjects?
Or should she kill them and eat them?

Dominion implies stewardship and responsibility.
But, of course, people interpret it to allow for their own satisfaction and profit.
Humans masquerade as Kings of the Earth, when, in fact, we are rather imperfect hairless apes.

[hamsterjill]

63. Absolutely correct!

Mankind is to have dominion over animals. In other words, their wellbeing is entrusted to US. We are not supposed to be destroying them. We are supposed to be looking after them! They are, after all, God's creatures, too.

[GoCubsGo]

47. Those " beautiful birds" are destroying our beautiful native species.

They compete with the natives for food and nesting areas. And, given the rate at which their numbers are increasing, they will probably win those competitions. On top of that, they flock in huge numbers and drop their shit all over everything. You think your species makes you sick? So will these birds if they're left to multiply.

[Fokker Trip]

64. I think that's a completely different discussion.

This is a discussion about the USDA poisoning a flock of birds that are doing what they do naturally so that the humans living nearby don't have to figure out a way to live WITH the birds. Are you suggesting that the killing of these birds was some clever attempt to cull only invasive species?

The supplanting of native species by imported or "alien" species is a problem, I totally agree.

We attempt in our yard to feed native birds through using feeders that tend to put off the sparrows and starlings, etc.

If the invading species came to NA naturally then that strikes me as how evolution works. If they were imported by humans then it is another reason to question the conduct of those humans. Australia s the poster child for completely f**king up imorting species and decimating the native populations, but it is humans doing that.

Some birds flock, its what they do. Humans need to find ways to live with that and with the rest of nature in some form of harmony that doesn't involve death on a massive scale, if our attitude doesn't change then humans will be the ones to die off.

I'm wondering what you think I'd find sickening about lots more birds being around?

The only reason any species breeds beyond natures carrying capacity is that humans have killed off the predator birds by hunting or poisoning or by eliminating all natural habitat for them. A couple of predator birds like hawks would undoubtedly scare off a flock of birds like this. Was that tried? Noooo that would be too hard. Far easier to poison them and ignore the collateral damage to the environment as well.

[GoCubsGo]

95. No, it isn't

People here are screaming about killing "native" species. Starlings aren't native, and THAT is what I was pointing out. I don't hear a peep from the same people when "beautiful" rats are poisoned. Yet, it happens on a daily basis. Nobody complains.

And, no, suppression of predators is NOT the only reason a species breeds beyond its carrying capacity. They can breed to excess when their food supply is overabundant. That is exactly what is happening not only with the starlings, but also with the snow geese and Canada geese that exploit waste grains from farm fields. The problem with snow geese is so bad that they're destroying their Arctic breeding grounds.

[bdamomma]

49. these agencies who work aside these big corporations just do

not care about wildlife or fish, look at the Gulf of Mexico after that horrific oil spill. There is just no respect for other living creatures. It's sickening. And all these chemicals and spraying of chemicals does have consequences for all of us.

[sandyj999]

32. They have no right to do this! n/t

[quaker bill]

34. I don't like it

but actually, they do in fact have the right, legally. Very aggressive wildlife control is practiced around airports everyday. In some places, the FAA actually requires the airport to have a wildlife management plan, which include a variety of lethal measures, like shotguns.

[Fokker Trip]

66. I've certainly read about this.

But in the cases I've read about the work very often involves the use of non-lethal cannons and other repellent devices. Lethal means are considered last on the list from what I know.

[quaker bill]

130. True

Other means are tried first like removing nest trees and habitat / shelter, constructing barriers, pyrotechnics, but shotguns with steel shot are issued, and airports do have practice ranges. One local airport has a taking permit for bald eagles, but then they have had two eagle / aircraft incidents after all the above was done. Non-listed species are fair game any day of the week.

I make my living as an environmental scientist.

[sandyj999]

122. Ok they have the "right" to do this but I say it's morally wrong. n/t

[NikRik]

36. What happen to "Don't mess with Mother Nature"

How dare they think its ok to kill off thousands of birds for whatever reason ? We have already done so much to mess up our planet Iam not sure at his point that anyone that has control over the actions of our goverment has 1/2 a brain !

[GoCubsGo]

43. Mother Nature was already messed with.

Starlings are not a native species. They are terribly invasive, and do great damage to native bird populations. They need to be eradicated. I don't think the methods were necessarily the best, but these birds have no place on this continent.

[Blue_Tires]

38. is there anyone who didn't think from the start that the issue was environmental?

of course, I had to stop watching media coverage when they kept bringing in fundie end-timers for interviews and quotes...

[pipoman]

39. Not blackbirds,

English starlings...they are black, and they are birds. English starlings are the rats of the bird world. They are not indigenous to the US, they starve out indigenous species. They over populate. They carry disease. They must be controlled. I am certainly not a fan of aerial spraying. I would like research to eradicate or at least sharply control this invasive species safely.

[GoCubsGo]

44. THANK YOU!!!!

I don't agree that aerial spraying is the best way to eradicate these invasive birds, either. But, unfortunately, the money that goes toward scientific research of any sort that isn't related to the defense industry has been gutted over the past decade. Biologists are fighting a losing battle against invasive species, and they have to work with the tools they have.

[Fokker Trip]

67. I agree with you.

Invasive species are a huge problem, but this is not the way to deal with the problem. It was humans who introduced these species wasn't it? The die was cast when that was done. If the invaders do wipe out most of the native species should the idea be to kill as many birds as possible to try to get the natives back?

Its a spiral of killing that really has no end.

[GoCubsGo]

90. "The die was cast"????

Bullcrap. You are okay with putting natives at risk because you can't stomach the means of getting rid of the invasives?

[Boudica the Lyoness]

57. The main target for poison are the red wing blackbirds

which are American made. Red wings like areas with cat tails and the clever dicks are destroying the cat tails in the wetlands.......destroying American ducks and other birds.

[GoCubsGo]

59. Did you even read the article???? n/t

[Boudica the Lyoness]

137. Yes I did

I know that starlings weren't the only birds killed. See, sometimes there is more than one article or news source. Pick a fight with someone else.

[pipoman]

127. This has nothing to do with this OP,,,

this OP is about starlings which have invaded.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

138. Well fuck me

for bringing to the table something about the wetlands being destroyed to get rid of red wings. What the hell was I thinking mentioning something I thought would add to the conversation?

Let me quickly get back in lock step! :sarcasm:

What the hell is happening to DU?

[pipoman]

142. Maybe you should have responded to the OP

and not my post, which was very specifically about this OP, which is clearly about one specific instance of the poisoning of one specific species...a species which was misidentified in the OP as "blackbirds". Your post, in context to mine, appears to be an attempt to conflate this poisoning as an affront on red winged blackbirds, which it wasn't.

[SemperEadem]

41. that is exactly what I told a friend of mine who was commenting

about the mass bird death. I said it sounded like someone baited the trees in which the birds roost with poison. It's not some biblical plague--it's a man made menace.

[valerief]

52. Where's the "Move along, nothing to see here, happens all the time" guy? nt

[fascisthunter]

55. I don't know... but others are asking we prove it is not harmful

I don't know why we would have to raise a concern that it may hurt humans as well. Why that's so out of bounds is beyond me.

[valerief]

84. "Watch out for cliff!" "Prove to me the cliff is unsafe." "I haven't jumped off it myself,

but it looks like a steep drop. Others have fallen off other cliffs and they've died. It could happen with this cliff, too." "Pshaw! Double-blind. Bootstraps. All the time. Arggh!!!!"

[eilen]

56. I think he replied earlier

mumbling something about needing double blind studies to provide any proof.....

[Joanne98]

61. "defecating on a farmer's cattle feed" Why can't he cover it up?

And WHY are cattle farmers sucking off the government teet? Make him pay the BILL!

[Fokker Trip]

68. Thats a GREAT point.!

If the farmer had to do all this him or herself then they would probably find a cheaper safer and more environmentally friendly solution.

Excellent point.

[Kolesar]

99. More good reasons not to patronize the cow industry.

The farmer should have kept his feed inside a shed. It is quite common for the government to have to fund agricultural screw ups. Taxpayers have to pay for sewage treatment facilities because cow and horse feces flow into streams. In Ohio, it is managed through the Soil and Water Conservation districts.

[firehorse]

72. why can't the cows be fed indoors instead of killing birds?

Or make large scale feeding sheds with netting around it that the birds can't get into?

[ronnie624]

76. I'm skeptical about the claim of supplanting native species.

A study of the issue was conducted in 2003. Twenty-seven species of birds were monitored, and only the sapsucker was found to have declined as a result of the proliferation of the European Starling. I find it likely that the attempt to eradicate starlings is more beneficial to ag corporations than anyone else.

Humans have caused infinitely greater damage to other species than starlings. We may end up wrecking the biosphere's ability to support complex lifeforms entirely. It's interesting that we don't consider ourselves an "invasive" species. We aren't indigenous to the Americas either.

[Vilis Veritas]

80. Typical Gov't solution...

Cheap ass solution (in this case poison - with all the inherent bad long term side-effects) trumps trying to find an ETHICAL, SAFE and COST EFFECTIVE long term solution that could be applied universally on large scale feedlots.

[GoCubsGo]

98. Kind of hard to find an ethical, safe, and cost-effective solution when...

...your research funding has been gutted. If you want to get pissed off, get pissed off at the ones who took away their ability to look for a better alternative. Blame the people who have been gutting the research budgets of USDA, USFWS, USGS, NSF, NPS... They just proposed completely obliterating DOE's energy research budget.

[Faryn Balyncd]

83. "they don't want to advertise their work. They like to work fast, efficiently, and out of sight."

sons of bitches


It's obvious that the people (not necessarily the same ones in each case) who intentionally poisoned EVERY ONE OF THESE FLOCKS have known about each one of these poisonings from the beginning...From their point of view, the only thing that went wrong was the PUBLICITY.

They think it's their right to poison anything that that makes their short-sighted objectives a little problematic, and that everyone one else should be kept in the dark.

[goforit]

87. I just want to scream!

This Gov't is out of control!

[Canuckistanian]

92. AVICIDE?

A poison to kill birds? They really make a product that will kill birds specifically?

My God, how fucking idiotic is that?

[pipoman]

128. We also have poisions

for rats, moles, gophers, and many other vermin. Starlings are the rats of the bird world.

[grahamhgreen]

116. Sick.

[99th_Monkey]

125. Hopi Native American Prophecy relevant much?

"When birds fall from the sky and the animals are dying, a new tribe of people shall come unto the
earth from many colors, classes, creeds, who by their actions and deeds shall make the earth green
again. They will be known as the warriors of the Rainbow." ~Hopi prophecy~

[texastoast]

129. We've been here since the 1970s

And too slowly have people listened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

[arachadillo]

133. Mysterious and Not So Mysterious Bird Deaths

"the government acknowledged Thursday that it had a hand in one of a string of mysterious mass bird deaths that have spooked residents in Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, South Dakota, and Kentucky in the last month.

The USDA's Wildlife Services Program, which contracts with farmers for bird control, said it used an avicide poison called DRC-1339 to cull a roost of 5,000 birds that were defecating on a farmer's cattle feed across the state line in Nebraska. But officials said the agency had nothing to do with large and dense recent bird kills in Arkansas and Louisiana.

On hearing of massive bird deaths, my first reaction was to assume they were human caused poisoning events because I'm aware of the USDA program.

As already pointed out, blackbirds are native species and starlings are non-native species, therefore, while population management techniques for both species follow a similar poisoning route, population management rational for the species differs.

Compared to allowing a group of hunters to gather and participate in an afternoon of semi-blood sport shooting (depending on the participants) of excess populations, poisoning sounds humane.

At the same time, improvements in avian contraception technology appears to have improved to the point that makes it the most human aviation population management tool available.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=icwdmother

My personal preference would be the proactive use of avian contraception, regardless of cost differences between avian contraception and poisoning, in instances of lawful decision making regarding bird populations (with the caveat that the lawful decision making process include input from local birding organizations).

Additionally, the full weight of the law needs to be utilized in all of the illegal instances of bird population management.

[chrisa]

140. Really? I thought it was swamp gas from a weather balloon

trapped in a thermal pocket that reflected light from Venus.

[pinniped]

143. Stupid cattle takes precedence over everything.

No animal is off limits when it comes to protecting stupid cattle. Cows smell like shit.

Soon, all rainforest will be destroyed so stupid bovine can graze there.