🚀 go-pugleaf

I do. They are survivors, tough & hardy. One of the great sights of the Fall
on the east coast is watching the starlings flocks 'balling up' to evade
attacks by merlins & peregrines. Their tactic is to bunch up tightly & keep
climbing so they stay above the falcon. When the falcon climbs after them
they rise some more. The flock stays tightly bunched so that the falcon
cannot pick out an individual target. It is a very effective tactic, usually
the hawk just gives it up as more effort than it is worth.
oftenbirder <oftnbrdr@dwx.com> wrote in message
news:37FCBCD6.D3520DF4@dwx.com...
> Here in the States, the Euro-Star is a bird of
> many talents, like raiding the peanut feeder
> and/or the suet feeder in RECORD TIME
> and clinging on to these feeders with one toe,
> while totally upside down - while laughing at you
> as you watch in disgust, and the other birds
> sit nearby, thinking of the other feeders in the area.
> ~ Generally speaking, they aren't well liked.
>
> BUT I noticed something pretty cool --
> A couple of years ago, I noticed that the starlings
> were doing the Bald Eagle's call in the late fall.
> Last year, they started the eagle mocking near the
> end of October -- I have never heard this in the
> spring or summer, and it seems to lessen through
> the winter.  SO, I figure that the starlings must be
>           CALLING THE EAGLES.
>     (A very good reason to appreciate them.)
>
> This morning, (Oct 7th) I heard it again -
> first time this year.  Winter must be coming!
>
> Best birding to you all,
>
> Amy O
> Des Moines, Iowa
>

I think a pretty good behavior sighting is when they flock and fly in a
great "serpent in the sky.'" I know many birders do not like them
because they displace native birds, I for one have watched woodpeckers
excavate a hole only to be driven out by starlings.  But when you think
about it, aren't the majority of Americans "starlings"?

Phil

No doubt about that -- I know quite a few myself.
We shouldn't get big-headed though, we all have our "starling days."
Reading this newsgroup will occasionally prove that.  Heh, heh.

Best birding to you all,

Amy O
Des Moines, Iowa


Phillip Burgio wrote:

> I think a pretty good behavior sighting is when they flock and fly in a
> great "serpent in the sky.'" I know many birders do not like them
> because they displace native birds, I for one have watched woodpeckers
> excavate a hole only to be driven out by starlings.  But when you think
> about it, aren't the majority of Americans "starlings"?
>
> Phil

In article <18204-37FE6FDA-27@newsd-621.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
  zoaracres@webtv.net (Phillip Burgio) wrote:
>>But when you think about it, aren't the majority of
>>Americans "starlings"?

Really!  The human population of this country is 99% non-native.  And
we're miffed about non-native bird and animal species crowding out
native species?

American scorn for non-native "non-human" species is pretty
hypocritical.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

I think the Audubon Field Guide's take on the Starling says it best:

"Starling are agressive birds and compete with native species for nest
cavities and food. There has been much debate regarding their economic
value, but their consumption of insects seems to tip the balance in
their favor."

and another quote I'd like to throw in:

"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under
heaven"

and finally (as a point of interest): the Starling was introduced into
New York in 1890 and 1891 by an industrialist who wanted to establish
all birds mentioned in the works of William Shakespeare in the United
States.

oftenbirder wrote:
>
> Here in the States, the Euro-Star is a bird of
> many talents, like raiding the peanut feeder
> and/or the suet feeder in RECORD TIME
> and clinging on to these feeders with one toe,
> while totally upside down - while laughing at you
> as you watch in disgust, and the other birds
> sit nearby, thinking of the other feeders in the area.
> ~ Generally speaking, they aren't well liked.
>
> BUT I noticed something pretty cool --
> A couple of years ago, I noticed that the starlings
> were doing the Bald Eagle's call in the late fall.
> Last year, they started the eagle mocking near the
> end of October -- I have never heard this in the
> spring or summer, and it seems to lessen through
> the winter.  SO, I figure that the starlings must be
>           CALLING THE EAGLES.
>     (A very good reason to appreciate them.)
>
> This morning, (Oct 7th) I heard it again -
> first time this year.  Winter must be coming!
>
> Best birding to you all,
>
> Amy O
> Des Moines, Iowa

--
________________________________________________________________

C R Nugent             mailto:crnugent@tamu.edu
Research Assistant
Oceanography - TAMU    http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/~nugent
Ph:(409)845-5767
Fax:(409)845-6331      Lex clavitoris designati rescindenda est!
________________________________________________________________
"Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, doctor, and I'm happy to
state I finally won out over it.- Elwood P. Dowd

give me a break...

fowp2@my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <18204-37FE6FDA-27@newsd-621.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>   zoaracres@webtv.net (Phillip Burgio) wrote:
> >>But when you think about it, aren't the majority of
> >>Americans "starlings"?
>
> Really!  The human population of this country is 99% non-native.  And
> we're miffed about non-native bird and animal species crowding out
> native species?
>
> American scorn for non-native "non-human" species is pretty
> hypocritical.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

In article <7ts85s$fc0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <fowp2@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <18204-37FE6FDA-27@newsd-621.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>  zoaracres@webtv.net (Phillip Burgio) wrote:
>>>But when you think about it, aren't the majority of
>>>Americans "starlings"?
>
>Really!  The human population of this country is 99% non-native.  And
>we're miffed about non-native bird and animal species crowding out
>native species?
>
>American scorn for non-native "non-human" species is pretty
>hypocritical.


No it is not. It is ecologically and conservationally reasonable to
disdain the introduction of non-native species, especially those which
crowd out the niches of native species.


Under your reasoning, we should be free to introduce any species we desire
from anywhere in the world. I find that idea reprehensible, and so do most
wildlife and fisheries biologists, whose task is often to ensure the
viability of native species.


In general, it is foolish to set ecologic conservation standards according
to the history of human settlement in North America. Such practice fails
to recognize crucial differences between humans and other animals. Also,
it fails to recognize that the "native" 1% of the US population you
mention above is ultimately descended from a distinctly non-native
population as well.



Eric D

In article <7u1cb5$7a9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <fowp2@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <7u1493$2f6$1@meer.net>,
>  ericd@die.meer.spammers.net.die (Eric DeFonso) wrote:
>> In article <7ts85s$fc0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <fowp2@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >In article <18204-37FE6FDA-27@newsd-621.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>> >  zoaracres@webtv.net (Phillip Burgio) wrote:
>> >>>But when you think about it, aren't the majority of
>> >>>Americans "starlings"?
>> >
>> >Really!  The human population of this country is 99% non-native.  And
>> >we're miffed about non-native bird and animal species crowding out
>> >native species?
>> >
>> >American scorn for non-native "non-human" species is pretty
>> >hypocritical.
>>
>> No it is not. It is ecologically and conservationally reasonable to
>> disdain the introduction of non-native species, especially those which
>> crowd out the niches of native species.
>
>Well, I wasn't _advocating_ the introduction of non-native species. I
>was observing the hypocrisy of our "disdain" for them.


I don't see this situation as necessarily hypocritical - to me it depends
on which particular species we are discussing. In many cases, I don't
think you can equate the nature of human ecological impact with that of
other species with the facility you attempt.



>
>>> Under your reasoning, we should be free to introduce any species we
>>>desire from anywhere in the world.
>
>Reasoning?  I don't see any reasoning in my remark.

So, may I take it that you don't consider hypocrisy unreasonable or
undesirable? Most people would interpret a reference of hypocrisy to be a
pejorative. I suppose that's not necessarily true - can you elaborate?



>Just an observation
>about hypocrisy that obviously got up your butt.  Where do you see an
>argument for introducing, say, domestic cats into the Australian outback
>(where I hear the feral population has boomed and done lots of damage to
>native species)?


Only if you can tell me that hypocrisy is not always a bad thing. I might
not agree with that, but at least that would explain your position.

I interpreted your remarks as meaning that you find it unreasonable to be
disdainful of an introduced species, in spite of the ecological
destruction such a species is capable of; that because some humans have
waged serious ecological damage, we are thus misdirecting our disdain
towards the species.
	 Well, I freely admit a degree of emotional attachment to native
species and ecosystems, and that is the source of my disdain, I suppose.
And I certainly wouldn't disagree that ultimately it is our own fault that
some situations are as bad as they are. But I don't think that it is
necessarily hypocritical to have disdain for species that have such a
deleterious effect on a native ecosystem *because it was introduced* by
our (meaning human) careless and short-sighted thinking and actions.


>
>>>I find that idea reprehensible, and so do most wildlife and
>>>fisheries biologists, whose task is often
>>>to ensure the viability of native species.
>
>So how do wildlife and fisheries biologists ensure the viability of
>native species, anyway?  By killing competitive non-natives?

Absolutely. That is often the only practical way to keep them from
reproducing.


>I suppose that would be ecologically and conservationally reasonable, if
>not humane or ethical.

It isn't humane or ethical to uproot tamarisk or extinguish the zebra
mussel wherever possible, in the regions it has been brought?
	Is it more humane to allow a nonnative species to thrive at the
expense of a native, as a result of its introduction by humans, than it
is to reduce that nonnative population, if that reduction assists the
native species? That is the real issue here, I suppose. Personally, I
applaud such efforts in diminishing nonnative populations...but not out of
a mean-spiritedness against the nonnative, which of course is native
someplace. After all, as I mentioned above, responsibility ultimately
resides with the humans. Still, that doesn't preclude me being both
reasonable about not desiring certain species in certain areas, desiring
action to be taken in that direction, and recognizing the role humans have
played in bringing about this problem.
	And if that's the only meaning you originally intended, I
understand now what you mean, and agree for the most part.


>
>>>In general, it is foolish to set ecologic conservation standards
>>>according to the history of human settlement in North America.
>
>I wouldn't dream of setting ecologic conservation standards!

Unfortunately, I think we have no choice but to set standards, whether by
our action or inaction. We are part of our ecosystem, whether we like it
or not. However, I believe we have choices in how we wish to be a part of
that ecosystem.


>I will
>leave that to professional ecologists/biologists such as yourself! I
>just think it's hilariously ironic that humans, the ultimate
>opportunistic ecologically destructive species, are so invested in the
>persecution of their animal analogues (rats, pigeons, starlings,
>cockroaches).

I agree that some humans have been ecologically destructive. Others are
not. However, I think you conflate the manner in which humans are
analogous to the species you cite - we are not analogous to them in the
way you seem to suggest. And that is why I take issue with the sentiment
expressed in your earlier post. Up the butt, in your words.

>
>Actually, starlings may not belong in that group because from what I
>hear, they aren't as directly dependent on human sloppiness for their
>survival.  Whereas urban roach, rat and pigeon populations decrease when
>people don't leave trash out and around.

Certainly.


>
>>Such practice fails to recognize crucial differences between humans and
>other animals.
>
>Like what?  We're more important than them?

Not at all. One important distinction is whether or not a species was
introduced to a new ecosystem, or whether it made it there on its own
power.
	Humans as a collective have made it to every place on the planet
on their own power. Starlings and a number of other animal and plant
species certainly have not. To then consider our respective situations as
comparable seems illogical to me.


>>Also, it fails to recognize that the "native" 1% of the
>>US population you mention above is ultimately descended from a
>>distinctly non-native population as well.
>
>Didn't some animals populate the various land masses in the same way?
>That is, didn't they migrate?

Many certainly did, under their own power, without human assistance. Other
species certainly did not migrate here.



>When does a non-native species become native?  Rock doves have been here
>since colonial times.  Isn't that long enough to be considered native?


Good questions. What do you think?

I'd say no. I say that because human history is still quite short in
comparison to natural history. Ecosystems have attained various dynamic
equilibria over time scales much longer than the time since the majority
of artificial species introductions.
	So, it isn't simply a matter of how long they've been here, it's
also how they got here. For example, no matter how long the nonnative
species of Hawaii have been there, they are still nonnative to me if they
didn't make it to the islands under their own power. Humans have simply
been on those islands for too short of a time to consider their introduced
species there to be native.



Eric D

In article <7u1493$2f6$1@meer.net>,
  ericd@die.meer.spammers.net.die (Eric DeFonso) wrote:
> In article <7ts85s$fc0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <fowp2@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <18204-37FE6FDA-27@newsd-621.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> >  zoaracres@webtv.net (Phillip Burgio) wrote:
> >>>But when you think about it, aren't the majority of
> >>>Americans "starlings"?
> >
> >Really!  The human population of this country is 99% non-native.  And
> >we're miffed about non-native bird and animal species crowding out
> >native species?
> >
> >American scorn for non-native "non-human" species is pretty
> >hypocritical.
>
> No it is not. It is ecologically and conservationally reasonable to
> disdain the introduction of non-native species, especially those which
> crowd out the niches of native species.

Well, I wasn't _advocating_ the introduction of non-native species. I
was observing the hypocrisy of our "disdain" for them.

>> Under your reasoning, we should be free to introduce any species we
>>desire from anywhere in the world.

Reasoning?  I don't see any reasoning in my remark. Just an observation
about hypocrisy that obviously got up your butt.  Where do you see an
argument for introducing, say, domestic cats into the Australian outback
(where I hear the feral population has boomed and done lots of damage to
native species)?

>>I find that idea reprehensible, and so do most wildlife and
>>fisheries biologists, whose task is often
>>to ensure the viability of native species.

So how do wildlife and fisheries biologists ensure the viability of
native species, anyway?  By killing competitive non-natives?  I suppose
that would be ecologically and conservationally reasonable, if not
humane or ethical.

>>In general, it is foolish to set ecologic conservation standards
>>according to the history of human settlement in North America.

I wouldn't dream of setting ecologic conservation standards!  I will
leave that to professional ecologists/biologists such as yourself! I
just think it's hilariously ironic that humans, the ultimate
opportunistic ecologically destructive species, are so invested in the
persecution of their animal analogues (rats, pigeons, starlings,
cockroaches).

Actually, starlings may not belong in that group because from what I
hear, they aren't as directly dependent on human sloppiness for their
survival.  Whereas urban roach, rat and pigeon populations decrease when
people don't leave trash out and around.

>Such practice fails to recognize crucial differences between humans and
other animals.

Like what?  We're more important than them?

>Also, it fails to recognize that the "native" 1% of the
>US population you mention above is ultimately descended from a
>distinctly non-native population as well.

Didn't some animals populate the various land masses in the same way?
That is, didn't they migrate?

When does a non-native species become native?  Rock doves have been here
since colonial times.  Isn't that long enough to be considered native?

Kristin


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

I really don't mind Starlings.   They leave all my feeders alone and I
keep 1 hanging suet cake for them when they feed their young.  I
haven't seen them displace anyone as yet, they like to nest in the
roof of my front porch where House Sparrows used to nest.  I recieved
quite an education watching them bring up their young last spring.
they seem to get along with most of the other birds espeically the
Robins and I've seen them mining for slugs and other harmful bugs
right along with the Robins on my lawn.  Anyhow, we don't see many in
the winter up here and we do get far more Grackles in huge flocks.

One advantage we might have up here is that about 10 years ago a
little girl died from an alergy reaction from lawn pesticides so most
of the municipalities have since banned the use of lawn sprays since
that unfortunate mishap.  So now we have tons of juicy bugs for all
the birds and the bird population has increased ten fold.    When
there's plenty for everyone, all benefit.

Something to think about anyhow.  Not that the little girl's dieing
was any kind of an advantage, but the bans on pesticides has certainly
worked wonders.

Lynda









On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:35:18 -0500, C R Nugent <crnugent@tamu.edu>
wrote:

>I think the Audubon Field Guide's take on the Starling says it best:
>
>"Starling are agressive birds and compete with native species for nest
>cavities and food. There has been much debate regarding their economic
>value, but their consumption of insects seems to tip the balance in
>their favor."
>
>and another quote I'd like to throw in:
>
>"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under
>heaven"
>
>and finally (as a point of interest): the Starling was introduced into
>New York in 1890 and 1891 by an industrialist who wanted to establish
>all birds mentioned in the works of William Shakespeare in the United
>States.
>
>oftenbirder wrote:
>>
>> Here in the States, the Euro-Star is a bird of
>> many talents, like raiding the peanut feeder
>> and/or the suet feeder in RECORD TIME
>> and clinging on to these feeders with one toe,
>> while totally upside down - while laughing at you
>> as you watch in disgust, and the other birds
>> sit nearby, thinking of the other feeders in the area.
>> ~ Generally speaking, they aren't well liked.
>>
>> BUT I noticed something pretty cool --
>> A couple of years ago, I noticed that the starlings
>> were doing the Bald Eagle's call in the late fall.
>> Last year, they started the eagle mocking near the
>> end of October -- I have never heard this in the
>> spring or summer, and it seems to lessen through
>> the winter.  SO, I figure that the starlings must be
>>           CALLING THE EAGLES.
>>     (A very good reason to appreciate them.)
>>
>> This morning, (Oct 7th) I heard it again -
>> first time this year.  Winter must be coming!
>>
>> Best birding to you all,
>>
>> Amy O
>> Des Moines, Iowa
>
>--
>________________________________________________________________
>
>C R Nugent             mailto:crnugent@tamu.edu
>Research Assistant
>Oceanography - TAMU    http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/~nugent
>Ph:(409)845-5767
>Fax:(409)845-6331      Lex clavitoris designati rescindenda est!
>________________________________________________________________
>"Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, doctor, and I'm happy to
>state I finally won out over it.- Elwood P. Dowd