Beautiful birds. Nesting high above the street, raising chicks, and likely performing a more effective rodent removal patrol than anything the city might manage. Story here.
For what reason was their nest removed? Damn! :mad:
It was removed because republicans are in the white house:
Boohoo.
Ah…the ever-important “gotta retain my cold-hearted right-winger credentials by poo-pooing the outrage over a completely unnecessary destruction of a tiny bit of nature in the concrete sea of Manhattan” move.
Er, reading the linked article, I don’t find any mention of the GOP, only of a real estate management firm who apparently got tired of nine years’ worth of streaks of bird poop down the side of their Fifth Avenue townhouse and sent the maintenance men out there on a scaffold to get the friggin’ thing outa there.
The hawks will find somewhere else close by to nest, trust me. They won’t simply abandon a territory that is evidently rich in food resources.
I hope they find their way up to my neighborhood. Now that the bald eagles are gone, there’s plenty of room.
I would also like to point out that red-tailed hawks not only are far from being endangered, but also they’re generally speaking the most common hawk found in the eastern United States. The reason they were nesting on a Manhattan townhouse in the first place was that all the other available red-tailed-hawk territorites around NYC were taken, and so they lucked into a niche that happened to be empty and supportive of chick-raising, food-wise.
The OP’s article was heavily slanted towards the hand-wringing, “Oh, won’t somebody think of the poor birds!?” aspect, mainly in its bathetic reference to the chicks, thus:
Er…this time of year–what we in the birdwatching hobby call “winter”–one would not expect red-tailed hawk chicks to be found in the nest, they being all grown and gone. Flown away. Graduated. Bye-bye Mom and Dad.
And…
And…so what? It’s “winter” and it won’t matter. By next spring they’ll have found somewhere else to nest. They don’t need to spend the winter in a nest somewhere; they roost in trees.
The PaleMale homepage is equally bathetic in its reference to the hawks apparently desperately trying to rebuild their nest (“Oh, won’t somebody pity the poor birds!”) It’s not nesting season, folks. It doesn’t matter. It won’t matter until next March, when serious nest-building starts. Until then, they’re just marking time, fiddling around with sticks, automatically trying to repair a damaged nest, because it was a permanent nest site, and it’ll take a few days for them to realize that The Nest is gone, period.
And when the message does penetrate, they’ll be off down the road a piece, setting up shop. Hawks lose nests all the time in The Wild, to storms, to logging companies, to dead trees simply rotting out and falling over. And they go down the road a piece and start over.
My sympathies are with the owners of the townhouse. Bird poop is acid, and will eat away the nice turn-of-the-century carved limestone facade pictured in the article. So, obviously, they had to choose–preserve their historic archictecture and make a pair of the commonest American hawks go live somewhere else, or allow the birds to destroy their period stone carvings for, what, some kind of abstract nature-lover reasons?
I’m a birdwatcher, too, but I’d have taken the nest down, too.
I’ll take “Boneheaded PR Moves” for $400, Alex…oh, wait a minute, these are immensely rich folks who don’t have to care what anybody else thinks of them ex except the co-op board. FWIW, some of the owners, like Mary Tyler Moore, are upset about the destruction of the nest.
I don’t see why the nests of such birds should never be allowed to be destroyed, although I disagree with what the board did. Trouble is, my co-op, occupied by the–er–less than rich, doesn’t even allow satellite dishes outside our windows, and netting or scaffolding to catch pigeon carcasses hanging on a building like that would be very unusual. And would you like to be the one with the view of the dead-offal-catcher?
Also, the choice of a photo “With Chick” to run with the article implies that a chick was among those cruelly evicted, which isn’t true–that photo would have been taken in May/June of some year.
The nest was removed once before and Pale Male rebuilt it. Now with the anti-pidgeon spikes gone it will be tougher to rebuild but my money is on the hawk. However after the first destruction of the nest it was two years before any new hawks were born.
What a non-NYCer maybe won’t get is that the hawks are pretty famous around here. People fricking love these guys. All sping and summer there is a little camp of people with telescopes and mounted binoculars in the park by the boating pond and they gladly share with anyone passing by a view of the nest. It is one of those things that give New Yorkers a sense of community and THESE FUCKERS TORE IT DOWN OVER BIRD POOP! THERE IS FUCKING PIDGEON POOP EVERYWHERE ASSHOLES! I hope Pale Male pecks your eyes out.
Pissing off an already insane animal rights nut really shouldn’t off put them too much. Maybe the malignant cunt will move out and someone normal could move in instead.
That story made me really sad. Imagine building up your home for a decade and coming home to find it gone… I think it sucks big time. I think it’s important to encourage wildlife to stay in the city.
I do hear what Duck Duck Goose is saying though… as unsympathetic as he (?) sounds, it was a little comforting to be reminded that these birds are hearty, and will likely move somewhere else and be OK in the long run.
BUT…
I have to disagree that the stone carvings were in any danger, and certainly that it not reason enough to destroy an animal’s home like that. It would probably decades or more for any damage to occur. So that is not a valid reason in my book. It’s bullshit.
Yes, but you were not the owner of the stone carvings in question, so your opinion isn’t of much persuasive weight. The actual owner of the building has every right to make the decision.
And why do you say they weren’t in much danger, by the way? Is bird poop NOT acidic? I’ve seen mere pigeon poop damage stone face in a matter of two years. What’s the basis for your “decades or more” assessment?
So now that the spikes are gone, doesn’t that mean the pigeons will move in? Sounds like they’ll be exchanging one poop problem for another. :smack:
I am not an expert in the science/chemistry of how long hawk poop takes to eat away the granite or whatever stone it is made of. However, look at the photo. The carvings look to be in excellent condition, especially for being over 100 years old. They don’t have any bird poop on them at all. The carvings are undernearth the arch on which the nest sat, so the bird poop wouldn’t even fall on them. The nest was there for 9 years, and I don’tt see any evidence of damage so far… so my own common sense tells me that it would take prolonged exposure - many times the amount of exposure it has already had - to do damage.
Yes the owner of the building has the right to take the nest down. However, one would hope he weighed the pros and cons. Was the building in danger of suffering structural damage? No. Was anyone’s life or health in danger? No. Was it an eyesore? No. Quite the opposite - it was an attraction that drew people to watch. I really don’t get what the problem was. IMO, it certainly didn’t rise to the level that they needed to destroy a wild animal’s home.
I’d guess the pigeons will be wary since that particular spot had been populated by hawks for so long. Thinking like a pigeon for a moment, I wouldn’t assume that just because there aren’t any hawks there now, that there not coming back anytime soon…oooh, a pretzel!
(Pigeons can’t spell “they’re”, this much I know.)
My understanding from watching Pale Male was the objections came mainly from the residents of the building, who objected very much to high-powered telescopes and binoculars being trained on their windows nearly 24/7, with people filming and taping nearly non-stop in the daylight hours. And some at night as well. I can’t say many people would like that sort of attention.
Still, given the bad publicity that the building tenants and owners will garner, I hope they think it’s worth it. Most likely the sorts of plutocrats who can afford a place like that think little more of the crowd below than they do of the park squirrels.
And I love red-tailed hawks, so I’d much rather they be allowed to remain. I wonder if perhaps the City could build a nesting place for them somehow. Not that you can guarantee they’ll use it…
OK, fair enough. I’m not an expert, either, so I’ll withdraw this point as unproven either way.
Well, if I were a resident of the building, I’m not sure I’d appreciate people below training telescopes on my windows.
More to the point: wild animals have no right to build a home on my home. If I were the building’s owner, it would be sufficient justification to say, “I don’t like birds.”