USDA Admits To Causing Mass Bird Death With Poison

0120-DEAD-BIRDS-ARKANSAS.JPG_full_380

At least one of the mysterious mass wildlife deaths of the past month has a (bizarre) explanation. The USDA acknowledged that hundreds of birds in South Dakota were poisoned as part of a massive and longstanding government bird-killing operation, normally kept under wraps, called Bye Bye Blackbird. The Christian Science Monitor sheds some light:

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) took responsibility for hundreds of dead starlings that were found on the ground and frozen in trees in a Yankton, S.D., park on Monday.

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.

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.

In addition to the USDA program, a so-called depredation order from the US Fish and Wildlife Service allows blackbirds, grackles, and starlings to be killed by anyone who says they pose health risks or cause economic damage. Though a permit is needed in some instances, the order is largely intended to cut through red tape for farmers, who often employ private contractors to kill the birds and do not need to report their bird culls to any authority.

“Every winter, there’s massive and purposeful kills of these blackbirds,” says Greg Butcher, the bird conservation director at the National Audubon Society. “These guys are professionals, and they don’t want to advertise their work. They like to work fast, efficiently, and out of sight.”

, , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention USDA Admits To Causing Mass Bird Death With Poison | Disinformation -- Topsy.com()

  • http://twitter.com/phantom3x Joey Hall

    Does this explain the coincidental deaths of jackdaws in Sweden?

    • bart

      No. They died of boredom. Saw to many swedes entering the sauna. nothing worth looking at.

  • http://twitter.com/phantom3x Joey Hall

    Does this explain the coincidental deaths of jackdaws in Sweden?

  • drewhempel

    Is Michio Kaku going to apologize for saying on Faux News that the birds committed mass suicide?

  • Anonymous

    Is Michio Kaku going to apologize for saying on Faux News that the birds committed mass suicide?

  • Ironaddict06

    There still are some serious questions to be asked. If this is done every year or so, why NOW are people asking what’s killing the birds. Yes, what about the birds in Arkansas, Louisiana and other parts of the world?

    • Jordan

      Psst.. the media wants you to think it’s a sign of the apocalypse. Animals die on a mass scale all the time. Could be a lack of oxygen in the air… or in the water, as in the case of the fish. I have no doubt that what they are saying here is probably true and that’s pretty messed up, but it would definitely affect more than a certain species of bird and this poison would contaminate other things. I read somewhere about poisonous space clouds, as well. Not too sure about that theory, but whatever. Out of the thousands of samples that have been collected, it is clear a conclusion has be reached, and the fact we haven’t been told the logical explanation for this happening is a clear indicator that the media still wants us to speculate on why this is happening. Again, the media covered it one time, then decided to cover it numerous other times so that it appears it’s all of a sudden beginning to happen. It’s the same with any other ‘sensational’ story that drives fear into the masses. For example, you may see a story on child abduction that is really in-depth, then the following days, a few other child abduction stories will be sprinkled into the news, as if child-abducting is at an all-time high. It’s nauseating, really… and sad.

  • Ironaddict06

    There still are some serious questions to be asked. If this is done every year or so, why NOW are people asking what’s killing the birds. Yes, what about the birds in Arkansas, Louisiana and other parts of the world?

  • Cayugamike

    Stupid bastards. Maybe they haven’t noticed or don’t care that starlings & blackbirds gobble up tons of nasty bugs, including gypsy moth caterpillars. And bird poop is good fertilizer.

    Mike Walton

    • J-j-lewis

      Any ‘Solution” that doesn’t yield a PROFIT to an Individual and/or CORPRATION is declared as ineffective, harmful, or detremental to the ‘environment’. The ‘news’ is that ‘natural’ remedies be it Ladybugs or Rosehips were employed for centuries before the blessed Industrial Revolution, Corporations and Profit..

    • bart

      I like bugs. Death to all bug eating birds!!!

  • Cayugamike

    Stupid bastards. Maybe they haven’t noticed or don’t care that starlings & blackbirds gobble up tons of nasty bugs, including gypsy moth caterpillars. And bird poop is good fertilizer.

    Mike Walton

  • LockNLoad

    I think its kinda strange that this poison would only affect this particular species of bird and not be harmfull to anything else. Especially if it is being dispersed on such a grand scale to kill so many of them. I want to know how it is being dispersed. Is it going into the cow feed? Are we eating this crap?

  • LockNLoad

    I think its kinda strange that this poison would only affect this particular species of bird and not be harmfull to anything else. Especially if it is being dispersed on such a grand scale to kill so many of them. I want to know how it is being dispersed. Is it going into the cow feed? Are we eating this crap?

    • quartz99

      Well, the point is that it’s NOT only affecting a particular species but they’re very careful when they test it to only test that species. Then they can swear in court that their research only demonstrated an effect on that species. I had this problem when I was poisoned by over exposure to a pesticide a few years back. The particular chemical had only been tested on certain insects and a particular breed of rabbit. Because of this, they can legally say that it doesn’t affect humans, because they did no human tests with it (and therefore no tests showed ill affects in humans). I showed similar symptoms to the rabbits in the study, but because “it doesn’t affect humans”, I was not allowed to legally claim the pesticide as the cause of my collapse (and therefore couldn’t claim workman’s comp for the months I was out of work recovering), even though my doctor was certain it was indeed the cause. All perfectly legal because the govt. has no interest in protecting people when there’s money to be made.

    • bart

      They are actually hit with a broad beam phazer like device fired from our magnet driven anti gravity aircraft that you can only see if it passes directly in front of the sun on a foggy day.

  • Jordan

    Psst.. the media wants you to think it’s a sign of the apocalypse. Animals die on a mass scale all the time. Could be a lack of oxygen in the air… or in the water, as in the case of the fish. I have no doubt that what they are saying here is probably true and that’s pretty messed up, but it would definitely affect more than a certain species of bird and this poison would contaminate other things. I read somewhere about poisonous space clouds, as well. Not too sure about that theory, but whatever. Out of the thousands of samples that have been collected, it is clear a conclusion has be reached, and the fact we haven’t been told the logical explanation for this happening is a clear indicator that the media still wants us to speculate on why this is happening. Again, the media covered it one time, then decided to cover it numerous other times so that it appears it’s all of a sudden beginning to happen. It’s the same with any other ‘sensational’ story that drives fear into the masses. For example, you may see a story on child abduction that is really in-depth, then the following days, a few other child abduction stories will be sprinkled into the news, as if child-abducting is at an all-time high. It’s nauseating, really… and sad.

  • Silphen

    Wow… I … I can’t even rant about this. This is so fucking retarded that I am literally bankrupt of all manner of snide commentary. Congratulations humanity, congratulations.

  • Silphen

    Wow… I … I can’t even rant about this. This is so fucking retarded that I am literally bankrupt of all manner of snide commentary. Congratulations humanity, congratulations.

  • SOME BIRD

    Oh, if only the roles were reversed and it was the people that died! Ah, statistics! This is why I probably find more common ground with animals than with these uh…”people”-things I am supposed to get along with.

  • SOME BIRD

    Oh, if only the roles were reversed and it was the people that died! Ah, statistics! This is why I probably find more common ground with animals than with these uh…”people”-things I am supposed to get along with.

    • Yighs

      Seriously? If so i think it’s that kind of thinking that finds you feeling separated from people. In nature animals kill without thought (more instinct than thought) We have that same instinct and want to survive and live better. Are we making mistakes? Yes. But are you helping when you imply it would better if a bunch of humans where killed? Because they are being all the time in many places and for vicious and disgusting reasons. Has being going on for as long as well… this response at least. However the difference is that we can think about it and reflect on it. I think the reasonable culling of some animals is far less important a topic than the real shit that is going on in the world to people! But hey if roles were reversed right?

  • Pingback: ? « The Mini entrepreneur()

  • Cheryl

    The government now represents corporations and not the public. The cattlemen want the wild Buffalo off public lands so that they (the cattlemen) can use the land for grazing. (You can learn more about this by visiting the Buffalo Field Campain’s website.) Cattlemen and ranchers also want the wild horses removed from public lands, again, so that they can use the land for free, or almost for free, to raise cattle. The government is spending hundreds of thousands of public dollars to “roundup” wild horses and to place them in holding pens. Many horses have been severely injured or have died in this process. The government is also working to change the laws so that horse slaughter will once again be legal in the United States.
    The government denied any involvement in the poisioning of the Red Wing Blackbirds until the truth came out. How can I trust a government that only admits what they have done when there is no other choice?

  • Cheryl

    The government now represents corporations and not the public. The cattlemen want the wild Buffalo off public lands so that they (the cattlemen) can use the land for grazing. (You can learn more about this by visiting the Buffalo Field Campain’s website.) Cattlemen and ranchers also want the wild horses removed from public lands, again, so that they can use the land for free, or almost for free, to raise cattle. The government is spending hundreds of thousands of public dollars to “roundup” wild horses and to place them in holding pens. Many horses have been severely injured or have died in this process. The government is also working to change the laws so that horse slaughter will once again be legal in the United States.
    The government denied any involvement in the poisioning of the Red Wing Blackbirds until the truth came out. How can I trust a government that only admits what they have done when there is no other choice?

    • Imatroll5

      What needs to be done is regulate the breeding of domestic horses and perform vasectomies on select wild stallions to control the mustang population instead of shooting wild mares with birth control. As far as the slaughter of horses goes, I don’t agree with it, but if they get their way, they need to assess heavy fines for plants not following good animal welfare practices. Using cattle equipment to kill horses is cruel as horses are not built like cattle and can move their heads around in a broader range than cattle. More than 1 shot to the head may be necessary to down a horse. They need to find a better solution or an animal welfare organization needs to get involved to help with horse euthanasia for those who cannot afford it for one reason or another. Then you have the problem of disposal of the carcass. Some landfills will not accept deceased animals, anymore. It’s all a very complex and sensative subject.

      • doc

        I’ll watch from a safe vantage point while you go vasectomize the feral stallion without doing him or yourself major damage. Good Luck!!

        • bart

          Lets eat the horses. They make as good a burger as a cow.

  • paullootens

    has the shit hit the fan yet? is everybody still ok with things? :/

  • paullootens

    has the shit hit the fan yet? is everybody still ok with things? :/

  • VoiceOfReason

    Many of you clearly live in the city, but outside the concrete and asphalt, not all animals are domestic, and can cause serious damage or health issues. If five million disease-carrying birds defecated on your home or business, wouldn’t you want something to be done about it? We cannot communicate with them. We cannot put them in prison or charge a fine, as we would do with a human who performed the acts of vandalism and bio-insecurity associated with wild animals. Wild animals have been known to cause serious property damage on a regular basis. If five million birds nested on the road, would you skip work for three weeks until they moved on so you wouldn’t hit one of them? And even if you would, could you expect a million other Americans living in your city to do the same? You have never experienced this, because wildlife control works behind the scenes in every city to keep these major problems from happening. Do not preach the immorality of wildlife control until you have truly lived without it. You bash the country folk for their “inhumane wildlife practices” while you live in the most heavily controlled region on earth : urban America. Just because you don’t directly participate in it does not mean you do not directly benefit from it. The next time you don’t like the way a problem is being dealt with, instead of suggesting that it should not be dealt with at all, offer a better solution to the problem.
    Food for thought : those birds were attacking America’s food supply. Would it be more moral to allow food production to suffer when there are so many people starving in this world? I’m sure somebody will argue that “America is struggling with obesity, it can afford to take a hit to the food supply in the name of some birds,” but America is obese from its eating and exercise habits, not the overabundance of food. In fact, agriculture is one of the few industries in America which still exhibits a trade gain in global markets, rather than a severe deficit. What this means : America exports large quantities of food and fiber, and many of those goods go to starving people who do not always know where their next meal will come from.
    The decision to euthanize animals is never made lightly, there are always other moral implications to consider. Nobody kills large quantities of animals because “they feel like it.” It would not be right to shut down the economy in the name of a few birds, especially those industries which keep us alive.

  • VoiceOfReason

    Many of you clearly live in the city, but outside the concrete and asphalt, not all animals are domestic, and can cause serious damage or health issues. If five million disease-carrying birds defecated on your home or business, wouldn’t you want something to be done about it? We cannot communicate with them. We cannot put them in prison or charge a fine, as we would do with a human who performed the acts of vandalism and bio-insecurity associated with wild animals. Wild animals have been known to cause serious property damage on a regular basis. If five million birds nested on the road, would you skip work for three weeks until they moved on so you wouldn’t hit one of them? And even if you would, could you expect a million other Americans living in your city to do the same? You have never experienced this, because wildlife control works behind the scenes in every city to keep these major problems from happening. Do not preach the immorality of wildlife control until you have truly lived without it. You bash the country folk for their “inhumane wildlife practices” while you live in the most heavily controlled region on earth : urban America. Just because you don’t directly participate in it does not mean you do not directly benefit from it. The next time you don’t like the way a problem is being dealt with, instead of suggesting that it should not be dealt with at all, offer a better solution to the problem.
    Food for thought : those birds were attacking America’s food supply. Would it be more moral to allow food production to suffer when there are so many people starving in this world? I’m sure somebody will argue that “America is struggling with obesity, it can afford to take a hit to the food supply in the name of some birds,” but America is obese from its eating and exercise habits, not the overabundance of food. In fact, agriculture is one of the few industries in America which still exhibits a trade gain in global markets, rather than a severe deficit. What this means : America exports large quantities of food and fiber, and many of those goods go to starving people who do not always know where their next meal will come from.
    The decision to euthanize animals is never made lightly, there are always other moral implications to consider. Nobody kills large quantities of animals because “they feel like it.” It would not be right to shut down the economy in the name of a few birds, especially those industries which keep us alive.

    • Grek

      As animals, humans themselves have caused some serious damage to our home, the planet earth. Should we kill them too? Just saying…

      • VoiceOfReason

        The difference is that we can communicate with humans. Therefore, we can apportion appropriate punishments. We can imprison or fine humans guilty of theft, vandalism, littering, or other crimes. Without the ability to communicate, our options are to kill or individually remove each animal. Removal works fine with a spider building webs in your house, but in numbers in the thousands, particularly with species capable of flight or long distance travel, we lose the option to individually remove the birds, as there is nowhere we can take them in which they cannot simply fly away and cause more problems, and it is by no means an easy or cost-effective task to round them up.
        We cannot simply post a “no trespassing” sign and expect the birds to leave us alone, nor can we inform them of our laws and expect them to follow, as is the case with humans. As I said before, the decision to euthanize animals is never made lightly. When other options are available, they are used, but some situations simply require drastic measures, or the problem will never go away.

        • Ab0130459

          voice of reason,
          because we canno’t communicate with them, we should just kill them right. Thats the answer. Very logical.Take the easy way out, who cares if hundreds of wild creatures die because of it. I understand that it’s harder dealing with animals than with people because there is no way to communicate, however, this solution is cruel and unusual and (not to be hurtfull or disrespectfull) anyone who agrees with this stratagy is obviously either undereducated or they are not very concerned with what happens to the world around us (excluding the man made world… of course)

      • bart

        Many of them do, every chance they get.

    • Humphrey Jakov

      Dear VoiceOFReason,
      Thank you for detailing the method behind the madness of civilization’s decadence and excess gone completely bat$hit insane and completely removed from the realities of the natural world. Unfortunately agricultural methods are completely greed driven to produce massive quantities of junk food with no biodiversity, as absolutely mono cultured as possible with genetically modified poisons, creating an endless addiction all sorts of insane control methods. Well stated.

      • VoiceOfReason

        Perhaps you are right, and we should all go back to living in sod huts, assuming there is enough space on earth for us to do so without interfering with the environment (although, all sarcasm aside, it DOES scare me how little most urban Americans actually knows about the natural world). As for agriculture’s greed and junk food, I suppose you could be right, it is incredibly greedy for us to feed the world our unhealthy corn and wheat. Instead, we should let the world starve. I suppose that severely reducing the world’s population in one fell swoop WOULD be good for the environment. It would be much less greedy for the farmers the produce only enough food for themselves. You do realize that only 2% of America’s population is involved in agriculture? That means that 2% of the population is responsible for feeding the entirety of America. Large crops are not from greed, they’re from necessity. And you’re right. Our food supply should be much more biodiverse. Never mind consistency. I have no idea how you imagined the concept of “genetically modified poisons,” seeing as how poisons are chemicals, not living beings. Perhaps you are thinking of diseases? I’ve never met a farmer who utilized diseases, or even did not try to prevent them. Disease resistant crops exist, but is that really such a bad thing? Perhaps I’m misinterpreting your last statement seeing as how “creating an endless addiction all sorts of insane control methods” isn’t exactly coherent, but it seems as though you are trying to claim that farmers made humans addicted to food as a method to control everybody? Or perhaps you are saying that humans are addicted to control methods? I don’t mind others offering their own point of view, but if you must mock me, at least take the time to ensure that your arguments make sense rather than just ranting about things you have no real knowledge about other than the misconceptions commonly spread by the media as a means to boost ratings (and you said farmers were greedy).

        • gato

          VoiceOfReason,
          You’re using the fact that large amounts of food need to be produced (due to large amounts of people) in order to justify agribusiness methods — the heavy use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, on huge monoculture crops that destroys the health of the soil and causes other serious environmental problems. Along wiht the use of GMOs that have been shown to be harmful and are a threat to biodiversity. Also, GMOs have been made that produce a poison (built in pesticide) — the bt toxin in corn (i don’t know if it’s also been done in other crops).

          With that logic, one could defend factory farms that are environmentally destructive, resource intensive, horribly abusive of animals, promote antibiotic resistant bacteria, and produce less healthy meat.

          And these US crops aren’t necessary to feed the world. It’s more likely that subsidized US corn or other crops put farmers out of business in places like Mexico and Haiti, which has indeed happened on a large scale.

          • VoiceOfReason

            This is one of the first well thought out responses I have seen on this board, and for that, I have liked your reply. However, I do feel that fertilizers, pesticides, and genetic consistency are warranted given the present and growing demand for food. You claim that the use of fertilizers and pesticides are heavy, but I find that to be a bit of an overstatement. In fact, their use is usually measured in ppm, or parts per million, diluted in water. Monoculture crops are used to ensure quantity, quality, consistent crops that grow well and are resistant to disease, weather, and other factors. To protect the soil, most farmers employ crop rotation to diversify its use. Granted, there are environmental risks associated with agriculture, but those issues have been and are being addressed constantly. Agriculture is a necessary industry, and cannot morally be allowed to cease in the name of these issues.
            GMOs are a highly debated, multifaceted issue I do not wish to go into at this time. As a topic, although it is relevant to global agriculture as a whole, I feel that it strays too far from the topic at hand : wildlife control. In regard to your factory farm argument, and keeping to the primary issue, I would like to point out that the necessity of agriculture has indeed been used as an argument to that effect, but it is an argument I do not agree with. Never have I defended the mistreatment of animals. However, there is a distinct difference between euthanasia and mistreatment. Further, the concept of industrial livestock in and of itself is not mistreatment of animals. There are certain practices which, if utilized on industrial livestock, would be mistreatment of animals, but those practices are illegal and unethical, and therefore not widely used. US subsidies on farm products are again a multifaceted issue which stray too far from wildlife control for me to debate here.

        • Humphrey Jakov

          VoiceOfReason
          “Biodiverse agriculture”, I’m referring to a buzzword commonly thought of as “permaculture”. In layman cold bottom linebusiness reasonablel terms, it is the principle of “don’t put all your eggs in one basket” or “diversify your investments” or “all bases covered” . More diverse crops makes diverse nutrients, complete resistance, and complete cures for ailments, diseases, and everything else harmful. About the failed incoherency, sorry. What I meant to say is “Endless addiction to all sorts of insane control methods” is another way of say” “hell on earth” created by people [who] have decided to be nothing more than @$$hole$ who effectively defecate on everyone they can every chance they get. I am not one of those globalist freaks like Bill Gates, Daniel Quinn who think the world is overpopulated.

    • Humphrey Jakov

      Humphrey Jakov,
      What they really need to do is find a humane way to genetically modify all birds so their wings don’t grow long enough for them to fly across international borders without a green card or passport.

    • Sleepwalker

      what happens when people start over populating…?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FYH67T7YQ5BDBFA4L3NY72TNA4 Jennifer A

        Hopefully people will be smart enough to stop having kids. Or the worst is mandated sterilization. Abortions won’t be necessary if people use their brains. Or people will become naturally sterile, which happens a lot in other animal species that over populate.

      • Miss Anthrope

        START overpopulating?

      • Sparkling Cyanide

        They already taking care of that

    • Korky

      So, What about the tons of fish that mysteriously died?

  • Stvnx1

    This still doesn’t explain the massive deaths of birds/fish dying all over the world. Is the USDA going on a world tour killing spree? Was this meant to be some sort of comfort blanket for what has been going. You would think they would come up with a better way to deal with the birds, and how exactly do we know that they were defecating on john does farm? Wonder why no one had the scoop on that.

  • Stvnx1

    This still doesn’t explain the massive deaths of birds/fish dying all over the world. Is the USDA going on a world tour killing spree? Was this meant to be some sort of comfort blanket for what has been going. You would think they would come up with a better way to deal with the birds, and how exactly do we know that they were defecating on john does farm? Wonder why no one had the scoop on that.

    • korky

      You said it. What about the fish as well. That was not mentioned

  • Anonymous

    Well, the point is that it’s NOT only affecting a particular species but they’re very careful when they test it to only test that species. Then they can swear in court that their research only demonstrated an effect on that species. I had this problem when I was poisoned by over exposure to a pesticide a few years back. The particular chemical had only been tested on certain insects and a particular breed of rabbit. Because of this, they can legally say that it doesn’t affect humans, because they did no human tests with it (and therefore no tests showed ill affects in humans). I showed similar symptoms to the rabbits in the study, but because “it doesn’t affect humans”, I was not allowed to legally claim the pesticide as the cause of my collapse (and therefore couldn’t claim workman’s comp for the months I was out of work recovering), even though my doctor was certain it was indeed the cause. All perfectly legal because the govt. has no interest in protecting people when there’s money to be made.

  • Imatroll5

    What needs to be done is regulate the breeding of domestic horses and perform vasectomies on select wild stallions to control the mustang population instead of shooting wild mares with birth control. As far as the slaughter of horses goes, I don’t agree with it, but if they get their way, they need to assess heavy fines for plants not following good animal welfare practices. Using cattle equipment to kill horses is cruel as horses are not built like cattle and can move their heads around in a broader range than cattle. More than 1 shot to the head may be necessary to down a horse. They need to find a better solution or an animal welfare organization needs to get involved to help with horse euthanasia for those who cannot afford it for one reason or another. Then you have the problem of disposal of the carcass. Some landfills will not accept deceased animals, anymore. It’s all a very complex and sensative subject.

  • PauloX

    This is the typical solution to ignorance. If we have a problem, let’s kill the source. Squirrels poop in my yard all the time; Racoons hang out near my house; and of course, some nasty spiders decorate the corners of my house too – Should I nuke them all?

    As a scientist, I can’t tell you how many articles I have read about poisons being used in nature for an apparent benefit, and somehow ending up in our system, or into the system of another non-targeted victim. The human mind can think, believe it or not, and I am sure if there were such a capable person, there would have been other more satisfying solution to the bird pooping problem.

  • PauloX

    This is the typical solution to ignorance. If we have a problem, let’s kill the source. Squirrels poop in my yard all the time; Racoons hang out near my house; and of course, some nasty spiders decorate the corners of my house too – Should I nuke them all?

    As a scientist, I can’t tell you how many articles I have read about poisons being used in nature for an apparent benefit, and somehow ending up in our system, or into the system of another non-targeted victim. The human mind can think, believe it or not, and I am sure if there were such a capable person, there would have been other more satisfying solution to the bird pooping problem.

    • VoiceOfReason

      Rarely is the decision made to kill a squirrel or two for pooping in the yard, and often, individual spiders are simply carried out of the house. But in the event of a major infestation of spiders, it is not uncommon to employ pesticides to remove them. The difference lies in that the numbers reach a point that it is no longer time and cost effective to remove the spiders individually. One or two squirrels pooping in your yard is quite different from a thousand possibly disease-ridden squirrels pooping in your yard at once.
      As a scientist, rather than telling us about how many articles you’ve read about poison, perhaps you could offer a preferable solution which is sufficiently efficient and cost effective as to be a viable replacement to poison? Deterrent solutions, predator decoys, and sound emitters have all been used to drive away unwanted pests, but the animals eventually build up a tolerance for such measures, leading them to become ineffective.

      • Ab0130459

        Its not about being “cost effective” although that seems to be what most people are concerned with. Frankly, I don’t give a damn about the cost. Since when does saving money make it ok to kill hundreds of wild creatures? Has our society really stooped that low? That we would trade the lives of hundreds (regardless of the species) in order to save money? MONEY! Something that we have created and we gave worth. What is a life worth? How many dollars?

        • Concerned Horse

          Are you okay with paying much higher taxes so that the birds can ruin crops and other vital parts of this economy? You still haven’t offered an alternate solution.

      • http://twitter.com/GinaEnigma Gina

        “But in the event of a major infestation of spiders, it is not uncommon to employ pesticides to remove them. ”

         VOR have you  heard of a vacuum, they work but chemical are preferred, now that is reasonable.

    • bart

      Yes you should “nuke” all those threatening to human habitation.

  • Grek

    As animals, humans themselves have caused some serious damage to our home, the planet earth. Should we kill them too? Just saying…

  • J-j-lewis

    Any ‘Solution” that doesn’t yield a PROFIT to an Individual and/or CORPRATION is declared as ineffective, harmful, or detremental to the ‘environment’. The ‘news’ is that ‘natural’ remedies be it Ladybugs or Rosehips were employed for centuries before the blessed Industrial Revolution, Corporations and Profit..

  • VoiceOfReason

    The difference is that we can communicate with humans. Therefore, we can apportion appropriate punishments. We can imprison or fine humans guilty of theft, vandalism, littering, or other crimes. Without the ability to communicate, our options are to kill or individually remove each animal. Removal works fine with a spider building webs in your house, but in numbers in the thousands, particularly with species capable of flight or long distance travel, we lose the option to individually remove the birds, as there is nowhere we can take them in which they cannot simply fly away and cause more problems, and it is by no means an easy or cost-effective task to round them up.
    We cannot simply post a “no trespassing” sign and expect the birds to leave us alone, nor can we inform them of our laws and expect them to follow, as is the case with humans. As I said before, the decision to euthanize animals is never made lightly. When other options are available, they are used, but some situations simply require drastic measures, or the problem will never go away.

  • VoiceOfReason

    Rarely is the decision made to kill a squirrel or two for pooping in the yard, and often, individual spiders are simply carried out of the house. But in the event of a major infestation of spiders, it is not uncommon to employ pesticides to remove them. The difference lies in that the numbers reach a point that it is no longer time and cost effective to remove the spiders individually. One or two squirrels pooping in your yard is quite different from a thousand possibly disease-ridden squirrels pooping in your yard at once.
    As a scientist, rather than telling us about how many articles you’ve read about poison, perhaps you could offer a preferable solution which is sufficiently efficient and cost effective as to be a viable replacement to poison? Deterrent solutions, predator decoys, and sound emitters have all been used to drive away unwanted pests, but the animals eventually build up a tolerance for such measures, leading them to become ineffective.

  • Humphrey Jakov

    Dear VoiceOFReason,
    Thank you for detailing the method behind the madness of civilization’s decadence and excess gone completely bat$hit insane and completely removed from the realities of the natural world. Unfortunately agricultural methods are completely greed driven to produce massive quantities of junk food with no biodiversity, as absolutely mono cultured as possible with genetically modified poisons, creating an endless addiction all sorts of insane control methods. Well stated.

  • Humphrey Jakov

    Humphrey Jakov,
    What they really need to do is find a humane way to genetically modify all birds so their wings don’t grow long enough for them to fly across international borders without a green card or passport.

  • doc

    I’ll watch from a safe vantage point while you go vasectomize the feral stallion without doing him or yourself major damage. Good Luck!!

  • Otter4026

    anyone who can’t take the real world which includes birds should go back to thier penthouses and get out the antibacterial soap. Leave the real world alone..Birds play a part in this world..If you ask me the humans are the ones pigging up this planet for everyone!

    • bart

      That is Bass Ackwards thinking sonny.

  • Otter4026

    anyone who can’t take the real world which includes birds should go back to thier penthouses and get out the antibacterial soap. Leave the real world alone..Birds play a part in this world..If you ask me the humans are the ones pigging up this planet for everyone!

  • VoiceOfReason

    Perhaps you are right, and we should all go back to living in sod huts, assuming there is enough space on earth for us to do so without interfering with the environment (although, all sarcasm aside, it DOES scare me how little most urban Americans actually knows about the natural world). As for agriculture’s greed and junk food, I suppose you could be right, it is incredibly greedy for us to feed the world our unhealthy corn and wheat. Instead, we should let the world starve. I suppose that severely reducing the world’s population in one fell swoop WOULD be good for the environment. It would be much less greedy for the farmers the produce only enough food for themselves. You do realize that only 2% of America’s population is involved in agriculture? That means that 2% of the population is responsible for feeding the entirety of America. Large crops are not from greed, they’re from necessity. And you’re right. Our food supply should be much more biodiverse. Never mind consistency. I have no idea how you imagined the concept of “genetically modified poisons,” seeing as how poisons are chemicals, not living beings. Perhaps you are thinking of diseases? I’ve never met a farmer who utilized diseases, or even did not try to prevent them. Disease resistant crops exist, but is that really such a bad thing? Perhaps I’m misinterpreting your last statement seeing as how “creating an endless addiction all sorts of insane control methods” isn’t exactly coherent, but it seems as though you are trying to claim that farmers made humans addicted to food as a method to control everybody? Or perhaps you are saying that humans are addicted to control methods? I don’t mind others offering their own point of view, but if you must mock me, at least take the time to ensure that your arguments make sense rather than just ranting about things you have no real knowledge about other than the misconceptions commonly spread by the media as a means to boost ratings (and you said farmers were greedy).

  • George Allison Elmer

    Who would know better than our (un-erring) government – ??? Who are we to challange their (un-erring) knowledge??? How much of our tax dolars are being spent on these progams? Are the ‘farmers’ family or agrabusiness? [I think I know the answer, but I have no proof – my bet is on Archer, midlands Daniels, etc.]

  • George Allison Elmer

    Who would know better than our (un-erring) government – ??? Who are we to challange their (un-erring) knowledge??? How much of our tax dolars are being spent on these progams? Are the ‘farmers’ family or agrabusiness? [I think I know the answer, but I have no proof – my bet is on Archer, midlands Daniels, etc.]

  • bart

    Many of them do, every chance they get.

  • bart

    Many of them do, every chance they get.

  • bart

    Yes you should “nuke” all those threatening to human habitation.

  • bart

    That is Bass Ackwards thinking sonny.

  • bart

    Lets eat the horses. They make as good a burger as a cow.

  • bart

    They are actually hit with a broad beam phazer like device fired from our magnet driven anti gravity aircraft that you can only see if it passes directly in front of the sun on a foggy day.

  • bart

    I like bugs. Death to all bug eating birds!!!

  • bart

    No. They died of boredom. Saw to many swedes entering the sauna. nothing worth looking at.

  • gato

    VoiceOfReason,
    You’re using the fact that large amounts of food need to be produced (due to large amounts of people) in order to justify agribusiness methods — the heavy use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, on huge monoculture crops that destroys the health of the soil and causes other serious environmental problems. Along wiht the use of GMOs that have been shown to be harmful and are a threat to biodiversity. Also, GMOs have been made that produce a poison (built in pesticide) — the bt toxin in corn (i don’t know if it’s also been done in other crops).

    With that logic, one could defend factory farms that are environmentally destructive, resource intensive, horribly abusive of animals, promote antibiotic resistant bacteria, and produce less healthy meat.

    And these US crops aren’t necessary to feed the world. It’s more likely that subsidized US corn or other crops put farmers out of business in places like Mexico and Haiti, which has indeed happened on a large scale.

  • VoiceOfReason

    This is one of the first well thought out responses I have seen on this board, and for that, I have liked your reply. However, I do feel that fertilizers, pesticides, and genetic consistency are warranted given the present and growing demand for food. You claim that the use of fertilizers and pesticides are heavy, but I find that to be a bit of an overstatement. In fact, their use is usually measured in ppm, or parts per million, diluted in water. Monoculture crops are used to ensure quantity, quality, consistent crops that grow well and are resistant to disease, weather, and other factors. To protect the soil, most farmers employ crop rotation to diversify its use. Granted, there are environmental risks associated with agriculture, but those issues have been and are being addressed constantly. Agriculture is a necessary industry, and cannot morally be allowed to cease in the name of these issues.
    GMOs are a highly debated, multifaceted issue I do not wish to go into at this time. As a topic, although it is relevant to global agriculture as a whole, I feel that it strays too far from the topic at hand : wildlife control. In regard to your factory farm argument, and keeping to the primary issue, I would like to point out that the necessity of agriculture has indeed been used as an argument to that effect, but it is an argument I do not agree with. Never have I defended the mistreatment of animals. However, there is a distinct difference between euthanasia and mistreatment. Further, the concept of industrial livestock in and of itself is not mistreatment of animals. There are certain practices which, if utilized on industrial livestock, would be mistreatment of animals, but those practices are illegal and unethical, and therefore not widely used. US subsidies on farm products are again a multifaceted issue which stray too far from wildlife control for me to debate here.

  • Yighs

    Seriously? If so i think it’s that kind of thinking that finds you feeling separated from people. In nature animals kill without thought (more instinct than thought) We have that same instinct and want to survive and live better. Are we making mistakes? Yes. But are you helping when you imply it would better if a bunch of humans where killed? Because they are being all the time in many places and for vicious and disgusting reasons. Has being going on for as long as well… this response at least. However the difference is that we can think about it and reflect on it. I think the reasonable culling of some animals is far less important a topic than the real shit that is going on in the world to people! But hey if roles were reversed right?

  • Sleepwalker

    what happens when people start over populating…?

  • Ab0130459

    voice of reason,
    because we canno’t communicate with them, we should just kill them right. Thats the answer. Very logical.Take the easy way out, who cares if hundreds of wild creatures die because of it. I understand that it’s harder dealing with animals than with people because there is no way to communicate, however, this solution is cruel and unusual and (not to be hurtfull or disrespectfull) anyone who agrees with this stratagy is obviously either undereducated or they are not very concerned with what happens to the world around us (excluding the man made world… of course)

  • Ab0130459

    Its not about being “cost effective” although that seems to be what most people are concerned with. Frankly, I don’t give a damn about the cost. Since when does saving money make it ok to kill hundreds of wild creatures? Has our society really stooped that low? That we would trade the lives of hundreds (regardless of the species) in order to save money? MONEY! Something that we have created and we gave worth. What is a life worth? How many dollars?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FYH67T7YQ5BDBFA4L3NY72TNA4 Jennifer A

    Hopefully people will be smart enough to stop having kids. Or the worst is mandated sterilization. Abortions won’t be necessary if people use their brains. Or people will become naturally sterile, which happens a lot in other animal species that over populate.

  • Miss Anthrope

    START overpopulating?

  • Concerned Horse

    Are you okay with paying much higher taxes so that the birds can ruin crops and other vital parts of this economy? You still haven’t offered an alternate solution.

  • Ajger

    Uh, has any one mentioned the fact that Starlings are an INVASIVE species and often pose a threat to native wildlife, especially in the Northern Plains? Many native species of birds now rely on man-made bird houses for roosting and even these must be protected from colonization by Starlings. Starlings put a lot of pressure on prairie birds through competition for nesting sites and food. Living in South Dakota, I can tell you how irritating these birds are. They have caused major population drops in many native North American birds, like the Purple Martin.

  • Ajger

    Uh, has any one mentioned the fact that Starlings are an INVASIVE species and often pose a threat to native wildlife, especially in the Northern Plains? Many native species of birds now rely on man-made bird houses for roosting and even these must be protected from colonization by Starlings. Starlings put a lot of pressure on prairie birds through competition for nesting sites and food. Living in South Dakota, I can tell you how irritating these birds are. They have caused major population drops in many native North American birds, like the Purple Martin.

  • Korky

    So, What about the tons of fish that mysteriously died?

  • korky

    You said it. What about the fish as well. That was not mentioned

  • Sparkling Cyanide

    They already taking care of that

  • Selitone

    These bird populations must eat massive amounts of bugs!! NOT when they are dead! so now the farmer has to spread even more bug spray yeah maybe sod huts is the answer! THESE idiots cant even see the natural order!!

  • Selitone

    These bird populations must eat massive amounts of bugs!! NOT when they are dead! so now the farmer has to spread even more bug spray yeah maybe sod huts is the answer! THESE idiots cant even see the natural order!!

  • Humphrey Jakov

    VoiceOfReason
    “Biodiverse agriculture”, I’m referring to a buzzword commonly thought of as “permaculture”. In layman cold bottom linebusiness reasonablel terms, it is the principle of “don’t put all your eggs in one basket” or “diversify your investments” or “all bases covered” . More divers crops makes diverse nutrients, complete resistance, and complete cures for ailments, diseases, and everything else harmful. About the failed incoherency, sorry. What I meant to say is “Endless addiction to all sorts of insane control methods” is another way of say” “hell on earth” created by people have decided to be nothing more than @$$hole$, effectively defecating on everyone every chance they get.

  • Humphrey Jakov

    VoiceOfReason
    “Biodiverse agriculture”, I’m referring to a buzzword commonly thought of as “permaculture”. In layman cold bottom linebusiness reasonablel terms, it is the principle of “don’t put all your eggs in one basket” or “diversify your investments” or “all bases covered” . More diverse crops makes diverse nutrients, complete resistance, and complete cures for ailments, diseases, and everything else harmful. About the failed incoherency, sorry. What I meant to say is “Endless addiction to all sorts of insane control methods” is another way of say” “hell on earth” created by people [who] have decided to be nothing more than @$$hole$ who effectively defecate on everyone they can every chance they get. I am not one of those globalist freaks like Bill Gates, Daniel Quinn who think the world is overpopulated.

  • Weirwilliam786

    WHEN ARE WE EVER GOING TO LEARN,ANIMALS, PLANTS, MAN, ALL NEED EACH OTHER TO SURVIVE.

  • Weirwilliam786

    WHEN ARE WE EVER GOING TO LEARN,ANIMALS, PLANTS, MAN, ALL NEED EACH OTHER TO SURVIVE.

  • BLRMKR3

    Don’tany of you jerks know that these huge flocks of Starlings you see migrating are not natural? The English Starling got to North America through the clumsiness of humans. Since their accidental introduction their populations have exploded. They wreak havoc everywhere they go. Thyese individuals are only trying to help control a non-native species that is a threat to native species.JUst like pythons,ferrel hogs, nutria, cane toads, killer bees, etc. ,,,they don’t belong here and will cause irreversible damage if left unchecked. Don’t comment unless your educated on the subject.It makes America look even more stupid.

  • BLRMKR3

    Don’tany of you jerks know that these huge flocks of Starlings you see migrating are not natural? The English Starling got to North America through the clumsiness of humans. Since their accidental introduction their populations have exploded. They wreak havoc everywhere they go. Thyese individuals are only trying to help control a non-native species that is a threat to native species.JUst like pythons,ferrel hogs, nutria, cane toads, killer bees, etc. ,,,they don’t belong here and will cause irreversible damage if left unchecked. Don’t comment unless your educated on the subject.It makes America look even more stupid.

  • http://twitter.com/GinaEnigma Gina

    “But in the event of a major infestation of spiders, it is not uncommon to employ pesticides to remove them. ”

     VOR have you  heard of a vacuum, they work but chemical are preferred, now that is reasonable.

  • Torresieenterprises

    That is absolutely crazy….How do they not get anything from that.

    Check out our newest site…It is packed with the coolest gadgets just released onto the market that no one has reviewed yet…http://spygearfactory.ecrater.com

  • Torresieenterprises

    That is absolutely crazy….How do they not get anything from that.

    Check out our newest site…It is packed with the coolest gadgets just released onto the market that no one has reviewed yet…http://spygearfactory.ecrater.com

21
More in Birds, Conspiracies, Environment, Government, Mass Animal Deaths, Poison, Secrets
Davos Is A Disastrous Conspiracy Of The Rich

The fact that Paul Farrell is allowed to publish such fierce criticism of the World Economic Forum's Davos gathering in a Rupert Murdoch-owned publication is more than a little disarming...

Close