Funny. I was just discussing this very same topic with my father on a walk this afternoon here in Central NJ.
Picture perfect afternoon with puffy white clouds and blue skies. I asked him if he noticed the lack of birds in the sky and trees that I had noticed, and he agreed. The sky would be filled with various birds in flight and in trees this time of year. Not so much anymore. Canary in the coal mine so to speak. Only Canadian Geese and Turkey Vultures seem to be thriving.
19
I knew the moment an article about bird kills took off, some one would drag in the cat and point a claw in that direction.
8
Excellent article and comments so far. But your apologetic lead in saying that, in effect, we recognize that of course after the human loss the other species loss might not seem so horrific, is misplaced and inappropriate. In my view the loss of other species, from elephants to warblers, is every bit as sad as the loss of more humans. And in a certain sense worse, in that the other species with which we share this planet are innocents. They did not pave over the world-we did. Personally, if I never saw another housing development or shopping center, or resort on some tropical isle, being built, I would be overjoyed. This is why, incidentally, we should oppose immigration, and population increase in the United States. New York Times liberals, can you not see this?
19
Humans. And also their cats.
It's not windmills, Mr Trump.
18
@momo41
Cats kill anything they can over whelm, especially small birds. Small birds are under pressure from climate change and development. Cats let outside are a big part of the problem
14
For more on mankind's long history of impact on the animal kingdom, read Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Harari and The Feather Thief by Kirk W. Johnson.
14
While this article questions the impact of catastrophic hurricanes like Dorian to creatures like birds, I cannot erase the images of raging fires in the Amazon as well as various parts of the U.S. in recent years.
Not only were birds effected but so was ALL wildlife in those regions and areas. I cannot stop thinking how terrifying those creatures were upon hearing and feeling and succumbing to those blazing fires, its heat, the wind, and the horrific speed in which these fires traveled and gained momentum.
All too often, the loss of human life is the only focus, for obvious reasons, but wildlife, birds, any and all inhabitants of these areas also pay a deadly price with their life. They are not always so lucky to escape a storm or a ragging fire.
Any loss of life, human or otherwise, from these horrific storms and catastrophic fires always leaves me deeply sadden and teary eyed.
28
While it's novel, and even fashionable these days to blame mankind for all the global climate change effects,the more practical questiuon is what could we be spending money on to counter the effects? Just top say man is responsible is a pretty cheezy way to say there's a problem, but I don't have any solutions.
2
@Robert Miller
The obvious solution is to push for a sustainable number of humans and sustainable economies. One need only look around to see that the way we live and our numbers are both incompatible with long term survival of us and the planet. The problem isn't that there are no solutions, the problem is that no one will ask for the sacrifices and changes it will require and the worst part, that we don't want to hear it. Much easier to scream about trump and wring our hands.
21
Animals have slowly adapted to the environment they inhabit. Humans tend to devastate anywhere they occur in large numbers (which is pretty much everywhere now). We alter the environment and introduce intentionally or otherwise species that may compete with, displace or destroy native species. In the end anything we do not eat, use or can't get rid of (rats, roaches, flies etc) will be our only fellow travelers on this planet. At 7.8 billion and going up 80 million per year, along with everything it takes to support those numbers, we've opted for quantity over quality when it comes to human life. Nature will by necessity have to be sacrificed. The animals that depend on a relatively pristine environment will be the first to go.
31
@Al Which human life counts as quality and which counts as quantity? It's a very dangerous path to decide who should live and who should not.
2
@Al that is incredibly sad, but true. Human population needs to plateau, mother nature cannot sustain at this rate. My heart breaks for the wild life and farmed animals.
23
@LaurenC
I would say if you are one of the 16,000 kids that starves every day from hunger related issues you probably aren't living the kind of life humans deserve or should. No where in my comment have I said who should live or die. The facts, if you are interested, are that we do not care for the 3 billion people who try to scrape by on <2.50$/day. It is all well and good to live in NY and idaho and make comments, but most humans don't live long or fulfilling lives, unless you count trying to just survive as exciting. A smaller (much smaller) human population could possibly live in harmony with the systems we all need and the creatures we live on the planet with. Or we can do what we are doing now. Breeding and living as though there are no limits, while ruining the planet for us and most other species . Our numbers will be reduced one way or the other by: providing birth control and family planning to everyone, reducing the effects of religion, educating and empowering women, developing sustainable economies or it will happen by mass starvation and climate change and we will drag most other creatures with us. We already decide who lives and dies by accident of birth and neglect of the west to 3rd world countries. So your "dangerous path" is already in place. It's just not acknowledged or owned up to.
17