Don't Save the Edgewater Parrots
There was an article in the Bergen Record Thursday about Monk Parakeets. It seems that there’s a group called the Edgewater Parrots dedicated to protecting the nests of these birds in and around Edgewater. Already, the town council of Edgewater has passed a resolution “urg[ing] the New Jersey Fish & Wildlife to reclassify the Monk Parakeets and remove them from their dangerous species list”. Edgewater Parrots has also convinced two state assembly members to introduce a bill to remove the Monk Parakeets from the dangerous species list.
I’m sure that the Edgewater Parrots group has nothing but the best intentions, but they are also badly misguided. From an ecological standpoint, there is no reason to “save” Edgewater’s Monk Parakeets, and every reason to reduce or (at the very least) contain the population.
First, the Edgewater Parrots website repeatedly refers to the Monk Parakeets as “wild”. The Monk Parakeets in Edgewater are feral, not wild: wild describes animals that have never been domesticated, while feral refers to animals that were domesticated at one time and have returned to an untamed state. As Monk Parakeets were imported to the US as pets, they are properly described as feral.
The Edgewater Parrots website has a page named Facts, though very few of its claims are backed up by any empirical evidence. The most prominent claim (so prominent that it is repeated four times) is that “nests do not cause pole fires”. There is evidence of at least one pole fire caused by Parakeet nests from 1996 in Chicago. I cannot say one way or another from this singular incident whether nests cause pole fires, but the Edgewater Parrots website offers no evidence that they do not cause fires. Simply writing something four times does not make it true.
Another claim is that the birds are “not crop destroyers”, and that “many farmers in [the parrots’] native territory blamed the [birds] for crop damages for insurance purposes”. There are documented cases of the birds destroying crops in South America:
In South America the species is known to eat corn, sunflower, sorghum, peaches and pears. This taste for commercially valuable crops has led to their persecution both in South America and the US.
The same article later notes that there is not yet any evidence that they have caused damage in the US. The Edgewater Parrots’ claim that the birds are “not crop destroyers” is incorrect on its face, and the effect of the parrots on commercial crops is certainly still in question.
The statement that the birds “will never take over” is not—and, indeed, cannot be—backed up with facts. From the Global Invasive Species Programme:
Some species undergo an explosive expansion of their range after “barriers” are removed or new pathways are opened by human activity even if the initial introduction has happened a long time ago.
Until we know what the barriers are that have kept the Monk Parakeets locally isolated across the northeastern United States, the claim that they “will never take over” cannot reliably be made. The Edgewater Parrots website states:
Studies of wild [sic] Monks show that baby birds rarely, if ever, go further than 500 feet from their parents’ nest sites. In the event that a nest is destroyed, they never settle more than a few hundred yards away.
A dozen generations of 500 feet to a few hundred yards is an expansion of several miles in a decade, and the toppling of a barrier at any one point might, potentially, lead to explosive growth.
A fourth claim made by the Edgewater Parrots website is that they “get along fine with other birds”. Statements that the birds are “not territorial” and “do not attack other birds” are anecdotal, not backed up with any empirical evidence, and ultimately irrelevant. Says Donald Brightsmith, “In one instance a House Sparrow was found dead after a prolonged squabble with Quakers over a nest site”. Not all Monk Parakeets “get along fine with other birds”.
Finally, there are three statements at the end of the “Facts” page that are entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Monk Parakeets in Edgewater should be “saved”:
1) They are exceptionally intelligent, 2) They are loving and concerned parents, and 3) They are loyal and very loving to their human companions.
The first claim, of their intelligence, is dramatically overstated: the birds’ behavior of building nests or stealing the nests of other birds is an evolutionary adaptation that has little, if anything, to do with intelligence. “They have worked so hard—don’t they deserve to stay?!” asks the page, but all living things in all habitats—native or alien—work hard to survive. Similarly, the second claim that they are “loving and concerned parents” is standard behavior for animals who have only a few young at once; by the same standard, less “cuddly” species, such as alligators, are equally caring parents. The third claim, that domesticated parakeets care for their human companions should make no difference when dealing with their feral counterparts.
These last three claims do not even hide the fact that they are not facts in any case: they are statements designed to appeal to the emotions of the reader. Setting aside the question of whether animals experience love as humans understand it (which is neither here nor there), the so-called “caring” and “intelligent” behavior of the parakeet serves one purpose: to survive long enough to pass on their genetic material.
So what’s the problem with encouraging local populations of feral Monk Parakeets? Simply put, it’s a matter of biodiversity. Ecosystems consist of organisms that have evolved over hundreds or thousands of generations to fill specific niches. Each organism plays a particular role in the processes that make up the ecosystem. Just as the extinction of one member of the ecosystem can have an impact on every organism within that ecosystem, so can the introduction of a species that has not evolved to fit within it. The Monk Parakeet is known to eat fruit, therefore possibly competing for resources with other frugivorous birds like robins and cedar waxwings, decreasing the fitness of those native species.
One argument that is sometimes put forward for the purposeful expansion of the Monk Parakeet’s range is that of the Carolina Parakeet, a species of bird that inhabited much of the eastern half of the United States until the 1920s, when it was declared extinct. The Monk Parakeet is one of the Carolina Parakeet’s closest living relatives, as the argument goes, so it’s only fitting that we reintroduce it across the continent to take the place of the Carolina Parakeet. What this argument fails to take into account is that the Carolina Parakeet was exterminated by farmers who were fed up with losing valuable crops to the ravenous birds. I’m certainly not condoning the practice, but the fact is that it’s been over eighty years since there have been Carolina Parakeets in North America, and what’s done is done. Once a niche has been vacated, that’s it: either it will disappear, or something else will fill it naturally. There is no need to “help” nature in this regard.
Another problem with “supporting” populations of Monk Parakeets in the United States is a matter of consistency. There are plenty of alien and invasive species in our area already: examples include garlic mustard (a plant native to Europe that reduces native forest flora), starlings (a European bird that competes directly with just about every bird species in the US), and pigeons. These species, among others, are far too widespread at this point to hope to control them. Species such as the Monk Parakeet that are not yet widely established must be closely monitored so that they do not reach the same population levels as these other invaders.
The Edgewater Parrots group obviously has good intentions in aiming to protect a locally persecuted species. In cases such as this, though, it is important to not be swayed by emotional arguments or the false anthropomorphization of animals. Choosing to minimize the presence and impact of such a seemingly “friendly” species as the Monk Parakeet is not an easy choice to make, but it is the right one.
October 08, 2005 - 06:33 PM
Comments and Trackbacks
I have received many hits on my site, for which I must thank you.
However, with all due respect, your article is filled with mis-information, and your incorrect conclusions are based on info that you have either mis-interpreted or taken out of context.
I would be more than happy to discuss this issue with you. I think it’s only fair that you give me a chance to explain my side of your story.
For example, your definition of feral vs. wild is incorrect. The birds in Edgewater are WILD. They have never been domesticated; they have lived in the wild for over 30 years.
That is just one of the mis-informed comments you fed to your readers.
May I ask:
What is your professional background?
Do you hold a degree in Ornithology?
Where did you get the information you are disseminating on your blog?
Do you have personal research to provide in oppositon to the Doctors of Ornithology who have proven that the parrots are neither a threat to indigenous birds nor crop destroyers?
If so, I’d like to learn about it.
Really, I would.
Again, I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight and educate you about these wild and wonderful birds.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Alison@EdgewaterParrots.com
Alison-
Thanks for your comments. It is fair that you explain your side of the story: please do.
My definitions of feral and wild are correct. I suppose it may be disputable as to whether the Monk Parakeets in Edgewater and surrounding towns (e.g. Cliffside Park, where I live) are feral or wild; it hinges on whether they are escaped pets or escaped transports. As far as I can tell, there is no definitive documentation on the origins of the Edgewater/Cliffside Park colonies. Since they were transported to the US specifically for the purpose of domestication, I’ve assumed them to be feral. This is an area where I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.
My professional background and education are irrelevant to my arguments, as I’ve provided links to my sources in the article, but for the record I have a BS in Computer Science. Ornithology is not my job, just a hobby.
I have also not done any personal research on the habits of wild Monk Parakeets in Argentina. I was unable to find any links on your website to research that proves that Monk Parakeets are not crop destroyers or a threat to native birds within the US.
Please provide links to sources that demonstrate where I have mis-interpreted information or taken it out of context.
I’m so sorry you feel this way, but why would you write such ridiculous statements that have no basis in fact? I suggest you read up more before you start writing, and maybe you too could have a quaker crawl into your heart.
Rhonda: which of my statements are ridiculous? I have read quite a bit on the subject, and these are my conclusions. Send me data that contradicts my sources and I’m happy to have an open mind about the subject, but I won’t be swayed by emotional arguments on a subject that could have potentially dire consequences.
Alison pointed me at your “blog.” Because of the gulf in knowledge and experience between EdgewaterParrots and yourself, I was originally going to dismiss your article as the ramblings of someone whose only connection to Edgewater is residing in the same county; however, coming after the hatchet job the Record did, I couldn’t let your mishmash of fallacies, semantics, selective readings of links you posted, faulty conclusions, and general pseudo-expertise go unremarked.
Your distinction between feral and wild is both unnecessary and meaningless. These birds were captured in the wild and unintentionally released here. None of the current ones were ever domesticated. Because of their legal status in NJ they cannot be bought, sold, transported, bred, or possessed here. PERIOD. How can something be domesticated if it can’t be legally owned?? Do you even know what the fine for possessing one is?
About destroying crops, let’s look at the link you posted:I especially like the notation that damage figures are provided by farmers. Are you aware they have financial incentive to lie, or do you need documentation of that, too? Basically you’re unhappy about alleged crop damage even though it can’t be substantiated. The U.S. birds are restricted to urban areas and prefer urban infrastructure to construct their nests.
Your comment about fires is sometimes known as the Uncle Charlie fallacy — whatever statement of fact someone makes, someone else has an Uncle Charlie whose experience disproves it. Quakers cause very few fires. The last one in Edgewater was in 1998. Much more frequently, the poles their nests are on are struck by lightning and the birds are blamed. You are of course aware that the inhabitants die when their nest burns?
The main problem is you’re asking EdgewaterParrots to prove they don’t cause fires. How do you prove something that isn’t happening???
Your claim about the species spreading is another logical impossibility. How can you prove something won’t spread???? Since you’re big on empirical evidence, please consider the Edgewater flock has been there 30 years and is the ONLY BREEDING POPULATION IN NJ. Edgewater is a 0.8 square mile town and the birds are restricted to a small area in the northern part of it. There are a few hundred of them after all this time. Aside from the utility company, they are also kept under control by raptors.
Inter-species relations. Uncle Charlie saw a sparrow killed, so obviously the Monks are vicious. The Bergen Record reporter observed, “They’ve turned a four-sided covered sign at the entrance to a high-rise into a model of species relations, sharing living space with pigeons and smaller birds.”
This is the gist of the problem. You wrote an article despite having zero personal knowledge of the facts, discarded anything that contradicted your premise, and seized on certain comments Alison may have typed at 3:00AM as she rushed to get the site functioning.
Alison and her associates have assembled immense expertise in her quest to get the birds off the potentially dangerous species list. At this point she’s enlisted the help of Quaker organizations, ornithologists, and sanctuaries. She and her collaborator at BrooklynParrots (another vicinity where they’re entrenched and causing no problems) would themselves be considered authorities. They are not wide-eyed dreamers, just concerned citizens who want the parrots to be left alone.
Hiya Mike. I’m going to address your comment point by point.
None of the current ones were ever domesticated. Because of their legal status in NJ they cannot be bought, sold, transported, bred, or possessed here.
When was this law instituted? If there was a time when it was legal for people to own Monk Parakeets in NJ, isn’t it possible that they were released then? Isn’t it legal to own them in New York State? Couldn’t these birds have come from New York?
I have been unable to find definitive documentation on where these birds originated. If you have it, please provide a link.
I especially like the notation that damage figures are provided by farmers. Are you aware they have financial incentive to lie, or do you need documentation of that, too?
Yes, of course I’m aware of the financial incentive to lie. But the Edgewater Parrots website says, without qualification, that it was proven that the birds to not destroy crops. There is no evidence provided that this is the case. The birds’ diets are known to include crops grown for profit, and farmers have reported that they eat them. Are you going to automatically discount every report ever made because it is possible that some farmers have exaggerated their impact?
Your comment about fires is sometimes known as the Uncle Charlie fallacy — whatever statement of fact someone makes, someone else has an Uncle Charlie whose experience disproves it…How do you prove something that isn’t happening???
That’s just my point: you can’t possibly prove such a thing. The problem is once again with the Edgewater Parrots site is so emphatic: boldface THEY DO NOT CAUSE FIRES! It simply can’t be proven. If it said, “Their nests have rarely been associated with fires, and the cases where fires have occurred can be explained by…” it would be a whole lot more honest.
Your claim about the species spreading is another logical impossibility. How can you prove something won’t spread????
Same thing here. The Edgewater Parrots site is so emphatic that they won’t spread but there’s no way to prove that. At the very least, I think that we can agree that it’s important to monitor the birds so that they don’t overcome whatever barriers have kept them relatively localized and further jeopardize other native species.
Since you’re big on empirical evidence, please consider the Edgewater flock has been there 30 years and is the ONLY BREEDING POPULATION IN NJ.
They’ve been sighted in places other than Edgewater: “I was birding at Chimney Rock when two Monk Parakeets flew by. I couldn’t believe my eyes. We know they’re established in New York. I didn’t expect to see any off Route 22.” So either there are other breeding populations in the state, or they travel a whole lot farther than 500 feet.
Inter-species relations. Uncle Charlie saw a sparrow killed, so obviously the Monks are vicious.
I never said that Monk Parakeets are vicious; I simply pointed out a single case where the statement “Quakers get along fine with other birds” is not true.
This is the gist of the problem. You wrote an article despite having zero personal knowledge of the facts, discarded anything that contradicted your premise, and seized on certain comments Alison may have typed at 3:00AM as she rushed to get the site functioning.
This is the gist of the problem: the Edgewater Parrots site contains information typed at 3 AM in a rush to get the site functioning. There are updates on the site from as far back as March—isn’t that enough time to revise the page to be better documented than a 3 AM rush job? There are far too many blanket statements made as unassailable fact on that page that are not backed up with any confirming data.
They are not wide-eyed dreamers, just concerned citizens who want the parrots to be left alone.
I, too, am a concerned citizen, with as much a right to express opinion as anyone else. My opinions are informed and backed up with links and articles, while the Edgewater Parrots content sounds more hysterical than factual.
I will not pretend to say I know everything about the Quaker Parrots. I dont know everything but I can tell you what I do know.I have a wonderful Parrot Named Jasper. He is very sweet and gentle creature. I cannot see how anyone could place this bird on a dangerous list or whatever . I have owned and taken care of different breeds of birds for most of my life. and my experience has been nothing but positive. wether it is a feral bird or not. Jasper is very loving to other birds of my flock and he is the newest addition. What I dont understand is I have seen other birds Sparrows and Blue Jays and Crows and Nuthatches and different species kill other birds. I have seen them desecrate my father in laws gardens have seen squirrels catch fire on electric poles and cause blackouts.so why not put them on the list. And what about raccoons??? they spread rabies??? why arent they being persecuted like the Monk Parrot? The bottom line is there is not a good reason for banning the owning or possesing of these wonderful creatures. As for myself I will never move into a state that will not allow me to have my Quaker Parrot. I just thank goodness I have Jasper in my life. and i would trust my Jasper with anyone. he is a very smart creature, it is his nature. i have been to argentina and have seen these birds in thier natural habitat and they are very smart creature. they have very good problems solving skills and the nest they buiold alone is very ,very smart. it has 2 or 3 “rooms” and is amazing. all I know is that we need to look at other creatures if you think this very smart very sweet creatues are Dangerous. try looking at rats and mice. epidemic proportions. they carry disease and breed like wildfire what is the answer? more snakes? then we ahve an overrun of snakes and where does it all end? all I am saying is look all all of the ecological and financial and agriculture problems and trust me you will not find this sweet smart bird to be at the top of the list. thank you.
Mary: I don’t know Jasper, but I’m sure he’s a swell bird. I would never begrudge you your pet. But birds like Jasper do not belong in the wild in North America.
The Monk Parakeet’s place on the dangerous species list is not a knock on the friendliness of one of the birds as a pet, but their potential for ecological harm in a habitat where they do not belong.
Your mention of rats is perfect: some rat species are not native to North America. We brought them here. It’s impossible to go back in time and nip their spread in the bud, but it’s too late. I am not directly comparing rats to Quaker Parakeets, but it is not to late to nip their spread in the bud.
You sound like a man of facts.
It’s been 30 year plus of these birds living in edgewater, and the fact is they are still in edgewater and haven’t spread or relocated or multplied out of control.
To me it looks like after 30 years plus these birds like feeding off backyard bird feeders instead of eaking out a living in the the country in the farmers orchards that have no fruit in the winter.
When was the last time the price of friut went up from damge done by a flock of quakers in Florida or any other state.
I really see no danger in taking them off the endangered species list, and they always could be put back on if they ever explode in population like was predicted when they were first put on the list way back when.
Wasn’t the population explosion suppose to be a fact but the real fact is the only population of quakers in Edgewater NJ are still in Edgewater NJ and not all over northern NJ.
Sometimes you have to look through the book facts to see the real facts on this population of Quaker Parrots in Edgewater NJ.
Steve:
and they always could be put back on if they ever explode in population like was predicted when they were first put on the list way back when.
This is the point: once the population explodes, it’s too late.
The Monk Parakeet is still an alien species that does not belong in North America. Its presence here, if it must be tolerated, must also be minimized.
Is anyone going to provide links to back up his or her statements?
We are humanitarians.
The real issue at hand is that these birds are living creatures worthy of living a life free from cruelty. If there is an issue with them and power poles, we as humans, the higher thinkers and supposedly more rational creatures, can deal with this in intellectual way, as opposed to resorting to violence.
Years and years of cruelty imposed during nest teardowns has brought only pain and suffering on the birds…and they just re-build again. Teardowns are not only cruel, but they are also totally ineffective.
A new, more effective, and more humane solution must be formulated.
Edgewater Parrots is working with PSE&G to do just that! Why would you want to oppose our efforts to be more humane?
Are starlings, mourning doves, sparrows, and mute swans not worthy of humane treatment, either?
Regarding proof? I am gathering the info as we speak. I have been monitoring this population for years as a 20-year resident of Edgewater, and I have the research to back-up my statements. Do you? The burden of proof is also incumbent upon you for your remarks.
Alison
I have alot of info, and alot of files to sort thru to answer your questions.
I will get the info to you, and when I do, I want you to sign my petition and put a link to it on the front page of your blog! Deal?
For now, let’s begin with the easy stuff:
1) Your definition of wild vs. feral is incorrect. One can distinguish between wild animals, whose ancestors have never undergone domestication, and feral animals, who had domesticated ancestors but who now live in the wild. (http://en.wikipedia.org) The majority of Edgewater Parrots have never been domestic pets. This is 30 generations after the crate broke open at JFK. They are WILD…although there is one or two that have been banded that are obviously feral…But the majority of our parrots are WILD —Just like the parrots in the movie “The WILD Parrots of Telegraph Hill”. Ask Mark Bittner about it, if you don’t believe me.
2) My current website - it was not written in haste at 3 am. The current site well thought out; the info in the site was thoroughly researched. I hope I don’t have to prove that!
3) Pole fires: Got the info from our fire department. Firemen commented when the Mayor and Council heard my initial plea and again when they unanimously passed the resolution. According to them, “The fire in 1998 was caused by lightning striking the pole”. There was a second fire started by a lit cigarette butt. 30 years of living here and two pole fires, neither of which was caused by a nest on a wire…pretty good record, I’d say!
More info on the way…
Alison wins every round, why do you hate birds? There are articles about the wild Quakers of Chicogo stateing they have causes no harm to the area. When I remember i will send you the link or name of the book. I think we better figure out why you have such hate for birds or is it just
Quakers? Also I don’t know Alison or the other guy who answered your article. I do have the priviledge of having 2 Quakers living in my home.
Alison:
We are humanitarians.
When were parakeets declared human?
can deal with this in intellectual way
I’m trying to, but I am continually presented with emotional arguments to back up a position that, from a scientific standpoint, is precarious at best and untenable at worst.
Are starlings, mourning doves, sparrows, and mute swans not worthy of humane treatment, either?
Humane treatment has nothing to do with it. They (house sparrows, in this case) are invasive species, and if I woke up tomorrow morning with the power to single-handedly control their population, I wouldn’t hesitate to use it.
Your definition of wild vs. feral is incorrect.
No, it isn’t. My application of the term feral to a majority of the Monk Parakeets in the Edgewater area may be in question, but the definition I provided above is correct.
The current site well thought out; the info in the site was thoroughly researched. I hope I don’t have to prove that!
Yes, you do have to prove that! That’s what science is all about! I might note, as you have done several times about me, that you are neither a trained ornithologist nor a naturalist.
In any case, my stance that the Monk Parakeets must be contained in as small an area as possible has nothing to do with the question of whether they cause pole fires or any such irrelevant circumstances. At the end of the day, the Monk Parakeet is an alien spieces in North America and should not be in the wild, full stop. If you want to collect them all and distribute them as pets in states that do not have ownership restrictions, that would be fine with me, but they should absolutely not be part of North American ecosystems.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to direct your energies to saving a native, endangered or threatened New Jersey bird species such as the Northern Goshawk or the Barred Owl? If you don’t like those choices, there’s a whole list of species that belong in New Jersey that are in need of actual help.
———————————————————————-
These quotes from blog owner AJ Schuster’s list “About Me”
I am lazy as fuck.
Come to think of it, I hate people.
Moreso, I hate meeting people, though I’m told I’m very good at it. I guess I’m a good faker.
————————————————
I just realized that I am wasting my time…on YOU!
I spent the last two days gathering references to prove to my arguement to one 23 year-old kid who, by his own admission,
“hates people” and is a “faker”.
Honestly, I have so many more important things to accomplish. Contributing to this blog takes up too much valuable time.
The evidence I gathered, intending to share with you, will be of great service to me in my on-going fight, as you represent the exact type of person I need to educate on the road ahead…and that is where I must direct my energy —
NOT toward someone who just wants to waste my time.
I am directing you to a book containing everything you need to know about Quakers in the wild.
That is the best thing I can do to try and educate you, since you want me to cite references and submit proof.
PLEASE read,
Parrots in the City
by Jon Mark Davey, JoAnn Davey, and Mattie Sue Athan.
Also see:
Parrots in the City
and
Quakerville.com
Everything you need to educate yourself is right there.
I have to put what little spare time I have to much better use.
There is important work that needs to be done.
Over and out.
Alison
Alison-
I’m sorry you had to resort to personal attacks to end the argument. I’m especially impressed how you managed to take a tongue-in-cheek livejournal-type list from over two years ago and use it to dismiss anything I’ve ever said. Very classy. And at no point have you provided any actual data beyond “They deserve to live here as much as we do.”
I went ahead and read the free excerpt of Parrots In The City (lazy, remember?) The idea of replacing an extinct species with an extant, alien species is so wrong-headed that I can tell that we’ll never find common ground on this issue: you continue to provide emotional reasons for keeping around the cute birds, and I try to make rational arguments.
I will continue to educate myself, thanks. Good luck with your misguided world-saving.
Your comments remind me of the humorous line, “Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.”
BTW, I know Alison, and she is very busy. She manages and maintains a urgent care medical practice in NYC, takes care of her ailing mother, is a volunteer EMT, writes health columns for two local newspapers, writes books, volunteers for the Democratic Club, maintains the Peace Garden in Edgewater, and rescues wildlife in her spare time. Did you know she created the Edgewater Human Flag to donate money to the Twin Towers Fund and volunteered at Ground Zero for two weeks following 9/11! Man! The woman is almost a saint!
It bugs me that she cared enough to try and educate you while all you did was use up her valuable time! I am providing this info, not only for your benefit, but because the facts need to be put out there.
Here is some info from Mark Spreyer, 1998:
“I am the senior author of the Life History of the Monk Parakeet published in 1998 in the Birds of North America series (Vol. 9 No. 322). (This series is supported in part by the American Ornithologists’ Union, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, and the Academy of Natural Sciences.) When reading early scientific accounts of the Monk Parakeet’s arrival in the United States, it was clear that the species was rarely treated objectively.The anti-parakeet feelings stemmed from fears that the Monk, a native of South America, would spread across the country like Carp, Kudzu, and other invasive, non-native species. However, prudent scientific caution often crossed the line into “guilty until proven innocent.” For example, the following came from a piece about the parakeets that appeared in a 1973 Journal of Agriculture of University of Puerto Rico,‘The phrase ‘further research is needed’ must never become a euphemism for failure to act.’“Interestingly, those early accounts also contained the reasons why the Monk Parakeet has not spread across the continent during the past 30 years, as originally feared. Noted ornithologist John Bull, who chronicled the parakeet’s arrival in New York during the early 1970’s, stated, correctly, that the Monk was either “strictly” or “virtually sedentary.In fact, with the knowledge at hand then, there was very little reason to expect such a spread. The passage of time has confirmed John Bull’s sedentary characterization of the species.You see, because of the successful invasions of a few exotic species, such as Starlings, House Sparrows, and Pigeons, some biologists often think that ALL non-native species, such as the Monk Parakeet, are chomping at the bit to invade and exploit North America. More often than not, exotics that are accidentally released on the continent disappear quickly and without notice. Also, many of these early “success” stories – unlike the Monk Parakeet, which was introduced for a captive existence – weren’t accidentally released, but were deliberately introduced into the North American ecosystem. Starlings, for instance, had been unsuccessfully released in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, and Quebec before they were finally, and successfully, introduced in New York in 1890. By 1980, according to one authority, there had been, roughly, 120 species of birds released in the United States. This list includes transplants and the reintroduction of rare natives, such as the Peregrine Falcon. Of these, about a third took hold, most of these only to be locally established. Very few became a widespread nuisance. Unfortunately, some of today’s ornithologists continue to ignore the facts and maintain that the parakeet is a looming threat, having still to prove its innocence. From his 1989 book, The Birds of Illinois, H. David Bohlen writes of the Monk Parakeet,”…Their maliciousness toward people has yet to be demonstrated in the Northern Hemisphere …Maliciousness? Come again?At the risk of appearing vain, I’ll close with my own words from the introduction to the Birds of North America life history for the Monk Parakeet.Early on, it was feared that this parakeet would thrive in its new home, ravaging crops as its range expanded. Over the years, this threat has not materialized and, in many areas, efforts to retrieve wild parakeets have been discontinued. It is worth noting that, in Argentina, agricultural losses attributed to the Monk Parakeet have never been accurately measured.”
From Chicago wilderness magazine, Winter 2003
Michael Avery, a biologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), asserts that they pose no threat. “There is no documentation of their causing damage to cereal crops in the U.S., and no indication that they are displacing other birds. They are not cavity nesters, like starlings, which displace woodpeckers. Overall, there seems to be no competition for food or nest space.”
Mark Spreyer, director of the Stillman Nature Center in Barrington and an avid student of the monk parakeet, notes that monk populations tend to control themselves because only a certain number of birds breed each year. The proportion of breeding birds may vary with environmental conditions, he says.
From the University of Chicago Magazine
Dr. Steven Pruett-Jones, associate professor in ecology & evolution stated,
“I previously thought the monk parakeets should be controlled because an introduced species is almost always bad for its new environment,” Pruett-Jones says. “But now I believe they are sufficiently benign in the habitats where they now occur. They’re not a pest, and they don’t compete with a native species.”
Finally, there are those who speculate that the monks may succeed at replacing the Carolina Parakeet, which was driven into extinction by 1914. I don’t know if this is entirely appropriate. For their many similarities, Monks are very different from the Carolinas and doubtless occupy a different ecological niche.
Nevertheless, that may be a moot point. They are a new resident species in Florida. Jon Mark Davey has much info on his site: www.Quakerville.com and you can e-mail him and ask him for his opinion on whether or not they destroy crops in Florida. He’ll tell you, after years of study, that they don’t.
My own studies show that Monks live, sleep, eat, and nest with several different species, including Rock Doves, Starlings, Sparrows, Grackles, and Crows. I have pictures from over the last ten years showing their ability to get along with indigenous birds. We have yet to note any indication that they compete for display aggression toward one another.
Information regarding pole fires was supplied by the Edgewater Fire Department. There were two fires in thirty years. One was caused by lightning, and the other by a lit cigarette. In both cases, the birds perished.
Gotta run. I’ll post more info as I find it.
Stevie:
Your comments remind me of the humorous line, “Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.”
Except the only things that have been provided so far are unsubstantiated opinions, not facts.
The woman is almost a saint!
That doesn’t concern me. I don’t know Alison personally, and at no point have I ever said anything about her, positive or negative. I try to stay away from the ad hominem fallacy when making arguments.
As for the rest of the information you provided…thank you! You are the first to provide documentation of anything.
And the Spreyer quote is pretty convincing. But I haven’t called for the eradication of Monk Parakeets in any case: in my original article (above), the strongest action I called for is that they be “closely monitored” and that we make an effort to “minimize their impact.” I sincerely hope that Monk Parakeets never become widespread in North America. But, like the Starling, just because it hasn’t in the past doesn’t mean it won’t in the future.
The Pruett-Jones quote is heartening as well: if an ecologist is convinced, so am I. If they’re “sufficiently benign in the habitats where they now occur”, well, yay!
But I still can’t support the petition on the Edgewater Parrots website. I think it’s important that we not become complacent and assume that just because nothing’s gone horribly wrong with Monk Parakeets since they got here, nothing will go wrong in the future. As they say in investing circles, “Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.”
Thanks for your post, Steve.
As for the rest of the information you provided?thank you! You are the first to provide documentation of anything.
There is plenty more where that came from. And, by the way, all of that info is stuff I got from Alison when I wanted to learn more. I am writing a book about urban parrots, and she helped me tremendously with my research, as you can see.
She has a plethora of factually based information, from both personal research and the research done by others over the years. Many of her friends, and resources, are renowned Ornithologists, some national, some worldwide. If you really want to learn the truth, it would behoove you to endear yourself by being nice and not confrontational.
Maybe you should take one of the tours she holds on weekends that leave from the Parrot Park in New Jersey, and see for yourself! I have never known Alison to turn away a good-hearted and eager learner. You’d have to e-mail her to reserve a spot and find out the date and time.
And, quite frankly, you ought to realize that the resolution she proposed to Edgewater’s Mayor and Council would never have passed, (much less passed UNANIMOUSLY), if the research wasn’t there to back up the facts. The local politicians are quite savvy and would never have agreed to help if they had not checked out her claims themselves. The same goes for the Assembly Members who sponsored the Bill to remove the Monk Parakeets from the list of potentially dangerous species. Makes sense, doesn’t it?
You also asked, ?Wouldn’t it make more sense to direct your energies to saving a native, endangered or threatened New Jersey bird species such as the Northern Goshawk or the Barred Owl? If you don’t like those choices, there’s a whole list of species that belong in New Jersey that are in need of actual help.?
Alison does volunteer with other worthwhile causes. Recently, Edgewater Parrots and Foster Parrots joined the efforts of The Jane Goodall Institute’s Roots and Shoots Program. The Roots and Shoots program relies on the grassroots efforts of children to change their world’s future through their participation in their own communities and by helping the less fortunate children in countries where all the things we take for granted are considered luxuries. School supplies, chairs and sometimes even the school buildings themselves are non-existent. Through the fund-raising efforts of children here in America some of these can be provided, thus offering others the chance to gain the education that will improve life for all in these communities. The Roots and Shoots Program also encourages a greater appreciation for the fragile ecosystems in which these children live and offers assistance needed to preserve and restore our world’s eco-treasures. Edgewater Parrots and Foster Parrots are working with children in a school in Englewood, NJ to help schoolchildren in Guyana and assist with preserving fragile eco-systems in both Guyana and New Jersey.
Additionally, you stated that Alison is “neither a trained ornithologist nor a naturalist”. It may interest you to know that she did train in a sanctuary to learn all about Monk Parakeets, and she recently received a “Scientific Holding Permit” permit from the State of New Jersey, as the associate of a local sanctuary, to receive any birds displaced by the local utility company during nest teardowns, and NJ F&W does not award those often.
I hope this info offers more insight into Alison’s work with Edgewater Parrots.
Stevie Bee
Thanks again Steve. I think this has gone about as far as it can be expected to go. I’m going to close comments now and let you have the last word there.