I was so surprised I just stood there and gaped but of course for all that can't positively ID the hawk but I think a Coopers based on size. The Mocker was small compaired to the hawk. The hawk was much bigger than a sparrow hawk.

I have read reports of hawks geting birds at other peoples feeders at the Bird Watching Forum but always thought they must be in some rural area. Never thought I could see one here although I have seen Kestrals flying overhead sometimes and we have had Ospreys nesting near our town.

I really have been working hard to make this a wildlife garden but I had been feeding that Mockingbird all winter, it came right up to my kitchen door for suet handouts. I have TONS of Starlings and House Sparrows, I only wish the hawk had made a meal out of one of those!!

Now that the hawk has found my great local dining spot, what are the chances it will be back?

In winter they will feed as and when they can. It's hard for them too don't forget. In summer they will feed on insects and all sorts, the same as other birds. In winter they only have birds to eat.

Have you thought about leaving lumps of meat and fat out? I don't know if they will take it. I know if you live in rural areas and had a spot large enough (and in the countryside it need not be your property) you could set aside another feeding place for them. Buzzards and kites and etc would welcome carrion -roadkill etc. I wouldn't know about hawks.

Not that that is an answer to your question of course.

"Now that the hawk has found my great local dining spot, what are the chances it will be back?"

Close to 100%. They are intelligent birds and will check places where they have been successful in the past. One hawk in my neighborhood (probably a red-tail) regularly checks all the palm trees for pigeon nests and hauls off the squabs to feed its own babies.

The birds have been very, very jumpy today. Flying off in a cloud into the safety of the trees or shrubs far more than usual. Then, to make matters worse, there were lots of Seagulls flying around so who knows if the birds were looking for the hawk or just saw some big birds up above and panicked.

Most of my feeders are hung from my cherry tree in the backyard. The birdbath is under there also. Plus there are grapevines next to the driveway area that I use to throw feed out into the ground so that the birds do dive into there if they feel threatened.

The only feeder out in the open is a lantern style feeder out in open lawn, near my kitchen window and no birds have gone near that feeder all day.

To make matters worse, I have two Carolina wrens that live in my backyard. This morning I noticed one of them had no tailfeathers at all. They both had their tailfeathers when I last saw them yesterday afternoon. The snow is too high for any neighborhood cats to be around, not that we have many nor do they spend lots of time in my yard. But I think the sudden timing of a bird missing its tailfeathers right after a hawk had appeared in the yard is too much to be a coincidence.

I haven't seen any Cardinals all day, mostly lots of starlings and House Sparrows. I do have lots of Cardinals so I am fairly confident that most if not all are still around and they are just nervous and shy. I do realize hawks have to eat too but if it wipes out the cute backyard birds I have spent years trying to attract here, I am going to be one very unhappy camper.

I have been feeding the birds for years and this is the first time I have ever seen a hawk here. I am not all all sure of my hawk ID either but it seems most likely because of the birds size and choice of prey.

Where should I be looking for it? I have been looking at all the tall trees and neightbors roofs that I can see from out my windows!

Someone suggested leaving out meat for the hawk. I doubt that would work. I worked at a raptor center for a while, and our birds were only fed whole animals. For one thing, they are used to their food having feathers on it, and they may not even recognise a clean piece of meat as being food. Some of them didn't even like being given already-dead food, and took a while before they would eat it. Also, they need the nutrients from the feathers, bones, internal organs, etc.

It is too bad hawks can't tell the difference between a starling and a mockingbird.

When I first moved into our house, I observed a hawk flying off with a starling in it's talons. Amazingly, the starling got away in midflight and was able to escape. I would love to see more hawks with starlings and house sparrows in their talons.

you will have to enjoy the hawk I think...but there is a good new, now that there is no mockingbird it will probably go for the starlings!!

good luck

Stephane Deshaies
Quebec, Canada

J

Sally

Richard

I notice that birds are very aware of what goes on in the yard. I had some tree swallows nesting in my yard and watched a house sparrow go into the box. I later found the mother dead on the nest. The birds were very agitated that day and they all seemed to be watching as if spectating. I'm sure that hawks are equally aware of their surroundings.

It's strange to hear those words from birdlovers.
I had a Starling and a Mockingbird that were living in my house. I like both of them, but the starling is my favorite bird. Compare to the mockingbird starlings are much less agressive and much smarter. They also eat tons of bugs that makes them the most beneficial birds for nature.

Here what description say
" Made from a couple old CDs mounted on a wooden "T" it is attached to the loft facing the sky. The theory is that raptors see them as large eyes and will stay high in the sky and not dive at the birds on the loft. The fanciers I know that have tried them report that they are effective and do help. Anything is worth a try so this spring they will be made and on the loft."

"nest most anywhere"
Not anywhere, only around people. You will never find them in the wood, where most of native cavity nesters live. You want attract those birds to your yard (where is strange place for them to live), but then you have starlings and house sparrows on the way. It makes people mad.
In the Europe, before chemicals time, people was attract starlings to villages where they had gardens, fields and they had a big help from those birds. I the country where I from people do not say "birdhouse", birdhouse there have name "starlinghouse". This is because people use to made birdhouses only for starlings.
For some reason starlings want live only with people. I think, this why God made those birds - to help people with wreck insect on the fields.
Now we have the chemicals, don't need starlings anymore.

Any way, hawks don't read forums and they don't care much what we thinking about their hunting preferences. They don't know what "native bird" is too. Starlings and house sparrow is not only two species that you can find in America and Europe. Lot of another birds and animals live on both sides of Earth. For sure, they were only in one continent one time. Swallows live in US and in the Europe. This is no way that nature made same bird in the two different places, so where they are native and where not? If we find out this, should we try to take them out from their "not native" place too?

Woods around here are not some pristine wilderness but rather areas surrounded by houses, people and all that goes with population. That hardly means we have no cavity nesters as Woodpeckers, chicadees, tree shallows, nuthatches and the like nest around here. They unfortunately have to compeat with House Sparrows and Starlings for nest sites. Bluebirds are rare on Long Island but House Sparrows are enemies of Bluebirds and Tree Swallows. Starlings are enemies of Purple Martins and Woodpeckers.

Starlings and House Sparrows are not Native and don't belong here. Are they ever going to go away? Of course not. But there are too many of them and if they can feed our hawks then at least some good comes of them.

Starlings are fine. Better than nothing, but that's about all you can say. I don't want to kill them all, or anything like that, but if they can feed the hawks, all the better.

Here ina suburb that's smacked flat up against a big city, I still get goldfinches and cardinals and woodpeckers, and all are more welcome than starlings.

Alexsandra, I think that rather than all moving out to the country, (which is getting built up enough) we should concentrate on making the cities pleasant enough that the native species can survive.

When I talk about city, I mean that area of city where only buildings are. Private houses and gardens - this all associate to me with village area. This way was where I used to live, so here with all that city/village mixing I may get confuse with names.

Species, similar to Purple Martins (City martin, House Martin, Chimney swallow) live in the European cities/villages too and they survive very good with House Sparrows and Starlings in there. In addition, Martin's Houses can be build with starling-resistant entrance holes what seems as good solution.

As I said in another post, people in the Europe build "starling houses" for starlings, so maybe because it starlings have their own place to live and they don't need to fight for nesting place with another species.

For example, here what we can see on UK internet site:

"Many of our common birds are declining. Birds such as the starling, house sparrow and song thrush are all struggling and it would be a huge loss if they were to disappear from our countryside."

Richard Bashford, Big Garden Birdwatch co-ordinator, said: "The RSPB is delighted with the level of participation for this year's event. This demonstrated the interest and concern people have for the birds around them. It is essential that surveys like this continue to gather important scientific information if we are to reverse the decline of our best loved garden birds, such as the starling and house sparrow."

http://www.nfucountryside.org.uk/news/shownews.asp?newsid=683

I think if there were not so many starlings and house sparrows in our urban there we would have greating numbers of other (native) birds in the cities.

Richard

When I said that we all nonnative in here, I meant that we (people from Europe, etc. or descendants of Europeans) is nonnative to America too.
Not to long time ago, when it was no animal protections laws in this country, here was a lot of harm done to American wildlife by "nonnative" humans.
Or European Colonizers/Indians conflict, it was very brutal and did a lot more harm than that nonnative/native birds conflict.

Richard, I had a BIG surprise too when I found out that somebody don’t like the Starlings and House Sparrows!
Try imagine such situation – you come to visit to another country and see that many people in there is really hate, shot and gas your favorite kind of bird that you feed at your home and happy to see it coming to your yard. I’m sure it will make you feel very bad. Same bad I feel when I hear about cruelty to starlings and house sparrows.

Back to the topic subject – here is pic of my mockingbird on his “birdfeeder”, he don’t look to good at this time because he is molting right now, but I hope that soon he will be very pretty one.
Worry about him too - some hawks live around here. I hope that he will stay on the front of my house as he doing this now - between two of my dogs he should be safe from hawk attack.

Aleksandra: I can understand you feeling sad to hear that people dislike the favorites from your homeland. On the other hand, any non-native plant or animal that is introduced to a new ecosystem has the potential of causing serious problems. They throw the ecosystem out of balance because either the environment is too conducive to their survival or that the natural predators are missing. Maybe in Europe there are more aggressive species that keep these two species in check. Or, as you say, perhaps, the large amount of suburban landscape in North America makes life way too easy for them. There are many other examples of this kind of overpopulation. For example, I like rabbits, but they have caused major problems when they were introduced to Australia. I don't think you should take this issue personally. Thanks for bringing another point of view to the forum.

I don't normally have mockingbirds at the feeders during the winter, but 2 showed up in January and were constant visitors until the hawk got them. I felt particularly bad about those losses.

We now see hawks all the time, and not just in southern Westchester. I've spotted them in the Bronx also. Part of the problem is the disappearance of the resident crow populations we once had. Even a single crow will go after a hawk and chase it out of the neighborhood. I can tell just by the sounds of the few crows that are around, when there is a hawk in the area. Sometimes, I'm outside when I see the hawk(s) approaching, just to check out my feeding stations.

The hawks are beautiful, amazing, creatures with as much of a right to survive as any other. If I have been a bit too successful in attracting birds to my yard, and I don't want to see nature in the raw right on my deck, then it is probably time to stop feeding for awhile, and let the populations disperse.

And, no, my dog does NOT deter those cats either. :(

So, I do feel for you. Sometimes we get a hawk flying overhead, we does bring a spot of fear to my heart as my dog does sort of resemble a fluffy rabbit…DH used to raise Hawks so it isn't like we are not Hawk lovers or anything…

At first I was upset, but then I counted. The number of birds that get to eat and enjoy my feeders vs. those that perish I found it to be about 90% in favor of the song birds. It was about 15min ago that a red tailed hawk swooped into the yard, this time the blue jays were successful with the warning and the hawk got nothing. We have hosted a ton of baby birds this season so that was a plus.

I DO NOT like it when I'm out there when it happens (only one time so far!) and if I could stop myself from watching it might make it less upsetting. But they are amazing birds!

I'm trying to make the place as undesirable as possible for him. Whenever he lands, I don't even give him a chance to settle down. I run outside with a blanket and throw it at him while hissing and yelling. I want him to think of me as a threat, so he'll stay away. I also set out some CDs ontop of the fence, as a poster upthread stated. I'm tempted to put some barbed wire on top of my fence, but I don't want to hurt the sparrows that come here.

I don't begrudge the hawk it's meal, but it has to get one elsewhere. Not at MY feeder.

It's actually a remote control airplane. When there's a hawk outside, grab your controller and run out, making as much noise as possible. Turn on the controller and start up the plane. You need a plane that's FAST with good maneuverability though. And it needs to be large enough to intimidate the hawk. Anyway, when the hawk is flying away from you, chase after the hawk with the plane. Don't hurt the hawk with it, just keep chasing it as well as you can while screeching. (Well, the screeching is optional.) Don't let it land anywhere nearby, either. Pursue it until it's a safe distance from your feeder. If the hawk comes back, repeat the process.

Also...leave the airplane out where the hawk can clearly see it, somewhere close to the bird feeder. The little birds won't see it as a threat, but the hawk will probably associate it with danger.

A few thoughts go through my mind as I read this thread.
I wish we had hawks here during the winter season. We have plenty of the corvids especially ravens. I know the hawks could not take the ravins. They don't have any natural predators unfortunately. I was at the local dump yesterday and there are thousands there. I am not fond on any of the corvids because they all to a greater or lesser degree raid other birds nests. We have so many wonderfull songbirds and other small birds nesting here. I just hate the thought of anything preying on their nests. I especially dispise cowbirds although we don't have many of them. Having said this I have to admit we do have blue jays and occasionally gray jays coming to our feeders.

To get back to the topic I would like to see some natural control on our corvid population. We do have some hawks here during the breeding season but they don't seem to make any difference in the corvid population. I think they mainly rely on rodents.

Somebody said there are no starlings up north. Here is the data we got on our Christmas Bird Count this year for all the relevant birds we have talked about: Gray jay 8, blue jay 46, black-billed magpie 71, ravens 1351, European Starling 25, and house sparrow 67. There were no crows but we do have lots during the summer.

I agreee with most of you when you say we need hawks. There are not very many of them overall. We do have eagles up here but they are few in number as well and the magpies and ravens harass them unmercifully. I have a touch of envy when somebody says they have a resident hawk all the time. Most of you have many more birds at your feeders than we do. I really think everybody should be at least resigned to the thought that another bird has been fed when you lose a few birds to hawks AND I think we should all be happy when some of the birds mentioned above are taken.

The hawk hasn't been back since I flew that airplane at it, vonyon. However, just to be safe, I called wild-life control on it today. I told them I was worried abut the local pets in the area, since there are a lot of people and little dogs/cats around, and the hawk doesn't seem scared of humans. They said they'd be out to get it on Thursday. Plus, they told me to call any time I see a new hawk...so I'm going to keep this a hawk free zone.

Thinking such as yours is dangerous. Extremely dangerous.

Animal control came and took him away on Thursday. It was easier than I thought it would be... he doesn't fly away unless a human is really up close to him. They just shot him with a tranquilizer, and they took him to be relocated.

You can see right there that they list tranquilizing as one of their methods of animal removal.

Yes, they do use tranquilizers. I went out with them so I could show them where I saw it and I watched them shoot it down with one. I don't know who told you they didn't, Elly, but they were wrong.

With all due respect, I don't understand why you feel that the songbirds have more of a right to eat than the hawk. You know, you may be sorry later when you're area is overrun by the prey animals that hawks eat. I hope you will do some research into the food chain and ecosystems. I guess for me, balance is more important. I'd rather change what I am doing than to eliminate such an important part of the system.

Have you considered an alternative to artificial feeding? You could plant berrying plants and seeding flowers and grasses to attract birds. By doing so, you will spread the songbirds out and give them a fighting chance against the hawk. You would also be providing cover and nesting sites for them.

Presposterous (i.e. your line of thinking). Zappa had it right........he once said something to the effect that anywhere you find yourself in this world, there's bound to be more stupid people than you think. Thanks for confirming Frank's thoughts dude.

You may consider prey animals (that aren't songbirds) to be pests, but to us the hawk was the pest. The relocation was the best we could do for it. The feeders were causing the hawk to become lazy anyway...it would just stand around and wait for food, instead of hunting for it.

What happens to it beyond that, I don't know and I really don't care. And I will do it to every hawk that ever shows up in this condo area. Unfair or not, hawks aren't welcome. The world is full of birds, it can learn to hunt elsewhere.

I missed the part that on the web site that says he can dart wildife. He says he uses "tranquilizing techniques," but does not really explain. I would love to know where he is located. I have questions.

Here are his credentials:

Question: What qualifies you to provide wildlife control services?

Answer: I have been in business for myself for 26 years. Of which time, I have been a professional trapper for six years. Every job that we have undertaken has been able to be solved, and the professional trappers we use have years of wild animal control experience.

Scary. What's more scary is that people hire these guys, instead of fixing the real problems. But then it is not in their interest for homeowners to be educated on the subject and deal with the real problems (capping chimneys, taking down food that attracts unwanted guests, etc.).

The Humane Society of the US offers excellent advice on dealing with wildlife. Here is their site.

Just take a minute to think about the bigger picture. Hawks play an important role in the system/food chain. They eat songbirds, but they also eat mice and other small mammals. You may be surprised by how many mice/rats are attracted by the bird seed that the songbirds are dropping in the area. Then when the mice/rats show up, the predator will be gone, and the mice/rat numbers will increase unchecked. Then, there will be a need to exterminate them, simply for filling their little niche in the system--cleaning the area of rotting seed. Of course, then there will be a justification for that. Each animal in the system plays a role. The role of the predator is to keep the numbers of prey animals down which helps to keep disease in check.

Next month, I suspect there will be a question here about why the birds that are coming to your condo's feeders have infected eyes and other diseases. But then again, I suspect that, in the end, this is more about the will of humans and preserving the human enjoyment than it is any real concern for the birds. The birds understand the food chain and survival of the fittest. It is the humans that have a problem with it.

Somehow I doubt that removing the hawk is going to cause our ecosystem to shut down. After all, the birds were doing just fine until he came along. He only moved in around three months ago.

Cats do get the birds, and they play greater havoc with wild bird populations than hawks do.

Let me tell you a lilttle about darting animals with tranquilizers. To do so, you must have the animal's weight, because the tranquilizer is a medicine, an anesthesia. To give too little will either not work, or work too late, when the animal is in a situation in which going unconscious could kill it. Too much anesthesia can kill it, too. So how do they get the weight of an animal (a hawk) that you can only take a guess at by feeling its breastbone? (I handled hawks for 10 years, and based on that, I could sometimes guess weight within 6-8 ounces. 6 - 8 ounce differences change dosage.)

The dart must - must - hit muscle. Not bone, not a nerve. Hitting a nerve can cause irreversable nerve damage and paralyze it forever.

Since the dart contains medicine, and often a controlled substance, only experienced veterinarians and wildlife biologists may use it. Not any vet or wildlife biologist: Experienced ones, who have done it before and who know what to do when something goes wrong.

Imagine taking your child to the doctor for a shot. The doctor is out. The receptionist offers to give your child the shot. She doesn't look at the patient's chart to see if the child is allergic to anything; she doesn't weigh the child for the correct dosage.

Get it now?

How do you dart a hawk? How do you hit the right place, which is very small in a bird, and miss nerves, muscles and eyes? You don't. It's not done. People who need to catch hawks use specially designed traps that they must be licensed for. And not anyone can get a license.

Just because someone makes money off of "taking care of your wildlife problems" does not make it legal or right. How do you know the hawk survived afterwards? How do you know the needle did not hit a nerve and that the bird could fly properly? How do you know if the bird (or any animal that's "taken care of" in that way) had a mate, or chicks that were left behind? A male hawk, early in the nesting season, brings food to the female while she sits on eggs, and after that, brings food to the family while she broods the chicks.

Animal nuisance operators have no real interest in these points, because to attend to them will lose them money. They make money off of ignorance and laziness.

If it helps you feel better, next time we get a hawk, I will try and find someone who traps them rather than tranquilizes them.

Please take a look at the HSUS website.

Sometimes animals need to be moved, especially when they're living in a populated area. A hawks' place is in the forest. For all you know, it might be better off. That's the last I'm going to say on this matter, because I don't think it's that big a deal.

%( (eyes crossed)

There has been a hawk problem in Ohio as of late. Some wild life foundation reintroduced a bunch of hawks into the wild. I'm not sure of the details, because I didn't pay too much attention to the story and I heard it in passing on the news. But anyway, there was a followup story that the place that released them is starting to rethink their idea. A lot hawks made homes in the city of Columbus, and quite a few people have complained because they don't enjoy seeing pigeons randomly ripped up in front of them or their kids. So now the place that released them is discussing what they should do to get them out of the city and that's the last I've heard of the story. I don't think the one in my area was one of those hawks though. I don't live that close to the actual city.

I recall seeing a movie once where a child from the mountains of Virginia watched a hawk catch a rabbit. Even as they consoled him, his parents stood by and suggested that he try not to be sad because that it is the way that the rabbits as a species are made stronger; the whole natural selection thing. They explained that it is the bigger plan and that although it was unpleasant to watch, it is part of the circle of life. I think a little of that kind of explanation would go a long way to helping kids understand that sometimes things in life are unpleasant and that we need to learn to deal with them because life is not always the way we want it to be. I work in a kindergarten classroom where we teach the circle of life and kids watch an occasional video where one animal eats another. We explain that it is part of the natural order of things and that it is eat or be eaten. They accept it quite readily, even better than most adults expect them to.

What seems paradoxical to me in all of this is that we, as a culture, have a problem with their kids seeing a natural act but don't seem to have any problem with their kids watching the news or violent movies or playing video games that display random acts of extreme violence.

I wonder if, by exposing kids to some of the realities of the natural world, we would be giving them a real lesson in tolerance? Different species have different ways of surviving. It all works together to insure balance.

And while I try to explain to myself that it's just the circle of life and the natural order, I can't help but feel for the animal that died as an individual. For instance, the particular bird that I just saw being killed by a hawk will never have another life. It will never get to fly again or eat again, or chirp with the other birds again. The last thing it experienced was the fear and pain of being killed. It just makes me very sad.

I don't have a problem with the circle of life, really...I just don't want to see it happen in front of me. It's like a hot dog. Let's say someone likes hot dogs, and knows how a hot dog is made...but that doesn't mean they actually want to WATCH it being made or think about it while they're eating if that kind of thing grosses the person out. I like hawks and other predatory animals, and I realize that they have to kill and eat to be live, but that doesn't mean I want to see it up close and personal.

As humans, we always want to anthropomorphize animals. That is not reality, which in my opinion is not a good message to send to children. Kids take a lot from the model we provide. If we thoughtfully explain the concept to a child, in the long run they will take more from the message. I see it as a teachable moment. I wouldn't wish it on a kid, but if it happened, I'd explain it and comfort the kid. The thing I would have a harder time explaining is why the man had to come out with the gun and shoot the hawk. To that question, I don't think there are any easy answers.

I found Ospreys: http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/Resources/osprey/osprey.htm

I found Peregrines:
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/falcons/05season.htm

These are success stories about animals that human ignorance and greed almost destroyed.

I guess people have different ideas of what constitutes a problem. Me, I think human population numbers rising is a problem.

elly_nj, I'll try and find the story for you. I read about it in the Columbus Dispatch, so I'll look on their website and see if I can spot it.

The thing is that everyone that gets interested in nature seeks to see more of it. As a result we try to lure nature to us. I think it is good in that, it gives us a window through which to start observing nature and understanding how it is intertwined with our lives. You have come to be connected with the lives of the songbirds. I don't think that is a bad thing. The problem is that there is always a trade off with everything. By feeding birds, the concentration of prey draws hawks. The down side is that people get mad at the hawk because they consider him a big spoilsport for simply responding to the excess food. The people decide that the hawk then needs to be relocated. Do you see how unfair that is?

I have often seen posts on this board seeking information on how to lure and feed deer, raccoons, etc. only to later see the same people here seeking a solution when the natural reaction has created a nuisance. Usually, they want to relocate the animal. In the case of some animals, this spells death. I don't think they really consider that. They just assume that the animal can be relocated safely. That assumption solves the problem for the human, so that is the end of the debate. So you can see why people develop strong opinions about this issue. It just seems like a very "human-centric" way to handle a problem.

One last point....from that website and what you seem to know about these people, I similarly question your assumption that these people knew what they were doing. Is this assumption any different than the people who are assuming that they didn't know what they were doing?

From reading the website, I didn't see any compelling information that gave legitimate credentials. If we go back to what Elly pulled off the site it says:

Question: What qualifies you to provide wildlife control services?

Answer: I have been in business for myself for 26 years. Of which time, I have been a professional trapper for six years. Every job that we have undertaken has been able to be solved, and the professional trappers we use have years of wild animal control experience.

After reading this, I'm left with more questions than answers. First, 26 years in business for myself doing what? Being in business for myself can mean many things: carpenter, plumber, Tupperware salesman, etc. Second, how does being a professional trapper for six years make him any more knowledgable about how to keep animals alive? Keeping an animal alive is not always the goal of a trapper. Thirdly, Every job that we have undertaken has been able to be solved What precisely does he mean by solved? Does he mean solved for the human that pays the bill or for the animal? It seems to me that the human solution is to remove the hawk, period. Personally, I think we just assume because someone is doing something, they are qualified to do it. I believe if the man had some real credentials, they certainly would be posted on the website. From your posts so far, you seem to be a reasonable person who truly does love nature, I hope you will reconsider this decision if you are faced with the problem again, which inevitably you will be.

I think you will probably continue to have the hawk problems with all the bird feeders being there. Maybe you can play devil's advocate with the neighbors and explain the hawk's view.

So, you could say that you have since started to think about the bigger picture and how you all may be contributing to the problem. Then I would explain that the reason that hawks are coming is because there is a concentration of food for them. They are simply responding to the situation that is presented to them the same way the songbirds are showing up because they have found a concentration of their food at the feeders. If they follow the food chain backwards from the hawk, they will see that the reason he is there is indirectly related to the feeders.

A little education into how ecosystems work and how each member (plant and animal) occupies a niche might help. In other words, a niche is like a job that is integral to the larger community. They are watching this in action. If a community member is eliminated for some reason or is not doing their job, there are further consequences down the road. The songbirds are there to clean up seed. The hawks are there to keep the songbird population in check. If you eliminate one, you will eventually have an overpopulation of another species and the ecosystem is out of balance. Ideally, balance is best because it keeps the system or community healthy when everyone does their job. Look at the white-tailed deer as an example. Their overpopulation has caused many problems: starvation for deer, disease (chronic waste, Lyme), destruction of the habitat of other animals (because they are eating things that other animals used to rely on for food), and destruction of human landscaping to name a few.

You know, environmentalists get a bad name because of the few extremists who are totally intolerant of other views. Extremism and intolerance always give any issue a bad name, but I'd like to think that all humans should/could be environmentalists because we occupy a niche as well. Unfortunately we are not always good community members. The thing is that the whole thing is really just common sense. I think people just see the problem from a human viewpoint. They like seeing the birds, but don't like the consequences of that.

After reading this thread and doing a little personal research, I found out that a hawk is not likely to survive a relocation. That is in addition to the risk that Elly already pointed to from the tranquilizer.

The bottom line is that harming hawks is illegal since they are protected by law. Most people do not want to break the law.

Good luck to you. Maybe a few will, like you, be open-minded and will listen to you. Good luck to you in all of this.

Good luck.

So ALL of the neighbors were in agreement that the hawk should me moved (by any means) so that it wouldn't affect their birdfeeding????!!!!!!

What if a Jew, a Muslim or anyone for that matter "that the neighborhood condo owners didn't like".......what would happen then??? Trank gun? Intimidation?

Columbus......a university town no less.......a town in a red state where this little condo has it all ack basswards.

Remember my little Zappa reference up above on this thread????? You're Frank's "poster child".

Now, answer the question. What if a gay, a Muslim or anyone else lived in your Condo, and the Condo didn't care for that person. They cooked and the smells were overwhelming. Or the gays being visible were too disturbing for you. Would you hire an exterminator? light torches and burn him/her out? or perhaps start your own porgrom?

You give the human race a bad name. BTW, can you point me in the direction of ANY POST that you may have posted on Gardening elsewhere???? Just curious. You have a single minded focus here that is illustrative of many who come on here purely to agitate. I doubt very much that you've ever offered a scintilla of evidence that you're a gardener let alone a lover of the natural world.

I get hundreds of warblers each spring at my house. And if sharpie, or a screech owl is getting to eat, it's fine by me. After all, you're not taking them out to dinner are you???? Oh that's right, you're the one who pruportedly hired someone to trank and move a hawk who was bothering all at the Condo. Did you have a general meeting with the association to discuss this "menace"??????

How utterly ridiculous and preposterous your whole ACT is.

I'd like to invite you to Cape May any day in October, when Higbee beach is full of sharpies, and who with a little luck get a meal of blue jays, or flickers.

Now Dilly ol boy. Tell us. Intimidation? Torch them out? or start a 'pogrom'???? Inquiring minds want to know. :)

The message to which you are referring progressed to an end. I think it did so quite well. Dil came here specifically with a problem, which is why many people find these forums.

If anyone came to agitate the already-resolved situaion, it is you. Your incessent badgering of someone who seemed to find a resolution (thanks to Vonyon's patience and intelligence) is alarming to me, who I am sad to say, is on your "side" regarding ecology.

So please leave it alone. It's over, except for your posthumous stirring.

Let's call a spade a spade here. It was a ridiculous set of arguments put forth by Dillie.

I can only stomach so much "ignorance" when it comes to the natural world. Especially so when those so called 'moneyed new suburban homeowners' are wasteful with regard to finite resources (water) and the worshiping of lawns. And they Vonyon are the MAJORITY here.

That's why I've long since discarded the "honey" approach. It don't work with the baddabing crowd who are going to do whatever the hell they please.

However, after spending a couple of years reading, I believe that we all have a unique opportunity here. This kind of board gives us the opportunity to debate these ideas online for many people to read. I like to think that there are other people out there, like Dil (and probably each one of us at one time or another), who are similarly fertile ground. I think that when we do lose our tempers and get sharper than we want to, our argument loses power. I'm as guilty as anyone of losing my temper in this thread, but the amazing thing about Dil is that he hung in there. I personally think that takes a pretty big person . . . not to mention that Dil has promised to try to explain his new understanding to his neighbors. He won't win them all over, but he may convince a few. What more can we ask for? Afterall, what we are asking for is a paradigm shift. Our culture values making money and personal enjoyment above and beyond all else. So, we are asking for deeply-rooted cultural ideals to change. That won't happen overnight. Maybe I'm being way too optimistic, but I think if people did understand the common sense of it, some of them wouldn't do the things they do. The only way to hope to change people's opinions is to debate them respectfully. So, while I understand where your anger comes from, I hope you will rethink your approach. You obviously understand the issue clearly and have some valuable insight to add.

All I have to say is: pigeons are in no way related to parrots. That does not diminish their inherent importance in the world, especially as a prey species.

But just so you know. Parrots are from the order Psittaciformes, and pigeons are from the order Colombiformes. Although both are social animals, that is where the similarities end.

Good luck with your backyard critters!