I agree with Kelly. Many of these posts have been portraying bird feeding as a way to compensate for habitat lost to urban and suburban growth. Food does not replace habitat. The best way to counter habitat loss is to restore (or create new) habitat. This takes a bit more work initially than filling up a feeder or throwing out bread crusts, but the end result is much more useful to the birds than a simple pile of seeds. If you want to help the birds in the most effective way, give up the suburban conformity and replace the green, grassy lawns with native vegetation that will meet the food and shelter needs of a variety of bird (and other) species. The birds won't be concentrated for easy viewing like they are at a feeder, but the birds that you do see will be viewed in more natural context. That should make it possible for you to view a wider range of behaviors and get to know the birds far more intimately than you do when you watch them sit at a feeder. If the goal truly is to help birds, we should give them homes...not soup kitchens.

Kevin Mack

-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly Cassidy [mailto:lostriver at completebbs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:23 PM
To: Tweeters
Subject: To feed or not to feed


Chris Thompson writes:

> I have to agree whole-heartedly with Morris regarding feeding birds in
areas that have already been >heavily impacted by anthropogenic activities.
Most urban and suburban areas have been raped, >polluted etc. by man's
activities (including pet cats etc.). So...augmenting the natural food
supply - >especially during winter storms - seems only fair.

Two years ago, I tended to write off feeders as just another alteration to a
hopelessly altered urban environment. Now I live 6 miles from a small city
(Pullman) with only 3 neighbors within a one mile radius. I am certain my
closest neighbor doesn't feed. (He's a farm hand and the entire yard around
his trailer is visible.) I fairly certain a second neighbor doesn't. (I
can see most, but not all their yard.) Don't know about the third. House
Finches are one of the most feeder-dependent birds. They can't survive a
Palouse winter without a winter subsidy and they are not in my yard on bad
weather days. Yet, like many finches, they roam far and wide in search of
food. On pleasant days, and with increasing frequency towards spring, they
reappear. The Palouse, even before it was turned into mostly wheat fields,
is an unproductive environment. It's hard to believe that the swarms of
House Finches, subsidized all winter with a magical, never-ending supply of
seeds, and then spreading out in spring, don't compete with the other seed
eaters of the Palouse that aren't as adept at taking advantage of feeders.
The influence of birds whose populations are maintained at feeders in the
city spreads beyond the city.

House Finches are apparently the cause of the drastic decline (about 50%) in
Purple Finches in the northeastern US and southern Canada in recent years
(Wooten, J. T. 1987. Oecologia 71: 325-331. (House Finches have also been
suggested as the cause of the dramatic decline in House Sparrows in many
areas in recent decades, but House Sparrows have experienced long-term
declines in many parts of their native and introduced range in North
America, Europe, and Australia where there are no House Finches. There are
other more likely causes for their decline.)

And what influence might House Finches be having on the plant species they
eat? We know what happens to vegetation when deer, or wild horses, or
other herbivores are fed through the winter. The plants they prefer get
grazed out of existence. A lot of temperate plants depend on the periodic
harsh winter to reduce the populations of herbivores. The fate of plants
whose seeds are preferred by feeder birds subsidized all winter, every winter,
is unresearched and extremely difficult to research.

I don't mean to pick on House Finches. Their rapid spread has made their
impact a little clearer than for other birds that benefit from feeders. The
fact is, we don't know much about the impact of a about a billion pounds of
seed per year in plastic tubes, plus sugar water and suet (Kress, S.W. 2000.
Audubon Magazine 102:80-83). Rufous Hummingbirds are declining in much of
their range. Is it because of the feeder-supported range expansion of
Anna's Hummingbirds, who don't have to face the rigors of migration and who
spread out into the foothills as the migration-weakened Rufous Hummingbirds
arrive? Again, no one knows.

Suburban environments are altered in many ways. I don't think feeders
should be turned into the same scapegoat that cats have become. However, I
don't think the suburban environment is made any better by hanging out a
plastic tube filled with seed. A bird house or sloppy garden IS different
than a pile of seeds. Plants produce a variety of food (seeds, fruits, and
invertebrates that feed on live and dead plant material) in a seasonal
pattern. Bird houses help to replace a natural habitat feature (snags)
upon which many birds depend. It's hard to imagine what natural feature of
the environment is mimicked in a pile of seeds that is always in the same
place and that never runs out.

Creating habitat, instead of handouts, also means allowing some of the
unpleasant harsh seasonality of a temperate habitat.

Kelly Cassidy