Red-Tailed Hawk Evicted after 12 years - Wild Texas Forums: Parks, Travel & Recreation

Shannon · 12-08-2004, 06:50 PM

"Pale Male" is a famous red-tailed hawk, made famous because of his choice of where to build a nest and raise his young since 1993 -- a high-rise building in Manhattan that, for a time, even had a webcam trained on its most famous "resident".

My how times change. Now, building manangement has removed the nest and its supports making it highly unlikely the red-tailed hawk will be able to build a new nest in the place it's called home for over a decade.

Reason? Occasional bird droppings that upset some of the building's residents.

Bird droppings? I hope the pigeons of Manhattan organize a protest by strategically hitting those folks in the head as they do their holiday shopping.

Sigh....

ploddinTod · 12-09-2004, 08:20 AM

I saw the documentary and now I'm outraged at those bldg mgt people who made the decision to remove the nest. :mad:

12-14-2004, 08:56 AM

After the election results, I'm not at all surprised.

Shannon · 12-15-2004, 12:30 PM

I'm not sure what an incumbent President being re-elected has to do with this, but here's some good news:

Hawks will be allowed to return
:cool:

Constant media attention, public outcry and the work of citizen's action groups (Audubon Society, etc.) have caused the building management to reconsider their hasty removal of the nest red-tailed hawk "Pale Male" and his companion "Lola" called home for the past 12 years.

Hopefully within the week, a structure will be in place so Pale Male and his mate can rebuild their nest and go on with their lives.

WHY do people do this kind of nonsense? Use animals for your own gain -- documentaries, tourist attractions, etc. -- but then underhandedly rip up their nest and leave them to fend for themselves after 12 years of living in the same location. Try doing that to a person and see how well they'd fare...

12-15-2004, 04:34 PM

You must not be paying any attention to the administrations environmental policies. The fact that he was re-elected seems to indicate that the majority either agree or just don't care.

Shannon · 12-15-2004, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff parker

You must not be paying any attention to the administrations environmental policies. The fact that he was re-elected seems to indicate that the majority either agree or just don't care.

The first part is an erroneous assumption, and the second is a possible truism -- lthough I doubt Kerry & Edwards would have been "manna from heaven" for the environment, either.

Pale Male's temporary housing crisis does not need to be elevated to the level of national politics, that's all I'm saying. It's like a plane crash occurring and someone saying, "Well, that's what you get for having a conservative in office."

Many environmental atrocities, much worse than this, have occurred under so-called "green" Presidencies. (Of course, the very notion of a "green" President in these United States is a little odd. We just don't vote them in; Clinton+Gore? Gore spent more time promoting his book and taking credit for "inventing the Internet" than he did actually cleaning up environmental issues and the quagmire of legislation. And we all know what Clinton was busy doing.

I prefer my environment, like my religion, up close and personal. The more organized, profit-driven, promoted and political it gets, the less I feel it's actually true to the original intent.

So, now that I've irked two large camps of folks, my work here is done for the day!

PS: We also have two wars in progress that, for whatever one feels about them (and I've said plenty), need a strong political leadership in office. Maybe the majority felt Bush was the man, warts and all. I'm not dancing in the aisles about it, but that factors in just as much as all the other special interests that drive politics.

Similar Threads