The people who complained were lazy enviornmentalists, who found a convenient place to watch "nature" reliably within the confines of Manhattan. The owners of the Co-op have no obligation to adjust their behavior to suit these wackos obsession.
Mary Tyler Moore always struck me as an angry drunk.
Yes, but how many hawks get a chance to poot on angry Manhattan-ites? It turned them against each other, and in my mind, that is a good thing.
PS - It is ironic that the same people who want to set aside millions of acres in the West for critters, or stop a dam project for a minnow, would fight amongst themselves over the little postage stamp of turf claimed by the hawks. I say we should pass a bill in Congress to reintroduce all the species that once populated Manhattan, before the humans arrived and paved it. Make tax dollars contingent on the species' continued propogation.
But what if the hawk had a gun? Would the property owner have the right to tell the hawk not to bring it on his property?
Sorry, thread bleed-over. My point is, it's the property owner's call, in my opinion.
I'll go with Limbaugh's take on the issue. The birds did a wonderful job of killing off the pidgeons.
One imagines the board will enjoy the replacement birds much better. They're called pigeons. Without those hawks, endangered or not, you get what you ask for!
Hypocrites.
Sounds to me like a family fight -- dragging in all sorts of old stuff to cause maximum damage.
I seriously doubt that Ms. Moore's opposition to the hawk removal was spurred by anything more than her opposition to the hawk removal. I can see, though, how a pre-existing condition might cause her to react more violently.
The co-op board, however, shopped this little tidbit precisely to make MTM look bad. They're having their little hissy fit, and trying to spread the bad publicity around a bit. That's wrong -- it's even High Clintonian.
My take is: I hope the bird craps on the co-op board, much more than I hope it craps on MTM.
If I lived in a place where you're not allowed to defend yourself, I'd be happy to have someone with bodyguards living in my building!
I'm surprised a big hawk fan doesn't know the answer to this...
Lola is Pale Male's 4th or 5th mate (I forget) to nest with him across from Central Park. Pale Male is famous not only because of his choice of where to build his nest, but also because of his unusual plumage. His mates have just been regular old red-tailed hawks (old figuratively... Lola is quite young.)
I just keep picturing people standing on the road in front of my home, peering with binoculars, and suddenly having to live with that intrusion over a pair of birds.
Red tails aren't anything near endangered in NM. I've got a couple that routinely keep vermin off my property. When I catch gophers, I just leave the carcass on a fence post for them.
No one, to my knowledge, has claimed that red-tails are endangered. Huh? This is about a specific, unique situation in Manhattan.
You're an Audobon Society member but call the Central Park fans of Pale Male "obsessed wackos". . .? When what they are doing is classic birding.
It appears you have a particular dislike of red-tails.
I live in a large urban area on the Left Coast and I always welcome a sighting of red tails as a messenger of wildness. In the case of Pale Male, he brought a different pace and focus to those who chose to notice him and his 200 lb. nest. There's a touch of romance in the urban legend.
Anyway, his 5th Avenue habitat is being restored.
~birdie ping~
Nevertheless, red-tailed hawks are far from being endangered.
"He traveled with bodyguards. He was just what you don't want in a family building."
Actually I don't understand why they removed the birds since there has been a nest there for 10 years. Why now?