I just stumbled across this website while researching the other side’s case:
http://house-sparrows.com/usa_n_oz.htmlYou might notice that the author failed to make one mention of the sparrow actually killing nestlings and cracking their eggs. They vilify us in the same way that they claim we vilify the HOSP- with misinformation and omition. The author simply makes reference to HOSPs “driving out” native birds, and then goes on to attempt an explanation that our native species aren’t actually native.
“The purple martin is a type of swallow and the habitat has been enormously artificially extended east of the Rocky Mountains where nesting sites are exclusively provided by humans”
-purplemartin.org
The author further attempts to add weight to this argument by quoting the purplemartin.org website directly. While it is true that humans provide a large amount of housing for the purple martin it is nearly impossible to prove that the presence of the PMs is solely based on this fact. Habitat destruction and other environmental factors play a part in most wildlife behavior. PMs have been migrating through this country for generations on their own accord, so whether they take up homes in natural cavities or in houses provided by us they are native in my book. Of course the other side will attempt to dispute the definition of “native” continuously but there isn’t much you can do to stop the constant deflection, you just have to drive on.
When the conversation turns to bluebirds the same write-off is given – its humans fault and the blame is on habitat loss not the sparrow. Again there is no mention of what the sparrow actually does to the bluebird.
While it is true that humans have been the cause of the problem with many species, the cause does not negate the effect. On the contrary, the fact that humans caused the problem means humans have a responsibility to fix it. While I understand the feelings of those that believe all life deserves to live all the time that just simply is illogical. A common argument of the emotionally charged other side is to compare the HOSPs to humans. For a logical and sensible person this idea seems absurd. All life is special, but to place a house sparrow in equal standing to a human life defies logic.
Let’s talk about the house finch for a moment. These birds do essentially the same thing as the HOSPs and are believed to be responsible for declining HOSP populations due to competition yet we don’t generally control them in the way we control HOSPs. These birds aren’t very colorful, they don’t make pretty song, and they interfere with housing efforts for bluebirds and PMs so the argument that we only control the HOSP because we only want pretty birds in our yards is out the window (long argument I’m having on YouTube for the sake of entertainment at this moment). The house finch is not native to the eastern U.S. but it is native to the continent, and thus we don’t take issue as we do with the HOSP aside from it being illegal.
The other side makes leaps and bounds to discover ways to deflect from the issue at hand in order to support their emotion based claims. The author of the article in the link actually makes a claim that HOSPs possibly “emboldened” robins and encouraged them to take root in cities. There have been others that I have had debates with that shrug off all studies and all research data that I provide to them claiming that its false science or it isn’t enough simply in an effort to tread water. Often they will try the “humans are more destructive than HOPSs why don’t you kill them?” or “Americans aren’t native either” arguments but neither hold water. The fact is that we have a justice system because we do deal with destructive people, and we have the Customs and Border Protection agency for obvious reasons which include preventing invasive pests from entering the country. The “Americans aren’t native” argument is one for another day, but again humans and sparrows are not equal therefore you can not treat them as such. If the underlying motive of the other side is that birds are equal to humans then there is no point in arguing at all as an argument has to be rooted in logic not emotion or personal feelings in order to accomplish anything.
Although I admit that I will often continue with these people to either put their ignorance on display or simply to entertain myself, once you have reached this wall in the debate the debate is over. This goes for any debate once the other side starts with the childish “nope, you’re wrong and I’m right and I have nothing to prove it-nanny nanny boo boo”.
