Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Photos of D Train Murder Depict Bloody Panic
Stuy Pyro Leaves Notes In Hieroglyphics
Have Fancy Dress & Thirst For Spotlight, Will Crash State Dinner
The decision by 927 Fifth Avenue to remove the nest of red-tailed hawks Pale Male, Lola, and others has suddenly turned into a war between cold-hearted, wealthy co-op owners and free-spirited, generous nature lovers. A vigil/protest rally was held across the street from 927 Fifth yesterday; of course, it was organized by the Audobon Society, so it wasn't all hellfire and damnation. According to reader Jo, co-op president Paula Zahn refused to comment about the issue. The NY Post spoke to a resident who says the building's action was not about safety, as its lawyers claimed, but really about privacy, since many ornithologically inclined use their telescopes on the building. Yesterday, the hawks were seen trying to rebuild their nest yesterday, though many thought it looked like a futile effort.
There's another rally planned for today at 4:30PM, across the street from 927 Fifth Avenue (at 74th Street). If you're going, please send us pictures or email us details.
Photograph of hawk babies by Lincoln Karim of PaleMale.com...how can people remove a nest where babies were born?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Hey, enterprising photobloggers... why not stand across the street from 927 Fifth and photograph everyone who comes out the building and post the photos on your blogs? We can come up with a cute heading like "The Hawkwreckers," or maybe something simpler like Jo suggested... The F'ing Bastards.
Being an nature freak I'm intially saddened by the event, still these birds will find a new place to nest, hopefully out of the city. Does anyone know what territorial issues arise among Hawks? Is it easy to find habitat?
Thanks, Jen!
Larry, I'm not an ornithologist (nor do I play one on TV), but according to Audobon experts, red-tailed hawks are territorial (often defending their nests against other hawks and owls) and they like to stick to one small area, often rebuilding a nest over and over (as PM was forced to do in the early 90s). Although the high facade of a 5th Avenue building is a tough place for babies to fledge from, the hawks prefer the stability of that stone perch to the branches of trees, which move in the wind. The local chapter of the Audobon Society will be able to provide the best information on hawks in general and on Pale Male and Lola in particular. They have posted an action alert at http://www.nycaudubon.org/home/.
(BTW it is Paula's husband who is coop board president, according to the NY Observer and employees connected with the building.)
Finally, I'm sorry for my intemperate language, but Pale Male has always been an enormous source of joy and New Yorker pride to me. He and his mates and offspring have been a blessing to our city for over a decade, and all they have asked for in return is a safe place to lay their eggs and a steady supply of our unwanted vermin to fill their bellies. If we let this assault on the hawks stand, then we suck.
erm ... sorry I can't spell Audubon. d'oh! see y'all at 4:30.
Jo... I like your intemperate language. Good luck this afternoon!
I hope the pigeons take over and leave humongous mounds of droppings on Paula Zahn's windowsill. It would serve her right.
Boo! Hiss! It's horrible when building owners exercise their rights and allow a hawk to go off elsewhere and find another nest!
I'm no bird watcher, but I do know that there are tons of other places hawks live in this city other than posh 5th Avenue addresses. The buildings around Wall Street. The bridges. The list goes on and on.
The bird is alive. But the nest is gone. Big deal. That hawk has more ability to adapt than some humans on the Intar-web.
What a phony hypocrite Kenneth Cole is. The left-wing Democratic donor can't be bothered by some bird. Kind of like John Edwards using tax loopholes to avoid sharing his money with all those hungry and cold children he's always talking about. Gotta love that Blue State compassion.
nola, you're desperately trying to politicize an issue that is clearly non-partisan. you must be painfully insecure about your politics.
were you at the co-op board meetings? do you have any info on who said what in those meetings? any info on how the residents' vote or what their party allegiances are? why do you persistently talk shit you know nothing about?
Manhattan is a left-wing town and the celebrities in that building are undoubtedly good liberals who lined up behind Kerry and proudly describe themselves as environmentalists.
But their devotion to the cause fades pretty quickly when a bird craps on their ledge or some commoner in the park has the audacity to look at their building with binoculars.
So, hijiki, I call this hypocrisy and don't need to sit in on their board meetings to make that claim. Just like I don't need to meet with John Edwards and his tax lawyer to know that a guy who screams about the hungry, cold children while building a 5 million dollar mansion in Georgetown and finding loopholes to avoid taxes is also full of shit.
And whether anyone agrees with me or not, how does that make me "painfully insecure" about my politics? You sure are a dumbass.
Why is it righties always resort to words like "dumbass" "babykiller", etc? And how did we get on this anyway? Nola, you are assuming a great deal about the people in the building, and you know what happens when you assume...
Oh, and after two mentions... drop the John Edwards thing. If you haven't received it by now, the checks not coming.
"What a phony hypocrite Kenneth Cole is."
Nola, Cole doesn't even live in that building anymore. He sold his unit to Lee Ainslie last year. (Thanks, Curbed.com!)
It must be interesting to view the world through the black-and-white lens of vindictive demagoguery. Not terribly fun, but interesting all the same.
If there is a partisan fight we should be quite clear that it is this admistration's stance that is responsible for this. The NYT:
"Until recently, the nest was protected by a federal treaty, first enacted in 1918 and administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, which prevented the destruction of nests in migratory bird habitats. But Terri Edwards, a spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said yesterday that the agency had issued a clarification of the rules in 2003 that allows the destruction of migratory bird nests if it is done during a season when the nests are not being used to hatch or raise offspring.
Ms. Edwards said a representative of the building had contacted her agency and obtained permission before the nest was removed on Tuesday."(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/09/nyregion/09hawk.html)
The memorandum in question from the Fish and Wildlife Service begins:
"The purpose of the memorandum is to clarify the application of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to migratory bird nest destruction, and to provide guidance for advising the public regarding this issue." (http://policy.fws.gov/m0208.pdf)
I'd say Red Republicans and have more to do with this than True Blue Democrats.
So the residents had a legal right to kick out the bird - does that mean that they were required to do so? Of course not. They could have left the bird alone, but limousine liberals would rather talk about compassion than actually practice it.
So Kenneth Cole is gone. 82% of Manhattan went for Kerry - does anyone really doubt that the building is dominated by liberals? And Keith, you are free to disagree but throwing cute phrases like "vindictive demagoguery" around does not refute my point.
Sorry if the word "dumbass" shocked you, little Timmy. I'm sure no one has used such rough language in this forum before. And I don't recall calling anyone a babykiller. Maybe you should sober up before your next post.
As for John Edwards, the comparison is apt and not a single one of you has attempted to defend his hypocrisy so I'll just assume we're all in agreement on that one.
nola, nobody is shocked or impressed by your vocabulary. what is surprising though is that someone so desperately trying to make a political point would resort to personal attacks and expect to have any credibility.
you have no clue who lives in that building nor do you have any clue if those people are republicans or democrats. you slam k cole based on misinformation and then conveniently apply your meaningless stereotype to all liberals. there are many pockets of conservativism in the city. you are trying to turn this into a partisan battle based on a baseless assumption. and what's the point of turning it into a partisan issue? do you really hate new york so much?
also nola, nobody is defending john edwards because we're talking about a hawk's nest on fifth avenue... you are the only one that sees this as a partisan issue. i honestly don't see how edwards is even remotely related. so no, don't assume agreement, we're just trying to stick to the topic at hand. i wonder what kind of person it takes to come to a discussion thread about birds only to fight and call names.
I've seen plenty of news items get politicized on this board. The other day some frustrated losers went off on "Red America" because Gothamist posted an innocuous story about a NASCAR event in NY. Why didn't you jump in there, hijiki? Or does it only bother you when you side takes a hit?
And if little Timmy really can't handle words like "dumbass" being thrown around, maybe he shouldn't advocate people stalking the residents of that building and calling them "F-ing Bastards".
Poor hijiki really sinks to the depths when he snivels that I "hate New York". If criticizing a particular group of people (limousine liberals in Manhattan) means that I hate NY, does it then follow that you hate America when you criticize a particular group of Americans? You lose again, dumbass.
seriously nola, relax and stick to the topic. it's not nascar, not politics, not your pathetic vocabulary, and it's not a competition to win an argument. it's the birds. you're not criticizing a particular group, you are assuming you know who lives in that building and stereotyping them simply because they live in manhattan.
to clarify: you must hate this city if you find it so easy to bag us all as dumbass liberals. you must hate this city if you need to turn a discussion about birds in manhattan into an argument about a loser vice presidential candidate only to provide an opportunity for yourself to attack 82% of this town. i just wonder why.
no, i've lost nothing but interest in debating with you, nola, but hit me up if you ever figure out that whole logic thing. your tenacity would be endearing if you could temper it with intelligence. later.
Congrats on another great post, Nola... and you spelled everything right!
Nobody said they couldn't handle it. What I did say.. and I'll say this reeealll sloooooowwww... is it doesn't lend itself to elevated political dialogue to run around town calling people dumbasses. And it seems that after the first ten seconds, when a conservative's logic runs out, the namecalling begins. Thanks for proving my point. You're more abusive than I. Congrats. Here's your trophy.
Oh, and tell the person who's reading this to you that that's trophy T-R-O-P-...
Captain Obvious is a miserable troll who contemplates suicide on a daily basis. I know him personally, and he really does hate everyone here, all living creatures, and indeed does hate himself. I used to date him and yes he was terrible in bed (I thought not showering was hipster until I realized he wasn't a hipster), he just smelled bad, was always depressed, had a plant which died, failed out of school after 4 months of state college, and now lives in his mother's basement, dialing up gothamist, and posting hateful notes. And yes his mother is the epitomy of nasty old co-op owner who is better than everyone, so she thinks.
Glad to see you haven't changed, "Captain Obvious". How's that temp job at Brown Harris going? Ooops, did I say too much?
You know what's funny, is that a couple people can't see the difference between a dispute between a few building residents, and a decision by a few building residents that disheartened thousands and thousands of people (not even talking about the bird). For crying out loud, it made national news, that's how many people it affected....and That's just obvious.
There will always be a few self-loathing spiteful, self-serving, hateful, people unfortunately.
It made national news because a cute fuzzy animal story always goes over well nationwide. It also feeds into the stereotype of 5th Avenue residents as being snobs ruining it for the the rest of us. Anyone without a head up their ass can see this is a 100% pure U.S. Grade A bullshit issue.
The building owners moved the nest. Whoop-dee-doo. The bird survives and thrives while self-obsessed bloggers can't get over them selves.
And Dottie, no clue who you are. But if you can't see the difference between a birds nest being removed and a real person, get help.
This story gets national attention because it's a slow news day. Get a clue and get a life. And if you ever go outside the hallowed confines of Manhattan, you'll find there's tons of wildlife in other places that gets no play.
Captain Can't See The Big Picture,
Why can't we care about humans and birds and be angry at a very exclusive co-op that doesn't let minorities or Barbara Streisand move in (think I'm joking? read Curbed), and now a creature enjoyed by hundreds of thousands worldwide, is removed because it's a "pest" to a few conceited individuals?? Who says people don't care about people? Oh yeah you're off on this old People/Animal debate again. Donate to the Doe Fund and shut up about that debate, it is 100% irrelevant.
By the way, they ARE the stereotypical 5th/Park Ave minority-avoiding co-op in every way. But you still haven't answered why you personally are mad at the world.
http://www.curbed.com/archives/2004/12/09/whos_who_at_927_fifth_avenue.php
And quit defending 5th ave, nobody says all 5th ave co-ops are bad, but this story sure isn't helping, so since you're so upset, why don't you go there and tell them that stunts like this are giving you a bad name and perpetuating the stereotype.
My question to you: when's the last time you've been outside of your co-op to see the forest above the trees?
They dumped the hawks AND Babs? Huh. I didn't know the hawks were Jewish.
(Kidding, people, kidding!)
Thanks to Curbed for the useful link below. The building is predominantly liberal democrats, which of course we already knew. For some reason a few die-hards just don't want to address the issue of hypocrisy.
http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php?type=loc&addr=927+Fifth+Avenue&zip=10021&search=Search+by+Location
And hijiki, let's make something clear - I'm not calling everyone in this forum or in NYC dumbasses, I'm only calling you a dumbass.
Yeah, but Nola, bear in mind, the board kayoed the poster girl of the limo liberal set.
The point is this... these people did a bad thing. To assume that they are hypocritical lefties (until the proof checks in) is as wrong as assuming they are old fogies with old money who don't think anything thats free is good (which, let's face it, lots of us are doing). Thing is your points - valid on many counts - are lost in your own vitriol. And its hard enough to be heard with 82% of the island disagrees with you. I know... 55% of the nation disagrees with me.
Tim, I appreciate your acknowledgement that I'm making some valid points. I respectfully disagre with your assessment that they have been made with vitriol. I hear far worse in these forums all the time (I gave one example earlier and also point out what was being said in these forums during the RNC this summer). No one complains about vitriol unless you go against the left-wing flow.
Assuming the building is dominated by lefties really isn't much of a stretch. Again, if 82% of Manhattan went for Kerry it is very safe to assume that at least a majority in this building did. And the link from Curbed supports this argument. As for Streisand getting kept out, these buildings turn down celebrities all the time.
People should not reject this point because they are liberal and I'm conservative. I'm not making an argument in favor of George Bush, and I'm not condemning all liberals. I'm criticizing a very particular brand of liberal - the sanctimonious limousine liberals who flourish in NY and LA. If the hijikis of the world want to defend them, then go ahead, but accusing the messenger of hating NY is a poor substitute for argument.
Fair enough, and the point about Streisand was that she seem the quintisential (sp?) limo liberal. I mean, I'm on the left and she drives me nuts.
I'll only say that I don't think they threw the birds out because they're limolibs. I think they did it because they're selfish. So I'll swap one assumption for the other and let's move on...
nola, bottom line is that you still don't know who is sitting on that board and you're still behaving like a political zealot with religious fervor. get some perspective, this isn't a partisan issue and your relentless pursuit to turn it into one demonstrates your lack of rational thought. there are sociological, geographical, economic, religious and racial influences in addition to political ones. do you really believe that politics is THE driving force behind the decision to remove the nest?
your list shows campaign contributions from 4 units out of that entire building (did you even bother to read it?! or did you just hope i wouldn't) and yet you jump to a blanket conclusion that the building is predominantly 'liberal democrats'. can't you see your total lack of logic here? did you ever stop to consider that many mainstream conservatives have supported kerry since bush is such an extraordinary failure. i know many conservatives that switched sides this time.
so ny is 18% conservative... where do you think they live? downtown? again your assumption is washed away, but i still wonder why you're so desperate to politicize this thing.
i'm not defending anyone, least of all elitists. baseless assumptions don't make a good foundation for any ideology. i'm really sorry you're wrong, nola, it's obviously upsetting you.
You are really on to something, hijiki. How silly of me to neglect all the "sociological, geographical, economic, religious and racial influences" that went into this decision. Especially the religous and racial influences. Maybe the hawk's dark feathers made the predominantly white residents uncomfortable. Or maybe Richard Cohen suspected the hawk was Muslim and had him evicted on Hannukah to spite him. Your insights are very valuable.
Of course I never once said that politics was the driving force behind this. What I have repeatedly said is that it is hypocrical for people who call themselves environmentalists to evict a bird from their building for no good reason. You can question the underlying assumption that most residents of the building are Democrats. But the demographics and donation records are on my side. If the evidence is limited, it still outweighs any evidence to the contrary.
So, hijiki, my assumptions are not baseless, and I haven't put forth any ideologies so maybe you can explain your very weird final paragraph. And this is "upsetting" me? Your posts are like batting practice. Keep it up.
gosh nola, you require so much handholding to get through a discussion. are all of the residents white? are they all jews? all christians? all rich? all raised in the city? are they even political? i wonder why you choose politics over everything else? you could just as readily make an assumption based on those hypocritical white people. or you could have made it based on those cold-hearted athiests. if you're not evangelizing your ideology, then why do you choose to argue about a vice president instead of discuss the hawk issue?
the point i'm making, that seems to be going over your head, is that we (including you) don't have any clue who made this decision and what their party affiliations are but you're willing to jump to a conclusion anyway in order to argue your politics. go back and read your own posts, your motive is obvious. you agree with most of the people here but you want to polarize people on party lines when we just want to talk about the damn birds.
"it is hypocrical for people who call themselves environmentalists to evict a bird from their building for no good reason"
understand that i totally agree with this statement, but we've not heard any of them claim to be environmentalists... did you? see how even a seemingly legitimate arguement falls apart when you build a foundation out of inference and assumption? do you honestly believe a sample of 4 is strong evidence?
calling names, batting practice... you're clearly only in this to argue. that's just childish. just call me a dumbass and be done with it already.
Why didn't I make any assumptions based on race or religion? Because no sane person could make any connection between the residents' race or religion and the decision to boot the bird.
A person can, however, reasonably believe that 1) the residents of a building in a borough that went overwhelmingly for Kerry are probably Democrats and
2) that virtually every Democrat (and most Republicans in NY, for that matter) identify themselves as pro-environment and
3) it was hypocritical for environmentalists to evict the bird.
We do have clues about who made the decision and what their party affiliations are. Since your head seems to be buried in the sand maybe you're missing them. I'm not claiming full and absolute knowledge of the building's demographics, I'm just making some reasonable statements based on some very relevant numbers.
As for referring to John Edwards earlier, I think his hypocritical behavior parallels the building's decision and no one has risen to his defense.
I'm not making wild allegations or campaigning for Republicans, but you seem to be coming unhinged. Take a deep breath before posting again, you'll be okay.
yes! you are right, no reasonable person would make a connection between any of those things. that is exactly my point. and politics is the same. their support for gephardt did not drive them to evict the birds any more than their religion. they may consider themselves environmentalists, and they may all be democrats, but we don't know. it was selfishness and stupidity plain and simple.
my breathing and hinges are holding up well... you are the one resorting to unreasonable assumptions, personal attacks, and derailing the discussion into a tired and irrelevant political arguement. and you're not going to admit it. i know you'll continue to cling to your idealogy and that's not what i, or anyone else here, came here to talk about so i'm dropping it.
Report from the vigil:
http://www.jomiller.com/archives/2004/12/vigil_report_fi.html
I must say you people either need a job to keep you occupied or a pair of eyes. To think of all the cruel and terrible things that happen in the world and your peeved about a few hawks that have to move house. How many people lost their jobs for no good reason in that same week, who may have lived or worked down Fifth avenue, not to mention all the killing and poverty around the world. If only people showed as much passion for their own kind as they did for some non-sentient arial poop dispenser the world would be a better place.
You people need a battle. Something real and meaningful to fight for. Not this bird.
Of course I am sure it will all be worth while when this bird swoops down to thank you, Oh wait no that doesn't happen. Well, at least you will have a good story to tell your 20 odd cats when you get home (or shack).
peace out, ebay@izis.co.uk for angry replies.