Hello,

May I jump into this discussion for a moment? I realize that I am six weeks late in finding it, but perhaps a few coments from someone who has been studying the night migration of birds here in New York City in 2004-05 might be helpful, and of interest.

Briefly: I have spent every night where I could see a few meters or more into the darkness atop the Empire State Building (ESB) Observation Deck in Spring 2004 (April to early June), and then again in August through mid-November 2004-05. I have issued two reports and written several popular and scientific papers on my observations...email me if you want to see/read them. The upward directed lights that illuminate the ESB allow me to watch migrating birds pass the ESB, and at other times, I watch birds circle the upper floors (and tower) of the building.

My bottom line on this: we really don't know how many birds migrate over NYC. It is likely in the millions...The elevation they fly at is approx. 1000 feet to 2500 feet above ground level. This varies depending uopn the species (shorebirds fly higher than warblers for example) and the weather. On rainy/foggy nights or in very windy conditions, birds migrate lower in the atmosphere. On a good night, I can see about 1500-3000 birds migrating in the 1000-2000 foot zone.

In certain weather conditions such as fog/rain or occasionally low overcast with light winds, birds in large numbers will circle tall, illuminated buildings. At the Observation Deck of the Empire State Building, I see this whenever there is overcast sky and winds less than 15mph. Birds will circle for...we don't know how long, but it may be up to several hours, while others join the circling group and then leave after a few(?)minutes to an hour or so. We don't have enough information about this right now except to say that the number of birds circling increases through the night on those nights when the weather conditions (and migrating birds) are put together. It can often be the case that the right conditions are in place, but no birds are migrating...And once winds exceed 15-20 mph (not uncommon at 1050 feet and higher), birds may circle once or twice but the wind gets to be too much for them and they leave the area. So, we need more research before anyone makes definitive statements about how many birds are involved in circling events, how long they stay, etc. And we don't know what effect (if any) circling has on birds. Most times no dead birds are found the next morning beneath the building, and then on rare occasions, many dead birds will be found. We don't know what triggers the "big kill" nights here in NYC.

In the past on certain nights in NYC, large numbers (somewhere between 400 and 1500) birds have collided with illuminated buildings in a single night. The most famous incident was on 11 Sept. 1948 when about 800 birds were found dead on the setbacks of the Empire State Building and the street below. Now, we really don't know how they died: did they collide with the building while circling? Did they hit the street from confusion or exhaustion or any other reason(s). We just don't know. Nevertheless, birds can be killed on certain nights (overcast, light winds and bright lights). It does not happen always, and it is not like a mathematical formula where 1+1+1 = 3.

It is true that a very tiny percentage of the birds that migrate through our area do end up dead: some from being attracted to lights at high elevation, but likely many more from collisions with glass windows at street level. On the other hand, if we can understand what factors lead to these needless deaths, then we can devise strategies to prevent needless loss of life. Remember, people like birds and that is good. And birds cannot avoid cities on a journey that might take a 1 ounce bird some 2,000-3,000 miles south (and then back again the next spring). We really don't know the cumulative effect of birds colliding with glass and illuminated buildings throughout the migratory route. But again, if we can (somewhat) easily prevent needless loss of life to creatures that most everyone likes, then perhaps a little inconvenience is not too much to ask, especially if everyone saves some money by using less energy. And in the bigger picture, turning off the lights preserves breeding habitat for all sorts of birds, insects, plants, mammals, etc. if we don't have to dig it up for coal or oil extraction.

That being said, on the flip side of this, I agree that NYC Audubon needs much more solid information before they make statements. They are an advocacy group, you are correct. I am often frustrated because of their lack of science and detailed study of this problem. They need to back up their statements with some evidence and some local studies. And they need to provide their membership (and all New Yorkers) with accurate information rather than most of what I have seen on their web site and in their press conference statements. We all need to be careful with language, and we need to aim at getting as close to the truth as possible...

I could go on and on, but won't If anyone wants more info, just contact me and I'd be happy to send the reports, articles, etc. My best recommendation is this: To see birds migrating at night is a magnificent experience. To watch Peregrine Falcons chasing and catching some of them at night is amazing too. I can only study this because there is light to see it! I hope each of you reading this will enjoy how lovely birds are to watch during the day and night. But I also realize that humans exert a powerful force on this earth. The more we understand the positive and negative effects of what we do upon wild things and wild places, the better we will be in a position to design strategies that maximize what we need, and what wild things need to survive too. We are human - we have the capacity to care and make a difference.

Rebekah Creshkoff's idea to light up the skies with the 9/11 lights each year during the week of Sept. 11th each night until 11pm or even 12 midnight is a good one. Why should the lights stay on all night? If (as Rebekah suggests), the lights were to go off one by one as a tribute to those who lost their lives in 2001, that would be a fitting tribute too. And it might save some birds (and insects) lives too. Seems like a win-win situation to me.

rdcny@earthlink.net (for reports, etc.)

Robert DeCandido, PhD

NYC native

Yeah, you boiled down my argument perfectly.

(not joking)

We're not entitled to have a bright skyline, but I'd rather not have a completely dark city at night, either. The Audobon Society seems to claim that any light source will cause bird fatalities - dimming the lights will not be sufficient for their goals. And this is absurd because they can't eliminate all high-rise lighting.

I wasn't thinking it was a bad idea at first, although it's an aesthetic sacrifice surely. But then I saw the request for low-rise buildings, and they lost all credibility.

Again, with the figures that they provided, no bird population is threatened by current practices. They said they confirmed 4,000 bird fatalities in NYC over 8 years. It's not a happy number, but it's a very small number. Only 500 per year! How many birds migrate along that route? HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS! Spread among all migrating birds, it poses no threat to any specific population. (They als pulled out some 100 million estimate figure and never backed it up.) On top of this, it won't help a bit because there are still interior office lights, aviation beacons, and significant light pollution coming from all around. Those birds are dead no matter what.

And, yes, I appreciate the illumination of building exteriors. It appeals to my aestetic tastes. I think there should be MORE of it. I encourage it as populist art, because it's something for the whole city. Shut it down at midnight if you want (smart for power consumption purposes), but don't discourage it altogether if it'll have no net effect on bird populations.

And a vague statement like this - "this is, in fact, a migratory path for endangered birds of prey and skyscrapers are one of their top killers" - needs to be backed up a little more substantially before I agree with any call to action.

As for the "ancillary benefits" - they're actually the primary benefits here (and I never argued against them). Reduction of power consumption is probably the best result you can get by managing home illumination. It goes to reason that if you're not seeing tons of dead birds on the sidewalk outside your apartment in the morning, then turning off the lights at night isn't really affecting bird migrations.

I'm surprised that the Chrysler Building is getting scrutinized in this article. It's not nearly as bright as some of the other architectural crowns in NYC, which is one reason why it's not so bad if it's left on all night.

And of course Brianvan ignores ancillary benefits of turning off unnecessary lights after midnight, such as reducing energy consumption. Besides, where's the "inconvenience" to drawing the shades that late? If you have your lights on, you probably can't see much of the darkness through your windows anyway, so why not draw the shades?

His complaint boils down to the fact that he thinks he is personally entitled to a brightly lit skyline and anyone who would dare take that away from him is a commie pinko tree hugger.

so fierce! and again, very impressive logic. nevermind that this is, in fact, a migratory path for endangered birds of pray and that skyscrapers are one of their top killers. what's really important is how crazy the audubon society must be... giving people information so they may choose to voluntarily turn off their lights is so extreme. they must be nuts!

There's a huge difference between flaming people and taking a fierce position on a matter. I never singled out anyone for attack, I just said that the Audobon Society was being absurd. I'm surprised anyone took it personally.

I've read about this matter overall, and I've read the Audobon Society's position and goals. I think they're going too far to protect birds, because there will be little benefit to the actions they recommend. Birds will die if no action is taken, but the difference between action and inaction will be minimal. Going by their only valid estimates, it'll save 500 birds a year, none of them endangered. And with what collateral result? Darkening the skyline and taking away the city's majestic beauty at night - and, if the suggestions are followed rigorously, inconveniencing a couple million human beings who live more than 10 feet off the ground. This is like asking everyone to keep cars off country roads just so no one ever hits a deer again.

They've failed to convice me that lights on tall buildings are a significant threat to bird populations, so I disagree with their recommendations as I see them extreme. I don't oppose reasonable actions to protect individual birds from unnecessary bird fatalities. But their goals are beyond reasonable given the scope of the problem.

brianvan-

You could start by clicking on the Audubon link above.

Second, you could Google a few of the words and find numerous articles from numerous sources on the matter.

Third, you could learn to formulate an argument that uses a modicum of deductive thinking and not something that extrapolates out a logical conclusion through numerous, flawed assumptions. As important as it is to observe the world around you, there are things that happen outside your sphere that are both relevant and significant.

Flaming others and using exclamation points don't make you any more right.

Ah, this is how I know the other side of the debate is both pissed and insane: because the only counterargument is sarcasm about the fact that I oppose them at all.

Does anyone want to take a second to actually address my disbelief and tell me why it'll be bad if we DON'T turn our lights off? And, please, try to back it up with more than theory, panic, and misrepresented stats. Thanks!

thanks for the educated insight and flawless logic, brianvan.

Ah, but they are taking it to the extreme, don't you think? I mean, they're creating a problem that hardly exists, because this has neither created a public health nuisance or an extinction problem in the past. Don't you think we'd clearly notice if a significant amount of the bird population flew into/around large buildings and died? I'm skeptical that this is as much of a problem that they make it to be. Property owners and maintenance crews have indeed cleaned up thousands of dead birds felled by confusion around tall buildings, but it hasn't killed off a significant percentage of birds overall. And there's nothing we can do about it, other than eliminate lighting from tall buildings (both interior and exterior). Rather extreme for a modest problem, no?

The low-rise building advisory is especially dumb. There are millions of low-rise builings up the eastern coast! If they're correct in their warnings, there should be millions of dead birds everywhere! Since that's not the case even with loads of light pollution, it must not be the problem they're making it out to be. And along those lines, if low rise buildings in cities should go lights-out late at night, then why not black out the whole country at midnight so that not a single migrating bird gets confused? After all, if they miss the low-rise buildings in NYC, they could still get hit in Jersey! Or Philly! Or Baltimore! Or DC! Or Richmond! Or Myrtle Beach! Or...

So, along those lines, if most of the bird population is safe, and the few that will get confused and die are going to die no matter what we do, then I think it's okay to keep our pretty lights in high places. And since all of their facts just don't add up to reality, I view the Audobon Society's urgency as just another attention-grabbing tactic by an overzealous advocacy group.

weird... i would think that turning the lights off would make birds fly into buildings more...

as for the tribute of light, it definitely should not be permanent. all the birds/moths/insects that get confused within their rays is weird enough for you to lose track of what is being commemorated

brianvan-

Thanks for the environmental biology lecture. I especially enjoyed the empirical observation that there are 'plenty of birds around'.

That nutty, NYC Audubon group has been known to wield an iron fist against all who oppose them. Lord knows they really complicate my low-rise life by asking me to draw the blinds. How else am I supposed to peform my art by entertaining the neighbors with an All-Nude jumping jacks display at 12:10 in the morning? I guess it's back to shadow puppets.

I feel so sad... sad and violated.

What's particularly funny about this is the extent to which they take this - apparently, if there's a single light on in the city more than 20 feet in the air, 10,000,000 birds might get confused and fly right into it.

I'm not a fan of energy waste and light pollution, but it's the skyline that really makes this city beautiful and wondrous at night. And, after all these years of lights, there's still plenty of birds around. So I really don't see a point to this. Turning off the displays of major buildings at midnight isn't such a big sacrifice, but asking residents of low-rise buildings to go lights-out? Absurd. The whole thing is nutty and we should just leave whatever lights on that we want to, for art's sake.

And this problem is the same issue that's keeping NYC from having a permanent Tribute In Light display, and has probably ruled out some truly awe-inspiring designs for the WTC memorial. In which case, I really don't care about the birds in the least.