This needs so many more views! It’s so pathetic that idiotic prank videos, make up videos, etc get millions of views while important videos like this are getting only hundreds of views😢
I found a strange thing that the birds eat curd and roti which I put in a vessel. They relish curd, The birds which eat it are blue thrush ,blue jay ,mynas sparrows, Robin magpie, Magpie crows Tits ,rust headed sparrows etc.
I'm sorry to say that I found this to be one of the most infuriating bird webinars I've seen. Why on earth are ranchers- who are and have historically been the main drivers of ecosystem imbalance/disruption, climate change, directly killing birds, organizing hunts of native predator species (with the help of "conservationist" hunters,) introducing non-native species that displace or attack birds, and more atrocities - being portrayed as conservationists before anything else? This is so wholly irresponsible and might as well be a beef industry marketing campaign ("bird friendly beef?! ffs") Furthermore, many birds were hunted to extinction and many of the "overpopulated" animals now were almost wiped out by hunting- yet hunters are allowed to rebrand their bloodsport as "conservation?" Also, the US MILITARY being portrayed as conservationists?! Gee, can you think of anything in the USA military's historical and present actions that might create the need for conservation? We're talking about "invasive species" detrimentally in (colonized) Hawaii and praising the US military, no mention whatsoever of indigenous peoples conservation efforts. Why even acknowledge indigenous people at the beginning of this if this is what follows? Animal farming is one of the top destroyers of rainforests, the main use of most farmland and crops on the planet, putting out the most damaging greenhouse gases, not to mention the cruelty of harming the animals they kill and sell. These authors mention plume hunting without even calling it hunting. Ask the hunters why the "game birds" needed conserving in the first place. Ask them if they'd still be interested in "conservation" if they couldn't shoot them and take a photo smiling next to their dead bodies. They mention pigs and cows as "invasive species" (as if they had a choice) while not acknowledging who put them there. They discuss the losses of birds in grasslands without mentioning what industries are at fault for that. They talk about the military like they're the sweetest little puppy they ever did see. This comment is already a novel so I will not detail further, but it will take anyone reading 2 seconds on google to see what ranching, bloodsports, and militaries have done to birds. Any conservation efforts that ranchers and the military take part in are like putting a piece of scotch tape on a gushing wound from a severed limb. I will never be able to understand this disconnect between so many birders who refuse to see these glaring things in our history and present and allow these people to remarket their and industries and blood sports as not only neutral, but as the real saviors of birds. It is as if we only care about birds as long as we can always point the finger elsewhere- even at other animals we put there- but don't have to take a hard look at our own parts in harming them. It's like thinking plastic straws are bad while ordering fish and ignoring that most of the plastic in the ocean and most destruction is from commercial fishing. At least I know there are much better books to spend my time on out there. I really respect Cornell, but the unchallenged issues with this webinar are absolutely indefensible. This webinar is actively harmful in its level of misinformation. Spark birds and nice photos are the only discussions that anyone could think of? And then you go ahead and give a free "bird friendly beef" ad full of misinformation at the end? Guess what, that kind of farming has an even larger footprint than factory farms. What a waste. How many people will walk away from this and will keep doing harmful things without question? Now they even get to pat themselves on the back!
You mean to tell me you start the webinar by virtue signaling? I wanted to learn about which species are in trouble but gave up because the last thing I want is politics in my science info. Why can't you give it a rest? I'm part Mescalero Apache. I don't need your apologies. It changes nothing and wastes time. You're good. Ok? Relax. Geez.
Maybe you don't need apologies. Frankly, I thought the fact that the original land ownership was being honored, which, for me, could be done more often when land is considered in US.
I agree. I was excited to learn about this book and listen to the authors. But I'll look for another interview with them that doesn't start with liberal politics. Shame on the moderator for making this about her politics instead of the authors and the birds.
So he meaning of WOKE is aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues. Maybe you could have done without it, but other may have found it necessary.
This needs so many more views! It’s so pathetic that idiotic prank videos, make up videos, etc get millions of views while important videos like this are getting only hundreds of views😢
I found a strange thing that the birds eat curd and roti which I put in a vessel. They relish curd, The birds which eat it are blue thrush ,blue jay ,mynas sparrows, Robin magpie, Magpie crows Tits ,rust headed sparrows etc.
love this information 🎉
Thank you for this ❤
I'm sorry to say that I found this to be one of the most infuriating bird webinars I've seen.
Why on earth are ranchers- who are and have historically been the main drivers of ecosystem imbalance/disruption, climate change, directly killing birds, organizing hunts of native predator species (with the help of "conservationist" hunters,) introducing non-native species that displace or attack birds, and more atrocities - being portrayed as conservationists before anything else? This is so wholly irresponsible and might as well be a beef industry marketing campaign ("bird friendly beef?! ffs") Furthermore, many birds were hunted to extinction and many of the "overpopulated" animals now were almost wiped out by hunting- yet hunters are allowed to rebrand their bloodsport as "conservation?" Also, the US MILITARY being portrayed as conservationists?! Gee, can you think of anything in the USA military's historical and present actions that might create the need for conservation? We're talking about "invasive species" detrimentally in (colonized) Hawaii and praising the US military, no mention whatsoever of indigenous peoples conservation efforts. Why even acknowledge indigenous people at the beginning of this if this is what follows?
Animal farming is one of the top destroyers of rainforests, the main use of most farmland and crops on the planet, putting out the most damaging greenhouse gases, not to mention the cruelty of harming the animals they kill and sell. These authors mention plume hunting without even calling it hunting. Ask the hunters why the "game birds" needed conserving in the first place. Ask them if they'd still be interested in "conservation" if they couldn't shoot them and take a photo smiling next to their dead bodies. They mention pigs and cows as "invasive species" (as if they had a choice) while not acknowledging who put them there. They discuss the losses of birds in grasslands without mentioning what industries are at fault for that. They talk about the military like they're the sweetest little puppy they ever did see. This comment is already a novel so I will not detail further, but it will take anyone reading 2 seconds on google to see what ranching, bloodsports, and militaries have done to birds.
Any conservation efforts that ranchers and the military take part in are like putting a piece of scotch tape on a gushing wound from a severed limb. I will never be able to understand this disconnect between so many birders who refuse to see these glaring things in our history and present and allow these people to remarket their and industries and blood sports as not only neutral, but as the real saviors of birds. It is as if we only care about birds as long as we can always point the finger elsewhere- even at other animals we put there- but don't have to take a hard look at our own parts in harming them. It's like thinking plastic straws are bad while ordering fish and ignoring that most of the plastic in the ocean and most destruction is from commercial fishing.
At least I know there are much better books to spend my time on out there. I really respect Cornell, but the unchallenged issues with this webinar are absolutely indefensible. This webinar is actively harmful in its level of misinformation. Spark birds and nice photos are the only discussions that anyone could think of? And then you go ahead and give a free "bird friendly beef" ad full of misinformation at the end? Guess what, that kind of farming has an even larger footprint than factory farms. What a waste. How many people will walk away from this and will keep doing harmful things without question? Now they even get to pat themselves on the back!
Also "cats kill for sport, not food" while praising bloodsports is truly the icing on the cake.
Thank you!
You mean to tell me you start the webinar by virtue signaling? I wanted to learn about which species are in trouble but gave up because the last thing I want is politics in my science info. Why can't you give it a rest? I'm part Mescalero Apache. I don't need your apologies. It changes nothing and wastes time. You're good. Ok? Relax. Geez.
Maybe you don't need apologies. Frankly, I thought the fact that the original land ownership was being honored, which, for me, could be done more often when land is considered in US.
I agree. I was excited to learn about this book and listen to the authors. But I'll look for another interview with them that doesn't start with liberal politics. Shame on the moderator for making this about her politics instead of the authors and the birds.
I could have done without the woke chest-beating.
So he meaning of WOKE is aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues. Maybe you could have done without it, but other may have found it necessary.