
Passenger Pigeon Comeback - Turukawa
http://longnow.org/revive/what-we-do/passenger-pigeon/
======
ejp
Slightly OT: If you ever happen to be in Oklahoma City, the American Pigeon
Museum[0] is a nice diversion - larger than you'd think, and lots of
interesting tidbits to be had, including history on the passenger pigeon. I
saw it in passing on an unrelated trip, but it turned into the best story to
tell from OKC.

[0]
[http://www.theamericanpigeonmuseum.org/](http://www.theamericanpigeonmuseum.org/)

------
cjensen
The Passenger Pigeon lived in an environment where flocks were found
everywhere. An individual pigeon could safely "wander off" and find a new
flock. Once the population level descended below a critical level, the species
was doomed. In order to bring them back, you would need to breed them by the
millions before releasing them.

A more practical worry is the Rusty Blackbird, which has declined fast in
recent decades and may be headed the way of the Passenger Pigeon.

~~~
crygin
That's commonly cited as fact, but the truth is we don't know that they
required large flocks to survive (deforestation is another possibility).
Charles Mann points out in his book _1491_ that e.g. DeSoto didn't report
large groups, and hypothesizes that the enormous flocks of the 1800s are an
aberration due to wide-scale crop production.

~~~
yareally
Another theory is that the decline of Native Americans led to the boom in the
numbers of passenger pigeons (since many Eastern Tribes considered them a
primary food source). However, the nesting habits and mating rituals of birds
in general are complex and subject to change (such as purple martins
traditionally living under cliffs and in caves to now living almost entirely
in man made boxes). It may have been true that passenger pigeons did not
travel in large flocks when DeSoto was exploring the Mississippi in the 16th
Century, but events between then and the extinction of the species may have
altered their behavior.

However, if the species is brought back, there is always the chance their
behavior may change again (as it may have before) and large flocks may not be
a requirement for their survival anymore. That trait was likely passed on
through shared behavior and likely would not affect newborn pigeons with no
existing relatives. Also the fact that there have been huge advancements in
genetics and breeding of animals since the attempts of saving them in the
early 20th century.

~~~
gadders
I think the most amazing change of habitat for a bird is the Rock Dove [1],
otherwise known as the pigeon that you find in cities everywhere. Their
original habitat was rocky cliffs and coastlines.

[1][https://www.rspb.org.uk/discoverandenjoynature/discoverandle...](https://www.rspb.org.uk/discoverandenjoynature/discoverandlearn/birdguide/name/r/rockdove/)

------
psophis
There is an RFC for IP via carrier pigeon [0]

[0] [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149)

~~~
yareally
Carrier pigeons, unlike passenger pigeons (which derive their name from the
huge sky-darkening flocks they created, making them look like "passengers")
are not a species, just a domesticated rock pigeon trained to travel between
defined points.

Carrier pigeons are still pretty neat though. Cher Ami ("dear friend")[1]
saved the lives of thousands during The Great War and was highly respected by
both American and French soldiers.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Ami](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Ami)

------
gadders
If I had to, I would stake money on a Woolly Mammoth* being brought back in my
lifetime. I'm 43.

* This includes an elephant/mammoth hybrid/chimera.

------
nsxwolf
Please don't bring that asshole bird back to life.

~~~
wyager
I am curious why people are so fixated on reviving extinct species (or saving
species on their way out) except as an academic exercise.

~~~
yareally
I hope your question is more from the lack of knowing or curiosity than not
seeing that many of these species are only extinct or on the brink of
extinction because humanity could not be bothered to be a little considerate
while modernizing. I'm all for progress, but when we trample on other humans
or other species just to save a little time or money, it's kind of saddening.
I always thought that because we have the ability to care about the survival
of species other than our own that it contributes to what makes us "human."
Some animals may care in way because certain species are an important food
source, but we've come to care about animals for reasons beyond that.

The extinction of the passenger pigeon was no accident or even carelessness.
People literally hunted them at an industrial scale with large nets at their
nesting sites (many ended up as canned food for the military or railroad
workers). The passenger pigeon is not even closely related to the sometimes
reviled rock pigeon that inhabits Europe and as a non-native invasive species
in North America. Instead, it is a close relative of the North American
mourning dove. I assume that is why this commenter[0] has a "knee-jerk"
dislike of the passenger pigeon with no explanation given.

Passenger pigeons were perhaps the most numerous bird to ever exist and yes,
while they did primarily eat seeds, so do many other living species including
the European house sparrow brought to North America around 150 years ago.
House sparrows and other species have mostly filled the niche that the native
passenger pigeon once inhabited. I mean house sparrows are so numerous in
North America that most people do not even realize there are a couple dozen
native species of sparrows here that are only distantly related[1][2]. Unlike
their distant European relative, these native sparrows tend to be prettier and
less numerous due to being territorial in breeding pairs all year round,
though some sparrow species[1] will flock together during migration.

This might sound like something made up, but the house sparrow, along with the
European Starling were brought over to North America by some guy that wanted
all the birds of Shakespeare's plays to inhabit the New World. Ironically,
both species are now in decline throughout the Old World while they dominate
and displace species that rely on nest boxes and nest cavities in the New
World. The movement in the past 50 years to put up nest boxes for blue birds,
purple martins and other native species in North America was at least
partially motivated by trying to shore up their populations as many were
threatened in the past.

Another species that met a tragic demise that could have been saved was the
ivory billed woodpecker[3] in the early 1900s. The ivory billed was the
largest woodpecker in North America (about the size of a crow), with the still
living pilated woodpecker a close second (both resemble Woody the Woodpecker).
Efforts were made to have its last refuge made a protected forest, but ended
up going nowhere as elected officials considered the wood in the forests to be
more worth while. There's been unverified sightings by people that claim the
ivory-billed still exists in remote locations in the Southern United States.
It's more likely those that claim to have seen it really saw a pilated
woodpecker, as no images or recordings have been made by those that claimed to
have seen it.

There was also a lesser known parrot[4] that lived in the temperate
Eastern/Southern United States that died out around the same time as the two
mentioned above. The Carolina Parakeet lived as far north as Ohio and was the
only native parrot in the continental United States. Reasons for its
extinction are a bit more complicated, though it has been partially attributed
to deforestation and the spread of the European honey bee in North America as
they competed for nesting cavities in trees (random fun fact that honey bees
are not native to the New World).

Many birds are considered a prime indicator of the health of the environment
around them as well, due to wide variety of foods they eat and the elaborate
nesting/mating rituals some go through that can be disturbed when things are
thrown out of balance.

I'm only in my late 20s, but I've always had an interest in birds and studying
them is sort of a hobby of mine. They're one of the few animals in the wild
you can see on a daily basis and many of them are as intelligent as primates
(such as crows/ravens/rooks, certain parrots and jays). I can pull up other
references for anyone interested on where I found the info above, but it takes
a bit of time. A good starting point is the Cornell Ornithology site linked
below though[1].

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8255389](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8255389)

[1] [http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/white-
crowned_sparrow/id](http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/white-
crowned_sparrow/id)

[2] [http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/White-
throated_Sparrow/id](http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/White-
throated_Sparrow/id)

[3] [http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Ivory-
billed_Woodpecker/i...](http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Ivory-
billed_Woodpecker/id)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_parakeet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_parakeet)

~~~
wyager
> humanity could not be bothered to be a little considerate while modernizing

Why should we? I place higher value on the progress of mankind than I do on
the survival of any one non-human species.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Sounds hard-hearted. But I have to agree. The accidental landscape of species
inhabiting the Earth during the time humans came to civilization was
instructive, handy at times, but not significant beyond that. Thousands of
species have come and gone in geologic history; we don't feel that is
especially tragic so why these modern ones?

~~~
yareally
Because unlike those previous species, we (as a species) were at best, at
least partially responsible for their demise? That's the difference between
the extinction of the dinosaurs and the previously mentioned species. Reviving
species such as the passenger pigeon is probably viewed by those in the
project (aside from science reasons) as a way to make amends for our
ancestors' shortcomings.

I mean just 100 years ago, people actually thought it was chic to place an
entire stuffed bird on a hat and call it fashion (google search will pull up
some creepy results I'd rather not find and link). Thankfully that fell out of
style (but long after many species suffered great losses) and the Migatory
Bird Act[1] was passed.

I tend to think that humanity has at least some obligation to be a decent
caretaker of the planet and to care for those (human and other sentient
beings) that are victims of circumstances outside of their control. That
doesn't mean we should all turn into hunter-gatherers and live with leaves
covering us, but we should at least be somewhat concerned with the
consequences of our actions for future generations.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Treaty_Act_of_19...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Treaty_Act_of_1918)

~~~
wyager
You still haven't explained why we should be "caretakers" for dying species.
You argument now sounds like "we can, so we should".

~~~
yareally
I don't really see a good reason why I should spend 30 or so minutes replying
to your comments that show little interest in continuing the discussion. If
you showed the interest of wanting to have a real dialogue, sure, but it's not
fair to me to waste my time when you only seem to show minimal interest in
continuing it.

If those on the other side of the argument can't put forth posts that try to
meet the guidelines for good discussion[1][2], why should I keep wasting my
time? I enjoy good debate (even if I disagree with the other side), but this
is all just me pouring out my limited time for someone to just spend a minimal
amount of time on a subject/reply they don't seem to really care about.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

[2]
[http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
So its 'caring' that is the litmus test? The issue here is, many of us don't
care, while you do. Its not a question of bad faith, we just don't agree at
all.

