September 2007 Archives
We've had two bird kills in the past couple of weeks. A year ago I reported two window-bird collision incidents -- we've had many since. From my office I may hear a collision a day. I don't check many of them out. Probably a good many of them have been fatal, but scavengers harvest the bodies.
Today a little hummingbird crashed right into the window in front of my desk. He fell to the porch. When I approached him he managed to fly a bit but ran out of gas and perched uncertainly on a cord that holds one of our trees upright. He teetered there a while. I pulled the guts out of a Bic pen and used the red tube as a dropper, and gave him a few sips of sugar water from the feeder. They have tiny needles for tongues and he lapped at it a little. I left him a lone for periods up to ten minutes, hoping he could gather his energy and fly; but after an hour perching on his rope he fell to the ground, I put him in a box on a soft cloth but it only took him a few more minutes to give up the ghost. Waaah!
A week or so ago a dove crashed heavily into the same window. K & I ran out and found him stunned, but looking like he was recovering -- cocking his head and looking at us. We left him to recover on the porch where he'd falllen -- but ten minutes later he was limp.
I clearly see what is fooling them. You can see the bright clouds on the horizon dozens of miles of way, reflected in our windows. The birds see nothing but air for 30 miles and careen full speed into the windows.
We need to find a way to make our windows non-reflective, and ideally our view out the windows would remain the same. The problem is widespread, especially for office buildings. This article surveys the problem and suggests
As one solution, Mesure and Hanlon are looking at an opaque window film designed by 3M that allows people to look out of but not into a window. Currently, it's not available to the public and only being used to place advertisements over bus and taxi windows. Mesure became convinced it could save birds' lives after he experimented with it on his own problem window at home. Not a single bird has hit it in the five years since. "The problem may be that people won't be able to get around how different it looks," says Mesure.
Not sure how we need to go so far as to make our windows opaque. Seems to me, all we need to do is inhibit the reflection of the far horizon. I just need to find some thin film technology appropriate for household use.
Timely opportunity! Work out a little of your outrage over Makar Properties' treatment of Charles O'Dell, constructively. Show up at the TCEQ hearing Tuesday and declare your opposition to permitting this development to discharge wastewater into Bear Creek.
Our friend Charles O'Dell, active in almost all of the regional issues that affect us here on HPR, was found guilty today in Dripping Springs, of violating their ordinance against erecting signs in the right of way. See, Charles has been actively protesting at the Belterra development, where the developers are seeking a permit that would allow them to discharge wastewater (in "emergencies") into Bear Creek. So the developers, Makar Properties, bugged the City to issue Charles a citation. Today he was found guilty on one count and fined $500. About 10 supporters, including Hays County Commisioner Karen Ford, showed up as he was read his penalty. His lawyer indicated he believes they have grounds for a retrial, and failing that, they will appeal.
But that was Charles, making trouble. The signs below, are from nice companies that are the bedrock of the D.S. economy, and their kind of free speech is OK:
Honestly, if you know Charles, you know he's a gentle, persistent advocate for water quality. His lawyer wasn't admitting Charles erected any sign; but to single out any sign Charles might have put out with his sensible message calling attention to a topic of public interest, while ignoring the signs of the real estate developers that run things out here, used to be called "selective enforcement."
[Updated: mis-attributed roadside sign photos to Hanlon Skillman -- he says they are really by Charles]
[Update 2: changed photo ]
Hamilton Market -- you listening? This article from the New Yorker remarks that turning off the lights can actually reduce crime (via Bruce Schneier):
Much so-called security lighting is designed with little thought for how eyes -- or criminals -- operate. Marcus Felson, a professor at the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, has concluded that lighting is effective in preventing crime mainly if it enables people to notice criminal activity as it's taking place, and if it doesn't help criminals to see what they're doing. Bright, unshielded floodlights -- one of the most common types of outdoor security lighting in the country -- often fail on both counts, as do all-night lights installed on isolated structures or on parts of buildings that can't be observed by passersby (such as back doors). A burglar who is forced to use a flashlight, or whose movement triggers a security light controlled by an infrared motion sensor, is much more likely to be spotted than one whose presence is masked by the blinding glare of a poorly placed metal halide "wall pack." In the early seventies, the public-school system in San Antonio, Texas, began leaving many of its school buildings, parking lots, and other property dark at night and found that the no-lights policy not only reduced energy costs but also dramatically cut vandalism.
Kaila captured this last week (see her original post):
