5 ms·

> At the same time 3.5 billion birds die hitting glass of the buildings. Do you have a citation for this? Are you comparing North American cat deaths to worldw

> At the same time 3.5 billion birds die hitting glass of the buildings. Do you have a citation for this? Are you comparing North American cat deaths to worldwide building collisions? Estimates I'm seeing of North American center around 600 million, a far cry from deaths due to cats.

trhway 1y ago
It is in US: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/birds-windows-collisions-glass-deaths https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/birds-win... >a far cry from deaths due to cats. No, they are about the same. The 3.5 billion is the top estimate similar to how 4 billion is top estimate for killed by cats. The lower estimates in both cases around 1 billion something.
- thedufer 1y ago
  That's an interesting update. I remain a bit skeptical based on the fact that the obvious sources I'd look to for this sort of thing haven't updated on that study (it seems to be https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1676/23-00045 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1676/23-00045), and I'm not really able to evaluate it on my own. USFWS (https://www.fws.gov/story/threats-birds-collisions-buildings-glass https://www.fws.gov/story/threats-birds-collisions-buildings...) is citing the previous numbers, as is Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird%E2%80%93window_collisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird%E2%80%93window_collisions). FWIW 3.5 billion is not the top estimate, although I'm not sure how to interpret the way the estimate is stated ("annual mortality may be minimally 1.28 billion–3.46 billion or as high as 1.92 billion–5.19 billion"). What does it mean to have a range for each end of the range? The author only quotes the absolute lowest number from the study in press about it (see https://www.lehighvalleynews.com/environment-science/3-5-million-birds-dying-every-day-the-culprit-windows-a-local-professor-has-solutions https://www.lehighvalleynews.com/environment-science/3-5-mil...), but maybe is just preferring to be conservative.

trhway 1y ago

It is in US: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/birds-windows-collisions-glass-deaths https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/birds-win... >a far cry from deaths due to cats. No, they are about the same. The 3.5 billion is the top estimate similar to how 4 billion is top estimate for killed by cats. The lower estimates in both cases around 1 billion something.

thedufer 1y ago
That's an interesting update. I remain a bit skeptical based on the fact that the obvious sources I'd look to for this sort of thing haven't updated on that study (it seems to be https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1676/23-00045 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1676/23-00045), and I'm not really able to evaluate it on my own. USFWS (https://www.fws.gov/story/threats-birds-collisions-buildings-glass https://www.fws.gov/story/threats-birds-collisions-buildings...) is citing the previous numbers, as is Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird%E2%80%93window_collisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird%E2%80%93window_collisions). FWIW 3.5 billion is not the top estimate, although I'm not sure how to interpret the way the estimate is stated ("annual mortality may be minimally 1.28 billion–3.46 billion or as high as 1.92 billion–5.19 billion"). What does it mean to have a range for each end of the range? The author only quotes the absolute lowest number from the study in press about it (see https://www.lehighvalleynews.com/environment-science/3-5-million-birds-dying-every-day-the-culprit-windows-a-local-professor-has-solutions https://www.lehighvalleynews.com/environment-science/3-5-mil...), but maybe is just preferring to be conservative.