Yeah, some people are starling haters because they think that they are going to cause the extinction of local bird species even though there is no real evidence of them having a substantial impact on any bird population that I am aware of. The idiots with good intentions think they are "saving" the bluebird population because the bluebird population crashed from the 60's to some point in the 80's and some scientist postulated that it might have been caused by the starlings.

Now the eastern bluebird population is increasing fairly steadily and the western bluebird population increased in the early 90's and is now declining slowly. The former despite an increase in the starling population, and the latter is currently being blamed on global warming. I think it is far more likely that bird populations simply ebb and flow over time like every other animal on the planet. Sometimes it increases, sometimes it decreases for a variety of natural reasons and isn't really something to be concerned about. Animal populations are never static, nor should they be, a concept that weekend warrior environmentalists never seem to grasp.

Small bird populations are especially volatile because harsh weather during nesting season can cause large kill offs and they are favored targets of small predators like fox, coyotes and lynx, all of which have been experiencing surging populations in the west. (Save the western bluebirds, wear fur!)

I don't really care about them shooting the starlings. The population can certainly handle it. I just hope they don't throw the bodies in the trash. They should eat them, or at least feed them to the dogs. 

Add to my subscriptions and will watch later.

It's doing great and is quite spoiled. Whatever I'm doing it wants to be involved ><

 This "taste of the wild" dog food is apparently quite good for a starling. (soaked in water)

I can't let this one go now because it is imprinted big time. I didn't realize a wild bird was so susceptible to that.

Well it's not a "wild" bird now.

Beware if you ever pick one of these up off the ground. If there are no other baby birds with it it will imprint on you.

I have also since learned they are one of the few birds you can keep. They can easily learn to "talk" etc. So if want a very clingy neat pet they are probably at the top of some list.

Probably, although some of them probably actually believe they are saving the bluebirds. I used to get hyped up over invasive species. In the hunting community you will find a lot of people that blame various invasive species when their preferred game animal has low populations. I'm actually kind of curious if there has ever been a case where an invasive species actually caused an extinction I would be interested. From what I have seen, every invasive species that was going to destroy the ecosystem when I was growing up has since been integrated, so I don't get as worked up over it as I used to.

A funny thing I read in a fishing magazine yesterday, they were listing invasive species and one that was included was the Rusty Crayfish which according to the article had a natural range in Ohio but has spread to surrounding areas.... It seems to me that if the Rusty Crayfish can thrive in those other states, it was only a matter of time before it would live there, it isn't like there is an ocean in the way and the big ass lakes up there provide easy access to any body of water on the eastern side of the country.

So maybe one of the science geeks can explain this to me. Why is the Ohio basin considered a "natural" range but the rest of the midwest isn't? Even if humans sped up the process the crayfish would have spread sooner or later. There seems to be a bias in the natural sciences towards the assumption that everything as it is right now is "natural" and any changes are "unnatural" and therefore should be stopped. But things have always changed, and change isn't always bad.