The celebration of Columbus Day in the United States has become somewhat contentious over the years as people have taken a more nuanced look at the “discovery” of the New World. On this Columbus Day, my attention turns to other invaders of a more avian kind. Every country has them, the nonnative aggressors that some refer callously to as trash birds.
“Trash bird” is controversial birding lingo for any species that is so ubiquitous in a location that it surpasses unremarkable and becomes truly irritating. Trash birds hog the feeders, crowd the trees, and consistently outcompete other species for habitat and resources. Their belligerent success spells failure for many other kinds of potentially more interesting birds. Although most birders are too polite to use this derogatory term in mixed company, few, if any, can claim to love all birds equally. If some species had to be sacrificed for the greater good, these are the ones that would be tossed on the trash heap.
The kingdom of unloved avians is ruled by the trash triumvirate: House Sparrow, European Starling, and Rock Pigeon. Invasives all, these three species probably account for 99% of all urban bird sightings. Each one is admirable for any number of reasons, not the least of which is a shared unholy adaptability. The pigeon is a beautiful flyer, the starling has exquisite, prismatic plumage, and the sparrow seems unfazed by even the most extreme temperatures. But imagine how diverse the bird populations would be in your city if these birds flew the coop.
Sometimes this appellation is applied to native species that surpass all boundaries of decent distribution due to their ferocious fecundity. For example, the American Robin may or may not be a trash bird, depending on the time of year. In February, people pine for a glimpse of this herald of spring, but by April, the robin has already worn out its welcome. One should note that Turdus thrushes consistently assert trash status all around the world, typically appearing as the species most birders have to wade through to get to the “good birds!”
Among American waterfowl, the Canada Goose is the least loved, especially by golfers. Although Mute Swan are just as threatening to other birds in their environment, they are just too beautiful to be reviled. As far as ducks go, even common species like Mallard enjoy lots of support.
Large black birds like crows and grackles may also be referred to as trash birds. In some parts of the U.S., flocks of grackles can grow so large and indifferent to humans that they dominate public parks. Gulls can be even worse!
Obviously, the title of trash bird is derogatory and often elides the point that individual avians are not guilty of the sins of their progenitors. In addition, the distinction is contextual: birds common in one part of the world are rare or even unseen in other places. If you’ve ever chased a Common Myna or Eurasian Collared-Dove in the United States, you’ve gone out of your way for a true trash bird by international standards!
The lesson here is not to grow to contemptuous of any birds in your area, even the ones you see every single day. As they say, one birder’s trash is another one’s treasure.
Do you ever use the term “trash bird” to describe a species you’re tired of seeing?
(I first wrote about American Trash Birds in April 2004, but my feelings on the topic have somewhat matured.)
“Trash bird” is definitely a term that should be used with caution, because it is not a universally applicable term, nor a term that can be applied in all locations at all times. For example, in upstate South Carolina, where I live, typical “trash” birds (e.g. Common Starling, House Sparrow, Rock Dove/Pigeon) are most common in the inner city areas of Greenville and Spartanburg, and in areas where humans tend to congregate on a regular basis (e.g. Howard Memorial Football Stadium in Clemson University every Saturday during football season). In fact, it seems like these birds have LEARNED the patterns of human congregation, and will flock to only those locations at which they know they are sure to encounter large groups of people, and only at those times when those large groups of people gather (such as during football games, morning/evening rush hours, holiday season shopping sprees). Otherwise, it is the native species that end up crowding out these invasives in the rural and suburban areas, areas farther away from the inner city.
Interesting that two of the “trash” birds described in this article seem to be flourishing to the point of becoming annoying, yet the House Sparroe and Starling are in decline in Europe. One blame for House Sparrow decline is air pollution….
I’m certainly one of those “few” birders who likes all birds, no matter how invasive. Of course, I do tire periodically of seeing a bird I’ve seen in big numbers on a repeated basis, but I don’t dislike them and still enjoy counting them.
I would seriously caution other birders about using the term “trash” bird in birding company, not all birders like this term. I would find it offensive and likely take my fellow birder a lot less seriously upon hearing it.
Offensive, really? The term exists because it describes a birder’s reaction to a type of bird.
I, too, am a bird lover. Either you love birds or you don’t. If you love birds then you love them all. I would never call any bird a ‘trash’ bird. I don’t even like the word ‘invasive’. How about using the term ‘SURVIVORS’. Starlings, sparrows and pigeons all survive the toughest weathers and lack of proper foods and somehow still survive. SURIVORS!!!
Although nature’s rule is always survival of the fittest, finding a box of bluebird nestlings who’ve been pecked to death by house sparrows may tend to change your thinking. Agreed: trash, invasive & offensive.
@ Chris – Again, really? So if I don’t love a bird I don’t love any of them? Let’s apply that absolutist logic to other things. I don’t like olives, so I don’t like food. I don’t like Episode 2 of season 3 of Dr Who, so I don’t like TV. It’s nice that you like each and every damn bird, but who made you the guy who decides whether someone likes birds or not?
Oh, and the term invasive comes from biology, where it has a specific meaning – a species that rapidly expands its range into new habitats. It distinguishes between say an introduced Kookaburra, which was introduced to Auckland a century ago, is still there and has done nothing more, from the Starling which was introduced to New York a century ago and invaded just about everywhere else. And there is no reason to stop using a descriptive word, particularly to spare the feelings of birds that care not a jot what we think of them.
And when an animal kills another for a place to live – that makes them trash, invasive and offensive?
Maybe should you check out other animals that roam this earth before you speak of birds.
I can remember growing up (only a few decades ago, folks) when Canada Geese weren’t rampant. Parks and fields of grass were fair game for kids to run around in. These days, run around in the parks and green spaces in my hometown and its surrounds, and your shoes will be caked with goose waste. For that if no other reason, I’d consider Canada Geese at least a source of trash! It has taken me a long time, as a birder, to get around my distaste of them, but I understand other people who pooh-pooh these and other common birds.
@ Chris – no, a bird is invasive if it, well, behaves in an invasive way ecologically (re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species ). Birds are described as trash birds if (some) birders see too many of them. These are distinct concepts even if they may apply to the same birds. I’m not sure where you got the offensive bit. I only mentioned offence in not agreeing that the term is offensive, as there is nothing to offend! Birds themselves are only offensive if they are talking parrots once owned by rude sailors!
As a photographer, I tend to see birds through the lens as subjects quite separate from their reputations — and thus, inherently interesting and beautiful in their own ways. Starlings are among the prettiest and most interesting birds I watch, particularly in their iridescence and taking into account their crafty personalities. My assessment may sound falsely magnanimous, but from a visual and visceral standpoint, it’s true. I’ve worked around people who are vehemently anti-non-native, and I respect that point of view although I might not share it. It can also be argued that in certain cases, the impact of “invasives” is overstated. One important point about these birds is that they are often “gateway” birds for urban dwellers who have no other access to birding and wildlife. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met who first became interested in the welfare of wildlife through an emotional or rescue encounter with a “trash” bird.