In the two and a half short years that I have had my license I have hit two birds, one of them actually landing in the back seat of my car as I was driving. As many as 340 million birds are killed each year by cars and trucks. In the article from USA Today it emphasizes that birds death from vehicles is the number one cause of death that we face. There are many other causes of bird deaths every year that also put up high mortality rates such as hunting with about 19 million deaths a year. Some of the other higher causes of death for birds are pesticides at about 80 million, high tension wires at about 180 million along with communication towers at about 60 million, feral cats at about 510 million, and windows causing about 976 million bird deaths a year.
To collect the data needed to figure the specific numbers of mortality rates, numerous tests have to be done. Researchers weren’t able to simply search the internet for the rates so they had to go out and collect data and sample information. They had to look at multiple different studies and use different prospective sampling designs before they were able to find a collective stable mortality rate. They can use a few different methods to configure their numbers that including data collection forms other reliable sources, or even direct observation.
In any study there can be the possibility of error in the data or even skewed data. With this type of study it can be difficult to collect data since you have such a big demographic to look at and some areas may have different populations of birds then other locations. You also have to look at the duration of the study, some incorporate year round rates, and some have partial year data. In the studies that were used in the article from the Journal of Wildlife Management, they collected most of their data in the spring, summer, and autumn seasons which show relatively high mortality rates. You also have to look at the size of the sample data. Bias can even be detected in the process of collecting data.
You also have to look at whether or not there was one cause of death, or many contributing factors that could have played into the cause. With this type of data significant digits can play a part in the end values recorded based off of the way they are presented in the numbers, along with the rounding factors and where the numbers are impacted.
One argument that has become popularized recently is against wind farms since they contribute to the mortality rate of birds. Personally I think that you have to look at what is benefiting us the most. If the wind farms are doing more good then bad, they should be promoted, not demoted. Yes the kill birds, but they are not the leading cause of their death. There are other things, such as vehicles, that are permitted and cause a higher mortality rate for the birds. With the level of mortality that wind farms cause in birds, it is not large enough for them to need to be banned.
Both sides of the argument can manipulate the data in either direction of higher or lower mortality rates to show that their side of the argument is right. It would be easy for them to manipulate the data since wind farms are relatively new and not as much data has been collected on them and their relation to bird deaths. Morally I feel that it is wrong to keep the wind farms since they do impact the death rates of birds but I also know that the wind farms are a great invention that brings energy and positive aspects into play for the world.
