How to Put a Price on a Bird: the Forgotten Science of Economic Ornithology

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: The episode explores “economic ornithology,” a historical field that estimated birds’ monetary value to agriculture by measuring the bugs, rodents, and crops they consumed. Through Flacco the owl as a modern hook, the conversation explains how early 20th-century scientists, farmers, and policymakers tried to quantify birds’ net benefits, why the field faded with pesticides and methodological limits, and how modern ecology still finds birds highly valuable.

Main Topics: Flacco the owl as a catalyst for valuing birds (Priority: 5/5): The hosts use the death of Flacco, the escaped Eurasian eagle owl in New York City, to ask how much an individual bird is worth economically, socially, and sentimentally. What economic ornithology was (Priority: 5/5): Guest Robert Francis explains that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Bureau of Biological Survey and popular media treated birds as agricultural assets that could reduce crop damage by eating pests. How birds were valued by the numbers (Priority: 5/5): The discussion details how scientists dissected birds’ stomachs, counted insects and seeds, and estimated net farm benefit by comparing damage from crop loss against pest control. Why the field declined (Priority: 4/5): Economic ornithology weakened as pesticides reduced reliance on birds for pest control and because early methods could not rigorously link birds to actual crop yield increases. Modern ecological and conservation value (Priority: 4/5): The episode contrasts the old field with current research on ecosystem services, existence value, bird-safe glass, birdwatching, and broader debates about monetizing wildlife. Birds, cats, windows, and wind turbines (Priority: 4/5): The conversation highlights modern bird mortality from collisions and cats, arguing that window strikes and outdoor cats are much larger threats than wind turbines.

Key Arguments: Birds can have both positive and negative economic effects, so their value depends on context: they may save crops by eating pests but also damage produce or poultry. Early economic ornithologists tried to persuade farmers that even “pest” birds were usually net beneficial because unseen pest control outweighed visible losses. The field’s evidence was influential but imperfect: counting stomach contents showed what birds ate, not necessarily whether they reduced pest populations enough to raise yields. Pesticides diminished the practical importance of birds as pest control, helping push economic ornithology out of favor. Modern studies using better methods, including randomized controlled trials, support the idea that insect-eating birds improve agricultural yields. Monetizing wildlife remains controversial, but assigning value can strengthen conservation by making benefits visible to policymakers and the public. The biggest bird mortality threats discussed are cats and window collisions, not wind turbines; policy attention should reflect relative scale.

Data Points: Flacco the owl death date: Recorded as over the weekend before Feb. 27, 2024 - The hosts note they are recording on February 27th and discuss his recent death after a building collision. Economic ornithology founding year: 1885 - The Bureau of Biological Survey was established to study birds’ impact on agriculture. Birds killed by window strikes annually: Around 600 million - Used to argue that urban architecture is a major threat to bird populations. Birds killed by cats annually: About 2.4 billion - Presented as a much larger bird mortality source than wind turbines. Birds killed by wind turbines annually: Around 150,000 - Mentioned to show wind power is a relatively small share of bird deaths compared with windows and cats. Insect damage to crop yields: 10% to 20% - Guest cites historical estimates that insects destroyed a significant portion of annual crop yields. Example hawk benefit: $20 saved in grain per year - Illustrative calculation based on a hawk eating 1,000 mice, each eating two cents of grain. Example hawk harm: $3 in chicken losses per year - Illustrative calculation based on a hawk eating six chickens worth 50 cents each. Example hawk net value: $17 per year - Derived from the illustrative benefit minus harm calculation. Bird predation rate example: 1,200 cinch bugs per day - Used as an example of how many pests a single bird might consume. Federal protection for most birds: 1918 - Most birds received federal protection in the United States in this year. Protection for some hawks and owls: 1970s - Some raptors did not receive full protection until decades later. Lion hunting fee example: $350,000 - Referenced as an example of placing a dollar value on wildlife in conservation debates.

Pivotal Quotes: "economic ornithology" — Tracy Alloway: The hosts introduce the historical field that tries to estimate birds’ economic value. "they actually have a net positive impact on agriculture by eating harmful bugs, by eating mice" — Robert Francis: Francis summarizes the core finding of early bird-economics advocates. "The number of birds that are killed every year by flying into wind towers is around 150,000. The number of birds killed by flying into windows is 600 million. The number of birds killed by cats is about 2.4 billion." — Robert Francis: He compares bird mortality sources to show why windows and cats matter far more than wind turbines.

Implications: The episode suggests that measuring wildlife in economic terms can reshape policy and behavior, from farming to urban design. It also implies conservation efforts should prioritize the biggest threats—especially cats and windows—while using better ecological evidence, not just intuition.