How Starlings Colonized the United States (and Other Stories)

William Shakespeare gets some bad rap for all of the Starlings. The story (or rumor) goes that some Victorian-era Shakespeare fans — misguided to be sure — hatched a plan to colonize, on U.S. soil, every bird species featured in Shakespeare’s plays.

Pair of Starlings - ©ingridtaylar

According to this Scientific American article a group known as the American Acclimatization Society is responsible for bringing not just Starlings but also House Sparrows to our shores. They released 100 or so Starlings in New York’s Central Park. It didn’t take long for Shakespeare’s birds to cross this fair land and establish themselves in every part of the United States. The irony seems to be that Shakespeare makes just one mention of Starlings throughout his works. So this one cameo resulted in the huge populations we see today.

Starlings are much maligned for their invasive status — the fact that they were introduced and grew in such numbers. They’ve been blamed for everything from songbird decline to crop decimation. The truth is somewhere in the murky middle, and growing even murkier as some previous negative notions of Starlings are proven wrong. According to that same Scientific American piece, only one species — sapsuckers — seems to have suffered for the Starlings’ presence. The website Starling Talk, devoted to the rescue and rehabilitation of Starlings, also claims that Starlings’ alleged crimes are far overstated. And, Starlings are also instrumental in reducing the numbers insects and pests which afflict crops.

Why does any of this matter to me? Well, first, because I’ve always been fond of Starlings. When I was a girl, my neighbors rescued two orphaned Starling nestlings and raised them through adulthood. They were named “Star” and “Ling” and enjoyed the amenities of an animal-loving home and the warmth of family life . . . including sitting on shoulders while dinner was prepared, or learning words and songs the family children taught them. The brilliance, beauty and sensitivity of those birds formed my opinions and helped me become the animal rescuer I became.

Second, a number of wildlife rehabilitation facilities take only “native” species. Thus, I sometimes find myself taking in Starlings or pigeons or other “non-natives” in my my incorrigible quest to be a helping hand to all, not just some. For better or worse, Hugh and I simply cannot make those distinctions. From our earliest years — long before we ever worked with wildlife — we rescued any injured or needy creature that crossed our paths. Those habits (again, for better or worse) are not easily broken.

Starling Asking for Handouts at Restaurant - ©ingridtaylar

The issue of how to handle non-native species across the board can be a divisive one, especially among those involved with wildlife or birding exploits. That’s why I mention the above facts — to suggest that mistaken characterizations often follow the label of “non-native” and further exacerbate the sometimes cruel actions perpetrated against these animals as they acquire negative designations. That’s not to say that a massive flock of Starlings can’t decimate a crop or invade a native bird’s habitat. But merely to suggest that hyperbole can often taint the image beyond realistic bounds.

In the end, when you look at wildlife studies, counts, endangered species concerns, the biggest threat to any native species is our own voracious appetite for development, which reduces viable habitat for all species to a point where competition becomes exacerbated. It’s easy to single out a species as a nuisance, when the most critical factor in conservation is almost always human activity and our growing global population.

That’s my defense of Starlings. I’m sticking to it.

Juvenile Starling, Transition to First-Winter Plumage - ©ingridtaylar