Kathy Willens/AP/File
A trio of glossy ibis fly over the marshes of Jamaica Bay in New York in 2007. Eight years after the 'miracle' landing on the Hudson River, thousands of birds have been killed at New York City airports to avoid more strikes.

Has killing 70,000 birds failed to make NYC flights any safer?

More than 70,000 birds have been killed in an effort to open NYC flight paths since U.S. Airways flight flew into a flock of geese and made an emergency landing on the Hudson River in 2009.

Eight years ago today, pilot Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger flew into a flock of large Canada geese, forcing an emergency landing in the Hudson River. Since that day, more than 70,000 birds have been rounded up and killed in an attempt to further prevent destructive bird strikes in the greater New York City area. But the effort may not have had the desired effect.

On January 15, 2009, U.S. Airways flight 1549 took off from LaGuardia Airport in Queens, heading towards Charlotte Douglas Airport in Charlotte, N.C.. Shortly after takeoff, however, the aircraft flew through an entire flock of large Canada geese, disabling both engines and forcing the pilot to make an emergency landing. 

Unable to make it safely to a runway, Cpt. Sullenberger landed the plane on the Hudson River in an event subsequently known as the “Miracle on the Hudson,” which cast the pilot into the national spotlight and was even fictionalized in a 2016 film staring Tom Hanks.

Following the 2009 incident, authorities began a widespread effort to make the flight paths surrounding New York City airports safer by killing a variety of gulls, starlings, geese, and other birds in enormous numbers, hoping to prevent further contact with aircraft.

While bird strikes are not uncommon, recent statistics compiled by the Associated Press show that the culling efforts may not be particularly successful.

Prior to the 2009 incident, LaGuardia and Newark airports averaged a combined 158 bird strikes each year. But in the following six years that number rose to 299, even though a large numbers of birds had been rounded up and exterminated.

John F. Kennedy Airport, which sits directly on the ocean, is unique in that it is located on a major migratory bird route and thus has long had a fairly extensive culling program, which was initiated well before the 2009 landing on the Hudson.

While the LaGuardia and Newark numbers appear to show a dramatic increase in bird strikes after the initiation of such programs, the Port Authority suggests that they could also simply indicate more diligent reporting of minor collisions following the 2009 incident.

"We do our best to reduce the risk as much as possible," said Laura Francoeur, the chief wildlife biologist at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which oversees the airports, quoted by the Associated Press. "There's still a lot of random chance involved.”

And while the Port Authority is aware such programs are unpopular and receive negative attention from wildlife enthusiasts, the agency says its primary concern lies in the overall safety of the airports.

"One must consider the consequences if this proven shooting program was discontinued and a serious bird strike occurred while the colony was still present," Port Authority documents state.

Birdstrikes have long been a concern in aviation. The first reported incident came in Ohio in 1905 when none other than Orville Wright struck a bird. In 1965, the first disaster occurred involving a commercial aircraft when 62 people were killed on a flight near Boston's Logan airport. Since 1988, more than 255 people have been killed worldwide in aircraft that have suffered bird strikes. 

But opponents of the culling programs hope for alternative options.

“There has to be a long-term solution that doesn’t rely so extensively on killing birds and also keeps us safe in the sky,” said Jeffrey Kramer, spokesman for GooseWatch NYC, as quoted by the AP.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Has killing 70,000 birds failed to make NYC flights any safer?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today