the likelihood of growth of the fungus and dispersal of the spores. Cattle feedlots 
would also seem to be optimum areas for growth and dispersal of Histoplasma, 
though I know of no studies that document this. In short, I suspect that the seasonal, 
frequently moved blackbird roosts present much less of a hazard than do other 
situations which we have readily accepted. Why aren’t the potential hazards of 
poultry farms and the like subject to as much public attention? Perhaps it is a matter 
of economics — we are willing to tolerate the danger of histoplasmosis if it means 
dollars in the pocket. On the other hand, perhaps it is because the disease-causing 
fungus is ubiquitous and the elimination of individual reservoirs of the fungus is 
meaningless in terms of the general presence of the spores in the air. The real 
answer may be somewhere in between. It is of interest that skin tests indicate that 
up to 90% of adults in the states where the disease is most common have been 
exposed to the pathogen (Ajello, in Histoplasmosis, p. 88-98, Charles C. Thomas, 
Publisher, Springfield, [1l]., 1960; Negroni, Histoplasmosis, diagnosis and treatment, 
Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Springfield, Ill., 1965), and that in most people the 
disease is apparently little worse than the common cold. 
The second “serious” consequence of blackbird roosts is also generally aired by 
the news media from only one point of view — the number of dollars worth of grain 
consumed by the hoards of blackbirds. What weed seed and overwintering insects do 
blackbirds also eat and what dollar value do we place on the birds’ control of these 
pests? Both sides of the ledger need to be completed before the books can be closed. 
Furthermore, what will be the long term effects of destroying millions of blackbirds? 
These birds feed anthropods to their nestlings. If fewer blackbirds return north in 
spring to nest, might not northern farmers have greater problems with crop pests? 
And what of reproductive potential of blackbirds? We know that when other species’ 
populations are reduced they “bounce” right back as a result of increased production 
and survival of young. We have no reason to suspect that blackbird populations are 
any different. Blackbird roosts are a part of our environment and they are likely to 
remain so because of the innate behavior of the birds and the ways in which we 
manage the land. Attempts to rid ourselves of blackbird roosts will only result in 
destruction of wildlife, degradation of the environment, the dispersal of some roosts 
for part of a winter season, and the continual expenditure of large sums of money. If 
the birds don’t return to the same roost the following year, it doesn’t mean a problem 
has been solved; it means only that the problem has gone somewhere else — and 
perhaps it is even more of a problem there. 
Blackbird roosts near human population centers may be bad, but when the birds 
roost on public land away from human population centers, let’s leave them alone. 
Instead of spending money and energy on anti-blackbird campaigns using scare 
tactics based on half-truths, let us assemble what knowledge we have of the birds and 
the problems they supposedly cause, find out what we don’t know, then spend our 
money on research to answer some of the presently many unanswered questions. 
Perhaps then we will be able to understand and reasonably manage the birds rather 
than merely destroy them. 
(As a sad footnote to this editorial, I have learned that on 27 and 28 January, the 
Tennessee Department of Agriculture directed the spraying of Fenthion from 
National Guard helicopters at a blackbird roost at Henry Horton State Park. The kill 
from this spraying was apparently insignificant and on 9 February a second spraying 
was done using methyl parathion. The Audubon Council of Tennessee reports that 
only a few dozen blackbirds were killed, but that Cardinals, Song Sparrows, 
Mockingbirds, Screech Owls, Red-tailed Hawks, and Marsh Hawks were also found 
dead.) 
(Reprinted by Permission) 
