\u00a0<\/p>\n
New York City\u2019s Monk Parakeets<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Across town in Green-Wood Cemetery<\/a>, a few dozen of the parrot in the wagon\u2019s distant cousins have taken up residence. These are the monk parakeets of Brooklyn, recognizable because of their enormous communal stick nests, which<\/a> can approach a ton and exceed five feet in diameter. They\u2019re also called Quaker parrots because their plumage makes them look a little like the man on the side of an oatmeal carton. (Also, \u201cparakeet\u201d has no formal meaning, but is just a term we, somewhat arbitrarily, use for small parrots). These birds\u2019 ancestors escaped from a crate at JFK airport and, like many oddball transplants, thought Brooklyn was pretty welcoming. Except my friends from New Jersey insist it was LaGuardia airport. Or rather, an Argentine ship carrying a crate of birds nearly sank as it steamed through the Verrazano Narrows, so a deckhand released them because he couldn\u2019t bear the thought of the poor things drowning. Or maybe it was the product of a divorce, a vengeful wife releasing her husband\u2019s cherished pets. There\u2019s no shortage of folklore.<\/p>\n The truth is weirder, but less whimsical. Monk parakeets are native to South America, notably including Argentina and Uruguay, where the governments tried to exterminate<\/a> them starting in the 1930s. They\u2019d been deemed a nuisance to farmers, although, despite some localized agricultural damage, they do not seem to harm crop yields<\/a> in any systematic way. Rather, if a parakeet is eating crops, it\u2019s doing so conspicuously. They\u2019re loud, inquisitive, and live in nests the size of a small car. It was easy for farmers to attribute outsized damage to them.<\/p>\n Much like the time Australia fought a war against emus<\/a> and lost, the parakeet control efforts were not effective<\/a>. Argentina offered bounties for their feet and amassed quite a collection (I assume they were auctioned off alongside Eva Per\u00f3n\u2019s tiara). Uruguay tried<\/a> burning the poor things alive and, when that failed, switched to endrin poisoning, where the only downside was persistent and indiscriminate environmental contamination<\/a>. Since Argentina and Uruguay both classified the birds as pests, there were no legal controls against netting and exporting parrots by the crateload. Throw in the burgeoning U.S. exotic animal trade in the 1960s and we found ourselves with at least 60,000 of them. Now, like most parrots, monk parakeets are challenging pets. They\u2019re loud, their beaks are excellent at ripping things apart, they rip things apart simply for the fun of it, they\u2019re good at escaping, and they can live 30 years or more. Unsurprisingly, a few years later, thousands of them had gotten loose or been set free by exasperated owners.<\/p>\n Monk parakeets were not the only escaped parrots to establish feral populations in the U.S., but they took to northern climes relatively well, largely because their large communal nests keep them warm during cold winters. American authorities didn\u2019t quite know what to make of the new residents, but worried about agriculture. California state biologists estimated<\/a> enormous potential damages using novel statistical methods: taking the sum value of the state\u2019s crops then arbitrarily multiplying the figure by 0.1 percent. Fearing the species could become invasive, officials turned to their South American counterparts for guidance<\/a>. Unsurprisingly, that guidance was to kill them all.<\/p>\n And so local agencies began eradication campaigns. However, amid waning interest in control efforts and continued introductions from the pet population, a self-sustaining monk parakeet population managed to establish itself. Today, they\u2019re found across the country, with notable populations in Brooklyn, Queens, Connecticut, Chicago<\/a>, and New Jersey. The Green-Wood colony has even been welcomed because they keep pigeons <\/a>(another introduced bird) and their notoriously corrosive feces away from delicate stonework.<\/p>\n Other members of the species are, at best, tolerated. Utility companies worry that their nests\u2014preferentially placed near electrical equipment for the warmth\u2014pose a fire hazard. Into the 2000s and early 2010s, the birds were regularly culled, by CO2 gassing in some cases, by breeding-season nest removal in others, where chicks and hatchlings were killed. Those practices generated enough public outcry<\/a> that they were abandoned. Today, control efforts are typically non-lethal in intent: Utilities attempt to remove nests outside the breeding season, although the parakeets are not protected and some still die in the process.<\/p>\n New York State Senator Joseph Addabbo introduced the Monk Parakeet Protection Act <\/a>several times between 2010 and 2017. In the Assembly, Linda Rosenthal introduced it between 2011 and 2021, but it hasn\u2019t come up since. The bill would classify monk parakeets as introduced but not harmful and extend protections to them (nest removals would be allowed but only outside the breeding season, so as not to kill chicks and fledglings). I spoke with Senator Addabbo, who said the bill was uncontroversial but just \u201cnever had the support\u201d to move out of committee.<\/p>\n In a written response, Assemblymember Rosenthal told me, \u201c\u2026other animal-welfare measures took precedence.\u201d Both she and Addabbo expressed a willingness to reintroduce the bill if it could gain traction.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Monk parakeets nesting on a Con Edison substation near Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn. (Photo: Jeremy Seto<\/a>, used under Creative Commons license)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n With the benefit of hindsight\u2014and with less emotion than might be involved if we were still actively pursuing eradication\u2014we might consider whether our control efforts made sense. We might ask whether we were cruel. First, let\u2019s consider what sort of thing it was we went about killing. Was it reasonable to go straight to culling as a first-line control method?<\/p>\n I spoke with Antone Martinho-Truswell\u2014a zoologist, evolutionary biologist, and the author of The Parrot in the Mirror: How Evolving to be Like Birds Made Us Human<\/a>\u2014about what we can and cannot reasonably say as far as parrot cognition is concerned. He first explained how difficult they are to research: the species we\u2019ve studied live for 40 years, often much longer, so starting a research colony of 12 or so individuals is a career\u2019s work. Then there\u2019s variation between individuals. Some are willing to take tests, while others aren\u2019t. Some speak, while others never pick up human language. There\u2019s also variation between species. Macaws seem to be every bit as smart as African greys but have less of a reputation for it because they don\u2019t speak as readily. Sulphur-crested cockatoos<\/a> are very intelligent but also incredibly loud and emotionally needy. Then there\u2019s the wrinkle that we\u2019re a primate devising tests for a bird. We evolved with hands; they evolved with wings and a beak. The upshot is, some things that come naturally to us are cognitively taxing to birds, and vice-versa.<\/p>\n As to how we should think of monk parakeets specifically, Martinho-Truswell said, \u201cWe should generally read cognitive capabilities into all parrots. I\u2019ve no particular reason to think [African] greys are special.\u201d When asked what he made of comparisons between apes and certain parrots on cognitive tests, he responded, \u201cthe only fair comparison for parrots as a group, is primates as a group.\u201d But, any rank ordering of intelligence is fraught; given our current evidence, we just cannot do that with any confidence. He went on to say that maybe the biggest difference between the two orders is that parrots don\u2019t have a \u201cbreakout star\u201d the way humans are for primates\u2014though he suggested such a standout parrot might be the palm cockatoo<\/a>, which can live for 90 years, is the only animal aside from humans to make musical instruments (they drum), and is, of course, fiendishly difficult to study in its remote habitat. He touched on the fact that all parrots, monk parakeets included, need socialization and, if they\u2019re deprived of it, they exhibit behaviors like compulsion and self-harm that, \u201cin a human could only be called mental illness.\u201d The type of socialization varies between species. Monk parakeets live in colonies, so they form a pair bond with a mate but are also social with other individuals. Other species tend to form very strong bonds with one individual and \u201cexhibit jealousy\u201d toward them, Martinho-Truswell said. This can be challenging when they\u2019re kept as pets, bond with one person, then attack his or her spouse.<\/p>\n I also spoke to Timothy Wright, a professor of biology at New Mexico State University. He began by saying that the \u201cconcept of intelligence is very broad. We tend to frame it with talking and tool use because that\u2019s what we\u2019re good at.\u201d He studied vocalization in monk parakeets in particular and explained that they \u201chave individually distinctive calls\u201d and they hear other individuals\u2019 calls, learn from them, then innovate on what they\u2019ve learned. In this way, the species develops distinct regional dialects. Wright added that we once thought monk parakeets might be unique in this but have since learned that many parrots do the same. Parrots writ large \u201clearn new vocalizations better than any ape, except us.\u201d<\/p>\n We can\u2019t rank order these species by intelligence, but, if parrots are broadly comparable to primates, suppose, rhetorically, we were talking about a population of monkeys. In that case, we might remark that monkeys are less impressive than apes. Nevertheless, we\u2019d do well to remember that monkeys are still very smart, and very social, and we\u2019d likely be a bit aghast if we culled them for the sake of convenience! Hopefully, we\u2019d bother to look into other control methods first, or at least be sure control was necessary. I would argue that our first recourse should be to find ways to live together. Much like monkeys in urban settings, parakeets are loud and they can make themselves into inquisitive little nuisances. Does it reflect well on us, though, if we kill something because it has an annoying voice?<\/p>\n Now, ethics of culling aside, both Martinho-Truswell and Wright agreed that culling can make sense if an introduced species is threatening the survival of native wildlife. We may owe parrots some deference, but we also have a responsibility to make sure our careless animal introductions don\u2019t drive other species extinct. Wright specified there\u2019s \u201cno question invasive species can have negative effects.\u201d<\/p>\n That said, was it even necessary to attempt to eradicate New York\u2019s monk parakeets? In hindsight, probably not. Introduced parakeets of this sort tend to make their homes in urban or suburban areas. That\u2019s not exculpatory since such places are important habitats in their own right, but it does indicate that parakeets are not out-competing native wildlife in natural habitats. Moreover, they might compete with other birds like pigeons and sparrows, but these are introduced species themselves. The main concern was that they\u2019d become major agricultural pests, and that just wasn\u2019t borne out. Wright said evidence of crop damage is \u201climited\u201d and that there\u2019s also \u201crelatively little evidence that they cause a lot of crop damage in their native habitat.\u201d<\/p>\n Ironically enough, the U.S. used to have a native parrot\u2014the Carolina Parakeet\u2014that actually did eat crops, and we drove it to extinction<\/a> during the 19th century on that basis, with the last known individual<\/a> from a rump population dying in 1918. The actual threat to agriculture was probably overstated in that case too, though, which seems to be a running theme. Another notable example is that New Zealand farmers used to shoot kea parrots, believing that they eat sheep. (Shockingly, they do<\/a>, but not in meaningful quantities). At all events, a parrot ranging from Florida to New York isn\u2019t an ecologically new phenomenon, even though the newcomer does not fill remotely the same niche as its extinct relative.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Monk parakeets congregating at Santa Ponsa, Majorca. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons<\/a>)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Perhaps, then, the arc of this story is that we made some mistakes but have mellowed toward the parakeets, even come to see them as lovable New Yorkers.<\/p>\n Perhaps. Yet a similar story plays out elsewhere without the peaceful coexistence in the end. In Florida, many introduced wild parrots do all right with minimal intervention. But, being introduced, they\u2019re not covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, meaning anyone can kill or trap them. Miami, for instance, has a small self-sustaining macaw population, but they\u2019re continually in danger of being netted and made into pets. Even in New York, state protections never passed the legislature; so, I\u2019m free to take the subway out to Howard Beach, scale an electric pole, and capture myself a brand-new pet bird! With nothing to stop me except good sense. <\/p>\n In Europe, the issue is even thornier. The U.K. ran a successful monk parakeet eradication campaign<\/a>, with fewer than 20 birds left in the country in 2019. Spain has much larger populations<\/a>, perhaps 12,000 in Madrid alone, which makes them much more challenging than the small New York colonies. The Netherlands has thousands of rose-ringed parakeets, a species that might be more concerning for native wildlife<\/a>. Still, even the rose-ringed parakeets are mostly confined to cities.<\/p>\n Practically, it\u2019s understandable that not every Barcelona resident wants 1,000 screaming parrots in a park. Wright mentioned that people just tend not to like a 500-pound stick nest hanging from an electric pole over their cars. But these are intelligent, emotional animals that have more in common with us than is obvious at first glance. So maybe we shouldn\u2019t treat them as pests to be dealt with. That\u2019s especially true when their impact on native species is minimal.<\/p>\n Being Better Neighbors<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n I\u2019d argue that these animals deserve better treatment from us than they often get, but what exactly would that entail? First, they are wild, and we should mostly stop keeping them as pets. The pet trade\u2014which is how we got into this situation to begin with\u2014is decimating wild populations<\/a>, with most captured animals dying in transit. Moreover, few people are capable of caring for a parrot properly<\/a>: neglect and abandonment are rampant and shelters (often just an individual who gets guilted into taking in dozens of abused birds) are filled to bursting.<\/p>\n Second, we should re-think culling. Contraceptive control methods do not seem to work at scale yet for parrots, though they show more promise for other municipal \u201cnuisance animals\u201d like rodents<\/a>. But there is research<\/a> in the field and perhaps it warrants some public funding. That\u2019s not to say we\u2019ll never need culls<\/a> to protect native ecologies, but we should at least apply some sort of cost-benefit analysis instead of just making it a default option. For instance, Martinho-Truswell<\/a> noted that rats and cats\u2014with cats \u201ca complete disaster anywhere they\u2019ve been introduced\u201d\u2014are the most harmful invasive species to native wildlife. Stray and outdoor cats kill<\/a> tens of billions of animals in the U.S. alone each year. So, if we\u2019re culling vertebrates to protect native species, cats would logically be a top target. And if we\u2019re unwilling to kill stray cats, why is it all right to kill parakeets that cause far less (or no) damage?<\/p>\n Third, instead of playing Whac-A-Mole with invasive species, we need to think critically on the matter. Figuring out which ones are benign and which are harmful is challenging, and mistakes can be costly. But a \u201ckill them all just in case\u201d policy doesn\u2019t reflect well on us. There are more endangered red-crowned Amazon parrots<\/a> living around Los Angeles than remain in their entire native Mexican range (again, thank the pet trade). Are they invasive or have they just adapted somewhat to a new predator (us)?<\/p>\n Maybe it\u2019s uncontroversial that we should do these things, so why don\u2019t we?<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n On one hand, the force of bureaucratic inertia can be strong. It\u2019s hard to read reporting about the monk parakeets and think utility companies have it out for them specifically. Their nests are simply an obstruction on electrical equipment and are removed as a matter of course; it\u2019s not like they get paid a bounty for removals. Assemblymember Rosenthal wrote of the protection act, \u201cthe bill was unable to advance as written because the animals are deemed an invasive species[\u2026] and our laws do not provide any legal protections to invasive species.\u201d So, eliminating invasive species remains an easy default option, until we amend the law.<\/p>\n On the other hand, while researching this piece, I was struck by my conversation with Sen. Addabbo. He said he started introducing the Monk Parakeet Protection Act both because he often saw the birds in his old district (before lines were redrawn) and because animal rights activists asked him to. He was surprised it never moved out of committee because it was a pretty uncontroversial measure (not to mention, it would not have required any state spending). I\u2019d expected to hear that utilities opposed the bill but, to his memory, there was \u201cnot much opposition at all\u201d; he even mentioned that, while replacing infrastructure in Jacob Riis Park, he\u2019d seen electric companies leave old poles standing so as to avoid harming nests.<\/p>\n When I asked Addabbo if he\u2019d ever start introducing the bill again, he said, \u201cnormally bills move with support.\u201d By that, he clarified that he meant the public, noting that there are people who care about animal rights in New York and that building a constituency to protect the birds is eminently doable. That\u2019s a pretty empowering thing! We\u2019re used to reading about animal rights abuses, thinking it\u2019s sad, then resigning ourselves to the \u201cfact\u201d there\u2019s nothing we can do about it. In reality, taking the 90 seconds or so required to call or email one\u2019s state legislator (the same way I got them to speak to me for this piece) can raise the salience of these types of bills. Few people actually do this, so those who do have a bigger impact than they realize. And many politicians genuinely try to be responsive to their constituents. That noted, there is effort required of us. It\u2019s not effective to call in and say, \u201cI like animals,\u201d or to advocate for a policy that would cost half a state\u2019s budget. To be effective, we have to be thoughtful and informed about animal welfare. It does take effort, but I think creatures that talk to us in our own language are worth caring about.<\/p>\n Lawrence Costa is an economist who writes about trains and operas on Substack<\/a> because he lacks interpersonal skills. His research has focused on housing, labor markets, and education. He has also contributed to Asterisk<\/a> and Slate<\/a>. He once went to Scranton (inadvertently).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Go far enough north in Manhattan, and Broadway abruptly swallows West End Avenue. But in its final 10…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":362215,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[9,24,55,54,56],"class_list":["post-362214","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-new-york-city","tag-new-york","tag-new-york-city","tag-new-york-city-headlines","tag-new-york-city-news","tag-ny"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/362214","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=362214"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/362214\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/362215"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=362214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=362214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=362214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"Subscribe](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/interactive-172753959542.png\")
<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
![\"monk-parakeets-2\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/monk-parakeets-2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Donate\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/interactive-185722520731.png\")
<\/a> <\/p>\n