Something Wild: Saving birds to save the planet 11%

By Grace McCulloch16% Dave Anderson16% Olivia Comolli14%

8/6/2026, 10:46:54 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Indoctrination, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 9.7% saturation with 85 hits. Analysis detected 336 faulty-reasoning hits from 873 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20.3% and a BS Rank of 11% (26,400 of 29,351 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.90% of the article peer group.

"The ripples from a single conservation effort can spread all over the world," says writer and researcher Scott Weidensaul in his latest book, "The Return of the Oystercatcher: Saving Birds to Save the Planet." 
Weidensaul is a writer and researcher specializing in birds and bird migration. 
He is the author of nearly 30 books, including the Pulitzer Prize-finalist "Living on the Wind." 
His new book explores the recovery efforts that are not only preventing declines in bird populations but are helping them to thrive. 
The Something Wild team caught up with Weidensaul before he left on an ornithological expedition in the Colombian Andes. 
This is an excerpt from the conversation, lightly edited for clarity. 
Scott Weidensaul: The book is about what's working for bird conservation, bird conservation success stories. 
There haven't been a lot of them in the shorebird world, because many of these species, their numbers are in pretty steep and accelerating decline, at a time when so much of the news about birds is grim. 
What I'm trying to do is highlight, essentially, roadmaps for recovery, and American oystercatchers are a really good example of that. 
We've seen about a 45% increase in oystercatcher populations. 
Grace McCulloch: What exactly is an oystercatcher? 
What does it look like? 
Scott Weidensaul: The American oystercatcher is found on the Atlantic and Gulf Coast. 
It's black and white, with sort of pinkish-orange legs and this bright orange traffic cone-like bill. 
They're brash, they're bold, they're loud. 
They have this really ringing cry. 
They are not a shy and retiring bird, let's put it that way. 
Dave Anderson: So we've talked about how birds are in decline. 
There's a statistic that says that North America has lost 3 billion birds since 1970. 
Were there any other conservation success stories that surprised even you while you were researching the book? 
Scott Weidensaul: Waterfowl, like ducks and geese and swans, and other water birds, like herons and egrets and raptors [have had a resurgence]. 
I graduated high school in 1976, the bicentennial year. 
That year, there were fewer than 1,000 bald eagles in the entirety of the lower 48 [states]. 
If you had told me then, that 50 years later, when we were celebrating the 250th birthday of the country, that there would be 400,000 bald eagles in the lower 48 [states]...that would have seemed delusional. 
A lot of species, because of DDT, were on the cusp. 
And so we've seen this sea change in our attitudes toward raptors. 
Grace McCulloch: It's like changing the hearts and minds of people is almost that first step. 
Some of the conservation success stories in the book are happening right here in New England. 
Could you share with our listeners a little bit more about them and the role that New England plays in global conservation? 
Scott Weidensaul: The ripples from a single conservation effort can spread all over the world. 
And I imagine many of your listeners are probably familiar with Project Puffin, which was a National Audubon Society project started by a fellow named Steve Kress. 
The toolbox that Steve and his colleagues at Project Puffin developed, that toolbox has been used on something like 138 species of imperiled seabirds all over the world. 
So what started on this little tiny, desolate island off the coast of Maine….those ripples have gone worldwide. 
And it's funny, I've talked to people using those techniques in other parts of the world who had no idea they started on the coast of New England. 
Dave Anderson: What gives you hope? 
And why should we all be hopeful? 
Scott Weidensaul: We are in really difficult times right now. 
We've seen an evisceration of science programs and conservation work that's being done by federal agencies. 
We've seen the Endangered Species Act just absolutely torn apart. 
But, as seen, birds are more resilient than we give them credit for. 
And all they need is half a chance. 
Those of us who care about the environment can't give up. 
Particularly now when the temptation to give up is so great  we just can't. 
Grace McCulloch: So what can people do in their everyday life? 
Scott Weidensaul: A bunch of really simple things. 
One of the most important is if you have a cat, keep it in your house. 
Cats kill 2 to 4 billion birds in the United States every year. 
If you have windows that birds fly into, that's like another billion birds a year that die at window strikes. 
There are really simple things that you can put on your windows, and gardening and landscaping with native plants where you're reconnecting broken ecological connections. 
Really crazy one: if you're a coffee drinker, you have a choice between buying coffee that protects and enhances and restores bird bird habitat, or one that destroys bird habitat. 
So cats, windows, native plants, coffee, those are four simple things that you can do to help birds. 
Dave Anderson: And I'd add one more, which is to bring youth out to watch birds and learn about birds. 
I think all of us had some spark. 
Scott Weidensaul: Yes! 
Something Wild is a partnership of NH Audubon, the Forest Society, and NHPR. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.6%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 1.8%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 1.4%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Grace McCulloch: 1.5%New Hampshire Public Radio: 3.6%Framing Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%Grace McCulloch: 2.7%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.8%Optimism Bias2.4%This article: 1.1%Grace McCulloch: 0.8%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.4%Pessimism Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 1.5%New Hampshire Public Radio: 4.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 1.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 3.4%Grace McCulloch: 2.3%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.7%False Dilemma3.4%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.6%Grace McCulloch: 1.9%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.5%Hasty Generalization5.6%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.7%Grace McCulloch: 3.8%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion9.7%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 2.9%Grace McCulloch: 1.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Appeal to Nature2.9%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.9%Grace McCulloch: 0.3%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.0%Biased Writer Voice0.9%This article: 5.0%Grace McCulloch: 4.2%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.2%Indoctrination5.0%This article: 3.0%Grace McCulloch: 1.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace McCulloch: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

873 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers88%attributed speech101writer words
Selected voice

Scott Weidensaul

39%flagged-word coverage
611 attributed words79% of attributed speech7.9% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.9 ptsWriter: 7.9%Scott Weidensaul: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+7.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Scott Weidensaul: 7.2%7.2%Politically Left Leaning B+4.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Scott Weidensaul: 4.3%4.3%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.