Skip navigation
Favorites
Sign up to follow your favorites on all your devices.
Sign up

Three-year, $300,000 study planned for bird deaths at new Vikings stadium

Big Bird Arrives At Manchester Airport

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND - JUNE 28: Big Bird arrives at Manchester airport on his way to visit his friend Elmo at CBeebies The Furchester Hotel at Manchester Airport on June 28, 2016 in Manchester, England. (Photo by Shirlaine Forrest/Getty Images)

Getty Images

After months of pressure from groups concerned about the impact of a gigantic glass building on winged creatures that routinely fly into windows, the powers-that-be at U.S. Bank Stadium will be spending a large chunk of change over the next three years to examine the impact of the new venue on the bird population.

According to Rochelle Olson of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority is expected to approve a $300,000 study aimed at determining whether and to what extent the building poses an undue hazard to creatures that periodically poop on people from above.

Under the plan, the Vikings and the MFSA will each contribute $150,000 “to design a collaborative, scientific program to design, research, observe, monitor, analyze, and assess the potential impact of the stadium on bird mortality due to bird collisions.”

Critics, including Minnesota state senator Scott Dibble, call the effort “more stalling.” For months, bird advocates have lobbied for steps to be taken to make the structure safer for birds, with some requesting the installation of a film that will let birds know that they are about to fly into glass but that can’t be seen by the humans.

Apart from the question of whether a moral or ethical duty exists to protect bird-brained birds from flying into windows is the question of whether it makes sense to not have birds slamming into the stadium and falling on people who are entering the building. Which wouldn’t be good for business, especially if any of the birds are as large as the bird selected for the photo accompanying this article.

I don’t mean to make light of the situation, which is an example of the ongoing push-and-pull between those who view man’s place in the world through a rock-scissors-paper prism and those who believe that human progress should take into account the potential harm to non-human organisms.

Then again, any feral cat aficionados should be happy about the increased food supply. And those sympathetic to the plight of the earthworm could be breathing a sigh of relief.