To say any member bird of the species of Kirtand's Warblers had any responsibility for the fire and related death of James Swiderski is an an example of what is known as woolly thinking.

Woolly thinking should be discouraged for the sake of the survival of all the species on Earth, including the survival of Humanity.

Dang people. Quit chastising Lulu Miller for the rhetoric posed in this episode! Do you think the announcers are really hashing out and weighing the content for the first time or from their own personal perspectives as the episode unfolds? They are playing roles, from the perspectives likely to be in the public mixture, in order to introduce a concept to that public. I think they know the anthropocentricity of human/American civilization is annihilating nature, even in some cases when our intentions are good. RadioLab is good stimulus for bettering public discourse, and they often knowingly take a "common man" point-of-view in their presentations.

Did anyone else hear that?
She said 'when humans' first started coming to this area of Michigan, fire suppresion began. She should have said 'settlers.' That was an shameful, though common, slip of the toungue. Michigan, like the rest of the Americas, was already populated by humans when the settlers arrived.

Being an avid Radiolab fan, I was also surprised by the approach of this piece. Ironically, I work on a military fort in Texas helping monitor and support two endangered bird species- the Golden-cheeked Warbler and the Black-capped Vireo. Millions of dollars are spent to decide how help the birds and monitor the population and habitat. As in the case of the Kirtland's warbler, many locals detest the Golden-cheeked warbler because of the restrictions it places on private land use. Also, they have killed cowbirds for years trying to help the endangered birds out, and it does work. The problem however is not the cowbirds, it's humans. We have destroyed habitat all over the world and severely in this country. To say that the money and time etc. is not "worth it" (i.e. when Lulu said she thought, "F*** it") really disturbed me. Much MORE money is spent on training young Americans to become soldiers and developing technologies to destroy human life and systems of thought. Is that "worth it?" Not that this isn't important, but I would rather have my tax dollars and personal efforts in my lifetime go towards protecting and supporting ecosystems for posterity. I think it was appalling to hear people say that they basically wouldn't kill another person to save "one warbler out of sooo many" because this is a gross misrepresentation of the real situation. You don't have to throw an environmentalist in a fire to save a species, you do have to take the time to learn about and appreciate something that obviously many people are not familiar with. Saying that the Kirtland's warbler doesn't have innate value (as an entire species) is a conclusion made out of ignorance of the importance of, most importantly, it's biological interaction with other members of the ecosystem, and the vital point that it is our fault that this creature is declining. When people finally realize how many species we are wiping out on this amazingly diverse planet, maybe it will be easier to see why the protection of one species at a time is so essential. Next time you cover a story like this Lulu, talk to an ecologist who can tell you the true and more thorough sides to this argument.

It wasn't until I heard the voice of the family left behind by the horrible accident that I understood the importance of the bird.

Sooo, what about the cowbirds? Do the warblers do something beneficial that we should kill the cowbirds, or are they just prettier? It's called natural selection, let the warblers go.

I'm a bit lazy now, in bed etc, so cannot really be bother getting up or googling BUT isn't this the same bird as in Franzen's book Freedom? Geee!

Whoa! A person for a bird?!

I'm dying to know what the bumper music at 47:23 is... any help?

Thanks!

It can't really be known what would have happened to the warbler without logging, burning, protection from burning, murder of cowbirds, and more. Any attempt to decide what is right and what is wrong here is an extension of the pompous human behavior that created the problem and makes us seem so parasitic in nature. Finally no value can be placed on life. James Swiderski's famliy would not put a dollar sign to his life anymore than they would to the life of a single Kirtland Warbler. A fun game asked if I would rather skip a rock and have it accidentally give a child a black eye or kill a bald eagle. Well of course I'd let that kid get a black eye. It's not a question of value there it's a question of right and wrong. It's also not a life for a life comparison. A firefighter would gladly give his life saving another human life in the line of duty because he knew it might happen one day and he chose the irreplacable feeling of saving human lives over his own self-preservation. So would we like to ask his family and the family of the person he saved which was worth more? Radio-lab aired another segmant dealing with neuro-science and questions about the life of an individual compared to the group. That segment talked about the human ability to throw a switch that would kill one person not in danger over several for whom death was immenant. It was clear that the same person who threw the switch would be unlikely to push someone onto the tracks to save others who would have been killed by the same train. The point is that weighing in about value of life comparisons when the most influence any of us has is a tax-bill or a vote and for most of us not even that is flippant. Our Federal Emergency Management leaders define a disaster as an event that causes HUMAN suffering. that about sums up the shortsightedness of government on this issue. Every adverse action we take against the environment of this planet causes human suffering regardless of it's relativity to the other suffering involved. We should strive to leave no trace which would include a program that moves toward complete removal of our intervention from natural systems. It's not possible at this time, but let's not confuse ourselves with god like figures in the process of weighing our wild-life management principles. I don't think that was Lulu Miller's intention and if the over-all tone of the piece had boiled down to that single question I wouldn't know enough to realize all of these ancillary circumstances. The segment seems to underline the fact that we simply can't control our instinct to control everything long enough to adequately figure out if what we are doing is helpful, harmful, or has no impact at all.

The result in the wake of that forestation would have been arguably that the warbler would thrive in the new young Jack Pines. Humans worked to rebuild the forest and perhaps too late caught onto their circumventing of the natural process of fires. Humans then sought to recreate nature by burning, but control the burning to times and places of their choice. Humans have chosen the life of one bird over another, one tree over another, and so forth. The same broadcast has a story dealing with the accidental "murder" of the world's oldest living organism. That tree would have existed until the moment it was cut purely by a combination of luck and natural selection. Over thousands of years of disease and wars and weather the tree survived. If you start comparing the value of human life to that of a bird you should inevitably start comparing the life of any species to the life of another species. That is the job of natural selection and we are the only species that seems capable of categorically short-circuiting that system. At the pound one species of dog is worth more than another, the foods we grow are worth more historically than the other plant life which existed as part of the complete food chain. The livestock we can easily corral with fences trump the natural free roaming animals. Need I go on? The people involved in the Huron-Manistee region put one foot in front of the other for the better part of a century trying to pretend like they were reversing the effect of human involvement in the area or saving something natural, but they can't even really remember what was natural. This is especially true since the bird is migratory and settled there as part of the natural process of our earth evolving after an ice age.

Whether or not the question is presented inproperly does not take away from the real lesson here. Humans have become so thoroughly entangled with the environment of this planet it is difficult to determine where nature ends and we begin. I would argue that the human, and not the cow-bird is the parasite here. There is a natural course to things and whether Darwin had all the answers or just some is unimportant. Evolution is an obvious force in our environment. Therefore, the arguement that a migratory bird which is one species out of 67 and has failed to overcome another species of bird is simply unable to evolve seems valid. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what the Forest Service's programs for controlled burns entail or are intended to do. The fact is this. Humans over-forested the region.

Miller's question is completely relevant because it is the question that the residents of the town have asked themselves. It really wasn't even her question, as it is asked first by one of the people she interviewed in town. She may have conveyed a bit too clearly what her answer might be; however, no conclusions were ever drawn. The "Oops" is in reference to the tragic, unintended consequence of a fire, but I didn't hear any suggestion that the story is questioning a poor "choice" about bird over man. The story, ultimately, investigates the "oops" on many levels. I suggest giving it a second listening.

Ms. Miller - I appreciate your reporting on the plight of the Kirtland's Warbler, especially given that you did a thorough job getting the biology right. However, the central question you pose - "is the life of a warbler worth the life of a human" - suggests someone living in a sadly constrained moral universe. Obviously, abandoning warbler restoration efforts will not undo the tragic death of Mr. Swiderski, though your reporting suggests that that choice is somehow still available. I was encouraged to hear that Mr. Swiderski's family had moved beyond this false choice.

I'm in agreement with the commenters who mention the accidental nature of Swiderski's death and the rest of the fire ecosystem of the area (which means that this isn't just about "one bird" and that it also wasn't a choice anyone consciously made.)

Also, though, phrasing it as "the life of a man vs. life of a bird" is asking the wrong question because it's not "a" bird: it's "a" species. It wasn't one Kirtland's warbler at stake when the Forest Service decided to do this burn; it was all of them.

I was much moved by the voices of Swiderski's family; they said that he was doing what he wanted to do, protecting what he valued, and they implied that perhaps there are worse things than to die doing that. It's not for us to make that call for anyone but ourselves, of course, and the circumstances that demand it are so rare as to be effectively nonexistent; but if it were a choice, and if mine were the life in question, I hope I'd have the commitment to choose the life of the species, any species, over my one individual one. One individual is indeed a hole in the heart, a tragic loss, one that the survivors will remember until they die; one species is a hole in the world, one that will persist long after human memory fails, long after any human dies.

I agree with the other comments that the way the reporter posed the question was wrong, but I think it was very appropriate for her to bring up the question. That's how people around there feel, obviously, and it's reasonable for her to present it.

There are lots of times this question can be asked. Was building the Miller Park baseball stadium worth the lives of the workers killed when the crane collapsed? In my opinion, probably not, but it's really the same equation as the pizza delivery example. Is it worth it for me to ride my bike to work given that I might be hit and killed? I sure don't want to die, but I might get hit and die even if I'm in a car. I'm willing to take the risk because I like riding and I know it's better for me and the world (so long that I don't get hit and die), but the question is out there, and you can be sure that if I do die, people will ask it.

The other question she asked, "Is it worth the millions of dollars to do this?", is another valid question. I think the answer is absolutely. Sometimes doing the right thing costs money.

Almost all of Michigan's wildlife is fire adapted, not just the Kirkland warbler. The work, money, time, and effort that goes in to a burn or restoration work is not just the price for a bird, but to preserve our shrinking natural lands and the rest of the native plants, animals and birds that depend on them. Without the use of prescribed burns, we would lose many more species. Regardless of whether it is appropriate to balance the cost of a life, it is not against a single bird, but against the preservation of Michigan's natural land.

Can we just make it unanimous? The frame for this piece was terrible – an ugly blot on the record of Radio Lab. I understand that a story with a wrenching conflict can help make it compelling. But the framing of this story by an ostensibly objective reporter as the conflict of choosing between James Swiderski and the Kirtland Warbler, as other commenters have noted, is, in so many transparent ways deeply, irretrievably, utterly wrong.

I love Radiolab because the stories and shows are almost always constructed around interesting topics with a sense of intelligence, curiosity and playfulness. The inquisitiveness that's a hallmark of the program was lacking in this piece.

Ms. Miller is looking through the binoculars the wrong way. As the posters above have demonstrated, the question posed by Ms. Miller is simplistic and absurd. There are larger issues at play in the Kirtland's story and many of them would have fit in perfectly with the theme of the program.

Very unprofessional and incorrect reporting. Shame on you Lulu Miller. The only bird in this is Lulu, who would more accurately be described as a vulture.

Jim's death was a tragedy, but the comparison of tradeoff of human life vs. a bird's existence would only be made by someone who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

Lulu, realize that you can't live life soiling everywhere you go!

I think the producers of this program are mistaking unintended consequences for a tragic accident. Jimbo's comment about pizza delivery is a great example. The idea that we should not try to save ecosystems or species because something bad might happen - hmmmm, if that was the criteria used to make decisions, nothing would ever be done. Generally this was a good program, but this story was way off base.

I don't think that the question Lulu Miller posed is really relevant, the idea that we have to decide if the life of a person is worth the life of a warbler. Throughout the piece, the question was continually posed as if it was an actual decision that someone made. The death was an accident. People die on the roads every day, so do we ask if a pizza delivery is worth the life of a human? Of course not, deaths are unfortunate tragedies, they are accidents, they happen when people do all kinds of things. Suggesting that in order to save a species it is required to sacrifice a person is absurd.