[Squawk 8888]

If the DDT banning isn't responsible, what is?

Habitat protection and restoration. Falcons have done especially well since building owners learned how to make their properties more hospitable- when I was working downtown a family lived under a window on a neighbouring building and watching them catch sparrows mid-air was quite a show.

[Sabertooth]

Habitat protection and restoration. Falcons have done especially well since building owners learned how to make their properties more hospitable- when I was working downtown a family lived under a window on a neighbouring building and watching them catch sparrows mid-air was quite a show.

I've seen falcons in the suburbs where both my brother and mother live, in Orange and San Jose CA. Both of these subdivisions were built before DDT was banned, but there weren't any falcons there until recently.

That falcons do well among skyscrapers is a given. But I've seen falcons roost in skyscrapers that had no special provision for them.

Since skyscrapers and subdivisions existed when falcon populations were in decline, the population of the falcons since then in both urban and suburban envirionments can't be attributed exclusively to habitat preservation or special building provisions.

So, if not them, and not the DDT ban, then what is responsible for the falcons' comeback?