I think he was telling her to get back in the nestbox! LOL! The male here feeds the female whether she wants it or not. Sometimes he just pecks her and pecks her to make her take what he is trying to feed her. LOL! Mine are on their second nesting...Dad is busy feeding fledglings now while mom is laying eggs. Donna

I would just watch today and see if you see them going into the house. I don't think I have ever heard of a Bluebird not accepting the sparrow spooker. They may not like it but if they have an egg in there they won't abandon it. If you don't see them going in there this morning, check the nest in the afternoon and see if she laid another egg. They lay their eggs one per day normally in the morning hours. I wouldn't be checking the box after dark anymore, once the female is done laying her eggs she will start incubating. If you scare the female off the nest after dark she probably won't be able to find her way back to the nest and the babies will die. Good luck to you and congrats on the egg!! Donna

How far apart are the nestboxes? Bluebirds are very territorial. Their territory is an area, not just a nestbox. Linked below is a web page that discusses recommended distance between nestboxes. This time of year, the weather mimics spring, and we often see behaviors as if it were really spring. Also, if the bluebirds are resident there year-round, they will continue to protect what they consider "their territory" year-round. Over the winter, families might stay together and get along just fine. But the competition will really get serious in Spring. BlueBars Here is a link that might be useful: http://www.sialis.org/pairing.htm

"It is reasonable to only own one small dog in a crowded urban area." I merely suggested that those who live in crowded urban areas should choose a dog that would fit in with that lifesyle - such as a small lap dog. A larger dog that needs lots of exercise or any dog that is hyper and active would probably not be suited for city living - especially if the owner were unwilling or unable to walk the dog (on a leash of course). I believe people should look at their lifestyles when deciding whether to have a dog and deciding which dog to select. There are websites set up for this purpose - where you can put your wants and lifestyle in and they will come up with a percentage match of which dog breed might be best for your situation. A dog is a living creature and deserves consideration. It is not wise to buy a dog at the spur of the moment like you would a pack of gum or a soda pop. Such choices often create misery for the dog, owner, and community. "One owner has a limited amount of time, energy, and money to take care of pets - it is reasonable to restrict the amount of pets per household and to restrict who can own dogs and cats." I believe the above is clear and simple but apparently not. I have heard of collectors who believe that they can house and care for an unlimited number of dogs or cats - but this is a form of mental illness. Most sane people would agree that one person or one family can only care for a limited amount of dogs or cats. At some point it gets unreasonable and you are labeled mentally ill collectors. Now should the authorities allow animals and the community to suffer so they can access each situation to see if this person can own 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 15, 25, 40, 66, 138, etc dogs or cats or should they set some sort of limit or limits based on zoning and space available? Do animal owners pay for animal control to assess each animal owning household or even assess those households with complaints? The answer in most communities is no. Animal control is usually underfunded and undermanned and animals and their owners are out of control. Animal owners whine and whine about regulations and complain about animal cruelty etc. Animal cruelty will probably never end but the one thing that could put a real dent in animal cruelty is strict regulations and strict enforcement. All of us have to conform to regulations and laws because they were deemed to be in the best interest of the community. For instance we must drive our cars under a certain speed. Many of us can drive faster and still be safe. However, many people will push their limits and drive at a speed where they are unable to control their vehicle. So a speed limit had to be established for everybody. Same with traffic lights. Many of us could function without a light telling us when to go and when to stop. However, some of us would not yield to other drivers without that red light and the possibility of a traffic ticket. The examples go on and on. Basically societies have to have rules and regulations to function properly and the larger and more dense the society the more rules and regulations you need. What you would suffer from only owning one or two dogs or owning no dogs if you couldn't handle the responsibilities and costs of dog ownership pales in comparision to those who are drivin out of their homes and made physically ill due to the constant irritation of a barking dog or dogs. Remember by endorsing the status quo you are condoning the abuse and neglect of animals and sacrificing the health and safety of humans in your community. Also you think nothing of those who have had to move out of their homes (often losing the value of their home) due to living near a nuisance barking or a vicious dog and its unstable owners. Nor are you considering people and other animals who have been attacked or attacked and killed due to irresponsible dog owners who create vicious dogs. Your unwillingness to have rules, regulations, and enforcement strikes me as suspicious and selfish. You should welcome rules and regulations to protect all of these abused and neglected dogs and cats. If you are doing the right thing then you shouldn't have much to worry about. If you own a small pack of dogs then giving up a few or moving to a rural more spacious area should not be too much to ask to protect the rights and lives of the community and dogs.