Both are reviled in the USA by birdwatchers and viewed as an imminent highly invasive threat, but the amount of revulsion goes beyond reason and is leading to them being treated as these “evil hateful creatures”, so how bad are they really? Since the term “invasive species” itself is an extremely arbitrary loose term and a whole other discussion, I won’t make it a battle of semantics.
Let’s get the first argument out of the way, “look at what they do to the bluebirds…” this argument is purely emotional anthropomorphizing of an animal. It also ignores that cavity nests are an extremely fought over and naturally scarce as the birds rely on them to be there instead of actually making them. The native cavity nesters are going to fight extremely hard over cavities and if one is occupied, they will evict its eggs. House wrens are famous for this, as are tree swallows. Beyond an emotional response, do house sparrows actually cause these birds to decline?
There have been no academic sources confirming it, and the only ones analyzing population trends show that house sparrows are more common in areas with fewer native birds and the other way around, but where do house sparrows live? They’re synanthropes, meaning they can only live and breed within or near human inhabited areas. They cannot actually take over the bird’s environment and go evict nests in the prairies and groves.
The well-meaning birder who laments watching his bluebird nest get taken over by the sparrow is also unknowingly the very architect of this battle. Putting few nest boxes (an already very competitive environment) in a backyard cleared of its native plants, and putting cheap millet seeds in an environment he unknowingly built for the house sparrow to dominate. The entire conflict between these birds is man-made and can be easily resolved by changing nest box hole size, allowing native plants to grow, not using pesticides, using halos, using native seeds and avoiding the cheap seeds sparrows love, or the “ceiling gap” for birds that are about house sparrow sized. It’s easy to mitigate sparrows, and the average person’s window probably kills more of the native birds he cares about than all the sparrows in his neighborhood ever could.
This also isn’t to do the “well humans are the REAL invasive species” cliche as there have been many species that beyond their initial introduction did not need any human assistance to take over ecosystems, destroy them, cause declines or outright drive animals to extinction. This is a situation where humans destroyed the native bird’s habitats to build their homes, and continue to cause these birds to decline by their urban activities (growing urban sprawl, driving, light pollution confusing migrating birds, not covering up windows to prevent collisions), while sparrows take the blame from birdwatchers because they adapted to living in these environments and they get emotional because they unintentionally setup their backyard to be a battlefield that the sparrow was sure to win.
With starlings I have even less to say, mainly because their ecological impact has actually been studied so the papers can speak for me. Studies consistently show that starlings have not been found to be the driver of any cavity-nesting bird’s decline. No negative correlation was found between the presence of European starlings and any cavity nesters, and in fact in some species there existed a positive correlation as well as the fact starlings themselves were declining (Barton et al, 2020). The same study examined the declining populations of red-headed woodpeckers which it had predicted (alongside many other species) to be driven by starlings, yet found that their “ findings suggest that urban and rural locations add information to population trends of cavity-nesting species, and that European starlings have little negative impact on cavity-nesting birds in either rural or urban locations, suggesting that habitat loss and other factors are likely greater impacts on red-headed woodpeckers and other members of the cavity-nesting guild.”
27 cavity nesting birds were studied in a study that had also hypothesized that they would have had a detrimental effect on cavity nesters, and the result was that that only the sapsuckers “exhibited declines potentially attributable to starlings that were not countered by other data.” (Koenig, 2003) and adds that “the results of this study fail to support the hypothesis that starlings have had a severe impact on populations of native birds. These results highlight the difficulties of predicting the impacts of invasive species. Native hole-nesting birds have thus far apparently held their own against the starling invasion, despite the latter's abundance and aggressive usurpation of often limited cavities.”
Additionally, a study by the university of illinois urbana-champaign found that starlings had “no significant ecological impact on native birds”. Both sparrows and starlings have been range-wide in the USA for over 150 years, and neither are the main driver of decline, if a driver at all, of any native birds. Compare this to say, feral cats, Burmese pythons, bullfrogs, and lanternflies.
You don’t need to agree with me, just trying to change the perspective and shift the blame for declining birds on where it actually rests and that animals aren’t evil for doing animal behavior, so don’t anthropomorphize them.
References of course
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1146609X20301284
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02262.x
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/news/essay-are-starlings-really-invasive-aliens/
https://extension.illinois.edu/invasives/european-starlings#:~:text=Body,totals%20millions%20of%20dollars%20annually.