Connect with us

News

A year later, Flaco the owl's escape from the Central Park Zoo remains a mystery

Published

on

A year later, Flaco the owl's escape from the Central Park Zoo remains a mystery

This photo provided by David Lei shows Flaco the owl on April 28, 2023, in New York. As Flaco enters his second year in the spotlight, it can be easy to forget that his freedom is the result of a crime, one that has improbably remained unsolved for a year.

David Lei via AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

David Lei via AP


This photo provided by David Lei shows Flaco the owl on April 28, 2023, in New York. As Flaco enters his second year in the spotlight, it can be easy to forget that his freedom is the result of a crime, one that has improbably remained unsolved for a year.

David Lei via AP

NEW YORK — This New York love story begins with a criminal act of sabotage.

Under cover of darkness a year ago Friday, someone breached a waist-high fence and slipped into the Central Park Zoo. Once inside, they cut a hole through a steel mesh cage, freeing a majestic Eurasian eagle-owl named Flaco who had arrived at the zoo as a fledgling 13 years earlier.

Advertisement

Immediately, Flaco fled the park, blinking his big orange eyes at pedestrians and police on Fifth Avenue before flying off into the night.

In the year since his dramatic escape, Flaco has become one of the city’s most beloved characters. By day he lounges in Manhattan’s courtyards and parks or perches on fire escapes. He spends his nights hooting atop water towers and preying on the city’s abundant rats.

To the surprise of many experts, Flaco is thriving in the urban wilds. An apex predator with a nearly 6-foot (2-meter) wingspan, he has called on abilities some feared he hadn’t developed during a lifetime in captivity, gamely exploring new neighborhoods and turning up unexpectedly at the windows of New Yorkers.

“He was the underdog from the start. People did not expect him to survive,” said Jacqueline Emery, one of several birders who document the owl’s daily movements and share them online with his legions of admirers. “New Yorkers especially connect to him because of his resilience.”

But as Flaco enters his second year in the spotlight, it can be easy to forget that his freedom is the result of a crime, one that has improbably remained unsolved.

Advertisement

The break-in happened steps from the shared headquarters of the New York City Parks Department and the Central Park Zoo, in the vicinity of at least one surveillance camera.

But if they have collected any evidence on a potential suspect, police and zoo authorities have declined to share it. Since the zoo suspended efforts to re-capture Flaco in February 2023, there has been no public information about the crime.

Privately, the zoo has sought to soften descriptions of Flaco’s former living conditions, in a minivan-sized structure decorated with a painted mountain vista, barely twice the width of Flaco’s extended wings.

In internal emails obtained through a Freedom of Information request, zoo officials urged the Parks Department not to publicly describe Flaco as “raised in captivity.” Likewise, the term “escape” should be avoided.

This photo provided by David Lei shows Flaco the owl on June 19, 2023, in New York.

David Lei via AP

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

David Lei via AP


This photo provided by David Lei shows Flaco the owl on June 19, 2023, in New York.

Advertisement

David Lei via AP

“That puts the blame on the animal rather than the perpetrator,” the zoo’s then-communications director, Max Pulsinelli, wrote in one email. “This was a crime.”

In the absence of official information, theories of the crime abound – a youthful prank, perhaps, or an attempted owl heist gone awry? For many invested in Flaco’s fate, the most plausible explanation is that he was freed for ideological reasons.

Proponents of the animal liberation theory point to the seemingly targeted nature of the crime, as well as the limitations of the owl’s modest enclosure.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if it was someone who loved Flaco and wanted him free,” said Nicole Barrantes, a wildlife campaign manager with World Animal Protection, who started a petition against Flaco being returned to the zoo. “His habitat was ridiculous. It was the saddest thing ever.”

Advertisement

Break-ins and vandalism have long been tactics some activists have used to free animals. Such actions are often made public by the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, an anonymous online database.

The group’s spokesperson, Jerry Vlasak, said no one had come forward to claim responsibility for Flaco’s escape. “We never received a communique,” he said. “But we’re certainly glad it happened.”

A spokesperson for the Wildlife Conservation Society, which has operated the zoo since 1988, did not respond to the claims that Flaco’s zoo habitat was inadequate.

This photo provided by David Lei shows Flaco on Jan. 3, 2024, in New York.

David Lei via AP


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

David Lei via AP


This photo provided by David Lei shows Flaco on Jan. 3, 2024, in New York.

David Lei via AP

Advertisement

“This was a criminal act that jeopardized the safety of the bird,” the zoo said in a statement, adding that they are continuing to monitor reports of Flaco’s activity and wellbeing and are “prepared to resume recovery efforts if he shows any sign of difficulty or distress.”

Even with his proficient hunting skills, Flaco faces many threats in the city, including a grave risk of consuming rodenticide through a poisoned rat. In 2021, another beloved Central Park owl, Barry, was fatally struck by a truck after ingesting a lethal dose of rat poison that may have impaired her flying.

“All the hazards are still there,” cautioned Suzanne Shoemaker, the director of the Owl Moon Raptor Center in Maryland. “He’s shown some good instincts to be able to make it this far. He’s also lucky.”

Flaco spent his initial months of freedom mostly in Central Park, which is loaded with wildlife, but has lately preferred more urban sections of Manhattan. There has been some speculation that he has been looking for a mate, though he most certainly won’t find one. Eurasian eagle owls aren’t native to North America.

Stories of zoo animals breaking loose in the middle of the country’s densest city have long captured the public imagination, while often ushering in calls for reforms.

Advertisement

A crowd of people gather in Central Park to look at Flaco on Feb. 6, 2023, in New York.

Seth Wenig/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Seth Wenig/AP

Advertisement


A crowd of people gather in Central Park to look at Flaco on Feb. 6, 2023, in New York.

Seth Wenig/AP

Following a series of bird thefts and “senseless” animal beatings in the 1970s, administrators ordered immediate security upgrades and the redesign of some pens at the zoo, which the city’s parks commissioner at the time described as “Rikers Island for animals” because of poor living conditions.

A few years later, when a group of vandals made off with a boa constrictor and a parrot named “Peanuts,” officials accused the perpetrators of stealing the animals for “voodoo rites.”

Since those days the zoo has been substantially redesigned.

Advertisement

Wildlife groups have long warned that owls can be used as sacrifices in certain religious ceremonies — particularly birds like Flaco, who boasts prominent ear tufts. The Eurasian eagle-owl is also commonly used in falconry, selling for as much as $3,000.

But while some have suggested Flaco was targeted for either financial or spiritual purposes, such speculation would seem undermined by the fact that he emerged from his damaged cage and into the bustling cityscape unscathed.

On a recent night on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, one of the Flaco’s most dedicated observers, David Barrett, struck an ambivalent tone when asked how New Yorkers should think about the crime that made him an avian celebrity.

“To me, the folk hero is Flaco,” said Barrett, who runs the X account Manhattan Bird Alert, documenting the bird’s whereabouts in real time. “It’s an amazing thing: He lives his whole life in captivity and in a matter of days he taught himself to fly and to hunt rats.”

Tuning his ears skyward, Barrett listened for the signature hoot that had echoed across Broadway on so many recent nights.

Advertisement

“It’s not our business to try to solve crimes,” he added. “We’re just glad he’s here.”

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading

News

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Published

on

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Advertisement

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

Published

on

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation.  My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry. 

Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components.  As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country.  We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.

It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.

Sec. 2.  Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI.  (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

Advertisement

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

(c)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:

(i)    expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;

(ii)   establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and

(iii)  facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.

Advertisement

(d)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.

(e)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.

(f)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.

Sec. 3.  Secure Frontier Model Deployment.  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:

(a)  develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate.  Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.

Advertisement

(b)  design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:

(i)    engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;

(ii)   provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and 

(iii)  collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.

(c)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.

Advertisement

Sec. 4.  Protection Against Criminal Actors.  The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime.  This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Advertisement

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.

                             DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    June 2, 2026.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending