Headlines 10 years from now:
"Scientists mystified by 'bird blindness' colony collapse"
"Laser manufacturers found to be spending millions on lobbyist groups"
In New Zealand, The Seagull has become an endangered species, even though there are lot of them. "Because it's a species that's quite long-lived it can take 100 years before you see a significant change in the numbers. As long as the adults aren't being killed, it will be a long, slow decline. Seagulls can live up to 30 years."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/10677103/Seagull-is-NZs-l...
Uh, how?
They fly into it and die since giant metal structures are not found in nature. Makes sense, right? Tens of thousands of birds can die in one night on one tower during migrations.
Such comments are pure negative addition, not adding any value in terms of solving the problem.
It's not even clear if this is a problem: "very little is known about whether lasers can harm the animals' retinas."
The sentiment of this type of comments are also predominantly one-sided, which always is the most important property of any failed attempts of solving any non-trivial large-scale problems.
"When the occurrence of any damage, albeit unpredictable in the current state of scientific knowledge, may seriously and irreversibly harm the environment, public authorities shall, with due respect for the principle of precaution and the areas within their jurisdiction, ensure the implementation of procedures for risk assessment and the adoption of temporary measures commensurate with the risk involved in order to preclude the occurrence of such damage"
I like it.
It's not clear it's not a problem, either. As you cite, we don't know either way yet.
"Let's be careful mucking with an ecosystem" isn't negative, and there's a lot of historical evidence such caution is necessary.