KUER0%

Owl found in a southwest Utah concrete mixer is on the mend and flying free 2%

By Associated Press60%

5/15/2026, 4:19:44 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Availability Heuristic, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 20.5% saturation with 128 hits. Analysis detected 740 faulty-reasoning hits from 624 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 8.3% and a BS Rank of 2% (21,647 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 98.90% of the article peer group.

An adolescent owl that was found stuck in a concrete mixer in southwestern Utah is finally on the mend, flying free and maybe a bit wiser from the ordeal. 
The great horned owl somehow made his way into the truck-mounted mixer in late October and was discovered by workers pouring concrete at a resort construction site. 
Lucky for him, a series of people gave a hoot about his predicament. 
Workers hosed the bird down before it was wrapped in a towel. 
It took days for employees at the Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Kanab to pick the concrete from the bird's face, chest and right wing, using forceps to carefully crack the dried debris and cleaning the feathers with toothbrushes and dish soap. 
The owl started its long recovery at an aviary run by the organization, and employees anxiously waited for it to grow new feathers. 
But the bird didn't molt as predicted. 
In early May, he underwent a procedure called imping, which uses adhesive to graft donor feathers onto existing shafts. 
“The first few feathers were extremely nerve-wracking, but as we got into the groove, the imping became more comfortable, and everything went smoothly,” said Bart Richwalski, a supervisor at the sanctuary. 
Great horned owls typically have tufting on the edges of some of their feathers that allows them to fly quietly as they hunt. 
But the concrete frayed the rescued owl’s feathers and caused it to make a whooshing sound while flying. 
To prepare for the imping procedure, sanctuary staff examined the owl's feather patterns every few weeks and snipped damaged shafts in advance. 
The owl was anesthetized and the donor feathers from a similarly sized owl that had died were laid out nearby to replicate each wing. 
The staff then cut the feathers to the necessary length, lined them up and adhered them to the bird. 
By the end of the 90-minute procedure, the owl had 10 new primary feathers and a secondary feather on his right wing. 
But then came the real test: could he fly silently? 
The bird was placed in a large aviary to recover from the anesthesia and quickly took flight after awakening. 
Richwalski used a decibel meter to measure the sound of the owl's wingbeat and determined its flight was quiet enough for it to safely be released. 
The owl hovered for a moment while the aviary roof was retracted, gained speed and then flew out into the wild. 
“It feels so, so good. 
I think my heart finally started beating again. 
The nervousness was starting to overtake the excitement, but once I saw him fly out that opening in the roof, it just was, it was a sight to see. 
It was so fun,” said Richwalski, who has cared for the owl since picking him up at the construction site. 
Karla Bloem, executive director of the Minnesota-based International Owl Center, said imping has been practiced by falconers “for eons” and is a very effective treatment. 
“I've never heard of it not lasting, because you use some pretty good stuff when you're doing imping,” said Bloem, who has studied great horned owls for nearly three decades. 
She added that it would be OK if a couple of the grafted feathers fell out. 
The bulk of them just need to stay put until the owl can grow new ones in the coming summer months. 
“And now it just needs to figure out, ‘whoa, I’m back in the big world again, hunting,’" she said. 
“Find a territory ... you know, find one of the opposite sex and settle down and have kids.” 
This story was written by Thomas Peipert of the Associated Press 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.5%Associated Press: 2.2%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Associated Press: 3.2%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 3.7%Associated Press: 0.8%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic3.7%This article: 1.1%Associated Press: 0.6%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias1.1%This article: 9.0%Associated Press: 1.1%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias9.0%This article: 6.7%Associated Press: 7.1%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect6.7%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.9%Associated Press: 0.6%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.6%Associated Press: 2.1%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.6%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Associated Press: 8.7%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias3.7%This article: 3.2%Associated Press: 2.0%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.0%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.3%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.6%Associated Press: 1.4%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.8%Associated Press: 3.4%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority8.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.8%Associated Press: 2.7%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization8.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.6%Associated Press: 4.7%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion9.6%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.9%Associated Press: 2.2%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 20.5%Associated Press: 1.7%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal20.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.0%Associated Press: 1.2%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.3%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.7%Associated Press: 3.0%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice3.7%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

624 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers42%attributed speech360writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageBest Friends Animal Sanctuary • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageBart Richwalski • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageBart Richwalski • 5 words • 0.0% coverageBart Richwalski • 8 words • 0.0% coverageBart Richwalski • 29 words • 0.0% coverageBart Richwalski • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKarla Bloem • 25 words • 0.0% coverageKarla Bloem • 30 words • 0.0% coverageKarla Bloem • 16 words • 0.0% coverageKarla Bloem • 21 words • 0.0% coverageKarla Bloem • 19 words • 0.0% coverageKarla Bloem • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Karla Bloem

84%flagged-word coverage
129 attributed words49% of attributed speech53% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.4 ptsWriter: 6.4%Karla Bloem: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.