Just for grins, in editing software try blurring the background slightly to achieve a "shallow depth-of-field" effect. I think it might focus the eye's attention on the bird instead of the tangle of background that everybody is complaining about. I personally don't have any complaint about the original shot as is. I think it's exceptional and I'd expect to see something similar hanging in a doctor's office, or business office hallway, etc.

Somebody pumped up the color saturation in an edited version and a naysayer said the color didn't look natural. In reality how do we know what natural is? Were we there? No... only the shooter was there. The complainer wasn't present to see the real color of the bird and so is only comparing it to the original shot which itself may not be true. Unless the complainer has seen 100 or 1000 of these birds and knows that there are none in existence in the world that have saturated color, I think it's unfair to criticize somebody offering an edit that also looked pleasing. I can set the color saturation in my dSLR to a variety of levels from pale to vivid. We don't know how the camera was set when the original shot was taken. The camera might have not captured the actual saturated color of that specific single bird and the edited saturated color rendition might actually be the real color.

I can't believe you people are asked to critically, but constructively, review a photo for someone but then start criticizing each others' views and edits instead. It's like a pack of wolves fighting each other over a carcass or something. Chill out already...