Thousands of Snow Geese Killed in Montana

Snow Goose - Chen caerulescens

A mighty flock of swirling snow geese, looking for a place to land while migrating through South Dakota. It can be pretty spectacular when the geese are migrating through the state, but alas, these birds have to land SOMEWHERE to rest and refuel. A massive flock in Montana made the mistake of landing in a toxic mine pit, resulting in the death of thousands of birds.

I had to travel to Minneapolis yesterday for a work trip.  We’re about a 4-hour drive from the Twin Cities, I HATE flying, and especially given that I’d have to tly, pick up a rental, and then drive 20 miles through town to the north part of the city where my meetings were, I decided I’d drive instead of flying.  Winter has finally hit the area after an incredibly warm and beautiful fall, with 40+ mile-per-hour winds yesterday and plummeting temperatures, but that huge weather change did trigger a massive migration of Snow Geese through the area. As I drove I often saw many very large flocks of Snow Geese, struggling a bit in that wind, but all moving south to escape the cold temperatures.

Around here in South Dakota, you’ll typically find Snow Geese in two types of locations.  During the day, you’ll often see massive flocks sitting in open agricultural fields, feeding on grain residue.  When they’re looking for safety and a place to rest, they’ll choose a lake or other water body.  Imagine a flock of 10,000 Snow Geese, heading south to escape winter.  They’re flying for many hours, are tired and are looking for a place to rest, and upon finally spotting a large patch of open water, they circle and head down and land on surface to rest.

It’s not just South Dakota and Minnesota where the migration has been in full swing. In Montana a flock of many thousands did the same thing this week, circling down to rest in a large water body.  Unfortunately, that open water body was the infamous Berkeley Pit, an EPA Superfund site, and a toxic cesspool of cadmium, copper, zinc, and a host of other dissolved minerals that result in water acidic enough to dissolve metal.  The bodies of thousands of geese were found in the lake this week, chemical burns covering their bodies, as well as the linings of their mouths and throats for birds that tried to drink or feed.  Some birds temporarily escaped the toxic hell, but the bodies of many other Snow Geese have been found scattered throughout the area as they succumbed to the chemical mix after leaving the mine pit.

There are no physical barriers to prevent waterfowl or other wildlife from accessing the toxic water in the mine pit. The story notes the company that owns the mine (Atlantic Richfield Company) uses noise and other deterrents to try to scare away wildlife from accessing the water. The company touts “official” numbers they report to the EPA, that only 14 birds died in the mine pit in the period from 2010 to 2013.  Yeah, sure.  The company may have reported finding 14 carcasses during that span, but I find it very hard to believe that open water didn’t attract more wildlife, deterrents or not, and that intentionally or unintentionally that 14 count is a woeful undercount of the true toll.

Don’t think a company would try to cover up other such incidents?  The Washington Post story notes that a similar, yet smaller scale event happened in the same pit back in 1992.  During that incident, Atlantic Richfield Company tried to pass blame of the birds death to other causes, stating that perhaps “toxic grain” or some other poison killed all the birds that were floating in their mine pit.  That defense fell apart when the University of Wyoming did postmortems on the birds and found their deaths were caused by severe burns, from water acidic enough to dissolve aluminum and other metals.

This is but one incident, in one mining pit.  There are literally thousands of such waste pits in the western U.S., relics of either past or current mining operations.  Very short-term economic gain drives the development of these mining areas, but what about the long-term impacts?  What is done with waste pits like after mining ceases?  Are there any plans to ever detoxify the waters and clean up the mining residue?  Or is this the “norm”, where seemingly the only plan to avoid environmental catastrophe is to make a little noise to try reduce how many animals die in the toxic stew?  This pit was in operation from 1955 to 1982, a 27-year run of productivity, but in the 34 years since mining ceased, what has been done to mitigate the toxic stew that’s been left behind?  It’s an EPA Superfund site, but that designation clearly hasn’t fixed the problem 34 years later.

A mining company profited for 27 years from this pit.  The environmental damage and what’s been left behind will end up taking a toll for a much longer period of time.  We’ve now got a new administration coming into office with an obvious laser-sharp focus on corporate America.  Cabinet appointments to date, stated policies that are being pushed once they take office, a desire to slash regulation and even kill off the EPA…it all typifies that “ME FIRST!”, selfish, greedy, short-term gain mindset that sadly “Trumps” any thought of long-term devastation such as this.  I’ve said it before…I always wonder if people with this kind of mindset have any children, or give a damn about their futures if they do have children.  I can’t ever imagine putting money and short-term well-being over the well-being of future generations.

Climate change and bird species extinction

Lesser 'akioloa

The Lesser ‘akioloa, a Hawaiian honeycreeper species that went extinct around 1940. Two thirds of all Hawaiian honeycreeper species have gone extinct, and climate change is pushing some of the last remaining species towards extinction.

Islands are fascinating areas for studying wildlife.  Ever since the voyage of the HMS Beagle,its visits to the Galapagos islands, and Darwin’s initial conjecture about the stability and origin of species, islands have been real-world laboratories for the study of evolution  Island biogeography became a field of study in the 1960s, with a key premise that isolation of species leads to unique evolutionary paths. As a result, in isolated island environments, you often find unique species found nowhere else.

The Hawaiian Islands certainly have more than their fair share of unique wildlife, particularly bird species.  More than 50 honeycreeper species were once found throughout Hawaii, with some unique to specific islands.  Today, only 18 species survive.  You can definitely blame humanity for the loss of all these unique island bird species.  When humans spread, they inevitably also bring uninvited guests. Mosquitoes were unknown in the Hawaiian Islands, until the early 1800s.  With the introduction of mosquitoes came mosquito-carried diseases that native wildlife in Hawaii had never had to deal with.  Rats, cats, feral pigs, and goats have all also had devastating consequences for native wildlife in the Hawaiian Islands, as have many introduced bird species that compete with native birds.

Despite what the arrival of human travelers unleashed in the Hawaiian Islands, some of the unique bird species survived. Until now.  On top of all the “local” effects that come with the arrival of humans comes the cumulative impacts that affect all parts of the globe.  Some of the unique bird species in the Hawaiian Islands were able to survive is colder pockets at higher elevations, where temperatures were too cold for mosquitoes to thrive.  Climate change is having a very measurable impact on the Hawaiian Islands, however, and as a result, the elevation at which mosquitoes are found has been steady moving upward.  As a result, the isolated pockets of mosquito-free honeycreeper populations are now being infiltrated with mosquitoes for he first time.

A new study out in the past week suggests that many of these honeycreeper species could be extinct in as little as 10-years, thanks to the combined impacts of climate change, mosquitoes, and other human-driven factors.

It still boggles my mind that there are people that don’t believe that climate change exists, but as this and countless other real-world impacts show, it not only exists, but is having a devastating impact on ecosystems around the world.

“Hunting” interests bringing handguns to a prairie near you!

The South Dakota legislature has been working on a bill that would legalize the use of handguns for hunting gamebirds.  From a practical standpoint, it’s a head-scratcher.  The bill would authorize the use of handguns loaded with .410 shot shells.  As the article link above points out, such a light shell, shot from a handgun, might be effective up to a ridiculously close range of 10 feet, but beyond that, there’s little chance of doing anything other than inuring a bird.

To be blunt…I don’t think this bill has anything to do with hunting. If you’re going hunting for grouse or pheasant, you’re not going to grab a handgun.  This bill is about “legitimizing” handguns, pure and simple.  It’s a bill designed to show that handguns have some supposed legitimate use, rather than turning on other human beings.

A debate has started on the South Dakota bird listserver about the bill, a debate that has brought hunters out of the woodwork.  Of course the argument from the hunting crowd has absolutely nothing to do with the bill itself.  Hunters are ignoring the actual issue, and instead rushing to come to the defense of hunting overall.  The main argument being made is that hunting overall is a net benefit to birds, because of all the habitat that’s being protected by groups like Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, etc.

As for hunting itself, I have no doubt there’s more habitat due to the power and money of hunting interests.  Overall in the world we live in, that’s good, but again, to be blunt, there’s one very obvious difference between hunting and birding.  I have no doubt many hunters enjoy the habitat itself, but the one overarching reason that habitat is set aside is to ensure there are enough birds and other animals for people to harvest.   Someone on the South Dakota bird listserver said no “informed” birder would equate fewer hunters as a benefit for birds.  I would beg to differ, and I’m POSITIVE the birds staring down the barrel of a shotgun would beg to differ.  The habitat protection is great, but as with anything related to human beings, that habitat protection comes with a price.

Despite the benefits of preserving that habitat, it’s also impossible to ignore the motivation behind that habitat protection, what the real goal is for setting aside that land.  In my utopian world, we’d protect land just for the sake of conservation, not to ensure there’s an adequate pool of creatures to kill.   In short…birders love the resource, love the wild bird itself. For birders, it’s about the birds, and in my perfect world it would be nice to set aside land just to let nature take its course. For hunters, it’s about the ensuring there’s something to harvest.  For hunters, it’s about the hunter him/herself, it’s about using the resource for their own benefit and satisfaction, more than the resource (THE BIRD) itself.

When I drive on the grasslands West River, and I see a group of hunters lined up on a fence, popping off prairie dogs for no other reason than to have something to kill, it’s damned hard to see the “good” side of hunting. To be blunt (why pussyfoot around at this stage and hide how I really feel), in a situation like that, I see a sick desire to kill for the sake of killing.  When you see hunters clamoring to have the chance to kill a mountain lion, or a coyote, or any other animal that’s not being harvested for food or other actual purpose other than to satiate some kind of blood lust….it’s damned hard to see the “good” side of hunting.  When I’m driving around Presho in the late fall looking for raptors, and I see hordes of hunters slowly driving around, jumping out and blasting away when they see a pheasant or grouse, it’s hard to equate their activity with “enjoying the outdoors”, and much easier to see that it’s all about the desire to harvest as many birds as possible. When I’m in the same area and I see a shot raptor lying in a ditch…it’s hard to see the “good” side of hunting, and it’s awfully damned hard to see the birds themselves being put first.

Give me the habitat protection, by all means.  But hunters…don’t pretend it’s all about the birds. It’s all about YOU.

An end to ultralight-led Whooping Cranes

Saw today that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is recommending and end to the use of ultralights to lead eastern Whooping Cranes on migratory flights. The image of a group of young Whooping Cranes following an ultralight in a many-day “migration” is certainly well known both within the birding world, and for the public in general.  They’ve been used for a number of years to lead first-of-year Whooping Cranes from their summer grounds in Wisconsin, to Florida.

The Fish & Wildlife Service notes that they want to get away from “artificial” methods of expanding the Whooping Crane range.  They also note cost as an issue.  As a Fed scientist, my best guess?  It’s cost that’s the biggest factor here.  I can at least sympathize with the thought of using only “natural” conservation methodologies, but c’mon.  Would we have any Whooping Cranes moving between Wisconsin and Florida, without the use of ultralights and the program associated with it? What about other species?  We’ve brought back California Condor from the brink of extinction by capturing all wild birds and initiating a captive-breeding program.  Condors are now (rarely) starting to breed in the wild, but could they survive without “artificial” programs to support their population?

It ain’t easy being a Fed scientist in recent years!  I’m sure Fish & Wildlife is in the same boat as many of us…long-term declining budgets, and the need to cut valuable research and conservation programs.  It can certainly be expensive to implement and maintain programs such as those used for Whooping Cranes, California Condors, and other “iconic” species.  There are definitely arguments that a focus on such “artificial” and expensive programs, efforts that benefit only one species, are not the most efficient use of ever-declining conservation and research dollars.

On the other hand, the public in general isn’t going to pay much attention to conservation efforts for a rare forb or insect.  The value of programs for species such as Whooping Cranes and Condors goes beyond that individual species.  When the general public sees stories in the mainstream press about young Whooping Cranes being led across the country by a person in an ultralight, it draws their interest. It makes them care.  From that standpoint, it’s money well spent, as it opens up public discussion about conservation issues in general.

The cynical side of me looks at this story and sees that the total cost for the ultralight program has been around $20 million, with some of that coming from private funds.  The cynical side of me looks at the Defense Department budget, hovering around $700 billion, and notes $20 million isn’t even enough to buy spare parts for their most ridiculously expensive fighter jet.  The cynical side of me notes that for the cost of a handful of cruise missiles, we can continue to fund a program that may help save a species from disappearing from the face of the planet.

The cynical side of me gets a little depressed seeing stories like this…

Playing “Jenga” with nature

Ecosystems are like the game of Jenga...take one piece away you don't know what will happen.

Ecosystems are like the game of Jenga…take one piece away you don’t know what will happen.

You never know what will happen when you remove one piece of the puzzle.  Can it survive for a little while longer, albeit in a weakened state?  Or will it all come crashing down when that one piece gets removed?

Yes, I could be talking about the game of “Jenga”, something many of us have played.  But in this case I’m talking about nature.  In the journal Science Advances, research was just published that discusses a link between hawk populations in the southwestern U.S. and breeding success of Black-chinned Hummingbirds.  One wouldn’t immediately think there was much of a link between the two species.  Hummingbirds are far too small and quick for most hawk species to deal with.  They likely couldn’t capture them, and even if they did, they wouldn’t be more than a mouthful.  So how are the species linked?

As the paper discusses, there are actually three bird species who interact to affect nesting success of the hummingbird.  In addition to the Black-chinned Hummingbird, the study looked at Cooper’s Hawks and Mexican Jays.  What they found was that nesting success was much higher for the hummingbirds when they nested very close to Cooper’s Hawk nests.  The Cooper’s Hawks don’t feed on the hummingbirds, but they ARE a threat to Mexican Jays, and Mexican Jays will readily eat hummingbird eggs and young if they get a chance.  In one case, after Cooper’s Hawks left one nesting location, the researchers immediately saw Mexican Jays move in and decimate all hummingbird nests in the area.

Jenga…ala Mother Nature.  That’s what so scary when human beings start to interfere in natural systems.  One of the most publicized impacts of the removal of one species from a system is the Yellowstone ecosystem, before and after the reintroduction of wolves.  It was expected that the reintroduction would impact ungulate populations in the area, but it soon became apparent just how far-reaching an impact wolves have on the ecosystem.  Without wolves, elk and deer browsed freely in lowlands, resulting in nearly all young aspen trees to be browsed to the ground.  Aspen habitat all but disappeared in the park, but with the reintroduction of wolves, that habitat is now being reborn.  With increased aspen came more beavers.  With more aspen habitat and beaver ponds came an influx of more songbirds and other species that use those habitat.  With more wolves, there were fewer coyotes, which meant more small mammals and an increase in numbers of red fox, eagles, and ravens.

All due to the removal of one species.

Be it hawks in the Southwest or wolves in Yellowstone, the removal of one key species can have cascading impacts on the entire ecosystem.  The same certainly can be true in the “reverse” case, where a new, exotic species is introduced into the system.  As a scientist, it’s fascinating to see the incredible impacts humans have on ecosystems, both through how they manage the landscape, and in how they manage the wildlife within that landscape. As just a human being…it also can be pretty depressing to see how we negatively impact so many ecosystems.

Your tax dollars at work – Science or Birds?

Photo of Double-crested Cormorant - By Terry Sohl

Double-crested Cormorant. Clearly by the evil look in his eye, you can tell he’s up to no good. Clearly, this 2 pound bird is a much better fisherman than all the “sportsmen” in the Pacific Northwest, as cormorants have been (wrongly) accused of destroying salmon populations in the region.

Ah, the perks of being a government scientist.  The high pay.  The adulation. The outpouring and love from an American public that doesn’t seem to believe in science any more, a public that seems quite content to ignore those pesky temperature increases on their thermometer, a public that would rather believe that great-great-grandpa Eddie used to ride around on a dinosaur than believe in evolution.  It just keeps better and better.  At least there’s the work, right?  The thought of doing real, unbiased SCIENCE for the public good?

Well sure, there is the work itself.  It’s just a wee bit disheartening however to DO the work the government asks you to do, but have that work ignored by said government.  With that as background…

If you’re not aware of it, there have been active campaigns against the evil Double-crested Cormorant for decades now, with interest groups (primarily fishermen and other “sportsmen”) claiming that the birds are eating all their fish, and therefor they must be destroyed.  It’s been in multiple locations, from the South, to the Great Lakes, and most recently, on the Columbia River basin where fisherman are bemoaning declining salmon populations.  One COULD blame over-fishing.  One COULD also blame a much warmer northern Pacific (global warming anyone?) that has been shown to be taking a toll on salmon.  But no…of course it’s none of that according to these brilliant “sportsmen”.  It’s the evil Double-crested Cormorant that is eating all of “their” salmon.

You might wonder how a species that’s co-existed with salmon for thousands of years suddenly is (supposedly) single-handedly wiping out Cormorant populations.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was also wondering, and thus tasked their biologists to study the issue.  The conclusion from the government scientists?  Double-crested Cormorants weren’t having much of an impact, if any, on salmon populations in the Columbia.  The next course of action by Fish & Wildlife?  Giving their stamp of approval on a plan to KILL 10,000 Double-crested Cormorants in the region.

Yes, that’s correct. Your tax dollars pay for scientists to study EVIDENCE, to use the best available techniques and analyses to study issues such as this.  In this case, government biologists found no connection between the birds and the salmon.  That same government, however, decided to ignore their scientists and STILL start the slaughter of 10,000 birds.  Why?  I’m sure it has EVERYTHING to do with politics and keeping the “sportsman” (HAH!!) lobby happy.  It sure as hell has nothing to do with the science.

If I’m a tax payer, I’m wondering what the hell the government is doing, playing politics instead of paying attention to the science.

As a fellow government scientist, I’m left wondering why the hell any of us are doing our jobs, if our work is going to be ignored.

From Australia…a BETTER story than our own Ivory-biilled Woodpecker

Drawing - Ivory-billed Woodpecker - Terry Sohl

The only image I’m ever likely to make of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker! The recent sighting and capture of a Night Parrot in Australia brings to mind the uproar over the Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings of several years ago. It also brought back distasteful memories of how some skeptical birders reacted to the Ivory-billed news

I still remember the day at work several years ago when a colleague and birder friend came up to me in the hall and excitedly said “Have you heard? Have you HEARD!?!?”  That was the day it was announced in the media that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker had been found again in Arkansas. A species not seen in decades, one that the vast majority of “experts” had declared extinct, yet reports of a number of good sightings from the reputable Cornell ornithology group sent the birding world into an excited tizzy.

A story of similar significance was just published, noting that the famed “Night Parrot” of Australia had been confirmed still alive.  Researchers in Queensland not only recorded instances of the species by sight and by sound, they actually managed to capture a live bird.  A confirmed live bird hadn’t similarly captured since the 1800s, and as the story notes, even despite a pair of dead birds found in the last 30 years, many experts considered the species extinct. The species nests in ground burrows and introduced species, particularly feral cats and introduced rat species, pose a grave threat.  Many thought it was a mortal threat and that the species was forever gone, despite intermittent reports of sightings over the years.

A birding “miracle”, ala our very own Ivory-billed Woodpecker!  Alas,the story of the night parrot is even better than the Ivory-billed Woodpecker story, in that the clear photo and capture of the night parrot was irrefutable evidence of the bird’s continued survival. In the case of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, almost immediately after Cornell announced the sightings of the Arkansas bird(s), doubters emerged from the woodwork. Despite sightings from a number of reputable ornithologists associated with Cornell, and despite more sightings in Florida by Auburn University researchers, an outcry emerged from many in the birding community that without a clear, definitive photo, the sightings didn’t constitute “proof”.  Prominent birder David Sibley was one who led the charge against the published reports, In short, instead of being met with excitement and joy, many in the birding and science communities instead chose to attack the reports, and indeed, to personally attack the Cornell group itself.

Ah, what a difference a photo makes!  One thing I’ve come to truly HATE in the birding community is the competitive nature many birders have.  Given then names involved in the Arkansas and Florida sightings, and given the number of DIFFERENT people who saw and/or heard the birds, I have no doubt that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were seen.  Alas, however, in the birding community nothing brings scorn as does lack of DEFINITIVE proof. Unfortunately, even a CLEAR PHOTOGRAPH doesn’t constitute proof in the eyes of some skeptics, as George Lowry found out in 1971, when two photos were rejected by “experts” as likely fakes.

My opinion…I’ve never met him personally, but thanks to his VERY vigorous reaction to the Ivory-billed episode, I will now forever think of David Sibley as a pompous jackass.  I will now FOREVER equate his name with the many other PJB’s (Pompous Jackass Birders) that I’ve run across over the years.  What did Sibley and others stand to gain by personally attacking the Cornell group? Without a clear photo, Sibley and others COULD have taken the high road, expressing excitement and joy in the sightings, while at the same time encouraging additional work to photograph or even band a live Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

Instead, the (jealous?) PJBs chose the low road, looking at the glass as half-empty and interpreting every bit of evidence in the most skeptical and negative way possible.  All for the lack of a photo.  Congrats to the Queensland group for the wonderful work. I look forward to the day that similar “proof” is found in the case of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.  I look forward to the day of vindication for the Cornell Group, Geoffrey Hill from Auburn, John Dennis for his sightings from the 1940s to 1960s, George Lowry (he of the photos from 1971), and the many others over the years who have been open ridiculed for DARING to publicize a sighting of a species that the jackass PJB’s hadn’t THEMSELVES seen.

 

 

Birds vs. People…guess who wins?

Pirate Island

“Pirate Island”, created from dredged sand in order to provide breeding habitat for coastal birds. A nice idea! Then the selfish “Me First” crowd found the island and turned it into “Party Island” for all intents and purposes. It’s hard to image many birds breeding on an island with this much human activity.

There’s a bird “news” blog I like to read, LittleBirdieHome.  Three times a week, there are new stories posted that relate to birds, from the mundane stories such as “Johnny saw a Three-toed Kingbird down at Newton’s Corner!” to bird research published in scientific journals.  Many times they are feel-good stories.  However, as with any “news”, it ain’t always good.

This week there’s a story from near our old stomping grounds. After college, we lived in Maryland for a couple of years.  Every once in a while we’d head east on a weekend to enjoy Ocean City or another beach on the coast.  It was a nice change of pace for a Midwestern couple who hadn’t even seen the ocean many times.  However, it was also a complete MADHOUSE.  Just traveling back and forth to the coast on a weekend was often bumper to bumper, and you certainly couldn’t ever find solitude once you arrived

The story posted by LittleBirdieHome highlights the attitude that certainly seemed to permeate coastal areas when we were there.  People first!  WITHOUT exception!! That’s the general rule.  Wildlife?  That’s about 48th on the list of most important concerns for coastal visitors.  The story concerns newly created islands and a conflict between birds, and people.  Several small islands were created off the coast to benefit bird species that need quiet, isolated locations for breeding.  However, boaters in the area have made one of the islands into a favorite weekend getaway location, flocking to the sandy beach on the island and the relative solitude compared to the coast itself.  Breeding bird species, for which the island was built?  There’s simply not going to be many breeding birds when people are using the island so heavily.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, as it’s really no different here in South Dakota.  Public lands and parks are DEFINITELY “people first”, with wildlife concerns far down the list of most important land management concerns  It’s SO sad here to visit a favored State Park, only to find that areas of wonderful habitat have been cleared to make room for campers, archers, off-road vehicles, etc.  It seems the people-first method of management is universal in the United States, where the ONLY concern for the public is how they can use (and abuse) public lands.  While the article linked above notes that officials are considering permanently closing the island to human visitation, I would bet the farm that the boating/party/beachbum/LOSER interests win out.

I’d like to think that they’d default to the use the island was built for, but when it comes down to people vs. birds, people always win.  It’s as simple as that.

Tree Nazis strike again in South Dakota

Tree cutting - South Dakota roadsides

Another one of my (former) favorite birding spots, hit by the South Dakota Tree Nazis. If they have their way, no habitat of any kind will be left in the state, and we’ll have a nice homogeneous landscape of corn and soybeans.

Sigh…this is getting old.  I went out this morning to do a bit of birding, and thought I’d try “Ditch Road” north of Sioux Falls.  It’s a spot I like to go to in the mornings.  Ditch road has a ditch that often holds water, with thick trees and shrubs on either side.  The stretch I like to bird is on the west side of the road, so there’s some nice light as I drive it in the morning.

As soon as I turned the corner on to Ditch Road, my heart fell.  Yet another of my favorite birding habitats in the area has fallen prey to the South Dakota Tree Nazis.  If you haven’t heard of the group, they’re an evil underground effort to ensure that all of South Dakota is homogeneous corn and soybeans, and that every little bit of remaining bird habitat is removed.  “Spook Road”, another favorite birding spot just east of my home town of Brandon, has also fallen prey to the Tree Nazis.

In both cases, thick shrubs and trees lining the road have been completely removed.  From the rumors I’ve heard, it’s local and county government efforts to satisfy new insurance requirements.  I’m not sure if it’s true, but I had heard that due to an accident involving someone becoming injured or killed in a vehicle strike on roadside woody vegetation, insurance companies pressured local governments to remove woody vegetation that’s anywhere close to a roadway.

Trees aren’t exactly widespread on the South Dakota plains.  Urban areas certainly have plenty of trees, but otherwise they are typically restricted to riparian areas and fencelines.  In the case of the aforementioned Spook Road, there’s about a 3 mile stretch where a small creek intermittently crosses the road, and it’s the thick riparian/roadside trees and shrubs that were removed.  In the case of Ditch Road, it truly is a very thin strip of tree and shrub habitat, perhaps 30 yards wide in total, but it’s always been a very productive birding location for me, particularly in spring when migrant passerines move through.

And now, like many of my other favorite birding locations, the Tree Nazis have destroyed it.  As the photo above shows, ALL vegetation on the side of the ditch closest to the road has been removed.  I guess I should be thankful the Tree Nazis were feeling gracious, and left the vegetation on the far side of the ditch. It’s a far too common site though in the area, with trees along fencelines, shelter belts, and other roadside trees being removed at an incredible rate.

The South Dakota Tree Nazis have many splinter groups operating in the state as well, including the South Dakota Wetland Destroyers who have been incredibly active in the last couple of years, drain-tiling and destroying every tiny remaining spot of wetland in the area.  For an area that historically was chock-full of little wetlands, I now have to drive a ways to find a functional wetland with any kind of decent birding.

I’ve got a LOT of photos on my main website that were taken on Ditch Road. After what I saw today, all of those photos may now just be a remembrance of a time when Ditch Road had decent birding, before the Tree Nazis did their work…

Ethical dilemma – What to do about cowbirds?

Orchard Oriole and Cowbird Fledgling

Another species that often falls victim to Cowbird parasitism, a Orchard Oriole.

Spring and summer are wonderful times in South Dakota. After a long winter, the weather in the spring and summer is usually fantastic, the landscape comes alive after months of dormancy, and birds return in force.  Come June and July, my yard starts to come alive with the young of the birds that breed in the area.  Unfortunately, it’s also a time where, without fail, I’ll look out into my yard at some point and see a parent of some species feeding a cowbird young.  I don’t know if they’re more prone to cowbird parasitism, but it seems most years I see an adult Chipping Sparrow trying to feed a giant cowbird fledgling that’s easily twice its size.

Human beings definitely are guilty of anthropomorphizing wild animals, treating them as if they have human emotions and feeling sympathy as you would for a human being in a similar situation.  When I see a tiny Chipping Sparrow trying to feed a big, hungry cowbird fledgling, I immediately feel sorry for the Chipping Sparrow, knowing that its nesting success for its own fledglings has likely suffered at the hands of this giant interloper.  I often know where birds are nesting in my yard.  Chipping Sparrows often use my two spruce trees or this thick juniper to build their tiny nests.  In the spring I can often look directly into their nests, and therein lies the ethical dilemma.  What do you do when you see a giant cowbird egg amidst the smaller host bird eggs?

As a scientist, you of course know that cowbirds too are part of the natural environment, and what you’re witnessing is a natural occurrence.  Cowbirds are a native species, and other birds have always had to deal with cowbird parasitism.  On the other hand, there’s also no doubt that cowbirds are more common in many parts of their range compared to historical averages, thanks to human activity.  Cowbirds have always preferred open habitats, but habitat fragmentation and creation of more “edge” habitat has resulted in increased cowbird access to many species that rarely had to deal with it before.

All true!  Cowbirds HAVE benefited from man’s alteration of the landscape!  And that’s the justification I guess I tell myself when I peer into a bird nest, see a cowbird egg, and…pick it out and destroy it.  Yes, I know I’m anthropomorphizing the situation.  Yes, I know it’s a natural occurrence, cowbirds are a native species, and they have a right to survive just as the Chipping Sparrow does.  But in my own mind, it doesn’t seem “right” when I see that cowbird fledgling following around the little Chipping Sparrow fledgling, demanding food.

And thus, I do destroy cowbird eggs when I see them in a nest in my yard.  It’s one of those things I’m conflicted about though, as even though I almost always do it when I see a cowbird egg, I also feel kind of guilty after the act is done.

%d bloggers like this: