Here is the June edition of the Paul & Wayne show!
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul J. Baicich [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 4:43 PM
Subject: Birding Community E-bulletin - June 2007
THE BIRDING COMMUNITY E-BULLETIN
June 2007
This Birding Community E-bulletin is being distributed through the
generous support of Steiner Binoculars as a service to active and
concerned birders, those dedicated to the joys of birding and the
protection of birds and their habitats. You can access an archive of
our past E-bulletins on the website of the National Wildlife Refuge
Association (NWRA):
http://www.refugenet.org/birding/birding5.html
and on the birding pages for Steiner Binoculars
http://www.steiner-birding.com/bulletin.html
RARITY FOCUS
The rarity for May is a Bahama Mockingbird found on 6 May at Bill
Baggs Cape Florida State Park, Dade County, Florida. (For description
and illustration, see the "big" Sibley guide, page 411 and the
National Geographic Guide, page 362-363.)
What, another month with a Florida entry?
Yes, this is four months in a row ( the previous three Florida
rarities were Western Spindalis, Loggerhead Kingbird, and Black
Noddy). This is purely a coincidence because all we try to do each
month is try to pick out the month's accessible and interesting
rarity, without regard to location. With this in mind, the Bahama
Mockingbird is the bird of choice for the June E-Bulletin, even though
it happens to be in Florida again.
A resident of the Bahamas, Jamaica, and small islands on the coast of
Cuba, Bahama Mockingbird has only been found in the U.S. about 20
times before. Most sightings have been in Florida from early April to
mid-June, and mostly between the Dry Tortugas and West Palm Beach.
The first individual ever found was at the Dry Tortugas in 1973.
Interestingly, the Cape Florida bird was not the only Florida
Mockingbird reported in May. On the morning of 2 May, a different
Bahama Mockingbird was described from the NW side of Fort Jefferson in
the Dry Tortugas. Another Bahama Mockingbird, or the same Fort
Jefferson bird, was reported on 29 May. However, the Cape Florida bird
stayed longer and was enjoyed by more observers.
The mockingbird at Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park was found on a
trail by the park's southernmost parking lot. Much to the delight of
many observers the bird frequented buttonwood, strangler fig, and sea
grape in the area through 9 May.
Over the years, many birders believe that the increase in Bahama
Mockingbird sightings is attributable to an increased number of
observers, greater observer awareness, and increased coverage of
birding localities. The species has been usually found in coastal
parks and suburban habitat. May's mockingbird at Bill Baggs Cape
Florida is at least the sixth occurrence of this species at that
particular location.
For a photo by Trey Mitchell of this most recent Cape Florida bird:
http://www.photographwildlife.com/images/TASpost/CapeFlorida/May72007/
index.htm
NEAR-SHORE ATLANTIC ALBATROSS(ES)
Seeing an albatross near shore in the U.S. or Canada is a rare
experience anywhere outside of Alaska or Hawaii. One exception is the
now-famous Laysan Albatross of Point Arena, California, a bird that
has spent fourteen consecutive winters at that harbor. (Local fans
have dubbed him "Mr. Al B. Tross," a bird that will even join local
surfers beyond the waves right outside the harbor.)
An albatross off the northeast coast of North America is another
story. Over the last eight years there have been a spate of
Yellow-nosed Albatross reports. This species is a bird of the southern
Atlantic waters, breeding on a few isolated islands and only rarely
found in the North Atlantic. Initially, a bird was sighted in February
2000 at sea about three miles off Salvo, North Carolina.
This event was followed by a cluster of sightings in May, some of them
actually on land, in Massachusetts, New York (Fire Island), New Jersey
(Cape May area), Rhode Island, and in June, in Massachusetts again.
Since then, there have been additional reports, mainly along the New
England coast, particularly in Massachusetts and Maine. Some observers
believe this is a single stray Yellow-nosed Albatross being spotted
again and again. Others feel that several Yellow-nosed Albatrosses may
be involved.
In any case, in late April a Yellow-nosed Albatross was found dazed
and emaciated in a cow pasture behind the home of Shelley and Ryan
Coite in Cape Neddick, Maine. The Coites contacted the Center for
Wildlife, also in Cape Neddick, and the center eventually delivered
the bird to the Tufts Wildlife Clinic in North Grafton, Massachusetts,
a facility capable of sophisticated treatment. There, the albatross
was fed squid and fresh fish until it doubled its weight, eventually
attaining a healthy 4.2 pounds.
In late May, the bird was released at a beach in Falmouth,
Massachusetts, and on its back it carried a light satellite
transmitter - a $3,000-device donated by Habit Research, a Canadian
manufacturing company. The bird's wanderings were to be tracked until
the batteries wear out, or until the albatross molts the feathers
carrying the unit.
Unfortunately, the bird was tracked back to land on Cape Cod a few
days later. As of this writing the bird is back at Tufts, but should
soon be released again offshore. Eventually, a website will be
established so the public can follow the travels of this remarkable
wanderer. (Once a web site is made public, we will let you know via
this E-bulletin.) Among other things, we might eventually determine if
future reports of Yellow-nosed Albatross off the NE coast involve the
same bird or multiple individuals.
For a map of the normal range of the species, plus some New England
locales, see:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/05/21/Map
_of_albatross_breeding_ground/
WINDPOWER: NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ANNOUNCES THE OBVIOUS
In early May, a report was released by the National Academy of
Sciences on the environmental impact of wind-energy projects.
Among other things, the report criticized "the lack of any truly
coordinated planning" in the rapid growth of wind farms across the
country. It specifically encouraged federal, state, and local
governments to pay more attention to the planning, regulation, and
location of wind-energy projects at sites where there could be
threats to wildlife, or where scenic landscapes could be adversely
impacted.
Wind currently provides less than one percent of the nation's
electricity; however, it is still the fastest-growing alternative to
fossil fuel-produced power.
The report noted that the percentage of birds killed by collisions
with wind towers and their spinning blades is relatively low compared
to the numbers killed by automobiles or collisions with buildings and
other lighted structures. As wind power increases during the next two
decades, wind turbines could also begin to threaten local populations
of certain bat species and continue to impact birds, especially along
unspecified "migration corridors."
Although the report failed to break any new ground, it did report
that, "In light of the lack of follow-up by environmental impact
studies. . . more careful tracking of bird and bat populations,
behavior, migration corridors, and other factors that may affect
their risk of collisions with turbines is warranted, especially for
threatened or endangered species." To provide an organized approach
to the use of wind energy and its effects on the environment, the
report's evaluation guide recommended using systematic pre- and
post-construction studies to explore potential wildlife and other
impacts to improve how such facilities are built, located, and
operated.
Mandated by Congress, this report was drafted by a group of academics
assembled by the National Research Council, an arm of the National
Academy of Science.
That the obvious findings were accompanied with trumpet and fanfare
came as a surprise to some observers, as did the recommended
guidelines on "aesthetic impacts" since the recommendations came from
a body ostensibly assigned a "scientific" task.
The Academy's summary can be found here:
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/wind_energy_final.pdf
BIOFUELS AND BIRD CONSERVATION
And speaking of energy and birds, we recommend you take a look at an
article, "Biofuels and Ducks" in the May/June issue of DUCKS
UNLIMITED magazine.
Although this article by Jim Ringelman has a waterfowl emphasis,
concentrating on the Prairie Pothole Region of the northern Great
Plains, its message has almost as much to do with all the birds
living in the Prairie Pothole Region, including grassland and wetland
songbirds, shorebirds, and other waterbirds. We've previously
addressed concerns in this arena mostly focusing on CRP and ethanol.
Ringelman's article is a thoughtful primer on the options inherent in
the ethanol-and-biomass choices increasingly confronting us.
You can find an on-line version of Ringelman's article here:
http://www.ducks.org/DU_Magazine/DUMagazineMayJune2007/3213/Biofuelsan
dDucks.html
FLAP OVER BIRD COLLISIONS: KILL THE LIGHTS
In March 2006, we wrote of cooperative bird-conservation efforts in
Toronto to reduce avian mortality as result of collisions with glass
and lights:
http://www.refugenet.org/birding/marSBC06.html#TOC03
and
http://www.steiner-birding.com/bulletin/mar06.html
In early May of this year, the volunteers at the Fatal Light
Awareness Program (FLAP) in Toronto announced that they had recovered
a "record number of birds in 2006: over 5,400 birds from 93 species"
that had collided with buildings within the Greater Toronto Area.
Forty percent of the birds rescued were released back into the wild.
Another 2,500 dead birds killed during fall migration in 2006 were
dramatically displayed at the local Metro Hall Rotunda. The display
of these dead collision victims, though grim and theatrical, was also
most effective:
http://www.toronto.ca/lightsout/news.htm
The creative project, "Lights Out Toronto," involving the city and
multiple partners, has resulted in a public awareness campaign aimed
at drawing attention to the issue of glass-and-light induced
bird-strikes, along with establishing a practical set of new
building- and lighting-guidelines. For more information see:
http://www.toronto.ca/lightsout/pdf/development_guidelines.pdf
At a time when Global Warming has drawn the well-deserved attention
of many, the reduction of light pollution (and parallel energy
savings) is an element that can easily be brought into the
discussion. One campaign slogan in Toronto is: "Kill the Lights. Save
the Birds."
We have, of course, discussed building strikes and glass-issues
multiple times in the E-bulletin, including Chicago's parallel
Light-Out program. For more details see:
http://www.lightsout.audubon.org/
and
http://www.birdsandbuildings.org/index1024.html
STUDY SUMMARIZES WEST NILE BIRD LOSSES
A study in NATURE last month summarized some of the losses in bird
populations as a result of the emergence of West Nile Virus in 1999.
The research examined 26 years of Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data to
assess declines among certain common bird species.
The researchers, S. L. LaDeau, A. M. Kilpatrick, and P. P. Marra,
actually focused on 20 common species that are regularly surveyed
each breeding season. Populations of seven of these species have
shown measurable, if not dramatic, declines across the continent
since West Nile's arrival.
West Nile Virus hit seven species - American Crow, Blue Jay, Tufted
Titmouse, American Robin, House Wren, Black-capped/Carolina Chickadee
and Eastern Bluebird - hard enough to be statistically significant.
Only the Blue Jay and House Wren have bounced back since 2005. The
hardest-hit species was the American Crow. According to this study
about one-third of the crows in the United States may have been
killed by West Nile virus.
Suburban America, where many of these species are found in numbers,
may offer a ready home for the virus, with an abundance of all the
things the virus needs to spread. In the case of the eastern
seaboard, Dr LaDeau said, "That heavily packed urban corridor is a
bad place to be a bird. The reason for that is that the mosquito
prefers human landscape. They do very well in suburbia."
Among the 20 bird species examined, 13 species did not show declines
attributed to West Nile. Biologists say that other species have
exhibited significant mortality, such as owls, hawks, sage-grouse and
Yellow-billed Magpie, but there are no reliable or broad-based
surveys to quantify (before and after) how bad the losses may have
been. Researchers suggest that birds of prey could be particularly
vulnerable.
West Nile Virus has been mentioned numerous times in the E-bulletin,
including its impact on beleaguered sage-grouse populations that we
summarized last September:
http://www.refugenet.org/birding/sepSBC06.html#TOC14
and
http://www.steiner-birding.com/bulletin/sept06.html
For a concise abstract of the study from NATURE, see:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature05829.htm
l
For another summary see:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=west-nile-killing-off-bel&chanI
D=sa003&modsrc=reuters
DO FENCES REALLY "MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS"?
Birders have been among those watching with dismay the plans by the
U. S. Department of Homeland Security to build a 700-mile barrier of
fencing, raised levee-like roads, vehicle barriers, radar units,
flood lights, and video surveillance along the U.S.-Mexican border.
The focus last month was the Rio Grande Valley. (Previously, the
issue, particularly with bird-and-wildlife impact, has focused on
Arizona and California.)
After decades of turning back the clock along the banks of the Rio
Grande, planting cleared agricultural fields with native trees and
brushy thickets to shelter wildlife, and otherwise building a natural
corridor that had severely suffered through the years as a result of
inappropriate previous development, these restoration efforts are now
facing a stark new barrier, quite literally.
Local mayors in The Valley were appalled in February to learn of a
map showing 153 miles of border fencing in Texas, part of a plan to
erect 370 miles by the end of 2008. The Mayors said that the effort
would cut off landowners and endangered wildlife from the river, ruin
flood-control systems, and send the wrong message to Texas' biggest
trading partner.
Things looked worse in early May when it became clearer that such
core sites as Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, Lower Rio Grande
Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and a number of county and state
properties essential to nurturing an effective wildlife corridor,
were not only not immune from the barrier plans, but were at times
front-and-center.
For example, wildlife refuge officials recently learned at a meeting
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that plans could impact the
refuges much sooner than previously anticipated. This is because
refuge property could be placed on the "fast track" because it is
already owned by the federal government and no condemnation
proceedings would be required.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has since said the map is no
longer accurate, and was simply a "starting point" for discussions.
Still, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection admits that "all areas
of the border, including federal lands, are included in our efforts
to gain effective control."
Most local leaders in The Valley insist that the fence clearly sends
the wrong message:
"This wall would do damage to those of us living on both sides of the
wall," said State Sen. Eddie Lucio from the border city of
Brownsville. "This is a wall of shame that we neither want nor
welcome. Texas is connected to Mexico by 23 bridges. Through these
bridges we maintain our centuries-old friendships and blood ties with
Mexico, as well as the trade and tourism which benefits this state
and the entire United States of America."
"No physical wall is going to keep people from coming in. The core of
the problem is an economic issue. We have integrated all of the
markets in North America but we have failed to integrate the labor
market," said McAllen Mayor Richard Cortez.
Father Tom Pincelli, a Catholic priest and birder in The Valley who
chairs the American Birding Association board of directors, commented
on the $125 million pumped into the Valley's economy each year by
nature tourists, by saying , "They've opened up a tremendous amount
of land, and eco-tourism is growing by leaps and bounds. This is one
more step backward. And the municipalities, right and left, are
dead-set against it."
For a summary of developments, see:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4799025.html
BOOK REVIEW: GOOD BIRDERS
Lisa White, editor at Houghton Mifflin, has assembled an easy-going
and lively collection of birding advice, with 50 short essays by
well-known birders. The collection, GOOD BIRDERS DON'T WEAR WHITE,
dispenses recommendations and advice to birders at every level, on
topics ranging from feeding birds and cleaning binoculars to the
value of birding traditions and introducing children to birds.
From satirizing bird snobs to sharpening your field skills, the
essays can be viewed as both entertaining and useful. Most
importantly, they are presented in a lighthearted manner.
Among others, the essayists include: Jon Dunn, Pete Dunne, Victor
Emanuel, Laura Erickson, Tim Gallagher, Jeff Gordon, Kevin Karlson,
Kenn Kaufman, Paul Lehman, David Sibley, Don and Lillian Stokes, Clay
Sutton, Bill Thompson III, Dick Walton, Scott Weidensaul, Sheri
Williamson, and Julie Zickefoose. Artist Robert Braunfield
illustrates many of the essays with comical black-and-white line
drawings.
A portion of the proceeds of the book will be donated to the Roger
Tory Peterson Institute, dedicated to the teaching and study of
nature and an appreciation of birds:
http://www.rtpi.org/
In the interest of full disclosure, both of the E-bulletin's editors
also have little essays in the book. This should not discourage you
from buying the book, however!
SCIENTISTS WORLDWIDE CALL FOR BOREAL FOREST PROTECTION
Last month, some 1,500 highly respected scientists from more than 50
countries around the world called for the protection of Canada's
Boreal Forest. The scientists identified the 1.4 billion-acre
Canadian Boreal Forest as one of the largest intact forest and
wetland ecosystems remaining on earth. Its health is vital to the
survival of North America's migratory birds.
As regular readers of this E-bulletin know, the Boreal Forest is
under increasing pressure from corporate logging, mining and oil and
gas operations, and only ten percent has been protected to date, far
less than what is scientifically recognized as necessary to sustain
the ecosystem over time.
The scientists' letter recommends preserving a minimum of half of
Canada's Boreal Forest in protected areas, and only allowing
carefully managed development on the rest. This plan is in accordance
with the Boreal Forest Conservation Framework, a program already
endorsed by Canadian conservation groups, 25 Canadian First Nations,
and more than 75 major businesses having annual sales of $30 billion
or more.
Here is the link for more information (press release, the letter
itself, scientist signatures by region, and more):
http://www.borealbirds.org/scienceletter.shtml
NOT ENOUGH FUNDING FOR BIRD CONSERVATION?
Recently, when bird conservationists have gone to Congress with
proverbial hat in hand, the response has often been that "there is
just not enough money to go around." This is because each
appropriations subcommittee in Congress works under a finite spending
cap. The result is that there is often unpleasant squabbling over
insufficient slices from the same small pie.
This year might be different.
This year there may be more money to address some of our conservation
concerns. On 17 May, Congress passed its fiscal year 2008 Budget
Resolution that sets overall caps on various categories of spending
within which the individual appropriations committees must operate.
This included $31.94 billion for "Function 300" which encompasses
most natural resource and environmental spending. That's a $1.5
billion increase over last year and $3.1 billion more than the
President's budget requested.
Indeed, the "Function 300" increase means that there is more for FY08
for multiple issues of concern to bird conservationists, resulting in
better potential distribution from that larger pie. Some of these
conservation-spending numbers passed their first important hurdle
through a late May "mark-up" in the House Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee. They appear below in millions (m), after some Bird
Conservation Funding Coalition (BCFC) or Cooperative Alliance for
Refuge Enhancement (CARE) requests and last year's FY07 approved
spending in parentheses
Program (number requested through BCFC or CARE - FY07 enacted -
actual mark-up)
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act ($5.5m - $4m - $5m)
Migratory Bird Joint Ventures ($15.1m - $10.8m - $11.1m)
Fish and Wildlife Science and Support ($29.52m - $26.94m - $27.94m)
North American Wetlands Cons. Act - NAWCA ($50m - $39.4m - $42.6m)
State Wildlife Grants ($85m - $67.5m - $85m)
Forest Service International Programs ($8m - $6.9m - $8m)
National Wildlife Refuge System Operations & Maintenance ($451.5m -
$395m - $451m)
As the last listed numbers show, these all went up, some
significantly. Further decisions on spending must go through the
House Appropriations Committee, the full House, the Senate Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee, and the
full Senate. Still, indications are encouraging, as long as Congress
hears from a concerned public.
- - - - - -
You can access an archive of past E-bulletins on the National
Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) website:
http://www.refugenet.org/birding/birding5.html
and on the birding pages for Steiner Binoculars
http://www.steiner-birding.com/bulletin.html
If you wish to distribute all or parts of any of the monthly Birding
Community E-bulletins, we simply request that you mention the source
of any material used. (Include a URL for the E-bulletin archives, if
possible.)
If you have any friends or co-workers who want to get onto the
monthly E-bulletin mailing list, have them contact either:
Wayne R. Petersen, Director
Massachusetts Important Bird Areas (IBA) Program
Mass Audubon
718/259-2178
OR
Paul J. Baicich
410/992-9736
|