[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

migrants B&W Warbler, L. Yellowlegs, R-t. Hummer. swifts, Farm Stewardship



Have not been to the sod farm in Scotland Neck to see migrant fallout.  I 
feel bad not checking the sod farm, but that is 30 miles away ($15 in 
mileage each trip), and my focus is elsewhere.

But, at home, when a very light rain started and stopped yesterday (18th) 
two calling Lesser Yellowlegs came ever lower as if to land.  I called them 
and they circled 2-3 times, then seemed to head toward a neighbor's pond to 
land.  Made me wonder if there was more precipitation at the altitude where 
they had been migrating south into our tropical storm.  I thought the 
yellowlegs were insignificant, but seem a lot, compared to the few seen on 
the Bear Island NAMC.  These were surely not the only migrant shorebirds 
coming to ground before the storm.  I feel bad not checking the sod farm, 
but that is 30 miles away ($15 in mileage each trip), and my focus is 
elsewhere.

Later in the day a Black and White Warbler appeared in my small trees 
(plums, mimosa, Russian olive) near the greenhouses where I was working, 
plus a Baltimore Oriole (heard vigorously scolding, only) [and some ordinary 
yardbirds (chippers, Carolin Wr., etc.) in a "mixed flock"].  These are 
uncommon, but regular migrants this time of year, but perhaps part of the 
movements noted by other observers closer to the coast. More effort at 
birding here might find more passerine migrants, but never what the coast 
and piedmont produce, I think (based upon previous years' daily banding). 
(Had 21 species in my one big oak in a few minutes last week, but nothing 
significant, just locals and ordinary migrants.)

Last Sunday (17th) I had maybe a dozen Yellowthroats in a 6-acre drained 
pond (15 roadmiles away).  No surprise.  Common migrant here, especially in 
such good habitat,  Nice tall drenching-dew grass/smartweed/bulrush marshy 
vegetation.  Could not drag the marsh by myself using a rope.  At least, I 
heard no rails respond to my feeble imitations of their voices.

Today (19th) we have only 2 hummingbirds, down from 4 before the cold front 
and storm.  The hummers did seem to "change the guard" before diminishing in 
numbers, having an "attitude" after a period of relative peace among the 
visitors to the two feeders last month.  I guess Hilton's banding would 
indicate whether it is a changing of individuals or of attitude by the 
Ruby-throats.  Soon hummers will disappear from my feeders and cannas, but I 
think we already have had them linger later than usual.

I read where efforts are being made to save chimneys in the Northwest for 
roosting swifts.  We lost the Benvenue School chimney in Rocky Mount to a 
Walmart Superstore; that chimney held hundreds or thousands of swifts in the 
fall.  Maybe those birds can still roost at City Lake's big old chimney, a 
few miles away.
Perhaps we should pay people or publicize the roosts, to keep the heat from 
being turned on before the birds have passed through, and/or to keep the 
more significant chimneys in existence.
Where, one wonders, do swifts go if there are no chimneys for 50 miles?  
They could go maybe 100 miles in an afternoon to find a new place to tarry 
(searching for swifts who look in no hurry), and maybe 300 in a day if 
pressed by a front.  What do you know?



I want to discuss the Farm Stewardship programs and paying farmers and other 
landowners who produce birds and provide habitat for the birds, such as 
chimney swifts:


I was told by a nongame biologist that the Farm Stewardship program helps 
pay farmers for maintaining wildlife habitat, but then my local soil 
conservationist said "Yes!" there is a program, but "No!", there is no 
funding.
How can we persuade people to provide habitat for swifts and rails and 
Red-cockaded Woodpeckers when we spend all our money on mileage and salaries 
for "biologists", but do not fund programs to pay for habitat and nesting, 
such as the (private) Nature Conservancy and (federal) Farm Stewardship?
What should I reply when I am told a landowner in Wilson County was not 
allowed to cut his timber due to Red-cockaded Woodpeckers?  Who will 
reimburse the landowner for the thousands of dollars per acre of 
pulpwood/timber he cannot cut?  Who can stand there and support conservation 
of birds when the landowner's timber is losing thousands of dollars of value 
each year due to it getting ever more "overmature"?  And, we birders want 
the redhearted "rotting" timber to stay up, so we can have Red-cockadeds now 
and for the future of our world.
I certainly am not (as a registered Republican) going to vote for George 
Bush if he will not conserve our natural resources;  nor, I wonder, will Al 
Gore put out the money to pay all those who provide habitat for our wildlife 
resources.  But, I do feel more confident that the "new" conservative 
Democrats will actually pay for what they get, conservation.  I feel less 
confident that Republicans will even try to save our birds, let alone use 
our tax surplus to put some funding to the worthwhile conservation projects 
(such as Farm Stewardship or conservation easements).  Eventually, some 
Republicans will vote for funding, I am sure.

I do not know all the details, but there are some programs funded, such as 
CRP and WRP (Wetland Reserve program) lands.
Also, I believe we heard about such items as putting away another million 
acres in NC for conservation.  This is pie in the sky until it gets done.
Again, my concern is that the funds we get for nongame purposes first go to 
acquiring and protecting land.  I have a hard time faulting the Clinton 
Administration (as my party's candidate, Bush, just did) for spending too 
much on acquiring land, and not enough on maintaining it (in national 
parks).  Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't our first priority getting 
stuff conserved, our second paying for our setasides, and isn't making land 
pretty (or better for wildlife) a lower, third priority?  I am not sure that 
birding trails, boardwalks and towers are something for federal or state 
funds; maybe local tourism bureaus, local businesses, commercial interests 
should fund the improvements to the land.
Forgive me if I seem political, but this is an election year, and most 
birders have seen firsthand the need to setaside acreage (which is most 
important for the majority of birders in urban areas, and less noted in 
rural areas such as here).  This is less political than it is realistic and 
moral.

Again, I want to remind everybody that somebody has to pay for conservation 
of land and habitats for our birds.  If nobody pays, then somebody is giving 
something for nothing, or, maybe, "nothing is being done".  Our government 
may have a tendency to have big projects with employees and offices, but 
nothing trickling down to the landowners/farmers.  We all have a tendency to 
"trespass", to check out birds on somebody else's property.  It's OK.
I do wonder how shamed some of our agencies, particularly state and federal, 
might be if we compared them to charities:  what is the overhead for our 
natural resources agencies, compared to funds actually spent to acquire (not 
maintain) lands?  90% overhead?  Wow!
While I do not mind making so sensational a point ("Conservation agencies 
bilk taxpayers of millions!  Funds diverted for travel and salaries!") for 
emphasis, I do have to admit that when we get around to actually paying 
people who keep (naturally) nesting eagles, owls, herons, ducks, and rails, 
that will make the nongame offices look bad---so much overhead!  But, that 
is why we pay taxes.  We want to pay that overhead to maintain a healthy 
environment, including nongame species.

But, right now, we have no reassurance that we have enough habitat to 
maintain our species, both woodland and grassland, in North Carolina and the 
eastern US, given the rate of development.  I do think we should have a 
scorecard that rates the agencies (including municipality, county, state and 
federal) in their effectiveness in using their funds to conserve habitat.  
That means acquiring land.  It does not mean mileage and salaries.

I have been dissatisfied, for years, with the way that our public servants 
keep their jobs by not protesting the piddling funding they receive.  The 
situation reminds me of the UNC problem, that physical plant was allowed to 
deteriorate, and it seemed that nobody quit their "professional" jobs in 
protest.  At least the new UNC President now plainly states (on website) 
that years of non-funding have led to this crisis.  She states that even the 
repair program voted in a few years ago can have no effect if it is not 
funded! (This reminds me of the non-funding of Farm Stewardship.)
Since Mrs. Broad stated this, I will now vote for the UNC bond issue, even 
though I think we were let down both by our elected representatives and by 
our bureaucrats (=public employees, in university system).

Perhaps we need a bond issue to acquire lands for conservation.
But, I think we need a continuing fund to pay private landowners/farmers to 
produce nongame species.  A sort of payment schedule, say $10,000 per 
Red-cockaded fledged, $100 per Bald Eagle fledged, $20 per Barn-owl fledged. 
  Years ago Howard Odum stated that we need to organize the system, to 
institute feedback loops from the manmade to the natural parts of the 
ecosystems.  That is what I want done.
Subsidizing the production of both game and nongame species/habitats might 
make more sense than some subsidies for crops;  farmers do seem to need 
subsidies, if we look at the experiences of the last century, and subsidies 
for natural resources would make a lot of sense today.  I am specifically 
thinking about the recent "Freedom To Farm" act, also called "Freedom To Go 
Bust" act, by many farmers.
Farming, like health care, education, pulic safety, defense, is not an area 
for untrammelled capitalistic notions.  Subsidies to farmers/landowners for 
producing wildlife would mean that such private agencies as the Nature 
Conservancy would get millions in subsidies.  That is right.  What would the 
Nature Conservancy do if it got federal funding (indirectly, as fee for 
service)?  Gee, we might solve our conservation problem!
Perhaps part of the problem is that the government's professionals would see 
such decentralized management as a threat to their "empires".  But, we still 
would need agencies who certify that the land is set side or that the 
wildlife is being produced, quite a big budget there!

While I am on the subject, maybe we ought to put in subsidies for production 
and cultivation of children.  We need people to keep our systems, both 
natural and manmade, going.  I am only a guy, but how about paying women at 
least $20,000 a year to stay at home and raise their children?  Our society 
not only has taken the production of game and nongame species/habitats as a 
free (unpaid) good from farmers, but we do not pay mothers, both biological 
and real "moms" (I hate that word--better "parents") for producing our human 
resources.
This failure to pay for women's work is a major source, I have been told, of 
invidious sexual inequality in our society.  I wonder how we, as a society, 
can afford to pay both farmers and mothers what they deserve.  As a husband, 
I am not sure I can afford to pay my wife what she is worth.
But, I am tired of being told how hard farmers and mothers work.  And I am 
tired of being told how wonderful farmers and women are.  For God's sake, 
which taxpayer really thinks that people (read "women") are going to 
continue to work as teachers and nurses for substandard wages?  Why do you 
suppose there is a shortage of teachers, of nurses, and of Red-cockaded 
Woodpeckers and of Black Rails?

As a society, we aren't paying what we should pay, I think.  Both for 
natural and for human resources.
Of course, if our society continues to be rich enough, if individuals have 
enough money, and some interest, perhaps we can continue to raise birds and 
children using private funds.  The problems arise when farmers and women do 
other things with their time, and we end up with fewer birds, or children 
with "no home training".
Also, not all farmers and women have enough money to do what they would like 
for natural resources and their children.  And, depending on voluntary 
efforts to raise birds and children is unfair, since the benefits accrue to 
all in our society, like the benefits from health care, education, public 
safety and defence.

My apologies for being long-winded.  This Farm Stewardship problem has been 
stewing inside me for weeks.  Now I will try to keep silent at least a week.

Frank Enders, Halifax NC.  fkenders@hotmail.com