[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
migrants B&W Warbler, L. Yellowlegs, R-t. Hummer. swifts, Farm Stewardship
- To: carolinabirds@duke.edu
- Subject: migrants B&W Warbler, L. Yellowlegs, R-t. Hummer. swifts, Farm Stewardship
- From: "Frank Enders" <fkenders@hotmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:10:25 EDT
- Sender: carolinabirds-owner@acpub.duke.edu
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