Those Amazing Birds

I'm writing from Huatulco, Mexico, a wonderful ecotouristic spot on the Mexican west coast. Our cruise ship stopped here for the day and I hired a local private guide to take me birdwatching. I have found local guides all over the world and they are invariably excellent birders; Cornelio was no exception. We went to a local new national park (we were one of maybe five visitors that day) and in the first few minutes we were inundated with bird sightings and calls from spectacular Mexican birds. Even the common ones, like the Yellow-winged Cacique, were spectacularly colored.

We got a good look at the Rufous Motmot, with its racket-shaped tail. The long tail grows like any bird's long tail, but the Motmot picks the barbs out of part of the tail to make the end of it look like a spade-shaped tennis racket. Don't know of any other bird that changes its feather shape like that. Then there is its unusual call - "mot-mot, mot-mot", hence the name. The beautiful colors are a bonus.

We then saw a Citrelline Trogon with its iridescent colors, a Cinnamon Hummingbird that looks like its name, and a Mexican Jay sitting on its nest. Sneaking up on a wetland habitat, we came upon a dozen Boat-billed Herons, three cacique nests, scared off a Mangrove Black Hawk, and set the telescope on a Pygmy Owl that called continually from its perch.  A little ways down the trail, we came across three large woodpeckers that reminded me of the Ivory-billed because of their size. A pair of Lineated Woodpeckers were drilling a tree right next to a Pale-billed Woodpecker; they were very impressive.

A Tri-colored Heron, Reddish Egret, Yellow-headed Caracara, and a flock of Black-bellied Whistling Ducks graced the beach near the ocean while Black Vultures circled below us and at eye-level from our perch on a cliff. In the distance we could watch Magnificent Frigate Birds harass gulls and each other for their fish catches - this food stealing is called "kleptoparasitism."

I enjoy watching tropical birds because of thier variety of appearances and calls, and just because they are not something I see every day. The only down side is that they are hard to see in the dense tropical forest and it tends to be very humid.  It had to be 90 degrees with 90% humidity; I returned to the ship looking like a drowned rat.

We also visited Aruba (where I inadvertently donated my camera to the environment), Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Guatemala, all offering a bit of birdwatching. Seeing the world from a cruise ship has a lot of advantages, but one has to plan carefully to do any birdwatching. Sometimes it just doesn't work. In Nicaragua, we walked a couple of miles in and on the outskirts of a small town and along the beach; it was basically a bird-free zone. I don't know if the locals or the mangy, undernourished feline and canine strays did them in, but my bird list was depauperate.

Ever since the advent of agriculture there have been problems with birds partaking of the harvest. There are all kinds of methods today to try to deter crop predators, the most well known being, of course, the scarecrow, which has existed for at least 3000 years.  Approximately 2,500 years ago, Greek farmers  carved scarecrows in the image of Priapus, a minor fertility god and protector of crops (as  well as male genitalia.) Priapus was said to be such an ugly child child that when he played in the vineyards he scared away the birds. This induced farmers to make the wooden statues, painting them purple, with a club in one hand in order to make the statues look more menacing.

 In Medieval England birds were a lot more abundant than they are now and crop loss to hungry birds much more devastating, so farmers used young boys and sometimes girls nine or older as bird scarers. They patrolled wheat fields carrying bags of stones and if crows or starlings landed in the fields they would chase them off by making noise, waving their arms, and throwing the stones. Sometimes, instead of stones, the children carried clappers of various designs that made noise. 

Bird scarers continued to patrol British fields until the 1800s when factories and mines opened up and offered children better jobs.The black plague of the 14^th century killed so many people that landowners could not find enough bird scarers to protect their crops, so they stuffed sacks with straw, carved faces in gourds or pumpkins, and made scarecrows that stood against poles.

 In America, Native Americans used scarecrows or adult men as bird scarers. Some of these men sat on raised platforms and howled or shouted if predators can near the corn. In Georgia, Creek Indian families moved into huts in their corn fields during the growing season. In what is now New York, the Seneca Indians soaked corn seeds in a poisons her mixture that apparently disoriented the birds. In the American Southwest, Zuni Indians used fiber made from the yucca plant stretched between poles placed all over the cornfield; rags, skins of coyotes, and the shoulder blades of other animals were hung from the lines to scare birds.

 When the colonists settled in North America in the 1600s, 

pilgrim families took turns as bird scarers. They not only had to scare birds, but wolves as well as  the wolves tried to dig up the 

fish the pilgrims buried to fertilize their crops. By the 1700s, with increasing needs for food, bird scarers were not efficient enough to prevent serious crop loss, so bounties were established for dead crows. Unfortunately, like many well-intentioned but not well-thought out plans, so many crows were killed that by the 1800s corn borers and other insects which were once eaten by crows were now destroying more corn than the crows ever did. Finally the bounties were stopped.

Stay tuned to find out more about scarecrows and if the plastic owl you bought to frighten birds actually works.

 This year was the 112^th Audubon Christmas Bird Count. Over six million birds of about 650 species were observed and counted from Dec 11, 2011 to Jan 5, 2012. All these data show definite trends, mostly not good. One of the things we have found out is that about 60% of the birds whose range is fairly large over the U.S. have moved their ranges northward by an average of 35 miles over the past 40 years.

  There is no doubt that the climate is getting warmer. Every single year for the past 35 years there has been an increase in the average world temperature and the past dozen years have seen the highest temperatures on record. Warmer temperatures cause seeds to germinate, flowers to bloom, insects to emerge, and fruits to form earlier and plants and animals to slowly move farther north. Birds depend on these, their food sources, and so they move farther north as well. Some moved faster than others. Hummingbirds, for example, need nectar and insects and can respond quickly to flower blooms, and so their movement has been rapid. Black Vultures, however, eating mostly carrion, have adapted only slowly because their food source hasn't changed much. Birds restricted to narrow niches like the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and Everglades Kite have moved imperceptibly, if at all.

 The Christmas Count, the Breeding Bird Survey, and Partners in flight data all note a disturbing trend - a major decline in many species of birds. The decline varies with the species and part of the country, but a majority of bird species have lost 30-60%, even up to 80%, of their numbers since 1967. Examples: the population of the Evening Grosbeak has declined from 17 million to an estimated 3.8 million (78%), and the Northern Bobwhite Quail from 31 million to 5.5 million (82%).

Why? Reasons vary with each species, but consider that the human population of the U.S. has increased by 33% from 200 to 300 million since 1967. We now add one new person every 11 seconds. Each person requires food, shelter, clothing, water, utilities, and so forth. We are covering our landscape with 

structures and roads while we mine, drill, cut, and scrape for natural resources, producing solid, gaseous, and liquid waste in the process. It is no wonder that birds are disappearing at such a rapid rate.

 Birds are ecological indicators. If they are dying off, so is the environment upon which we all depend. Not just to save the birds, but to save the planet we need to take serious action immediately. Will we? I seriously doubt it. With the overwhelming majority of our state and federal politicians either scientifically illiterate, bought off by big business, or, most likely, both, what are the chances we will take major steps to curb greenhouse gases, switch to renewable energy, consume less, or recycle more? Not much, I fear. Organizations that speak for birds just don't have the resources to compete for politicians' attention that Wall Street and Big Oil do.        

I am speaking of the salamander, not the politician seeking the Republican nomination. In the valley and on the coasts of California the California Newt is pretty common in the moist springtime. Growing up to eight inches long and colored orange-yellow-brown, it is easy to find. Like a number of animals, its bright color serves as a warning to its potential predators.

Taricha torosa has glands in its skin that secrete a deadly neurotoxin called Tetrodotoxin, a poison hundreds of times more toxic than cyanide and is the same poison  found  in pufferfish. (In Japan where pufferfish are a delicacy, chefs have to be especially trained in the preparation of the fish so as not to poison their restaurant customers.) Bacteria actually synthesize the chemical and newts get it from eating the bacteria. If you were to handle a newt and then lick your fingers, you could ingest this poison, so be careful and wash your hands if you pick one up.

What does this have to do with birds? Well, some birds eat amphibians: Great Blue Herons, kingfishers, and shrikes, for example. So it would be 

nice, if you were an amphibian, to have some protection. Being poisonous is one way. But it's not that simple. If a newt is eaten by a bird and the bird dies, nobody wins; the bird doesn't  learn and a newt is dead. So the toxin's actual purpose is not to kill predators but to teach them that a newt is a bad meal. Even though birds do not have a good sense of taste, the toxin is strong enough to teach them not to eat any more newts. Other salamanders and many South American frogs are also toxic. Along with being poisonous, these animals are brightly colored - to advertise the fact that they are toxic.

The same trick works with Monarch Butterflies who eat milkweed as larvae and ingest cardiac glycosides which are very distasteful to birds. So the 

Monarch is protected from bird predation. The Viceroy Butterfly has evolved to look like a monarch but is not poisonous; it is also avoided by birds because birds can't tell the difference between the bad-tasting Monarch and the edible Viceroy. (Viceroy at bottom of photo.)

But birds don't totally avoid bad-tasting prey. Recent experiments have shown that European Starlings differentiate among individual prey animals that have different levels of toxin. The starlings ate non-toxic and mildly toxic mealworms and avoided the very toxic ones as the more toxic they were the more distasteful they were. There is no reason for birds to avoid toxins totally as the prey also contain useful nutrients, so the birds learn to discriminate.

Evolution has produced lots of bad tasting and toxic plants and animals in order to deter predators. Some predators have evolved ways around this. A classic example is that of birds being able to eat hot chili peppers. The chemical that burns our mouths when we eat them, capsaicin, does not set off birds' taste buds.

I was in Warsaw, Poland about ten years ago, just being a tourist. As my wife and I walked through the main square we noticed a lot of commotion and people gathering. We were curious so we stood around for a few minutes to see what was up and all of a sudden a car pulls up and Prince Charles exits to greet the crowd. I got a poor photo, as you can see, but it shows that I was about 20 feet from the prince. Over the years I have run into entertainment stars (Telly Savalas, Jerry Lewis, Art Carney) and a couple of years ago I sat two seats behind Nancy Pelosi on a flight to Denver.

 Sightings of birds are different. They don't travel all over the place like famous people do; most are restricted to a certain part of the world and certain habitats. It  takes a bit of experience to accurately identify bird species and geographic location is a big clue. I get asked almost every day to identify a bird somewhere in the world based on a photo or description. I'm pretty good at that but some IDs are a real challenge. Recently I was sent a poor photo of a bird in a zoo; having no habitat, normal behavior 

or geographic location to go on, it took me two days to identify 

the Chestnut-breasted Malkoha.

 People also send me their sightings which they think might be unusual or a new species or some other kind of oddity. Albinos or partial albino birds are not unusual but many people have not seen them. Apparently inexperienced bird watchers come up with really odd stuff - five foot tall Roadrunners in Arizona, Cuban Bee Hummingbirds in New York, Black-billed Magpies in Maine, Aplomado Falcons in British Columbia and other such very unlikely stuff.

 I can easily reject and explain the non-existence of giant roadrunners, but if someone identifies a bird which is clearly way out of its home range, it's possible that sighting is valid and I'd never say impossible, but mildly to highly unlikely.  This year with a mild winter has seen lots of birds wintering farther north than they usually do; someone in Oregon spotted a Bullocks's Oriole in March at their bird feeder, a bird that should be in Mexico at this time of year. Once an Emperor Goose showed up on the Sacramento River and a Laysan Albatross hung around 

Whiskeytown Reservoir in northern California for a week, 150 miles from the Pacific Ocean. And there are always escaped caged birds flying around, generating talk among birdwatchers. I've spotted a couple of parrots, Bobwhite Quail, and Chukar Partridge right around my house over the years.

 But if I see something I know shouldn't be around, I look at it very carefully. After 50 years of birdwatching, I can still be fooled. That's one of the things that's great about this avocation - it's always a challenge because oddities can show up anywhere anytime.                             

For many years a fossil discovered in a Bavarian limestone quarry was considered to be the first bird. Archeopteryx lithographica (ancient wing of limestone) lived about 150 million years ago and had many reptilian and avian characteristics; of the latter, feathers were the most notable. Its discovery was a very clear indication that birds evolved from reptiles and is considered to be a classic intermediate evolutionary form. Discovery of other fossils over the years and some very recent evidence indicates that Archeopteryx is probably not a good first bird, though. One clue: analysis of its bone growth indicates that it grew slowly, more like a reptile than a bird.

The most recent fossil evidence of avian origins was found in 2011 in western Liaoning, China and dates from about 161 to 145 million years ago. This fossil, Xiaotingia zhengi,

 is similar to Archeopteryx in that it had feathers, possessed claws on the ends of its forelimbs, sharp teeth, long finger bones and wishbone. But both are apparently more closely related to reptiles like Velociraptor and Microraptor than birds. Like many ideas in science, this interpretation is new and only tentative and surely new discoveries will shed yet more light on the subject.

 What's also interesting about Archeopteryx is the attention it has gotten from creationists over the years. For ages, creationists have argued against the existence of any organism that is truly intermediate between two major groups. I could go on for pages listing the characteristics of Archeopteryx that apply to reptiles only, birds only, or both. It truly is an intermediate form.

 Out of curiosity I looked at some creationist websites. Some creation sites agree that Archeopteryx is an intermediate but say that doesn't mean anything because the bible (in a very convoluted way) mentions (according to the writer's interpretation) an intermediate between birds and reptiles. Other sites argue that Archeopteryx is just a bird because it had legs like a perching bird and could fly (both wrong.) And yet more creationist sites argue that the fossil was a reptile because earlier dinosaur-like fossils had feathers (which argues for their being intermediates as well.)

 Feathers evolved about the time ancient reptiles were developing homeothermy (warm-bloodedness) and had to have some sort of insulation. Scales grew longer and eventually served that purpose; later they became feathers with the purposes they have now: insulation, decoration, waterproofing, and flight.

 The fossil record is always being added onto but fossils are hard to find, often in pieces, and typically only consist of hard 

parts - bones, teeth, scales - and rarely provide information about internal organs, color, metabolism, or behavior.

 Science is a process, always open to additional evidence. Conclusions are usually temporary (which could be a long time.) But there's enough evidence about most areas of scientific inquiry that changes are typically small tweaks; rarely do major changes come about. A century from now we'll know a lot more about the evolution of birds but I bet we still won't have all the answers.

My blogs go on the web and float around cyberspace indefinitely. Of the hundred plus blogs I have written the one about the Ivory-billed Woodpeckers and mythical creatures like Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster is the most popular. Why is that? Well, people are fascinated by such stuff because it is interesting but somehow manage to ignore the evidence or lack of it. The Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology has offered a $50,000 reward for solid evidence of the Ivory-bill and it goes unclaimed. One person says he has a photo but won't show it to Cornell to protect his rights - huh?

 About twice a year someone e-mails me and tells me they have seen an Ivory-bill. From their description and language, these people are not experienced birders. So Ivory-bills have been reported in backyards, on a golf course, and even in British Columbia. When I tell them it is highly unlikely and suggest a photograph, I get huffy or silly responses like "I don't carry a camera with me," or "it's a government plot." I always wonder why the "government" would hide data about Bigfoot or the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

 I'm willing to believe that the Ivory-bill might still exist, just like I'm willing to accept that there might be intelligent life on another planet, but there just isn't evidence for either. Show me the data. Many Americans are too ready to reject real science and believe in nonsense like ghosts, the paranormal, horoscopes, and aliens from outer space. As Mark Twain said, "The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, it's that they know so many things that just aren't so." 

            Other bird myths abound -don't touch a bird's nest or eggs or young or she will abandon the nest; hummingbirds migrate on the backs of geese; young hawks learning to fly are caught by their parents if they fail; feeding birds rice at weddings will cause them to explode. If you devote a minute's analysis to each of these, it's easy to see why they don't make sense. Same with Bigfoot.

 There's a pseudoscience called "cryptozoology", literally "hidden animals" and refers to a search for them. These hidden animals are never small obscure creatures such as insects or nematodes, but large or monster animals such as Sasquatch. Interestingly, there are few cryptozoological birds. In the past there were Thunderbirds and the European equivalent called the Roc, both resembling a pterodactyl. In 1890 two cowboys 

supposedly shot one and dragged it into a saloon. A few reports of large predatory birds stalking humans have surfaced since then and I even had the privilege of investigating a sighting for a TV station many years ago in Illinois. A large bird "tried to take a baby out of its stroller" while it was parked in a backyard. The TV station was unable to capture a video of the kidnapping, but it did get a video of the menacing Great Blue Heron flying overhead!

    In Oklahoma it is against the law to wash your clothes in a bird bath or let a mule drink from it. Somehow, I don't think either of those laws is violated very often.

These days in California and other parts of the U.S. we are experiencing a drought. Whether or not it is part of a long term pattern I don't know, but droughts as a result of climate change have been predicted for many years. Of the many consequences of a lack of rainfall, water for wildlife is a concern. Bird baths can be very helpful.

Birds of course need to drink, but they also bathe by splashing water amongst their feathers and using their bill to clean their plumage. Since they don't submerge their body, two inches of water is plenty. Birds also take dust baths which helps to dry the skin and feathers and kill parasites. Sometimes a water bath is followed by a dust bath. In either case birds dry themselves quickly by shaking and flapping as it's important to get back into flying condition as soon as possible.

Let me address the most common questions I get about bird baths.

First, you can paint them with any paint that will withstand water. Just change the water every day for two weeks or so after painting and there should be no toxic leaching into the water. It's nice to clean the bath occasionally but birds drink out of pretty dirty water in nature so a dirty bird bath is not a disaster. But who wants to look at it? Scrub it lightly with a dilute solution of Chlorox and rinse well; this kills algae and other uglies.

The bath ought to be elevated a few feet off the ground and the area immediately around it clear of any high vegetation that could hide predators. A few feet away, bushes or trees, especially those with berries, give the birds a place to perch while deciding if they want to use the bath and a place to escape if a cat comes along.

For some reason I have yet to discern, birds especially like dripping water; I have seen them many times bathing under a dripping faucet. I have a solar-powered bird bath; it has a small fountain in the middle that works when the sun is bright.

If you type "bird baths" in Google, you get 7,767,000 results, most of which are commercial sites that advertise bird baths. A search for "bird houses" nets you 9,710,000 results but "bird feeders" only comes up with 2,310,000 results. Go figure. In any case, there are lots of choices if you want to buy over the web but local home supply stores have a decent selection as well - and if you purchase a cement one, you save a bundle on shipping. But if you want to make your own, that's easy too. Here http://www.allfreecrafts.com/nature/bird-bath.shtml and here http://www.solarbirdbath.net/make_a_bird_bath.htmlare some ideas on how you can do it.

  Spotted Owl News 29 Feb 2012:

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- To save the imperiled spotted owl, the Obama administration is moving forward with a controversial plan to shoot barred owls, a rival bird that has shoved its smaller cousin aside. The plan is the latest federal attempt to protect the northern spotted owl, the passive, one-pound bird that sparked an epic battle over logging in the Pacific Northwest two decades ago. The government set aside millions of acres of forest to protect the owl, but the bird's population continues to decline -- a 40 percent slide in 25 years.

A plan announced Tuesday would designate habitat considered critical for the bird's survival, while allowing logging to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and to create jobs. Habitat loss and competition from barred owls are the biggest threats to the spotted owl. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called the draft plan "a science-based approach to forestry that restores the health of our lands and wildlife and supports jobs and revenue for local communities. By removing selected barred owls and better managing forests, officials can give communities, foresters and land managers in three states 

important tools to promote healthier and more productive forests, Salazar said."

I haven't decided what I think about this. On the one hand, the Spotted Owl has been on the decline - 40% over the past 25 years, mostly due to logging which is why tree removal has been restricted in the Pacific Northwest. Barred Owls have been moving into Spotted Owl's niches as Spotted Owls disappear. But ornithologists have also discovered that removal of Barred Owls allows Spotted Owls to expand into their place, indicating that the Barred Owls are more aggressive than Spotted Owls and their removal will allow more 

Spotted Owls to survive. One species taking over the niche of another's is how evolution works, though, so should we (the government) be interfering? Well, our logging of the forest certainly instigated the decline of the Spotted Owl so perhaps killing Barred Owls is justified as we encouraged their spread. No easy solution.

There is certainly an ethical component to this dilemma but in most cases I defer to the wildlife experts who gather and examine the data to make the best recommendations and hopefully those who make the decision will listen.

I am reminded of the recent action of Dan Richards, chair of the California Fish and Game Commission who legally shot a mountain lion in Idaho and of the guy who legally shot the first wolf in Idaho two years ago. Both were within their rights but their reaction to criticism, which they must have expected, was to arrogantly and sarcastically thumb their noses at critics rather than recognize their concern. Similarly, bumper stickers telling us to wipe our butts with a Spotted Owl or "Save a logger, eat a Spotted Owl" are not helpful. We rarely find a major wildlife management issue devoid of emotion, but decisions need to be made on data, not feelings.

 Bing Crosby, Al Jolson and many others sang the well-known song "When the red, red robin comes bob, bob, bobbing along"......  And then there was "Rockin Robin" in the 50's. You can go here to listen to the birds' actual song.

 American mythology holds that American Robins are the first sign of spring; actually, they are around all winter in virtually all of the U.S. and even parts of Canada. Some migrate south rather than suffer the winters of the upper Midwest, but even in January you can find robins in Minnesota, Michigan and South Dakota. In the winter they forage for food and gather in big roosts at night. American Robins numbering in the hundreds or thousands can gather in one perch during the winter. As spring approaches and food becomes more abundant, the flocks start to break up and as males declare their territories, they start to sing, becoming more obvious to us, especially since they are one of the earliest nesters. During summer, while the females sleep on their nests, the males gather in roosts. As young robins become independent, they join the males in the roost. The female adult robins will join them after nesting.

At 8-11 inches in length with a wingspan of 12-16 inches, the male American robin is dark gray or brown above and reddish-orange below. The female is colored the same but duller. Young ones are brownish with a speckled breast. In the winter its fruit is mostly berries but as spring approaches, insects and worms (especially from home lawns) become a larger part of its diet. Unfortunately Robins often ingest lead left over from leaded gasoline and paint as well as other toxins from pesticides and fertilizers as contaminated soil particles adhere to the skin of worms.

 Robins may have two or three broods a season. The female does the nest building, although the male might bring her some 

materials, making it of twigs, grass, and feathers and lining it with mud. She lays three to five bluish eggs which hatch in about two weeks.

Robins do not nest in cavities, so you can't entice them with a birdhouse. But there are plans for nesting platforms, basically shelves with a high roof. There are so many places a robin can nest though, it's unlikely that that alone will bring them to your yard. Bird-friendly landscaping would be the most helpful. You can get some hints on that from Cornell Lab of Ornithology. http://www.allaboutbirds.org/page.aspx?pid=1191&ac=ac

 The American Robin is a thrush and its very appropriate scientific name, Turdus migratorius, means "wandering thrush." It's called the American Robin to differentiate it from the 

European Robin after which it was named because of the reddish breast, but the European Robin is much smaller and is a flycatcher. Unlike many bird species, populations of American Robins are increasing, most likely due to the conversion of wild habitats to suburbs.

 Thanks to Gwin Richter for reminding me of this common but cool bird.