Once again, oddball search strings that landed people here at Bootstrap:

• da da da song in commercial with green couch
• elderly farting cure
• birds with 2 heads
• ear candling in Israel
• circus cannibalism
• consequences of eating rabbit poop
• dunk stool medieval torture
• hog in a chair
• contractor low bid humor
• naked woman and google earth map
• 101 ways to torture marshmallow peeps
• asinine cat
• where to recycle a used commode
• how to run away
• hard peck
• humongous woodpecker
• freaky moths
• bighairyasses
• do baby kingfishers thermoregulate
• pennyfarting car
• ghengis khan intestinal gas

And I would like to throw in common search strings that irritate me, for one reason or another:

• Robospanker.  Yes, I mentioned Robospanker once, and apparently, this is one popular invention.  All I can say is, save your money and use your hand!
• Flak seed.  People, it’s FLAX seed!  You know — from flax plants, flaxen hair…
• Kelly Tripucka.  I was going to say, Kelly, quit the vanity searches.  But I actually received a really creepy email from a guy who went to grade school with Tripucka, and he asked me all sorts of questions about my encounter with him. Can you say…unhealthy obsession?  Haven’t had a search since then.

If this lifted your skirt, you can view the rest in the series here, here, here, and here.

Okay, so for the most part I’m really not into self-promotion. My tendency to focus on my work rather than myself has in some ways handicapped my career advancement. It has certainly not helped make the jobs of the development officers who coordinate fundraising for my position any easier.  That last fact made it doubly-flattering that one of them nominated me for a big award, one of the three top honors in different categories given annually here.  My category was for an individual who

"…demonstrates creativity, dedication, and a long-term, positive impact… and an application of professional expertise to benefit the public good and whose work … enhances the reputation of Our Grand Institution."

Last night at a dinner ceremony I received this honor, only the third non-faculty member in 25 years to have gotten this award. The short presentation featured some of the highlights of the nomination package, and I’ve seen some of the extremely nice support letters that were included. There was even one from the former head of Our Grand Institution. There was also one from my supervisor, whom I understand actually initially declined to write a letter and apparently only reluctantly agreed when he was told his former boss wrote one.  It’s no particular secret that our philosophy and style are quite divergent, but obviously I’ve managed to do a few things right over the last 15 years and, I think, this has reflected well on him. I think I know where I stand now, thanks.

Anyway, this recognition meant a lot to me, in no small part because of this lack of enthusiasm from immediately above that I’ve been working under for years. People at the dinner seemed genuinely interested in my work — I think my low profile made me the least-known of any major awardee in Our Grand Institution history! However, I’m not sure it raised the eyebrows of as many people as the research interest of another honoree: "mathematical imagery in European folk costumes." I’ve joined an exclusive club, it seems!

I know a few people who supported this nomination read Bootstrap — my sincerest thanks, again. Time for me to go into the office now, and hang the big plaque in plain sight!

Bootstrap Public Service Announcement: Tubes used to protect young trees can trap and kill birds.

Since bluebirds aren’t especially common right around home, I was not aware that they can become easily trapped in the tubes people use to protect saplings. With the increase in ravenous deer, these tubes are becoming standard issue with new plantings.  I imagine wrens would also be apt to explore and get trapped in the tubes as well.

This was posted as a reminder to the MDOSPREY list in Maryland; I’ve paraphrased a little. Thanks to my friend Cath for sending this along:

Bluebirds and tree tubes

It’s a good time to warn all bird lovers about tree tubes.  These are used to protect saplings from deer.  Usually consisting of a plastic tube about 4′ high held up by plastic ties and wooden stakes, these tubes are attractive nuisances for bluebirds: the male bluebird wants to explore all possible nesting cavities, so he will go into the tube and fall to the bottom and not be able to get out (this kind of thing doesn’t exist in the wild).  I have freed quite a few trapped bluebirds from these infernal devices, and have removed even more dead ones.

The tree tube manufacturers sell (or include) woven plastic tops, or “socks” to go over the tops of the tubes.  These will effectively prevent male bluebirds from going into the tubes.

If not, you can use some means to create a small exit slot or hole at the  bottom of the tube, such as pulling the stake out of the ground 1.5 inches. I don’t want deer to eat saplings, but even more than that I don’t want any birds, much less native birds already suffering from competition from invasives, to die of starvation or dehydration due to thoughtless human activity.

Paul Kilduff, Baltimore

Tree Pro provides bird excluders with their tubes; instructions are at the bottom of the page.

Hard to believe I’m beginning my third year as a blogger, considering how many blogs go extinct. Of course, at times Bootstrap has felt a little moribund (like lately).

Nonetheless, the year in blogging has had some cool highlights for me:

• Being named as one of the journal Nature’s 50 Popular Science Blogs (Bootstrap was #29).
• The Annals of Improbable Research blog linking to one of my posts.
• Asking to be part of the ScienceBlogs stable, even though I declined the invite.
• Having one of my posts being chosen for the “The Open Laboratory,” the 2006 science blogging anthology.
• Making “Favored Nation Status” (now called the “Favored Faithful”) over at Somewhere on the Masthead.  Magazine Man is a writer and editor I totally admire, so I was slightly giddy when I saw he felt I was worthy of linkage.

I must have done a few things right over the past year, although I don’t feel like I’ve lived up to expectations recently. I just had dinner with my good friend Bob, who thinks I should write more personal stories.  In honor of all the big changes coming up in his life, maybe I’ll do that!  Just need to carve out a little more time…

The other day, I found a plastic grocery bag tied to my mailbox, with a softball-sized wad of … something inside. I admit my first thought was that someone had left me a bag of dog crap. I looked inside with some trepidation, but I discovered the sack contained something more surprising and interesting: five Red Crossbills. A friend, knowing I had a permit and would have the them made into study skins, had picked up these road-killed birds coming home from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

There were two females and three males. All were young birds, hatched
within the last calendar year, based on plumage characteristics, although one
female may have been older. Ageing crossbills is complicated by the fact that they can breed nearly any time of the year. In most bird species, feather replacement follows a seasonal pattern that is quite predictable.  In Red Crossbills, the timing as well as the number of times a young bird replaces feathers during the first year depends upon when it was hatched.

Red Crossbills are intriguing. They are highly variable vocally and morphologically. There are eight different flight call types which roughly correspond with some of the recognized subspecies, which are in turn based on bill and body size. Although the types do not differ much genetically, there is a strong tendency for birds of the same call type to flock and mate with their own types. Bill and wing measurements verified that these birds fell neatly into "Type 3," Loxia curvirostra minor, the dainty subspecies and call type which would be expected in the UP.

The variation in bill sizes in Red Crossbills are adaptations that allow them to feed on different kinds of conifer cones. You might recall from my previous post on crossbill bills, the top mandible may cross the lower to the right or to the left. In my little sample, I had two lefts and three rights.

Crossbills, unfortunately, are frequently struck by cars. They are attracted to roads, which might be the only place in a snowy landscape where the grit they need to ingest is exposed. The birds may also be attracted to salt or other chloride-containing road de-icers. The salt itself may be fatal, but in the case of these crossbills, they were purposely struck by a car and a snowmobile.  My friend said he say this behavior more than once, where cars did not slow down when approaching a large flock of birds that were easily visible. In one instance, a vehicle swerved and aimed at a group of these sociable finches that were gathered at the side of the road.  Repugnant.

While of course I’d rather look at live crossbills in the trees than dead ones in my hand, when these birds are made into study skins, they will serve as teaching tools. Few people in southern Michigan see crossbills — or even know they exist. The curious bills of these birds present lessons in adaptation, the story of the various types illustrate selection and evolution. And the provenance of the little bodies provides an example of human ignorance and cruelty. Perhaps a newfound appreciation of these birds in death will result in an intolerance for such callousness. If so, it could be the most valuable lesson they have to offer.

Many of you may have read the recent coverage of the effort to save amphibians from a fungal infection by creating safe captive populations. This news was also covered by mainstream media, and I saw this story in my local paper: “Scientists meet to stem frog deaths” by Dorie Turner of the Associated Press. In it, I read the following sentence.

“…prevent the disappearance of more than 6,000 species of frogs, salamanders and wormlike sicilians.”

That’s right. Sicilians. Who knew Italians needed to be saved along with amphibians? Perhaps those “wormlike” island-dwelling Italians are more susceptible to lethal fungi than those from Naples or Milan, for example.

Of course, the reporter meant caecilians, limbless tropical amphibians in the order Gymnophiona. I’m sure the reporter had no idea what a caecilian was, and she made absolutely no effort to find out. Neither did her editors, despite the fact this must have seemed odd or at least curious.

It’s just the latest in a long line of sloppy journalism that I see on a regular basis.  Most lay people wouldn’t have caught this, just as I might not catch egregious errors on topics such as international banking or golf, which I know little about. Yet I believe in many newspapers, slipshod treatment of the facts is the rule rather than the exception.

This belief is based not only on mistakes I detect, but also on the many times I’ve been interviewed for newspapers and other media. Nearly every article has had errors, misquotations, or other inaccuracies, although I have been careful in what I say and always offer to review the piece prior to deadline. Exceptions are a few reporters I find reliable (usually columnists) and the time I was interviewed on NPR. Despite often ending up looking like a ninny who dispenses misinformation, I am in a position where I am required to continue to speak to the press.

Another thing that drives me nuts is the notion that every story has two (or more) sides, all of which get equal time. Every story does have multiple perspectives, of which there will generally always be two or more that are flaky, misguided, irrelevant, or just plain wrong.  If the responsibility of the press is to inform the public about the truth, then giving equal time to marginal viewpoints, or any time to incorrect ones, is a violation of the standard of ethics for journalists regarding accuracy of information and reliability of sources.

It’s bad enough that poor, or at best uninspiring, writing is the norm in newspapers. To some extent, I at least get why that is — half of Americans read at the 8th grade level or lower.  But there is no excuse for negligent and unmeticulous handling of facts.

Caecilian photo from the recommended website Livingunderworld.org; go learn about caecilians!

Do you know of any signs mounted on those metal posts that have holes all down the middle?  If the sign isn’t fastened in the top holes, they remain exposed and have been found to trap raptors, which get their toes stuck in the holes.  I was provided with this photo by the USFWS of an unfortunate Great Horned Owl that met this fate.  The inset shows the easy solution: bolts in the empty holes.

So be on the lookout for these perforated metal posts (also used for fencing) and let the owners know they are a hazard, and how to correct it.

Via Invasive Species Weblog, a story from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the Wisconsin DNR will allow citizens in three southern counties in that state to “adopt” wild Mute Swans and spare them from approved lethal control measures, provided they pay to have them sterilized. [Holds head in hands and groans.]

I’ve previously written about the problem with Mute Swans, which are charismatic non-native invasive species. The state of Wisconsin implemented a successful Mute Swan control policy in 1997, the goal of which was to eliminate most of the state’s swans, especially because they were interfering with efforts to establish native Trumpeter Swans.

Once again, soft-headed soft-hearted citizens raised a stink.  A revision of the plan was approved in 2002: remove all free-flying wild Mute Swans except in two townships in Racine Co., because residents objected.  Now, 86-88% of the remaining swans in Wisconsin are in the three southeastern county region which includes Racine Co.

In December, there was a recommendation made to the WI Natural Resource Board to continue the 2002 policy. According to the Journal Sentinel article, because more citizens objected it was instead decided to spare the swans in all three counties (versus just two townships) , as long as the birds are sterilized at citizen expense.

I see a number of problems with this “solution.”

1) Is subjecting swans to pursuit, capture, restraint, anesthesia, and surgery really a humane alternative? Chemical contraceptives are not commonly used on waterfowl, and those not involving capture and direct administration are not species-specific, with the risk of ingestion by other types of birds and animals.  Since the article mentions neutering by a vet, the option proposed must be surgical sterilization.

Surgical sterilization was attempted in Michigan, and was unsuccessful; all birds died from complications or infection. Swans do poorly under general anesthesia.  A USFWS report on control of feral Mallards also concluded that capture and surgical sterilization had a “high risk of fatal outcome” especially for hens. You can read more about these methods in this Maryland Mute Swan Task Force report.

However, if these citizens care so little about what’s good for the swans that they hand feed them white bread, then perhaps subjecting the birds to all that stress won’t be a deterrent.

2) Allowing some Mute Swans a reprieve allows them to continue to do environmental damage.

a) If a Mute Swan is sterilized and released, it will continue to eat up to eight pounds of vegetation daily for the rest of its natural life, which is up to 25 years in the wild. Ironically, one group of citizens that prompted the new spare-the-swan policy are the residents of Upper and Lower Phantom Lakes in Waukesha Co.  The lakes have designated “sensitive areas” in which the aquatic vegetation is critical or unique fish and wildlife habitat. One of the most important native aquatic plant species in the lakes is Vallisneria, or wild celery. This keystone species is very vulnerable to over-exploitation by Mute Swans.

So residents are trying to preserve native aquatic plants species, which coincidentally began to decline around the time Mute Swans began to inhabit the lakes.  They are fighting to preserve a non-native bird that is likely to be contributing to the decline of native species which they are also fighting to preserve.  By the way, part of the effort to preserve the aquatic habitats in Upper and Lower Phantom involves an aggressive nuisance plant management program.  Yet the rationale of some in opposition to the Mute Swan elimination policy (or any non-native species policy) was voiced in a public hearing: that “this country was founded with open arms for anyone as a person to come here and [that] also applied to animals”.  But not plants, apparently, as non-native species are subject to chemical and mechanical controls.

b) Sterilization does not prevent nesting and consequent displacement of or aggression towards native species in the swans’ territory, including endangered Trumpeter Swans.

3) Is sterilization even an effective method of population control? Very little information. At least with Canada Geese, vasectomy can alter the male’s behavior, with the male allowing the female to mate with another male. One study of sterilized Canada Geese resulted in 12% of eggs still being fertile.

There is plenty of science behind the decision to remove Mute Swans from ecosystems.  There is no science, only sentiment, behind the idea to “save” them.  I think the swan adoption experiment, slated to run for a year, was merely a placating measure and that relatively few swans will “adopted.” It staggers me, however, that science cannot prevail in cases like these. Instead, wildlife agencies are tied up in hearings and court proceedings in every jurisdiction this comes up.  It’s completely ridiculous.

Here are some excerpts from the American Birding Association’s Code of Ethics:

• Avoid stressing birds or exposing them to danger, exercise restraint and caution during observation, photography, sound recording, or filming.
• Stay on roads, trails, and paths where they exist.
• Do not enter private property without the owner’s explicit permission.
• Follow all laws, rules, and regulations governing use of roads and public areas.

Here are some excerpts from emails I have received regarding the behavior of people viewing the Snowy Owl:

• “At one point the bird was literally surrounded.”
• “To top it off, [local birder and photographer] was crawling in the construction site up to the bird for a photo.”
• “I also saw a birder “parked” on the busy street.” (I also saw a number of cars illegally parked or blocking a construction entrance).
• “I was there 4 times throughout the day and 3 out of the 4 times the owl was being flushed around by birders, all in the construction area.”

A friendly reminder was posted on the local birding list to stay out of the construction area, and that it was unnecessary to approach this accommodating bird so closely.  This prompted a number of denials dissenting opinions, including that “If there have been inappropriate approaches, I doubt that it was by list members.” This is typical of the comments I’ve seen posted when somebody notes poor behavior.  Of course, I don’t expect anybody to pipe up and publicly admit to being an asshat, but if instances of close approach, flushing, or harassment are so rare, why do these discussions come up so frequently, and why is there a need for organizations to publish ethics guidelines for birders and photographers that amount to common sense anyway?

Yes, this dead horse gets beaten often. In fact, in our area it was
flagellated only a few months ago when a photographer pruned vines away from a roosting saw-whet owl in order to take clearer pictures.  Every year a roost of Long-eared Owls, observable from a trail, gets disturbed by people bushwhacking their way up to the roost trees for a better look. Yet the gist of the ensuing discussion is always that it couldn’t be anybody from the local birding community, leaving me to wonder who the mysterious offenders could be.  Deceased pony or not, I agree with a New York birder who said that “a failure to criticize this behavior is tantamount to accepting it.”

Owls are often at the center of this type of controversy because even common species are not frequently encountered in viewable situations.  But certainly any rare bird can cause this kind of boorish behavior.  I’ve witnessed this enough times that I’ve given up disclosing the location of owl roosts and nest sites of any unusual bird, although I report them after the fact as necessary to the appropriate agencies. (Not without consequences: I received an irate email from someone I had never met who lived hundreds of miles away regarding rumors he’d heard that I had “suppressed” a sighting of a rare nesting bird, and was “concerned” that I’d not shared this with the birding community!)

One person on our list made an interesting observation. He felt that the ease and accessibility of digital photography might be contributing to some bad behavior:

My fear is that now that others have seen [great photos on a photo-sharing site of the owl] that they will try to get … equally good shots. Is it possible that [it] somehow adds to people trying to emulate shots and
therefore harassing the owl more? I know when I saw those pictures, I
thought about how I would love to have taken great owl pictures like
that.”

I had been thinking the same thing. The wonder of digiscoping is that you can get beautiful shots of birds from a long distance. In the past, few people had the money or where-with-all to lug film cameras and long lenses in the field to take close-up shots of birds.  And I never saw anybody with a small point-and-shoot film camera attempt to get close enough to a bird to take a good photo (I’m sure it happened, but it was probably not too common).  But nearly every birder I know has a small digital camera capable of fairly high-resolution photos, and they carry them all the time.  For some of these people, the temptation to see if they can get up on a bird and perhaps get at least a decent shot seems to preclude good behavior and common sense. I’m tempted too, but as you can see from my shots I don’t give in!

So far, I haven’t heard about anybody baiting the owl with mice. But I did see two domestic ducks wandering across the road.  There has been no open water there for nearly two weeks, and these things couldn’t fly.  Did somebody bring them in as an offering?  I have also heard the local paper will run a story.  That should bring people out of the woodwork over the weekend, hopefully not to this end, but it wouldn’t surprise me.  More reading:

• Wildlife viewing ethics – respect wildlife and other people
• Ethical standards in birding (Wisconsin Bird Conservation Initiative)