THE -------BLUEBIRD

The Audubon Society of Missouri Missouri's Ornithological Society since 1901

June 2003 Vol. 70 No.2

The Audubon Society of Missouri

Officers* Jerry Wade, President (2004) 1221 Bradshaw Ave. Columbia, MO 65203 (573) 445-6697 wadej@ missouri.edu

Susan Gustafson, Vice Pres. (2004) 429 Belleview Ave. Webster Groves, MO 63119 (314) 968-8128 smgustafson@ juno.com

Joyce Bathke, Treasurer (2004) 813 Cornell St. Columbia, MO 65203 (573) 445-5758 wmbjab@aol.com

Jim Zellmer, Secretary (2004) 200 I NE 4th st. Blue Springs, MO 64014 (8 I 6) 228-5955 towhee@kctera.net

Honorary Directors Nathan Fay, Ozark** Richard A. Anderson, St. Louis** Sydney Wade, Jefferson City** John Wylie, Jefferson City** Lisle Jeffrey, Columbia** Floyd Lawhon, St. Joseph** Leo Galloway, St. Joseph Patrick Mahnkey, Forsyth** Rebecca Matthews, Springfield Dave Witten, Columbia Jim Jackson, Marthasville

* Year Term Expires **Deceased

Directors* Paul Bauer (2003) Florissant (3 I 4) 92 I -3972 Mike Beck (2003) Blue Springs (816) 229-68 I I Lisa Berger (2005) Springfield ( 4 I 7) 881-8393 David Easterla (2005) Maryville (660) 582-8468 Hope Eddleman (2004) Cape Girardeau (573) 335-1507 Steve Kinder (2004) Chillicothe (660) 646-65 I 6 Larry Lade (2003) St. Joseph (816) 232-6 I 25 Ed McCullough (2005) Kansas City (816) 505-2840 Clare Wheeler (2004) Lake Ozark & Canton (573) 365-295 I

Chairs Bonnie Heidy, Membership 501 Parkade Columbia, MO 65202 (573) 442-2191 bheidy@ socket. net

Edge Wade, Bird Alert 1221 Bradshaw Ave. Columbia, MO 65203 (573) 445-6697 edgew@ socket. net

Bill Clark, Historian 3906 Grace Ellen Dr. Columbia, MO 65202 (573) 474-45 I 0

Cover Photo: American Bittern at Clarence Canon NWR, by William Palmer

The Bluebird

Bluebird Editors: Bill & Kay Palmer, 15100 S. Clinkenbeard Rd., Ashland, MO 65010,

(573) 657-1076, palmerl076@aol.com Christmas Bird Count Editor:

Randy Korotev, 800 Oakbrook Lane, St. Louis, MO 63132, (314) 993-0055 rlk@ levee. wustl.edu

MO Bird Records Committee: Bill Eddleman-Chair, (see Seasonal Survey Editors) Bill Rowe-Secretary, 9033 Big Bend Road, St. Louis, MO 63119,

(314) 962-0544, wr@tjs.org Conservation Editor:

Dave Bedan, 2001 Chapel Wood Road, Columbia, MO 65203 (573) 445-9834, davebedan@sockets.net

Seasonal Survey Editors: Summer: Andy Forbes, 2620 Forum Blvd., Suite 1, Columbia, MO 65203

(573) 447-2249, forbea@mdc.state.mo.edu Fall: Bill Eddleman, 1831 Ricardo Dr., Cape Girardeau, MO 63701

(573) 335-1507 (h), eddleman@clas.net Winter: Brad Jacobs, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180

(57 3) 7 51-4115, jacobb @mail.conservation.state.mo. us Spring: Roger McNeill, 2520 Red Bridge Terrace, Kansas City, MO 64131

(913) 226-3254, Roger.D.Mcneill@mail.sprint.com Communication Services:

Bill & Kay Palmer, Bluebird Chris Snook, Listserv, cfssnook@tranquility.net, snooke@missouri.edu Mike Beck, Webmaster, 1001 S. 19th, Blue Springs, MO 64015,

rbgros@discoverynet.com Robert Fisher, Electronic Newsletter, 3608 S. Northern, Independence, MO

64052, bobgfisher@comcast .net

Deadlines for submission of material for publication in The Bluebird

Manuscripts for The Bluebird-to the editors by: Feb. 1 for March Issue; May 1 for June issue Aug. 1 for Sept. Issue; Nov. 1 for Dec. issue

Seasonal Surveys: Winter (Dec. 1-Feb. 28)-to Brad Jacobs by March 10 Spring (March 1-May 31 )-to Roger McNeill by June 10 Summer (June !-July 31 )-to Andy Forbes by Aug. 10 Fall (Aug. 1-Nov. 30)-to Bill Eddleman by Dec. 10

June, 2003 Volume 70, No.2

Table of Contents

THE BLUEBIRD

3 President's Desk, Jerry Wade 6 Ruffed Grouse in Missouri, Edge Wade

18 Bird List from the ASM Spring Meeting

20 Report on Meeting with MDC, Jerry Wade

26 Working Together in Conservation Regulations, David Urich

30 Ending a 31-Year Jinx, Paul M. McKenzie 36 Bird Conservation Day in Missouri-Proclamation

3 7 Seasonal Survey, Winter Report, Brad Jacobs 49 Purple Martin "Scouts," Paul M. McKenzie

53 Conservation Report, Dave Bedan

The Bluebird is published quarterly by the Audubon Society of Missouri. Postage is paid at Jefferson City, Missouri, nonprofit organization status. Postmaster: send address changes to The Audubon Society of Missouri, 2101 W. Broadway, #122, Columbia, MO 65203-1261. The views and opinions expressed in this magazine are those of each contributing writer and do not necessarily rep-resent the views and opinions of the Audubon Society of Missouri or its officers, Board of Directors, or editors. The submission of articles, photographs, and artwork is welcome.

2

PRESIDENT'S DESK Jerry Wade

I am writing this just after returning from the Spring Meeting. Sorry I didn't get to see you all there. Spring is great. Add migra-tion and it is great and wonderful. Add more than 100 special people renewing old friendships and making new ones, enjoying the weather, and delighting in the birds and I run out of ad-jectives. The folks from the Midland Empire Audubon Society did a super job. We all thank you.

A lot is happening in ASM now. The By-Laws Review Committee has completed its work. Thanks to Clare Wheeler, John Solodar, and

3

Jack Hilsabeck. The Executive Committee is preparing a proposal of by-law changes to submit to the Board for ap-proval. If the Board appro:es, the proposal will be publish-ed in the September Bluebzrd and voted on by the member-ship at the Fall 2003 Meeting.

Ah, The Bluebird. Bill and Kay Palmer have resigned as editors. Bill has accepted a position as Director of the Rocky Mountain Bird Obser-vatory just outside of Denver, and they will be moving to Colorado early this summer. This issue will be their last. They have done a wonderful job and will be sorely missed, both as friends and as The Bluebird editors. We wish them every success. The search for a new editor is un-derway. Please send sugges-tions for a replacement to wadej@missouri.edu.

Mark September 25, 26, and 27 on your calendar and plan to join us at Camp Clover Point for the Fall ASM Meet-ing. Sue Gustafson, ASM Vice-president, is already working on the agenda. Steve Mahfood, Director of the Mis-souri Department of Natural Resources, is scheduled as the speaker Saturday night. Saturday afternoon will fea-ture a Bird ID Workshop. We are also planning a workshop on MDC Management Philosophy and Practices fol-lowed by round-table discus-sions with MDC personnel.

The Missouri Bird Conser-vation Initiative (MoBCI) is up and going. Its purpose is to unite, to conserve, to restore, and protect bird populations. For more information go to the web site of either DNR (http:/ /www.mostateparks .com) or MDC (http://www. conservation.state.mo. us/) and follow the links to MoBCI. The first action was to work with the Governor's of-fice to have May 10 declared Missouri Bird Conservation

4

Day. Take a look at the Proclamation on page 36.

The group will sponsor a Missouri Bird Conservation Conference on August 15 and 16 in Columbia for members of the participating organiza-tions on the status of birds and their habitats in Missouri. The purpose of the con-ference is to help build a broad understanding of the scientific knowledge base as a necessary foundation for determining the organiza-tions action plan. More infor-mation of the specifics of the program and registration will be forthcoming. I hope many from ASM will be able to at-tend the conference.

The Access and Issues Committee held a most productive meeting with top management in the Wildlife Division of the Missouri Department of Conservation. (See the report of the meeting elsewhere in this issue of The Bluebird.) ASM is working in partnership with MDC to more clearly define what it means to be birder friendly

and explore practices that ex-press it within the broader context of multiple user inter-ests. There are a lot of outdoor interests atthe table, but what is most important is that ASM is one of them.

Here are some concluding thoughts as I reflect on all that is happening. We have had the luxury of being the "in-visible" outdoor's people, and therefore being able to grumble and complain with-out having any respon-sibility. That "invisible" status no longer exists; we are now at the tables, joining other or-ganizations in partnership to advance our purpose.

We must now find ways to participate and contribute. That means that we have to become knowledgeable on a wider base of information and an understanding why things are done they way they are. Then, we must make sig-nificant efforts (and sustain them) in building re- lation-ships and communicating with the people at the places we bird.

5

Our success will be de-pendent on each member be-corning a partner with the staff at local birding spots and then, using our expanding knowledge and information about bird species and bird habitat, becoming a partner with the decision and action process.

When all is said and done, all habitat and species enhan-cement is local. With a volun-teer organization such as ASM, the impact is based on each member stepping up to do the work. We are making a difference!

Ruffed Grouse in M i s s o u r i - P a s t , Present, and Future

Edge Wade

On Hearing A Ruffed Grouse

It's 6 o'clock on a clear March morning. We stand just below a ridgeline in western Warren County in a conservation area named for consummate woodsman-Daniel Boone. We are mo-tionless, silent, and tensely at-tentive. We are waiting.

There ... we feel the sound. Our pre-dawn rising from warm beds is rewarded with the resonant reverberation of a drumming Ruffed Grouse. Yes, we hear it, but even more wonderous, we feel the thud-ding, thumping, "roll of muf-fled thunder" (Brewster 1874 in Bent 1963) deep in our chests.

Among Webster 's defini-tions of "resonant" are: inten-sified and enriched by resonance; and, marked by

6

grandiloquence. Both are ap-propriate to the sound we hear and feel, the sound of the implosion of air rushing into the vacuum between body and beating wings (Thompson, et al. 1988). Our spirits soar.

When we leave the forest an hour later, we have heard three Ruffed Grouse boom-ing. We are simultaneously elated and saddened. We have experienced the visceral ritual drumming one more spring, but know we are un-likely to hear it in more than a handful of magical places in Missouri. And we quietly question whether it will be heard even here next year.

A Brief History of Ruffed Grouse in Missouri

Ruffed Grouse were fairly common table fare in ol' Dan'

l's time. The chicken-like birds were found throughout most of Missouri's oak-hick-ory forests. The "wood's pheasant" population in-creased in the years immedi-ately after settlement as clearing for farms initially en-hanced grouse habitat.

The forests were felled, land was plowed and heavily grazed, market hunters went unchecked; the drummers fell silent. By 1905, grouse were so scarce that hunting them was prohibited. Yet, the decline continued; fewer than

7

100 birds were thought to remain in 1934 .

As marginal farms were abandoned in the '30s, and the move to towns and cities accelerated after World War II, intensely cultivated and grazed areas reverted to habitat conditions favoring Ruffed Grouse. The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) began planning for a grouse reintroduction pro-gram (MDC 1987).Robbins and Easterla (1992) sum-marized Missouri's Ruffed Grouse history as:

Virtually all the birds now present in the state are the result of reintroductions. Former-ly, prior to the 1880s, this species was "numerous in most wooded parts of Mis-souri," but by 1900 it was considered rare (Widmann 1907). Small populations still persist-ed in Adair, Clark, Lewis, Montgomery, St. Genevieve, and Warren counties in 1955. Begin-ning in 1959, the MDC began extensive reintroductions (primari-ly with stock from Ohio and Indiana) across the state, and as a result, this species has been res-tored to many of its former haunts in the state.

The Ruffed Grouse Reintroduction Program

Ruffed Grouse were ob-tained from Ohio and In-diana in an exchange for Missouri Wild Turkeys. Be-ginning in 1959, nearly 4000

8

grouse were released at 50 sites (mostly on public lands) in 30 counties.

The Ruffed Grouse reintroduction program was conducted in an era of focus on single species with notable highly successful efforts. Missouri's white-tailed deer population was rebounding due to stringent hunting regulation enforcement and other activities of MDC; turkeys were being captured and released to distribute and revitalize that population ("excess" birds were used in barter to obtain river otters to repopulate Missouri streams in yet another program). MDC's focus on the native resident subspecies of the Canada Goose was on its way to results beyond every measure of success.

The reintroduction pro-gram was a collaborative ef-fort of the Missouri De-partment of Conservation and the Ruffed Grouse Society (RGS). RGS, a nation-al organization with an active Missouri chapter, dem-onstrated strong commit-

ment to the program by providing substantial fund-ing and technical support.

The program was well-funded, vigorously pursued on a large scale, and carefully monitored. For a while the grouse flourished. Yet, Rob-bins and Easterla's 1992 as-sessment of grouse status in Missouri was to prove wildly optimistic. Reports by birders and results of MDC long-term surveys were consis-tent: bv the late 1990's, Ruffed Grouse reintroduction efforts had largely failed. Few in-dividuals remained.

In the 2,240 acre Thomas S. Baskett Wildlife Education and Research Center east of Ashland in southern Boone County (an area earlier held up as an example of one of the most successful introduction sites), birders last heard a booming Ruffed Grouse in late April of 1997 on an ASM Spring Meeting field trip. MDC survey routes in the area produced two drum-ming grouse in 1998 and 1999, but none in 2000 and 2001 (Thompson, et al1997).

9

In the 3,250 acre Daniel Boone CA, in the heart of the area where remnant native pop-ulations were known to be when reintroduction ef-forts began, numbers revealed by MDC transect survevs have varied in recent years, but have not reached double-digits since 12 were heard in 1998.

Naturally, there has been consternation, conjecture, and analytical effort to deter-mine the cause(s) of the failure of the Ruffed Grouse program. Perhaps predation dynamics (increased num-bers of coyotes and unfor-tunate coincidence of high raccoon numbers, for ex-ample) played a major role. Cooper's Hawks, a known predator, have been increas-ing in the state. Perhaps weather conditions, especial-ly when young were highly vulnerable, were factors. The extremely wet years of 1993 and 1995, and the several cool, wet springs that were so hard on Northern Bobwhite surely took a heavy toll on ground nesting grouse,

too.The relative roles of several factors remain un-clear. But, we do have data indicative of detrimental change in one critical factor in Ruffed Grouse survival, a fac-tor in which detrimental changes did not occur in sig-nificant degrees in the other single-species programs: a-vailable appropriate habitat.

Habitat Requirements of Ruffed Grouse

Among North American gallinaceous birds, Ruffed Grouse have the greatest range. Missouri's population is disjunctive; that is, large areas not favorable for grouse

10

separate it from other grouse populations (Johnsgard 1973).

Ruffed Grouse are most numerous in northern forests where aspen provide a signif-cant proportion of the diet and the kind of cover often needed. In Missouri's oak-hickory forests food and cover can be harder to come by: survival is a dicier affair.

Specific habitat needs vary by age and sex of the bird and on an annual cycle. Ruffed Grouse need large areas of mature forest, but this cannot be a uniformly mature forest with solid canopy. This forest, so pleas-

ing to human eyes, does not provide grouse with the full range of their habitat needs.

An early-successional for-est has a stem (tree trunk) density of 5,000 to 8,000 or more stems per acre. This maze of saplings provides adult grouse with necessary overhead cover for protec-tion against some predators (especiallyhawksandowls-perhaps their biggest threat). The minimal herbaceous growth below the saplings al-lows grouse to spot ap-proaching mammal pred-a tors and move away quickly (Thompson, et al1997).

This early-successional forest habitat is sought out by displaying males. Their drumming attracts predators as well as female grouse. The high stem density is critical for protection and survival.

Hens select nest sites that allow them to see approach-ing predators, usually in older forest areas with trees of six-inch or greater diameter. The shade of the heavier canopy creates an open forest floor,ideal for

11

seeing what's coming. But just any older forest is not enough. The site must be near good adult cover (early-suc-cessional forest) and near good brood cover.

Chicks need a high protein diet, high in insects especially during the first six weeks (Bent 1963). From hatching to autumn, broods favor small shrubby open-ings in the forest thick with insects and arthropods. Broods often feed in wetter areas than typical adult habitat-creek bottoms or lower north facing slopes, for example (Thompson, et al 1997).

Each of these habitats must be present and acces-sible at the appropriate point in the Ruffed Grouse life cycle. During the period of grouse reintroduction Missouri's forests aged. Aes-thetics were often the driving dynamic. People placed a premium on the mythical pre-settlement unbroken, full-canopied forest. Species that require a mosaic of varied forest maturity suf-

fered. Ruffed Grouse num-bers (and those of several songbird species) began to decline.

An Increased Emphasis on Habitat

Even as the Ruffed Grouse reintroduction program results were being monitored, changes were oc-curring in MDC' s approach to species management. Paramount was a greater em-phasis on holistic principles of ecology. In policy and practice, a focus on whole ecosystems-healthy habitat communities-was becom-ing the order of the day.

The Role of Partnerships In recent years, another

important change has been nurtured. MDC is now ac-tively promoting partner-ships. These partnerships are of several types. An impor-tant one is the Department's creation of the Private Land Services Division. MDC recognizes that many long-term conservation efforts cannot be successful if limited

12

to public lands. Missourians are conservation-conscious; large numbers of land-owners look to MDC for im-proved management techniques. The new division's purpose is to build partnerships with MDC, landowners, and other agen-cies and groups to promote effective habitat manage-ment on Missouri's 97% privately owned land.

MDC has been a catalyst in forming a variety of partnerships among or-ganizations. It sponsored "Focus on Conservation" conferences, inviting Mis-souri's myriad natural his-tory and conservation oriented citizen groups and public agencies to gather, de-termine commonalities, and to form partnerships on is-sues and actions.

ASM Becomes a Partner Then president, Susan

Hazelwood, and I attended MDC's Focus on Conserva-tion Conference in 2001, rep-resenting ASM. Subsequently, ASM was in-

vi ted to join a taskforce work-ing to address the needs of Ruffed Grouse and other species through a habitat res-toration project. President Hazelwood appointed me to represent ASM on the taskforce.

At the fall 2001 ASM Board of Directors meeting, the Board unanimously passed the following motion:

The ASM Board sup-ports the Ruffed Grouse Society's efforts to create grouse-encouraging habitat in east-central Missouri and wishes to continue participation in the project. The Board wishes to inform the membership of the na-ture of the project and to encourage its full sup-port by ASM members. Edge Wade is directed to submit an article to The Bluebird as one ap-propriate form of com-munication with the membership (ASM 2001).

River Hills Forest Habitat

13

Project This group got underway

with the unwieldly name of Early Woodland Succession Habitat (With Focus on Ruffed Grouse) Focus Area Planning T earn. It is made up of MDC professionals, state and national Ruffed Grouse Society representatives, the Wild Turkey Federation, and ASM. The group, its ac-tivities, and the program it developed are now usually referred to as "the River Hills Forest Habitat Project" (River Hills Conservation Partner-ship 2002).

Efforts are focused on en-hancing habitat for several species. Many of these are "disturbance-dependent species." That is, they thrive only in areas experiencing the changes in flora (age and/ or type) found after a distur-bance in the growth of a maturing forest. Creating and maintaining disturban-ces in the absence of natural causes is essential, but not well understood by the general public (Askins 2001).

In addition to Ruffed

Grouse, species that may benefit from disturbances in-clude: American Woodcock, Northern Bobwhite, Great-crested Flycatcher, Bell's Vireo, Bewick's Wren, Carolina Wren, Cerulean Warbler, Prairie Warbler, Yel-low-breasted Chat, Blue Grosbeak, Painted Bunting, Henslow' s Sparrow, Field Sparrow and Eastern Towhee; and even some mammals (endangered In-diana Bats, flying squirrels, and bobcat) (Hunter, et al. 2001, DeWitt 2003).

The project's purpose is to effect disturbance-type habi-tat changes on public and private land. Portions of con-servation areas in the current stronghold of the remnant Ruffed Grouse population-eastern Callaway, Montgom-ery and Warren counties will be managed to promote con-ditions favorable to Ruffed Grouse and other distur-bance-dependent species. These areas are Daniel Boone, Danville, Reifsnider, Little Lost Creek, Reform and Whetstone conservation

14

areas (River Hills Conserva-tion Partnership 2002).

Appropriate habitat must extend beyond the boun-daries of public lands to at-tain the scale essential for success. Owners of land ad-jacent to the conservation areas are being encouraged to make like changes through management, education, and with monetary incentives made available from MDC, the Ruffed Grouse Society, and the Wild Turkey Federa-tion.

As of April, 2003, 12land-owners in Callaway, Mont-gomery and Warren counties have signed on to the pro-gram. All available incen-tive/support funds ($25,000) have been designated, and funding for additional pro-

gram participants 1s being sought.

The Habitat Changes Just as we have learned a

painful lesson of the unex-pected results of universal fire suppression, we are begin-ning to understand that managing for unbroken ex-panses of mature, full-canopied forests creates an unnatural, impoverished eco-system inhospitable to many species.

In the absence of fire and other natural means of open-ing areas i n the forest to create a variety of micro-habitats of varying plant species and ages, managed intervention must be practiced to produce this regenerative, essential phase in forest ecology (Thompson and DeGraaf 2001).

Among the management practices encouraged by the River Hills Forest Habitat Project are timber stand im-provement (TSI), edge feathering, and one to two acre clearcut patches. Each results in a piece of the mosaic

15

essential for Ruffed Grouse and other birds.

TSI is primarily the removal of less desirable tree species (in most instances in this area, sugar maple) that compete with mast produc-ing, timber-valuable oaks. Forest edging produces an area between fields or pas-ture and forest rich in shrub-by plants (much like the old fencerows once common in much of Missouri), plants that produce soft mast such as berries. The small clearcut areas provide the space and sunlight exposure to promote communities of dense sa-plings-space similar to the canopy openings caused when a mature tree falls.

All are proven manage-ment techniques and all pro-vide a significant portion in a magnificant mosaic. The commitment is not short-term, for each piece must be renewed or replaced as their character changes through time.

The Future

The 2003 Day with Grouse sponsored by MDC and the Ruffed Grouse Society at-tracted about 50 participants deep in the hills of Warren County. The landowners who went on the tree iden- tification walks, asked man-agment questions, watched a tree shearing demonstration, and showed a keen interest in the River Hills Forest Habitat Project. Those already par-ticipating were eagerly an-ticipating results.

All shared a reverence, concern, and enthusiasm for our natural heritage. The pride in their role as stewards was evident and encourag-ing. The future of Ruffed Grouse and several songbird species in Missouri rests lar-gely in their hands.

The River Hills Forest Habitat Project will take time. It is an experiment. Results, in terms of increased popula-tions, will not be immediately apparent. But if it works, the raucous ramblings of Bell's Vireos and Yellow-breasted Chats and the reverse-order spiral songs of Field Spar-

16

rows and Prairie Warblers will share the announcement of new Missouri mornings with the rolling, muffled thunder of the Ruffed Grouse for many years to come.

Cited References

Askins, Robert A. Sustaining biological diversity in early successional com-munities: the challenge of managing unpopular habitats. 2001. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29(2):407-412.

Audubon Society of Mis-souri. 2001. October, 2001 Board Minutes.

Bent,ArthurCleveland.1963. Life Histories of North American Gallinaceous Birds. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 490 p. (and 93 plates), reprint of USDA Bulletin 162, 1932.

Brewster, William. 1874. The drumming of the ruffed grouse. American Sportsman, vol. 4 no. 1.

DeWitt, Bob. 2003 (ms). Little Trees, Big Habitat. Prepared for Missouri Conservationist. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of Conserva-tion.

Hunter, William C., David A. Buehler, Ronald A. Canterbury, John L. Con-fer,and Paul B. Hamel. 2001 . Wildlife Society Bul-letin. 29(2):440-455.

Johnsgard, Paul A. 1973. Grouse and Quail of North America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 553p.

Missouri Department of Con-servation. 1987. Restoring Ruffed Grouse. Jefferson City, MO. Six panel brochure.

River Hills Conservation Partnership. 2002. River Hills Forest Habitat Project 2002-2007. Work-ing document.

Robbins, Mark B. and David

17

A. Easterla. 1992. Birds of Missouri. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. 399p.

Thompson, Frank R., III. 1997. Management of Early-Successional Communities i n Central Hardwood Forests. General Technical Report NC-195. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser-vice, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 33p.

Thompson, Frank R., III, Deretha A. Freiling and Erik K. Fritzell. 1988. Ruffed Grouse in Missouri: Its ecology and management. Columbia, MO: Agricul-tural Guide G9430, University of Missouri-Columbia Extension Division. 4p.

Thompson, Frank R., III, Richard M. DeGraaf. 2001. Wildlife Society Bul-letin. 29(2):483-494.

Birds of the 2003 ASM Spring Meeting in St. Joseph, MO

PIED-BILLED GREBE WHITE PELICAN DOUBLE-CRESTED

CORMORANT GREAT BLUE HERON GREEN HERON CA TILE EGRET GREAT EGRET BLACK-CROWNED

NIGHT HERON AMERICAN BmERN WHITE-FACED IBISCANADA GOOSE ROSS' GOOSE SNOW GOOSE BLACK-BELLIED

WHISTLING-DUCK A M E R I C A NWIGEONBLUE-WINGED TEAL NORTHERNPINTAILAIL GADWALL GREEN-WINGED TEAL MALLARD NORTHERNSHOVELER WOOD DUCK BUFFLEHEAD LESSER SCAUP RING-NECKEDDUCK RUDDY DUCK HOODED MERGANSER TURKEY VULTURE SHARP-SHINNED

HAWK COOPER'S HAWK RED-TAILED HAWK RED-SHOULDERED

HAWK BROAD-WINGED HAWK SW SWAINSON'SHAWK BALD EAGLE NORTHERNHARRIER OSPREY PEREGRINE E FALCON AMERICAN KESTREL NORTHERN BOBWHITE RING-NECKED

PHEASANT WILD TURKEY VIRGINIA RAIL SORA AMERICAN COOT AMERICAN AVOCET SEMIP ALMA TED

PLOVER KILLDEER AMERICAN GOLDEN-

PLOVER HUDSONIAN GODWIT UPLAND SANDPIPER GREATER YELLOWLEGS LESSER YELLOWLEGS SOLITARY SANDPIPER WILLET SPOTTED SANDPIPER WILSON'S SNIPE WILSON'S PHALAROPE LONG-BILLED

DOWITCHER SEMIPALMATEDALMA TED

SANDPIPER WESTERN SANDPIPER LEAST SANDPIPER BAIRD'S SANDPIPER PECTORAL SANDPIPER DUN LIN HERRING GULL RING-BILLED GULL FRANKLIN'S GULL BONAPARTE'S GULL FORSTER'S TERN ROCK DOVE MOURNING DOVE EASTERN SCREECH-

OWL GREAT HORNED OWL BARRED OWL CHIMNEY SWIFT BELTED KINGFISHER NORTHERN FLICKER(Yellow-shafted) PILEATED

WOODPECKER

18

RED-BELLIED WOODPECKER

RED-HEADED WOOD-PECKER

YELLOW-BELLIED SAPSUCKER

HAIRY WOODPECKER DOWNY WOODPECKER EASTERN KINGBIRD EASTERN PHOEBE HORNED LARK TREE SWALLOW BANK SWALLOW ROUGH-WINGED

SWALLOW BARN SWALLOW CLIFF SWALLOW PURPLE MARTIN BLUE JAY AMERICAN CROW BLACK-CAPPED

CHICKADEE TUFTED TITMOUSE WHITE-BREASTED

NUTHATCH HOUSE WREN WINTER WREN CAROLINA WREN NORTHERNMOCK-

INGBIRD BROWN THRASHER AMERICAN ROBIN WOOD THRUSH SW SWAINSON'S THRUSH EASTERN BLUEBIRD BLUE-GRAY GNA GNAT-

CATCHER RUBY-CROWNED

KINGLET AMERICAN PIPIT LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE EUROPEAN STARLING YELLOW-THROATED

VIREO RED-EYED VIREO WARBLING VIREO

WORM-EATING WARBLER

TENNESSEE WARBLER ORANGE-CROWNED

WARBLER NASHVILLE WARBLER NORTHERNPARULA YELLOW WARBLER YELLOW-RUMPED

WARBLER(Myrtle) BLACK-THROATED

GREEN WARBLER PALM WARBLER LOUISIANA

WATERTHRUSH KENTUCKY WARBLER COMMON

YELLOWTHROAT BLACK-AND-WHITE

WARBLER AMERICAN REDSTART OVENBIRD HOUSE SPARROW EASTERN

MEADOWLARK WESTERN

MEADOWLARKYELLOW-HEADED

BLACKBIRD RED-WINGED BLACK-

BIRD BALTIMORE ORIOLE GREAT-TAILED

GRACKLE COMMON GRACKLE BROWN-HEADED

COWBIRD SUMMER TANAGER SCARLET TANAGER NORTHERN CARDINAL ROSE-BREASTED

GROSBEAK INDIGO BUNTING DICKCISSEL HOUSE FINCH AMERICAN

GOLDFINCH EASTERN TOWHEE SAVANNAH SPARROW GRASSHOPPER

SPARROW LARK SPARROW

CHIPPING SPARROW CLAY-COLORED

SPARROW FIELD SPARROW HARRIS' SPARROW WHITE-CROWNED

SPARROW

WHITE-THROATED SPARROW

LINCOLN'S SPARROW SWAMP SPARROW SONG SPARROW

NOTE OF APPRECIATION

Many of the ASM family gave me credit for much of the success of the 2003 Spring Meeting and I really do appreciate their praise. However, I was just the messenger. The real work was done by other members of the Midland Empire Audubon Society, A big thanks to our registration person, the field trip leaders, the silent auc-tion manager, our MDC liaison per-son, and the lodging and catering commitee, Actually every officer, i board member, and committee head had a hand in making this event work. And the Columbia group who put together the "how-to" books deserves a lot of credit. Actually I didn't even have a title. As I said, I was just the loud mouth messenger who really enjoyed teasing you all into coming, You showed up 106 strong, from 33 different Missouri towns, and we really did enjoy having you visit OUR town. THANK YOU ALL

Frances Cramer, St. Joseph, MO

19

Rep.ort on the Meeting with the Missouri Department

of Conservation Jerry Wade

On March 17, 2003, the Access and Issues Committee of the Audubon Society of Missouri and representatives of the Missouri Department of Conservation met. The four ASM representatives were Bill Eddleman, J o Ann Eldridge, Steve Kinder, and Jerry Wade. Attending from MDC were David Erickson, Wildlife Division Ad-ministrator, Rick Thorn, Wildlife Diversity Chief, N orb Giessman, Wildlife Management Chief (Missouri River Unit), David Urich, Wildlife Management Chief (Ozark Unit), Brad Jacobs, Wildlife Ecologist, and Andy Forbes, Wildlife Ecologist.

[NOTE: An Ad-ministrator answers to the Director. The Wildlife Diver-sity Chief is the administrator

20

for the wildlife ecologists and program supervisors. The Management Chief is the per-son Conservation Area Managers report to. Basical-ly, the Missouri River Unit is the area north of the Missouri River and the Ozark Unit is south of the Missouri River.]

The meeting opened with comments by David Erickson and Jerry Wade on Future Directions. David Erickson reported that the reorganiza-tion of Natural History and Wildlife into a new Wildlife Division opens the way for a greater emphasis toward comprehensive bird manage-ment. The Division will be exploring ways to increase personal contacts between birding groups and regional management staff and in-creasing use of conservation

areas by birders. The efforts are directed at turning people on to conservation and to en-hancing the rela-tionship be-tween Wildlife Division staff and the birding community.

Jerry Wade explained the intent of the Audubon Society of Missouri to become more active in ornithological issues, to increase participa-tion in citizen science related to birds, and to foster interac-tion with MDC and other conservation agencies. ASM is interested in improved and more frequent dialog with MDC and in becoming more involved in the management decision-making process, in-cluding regulations govern-ing management and human use of wildlife resources.

Following the opening comments, a number of dis-cussion topics were ad-dressed. The topics are listed below with a short explana-tion of the topic and the results of the discussion.

21

Habitat Management in Conservation Areas

The issue focused on Ecosystem versus Single Species/Single Use Manage-ment and the ASM' s interest in supporting ecosystem management, especially en-hancing shorebird habitat at wetland areas.

The group discussed many facets of wildlife man-agement, philosophy, and implementation, including a concern about cropland management on MDC wet-land areas. ASM observed that marsh nesting bird habitat on MDC lands could be increased. Most marsh nesting birds are presently limited to federal or private lands. The B.K. Leach Con-servation Area in Lincoln County will be developed in 2004 adding more than 2,700 acres of additional marsh habitat.

Lengthy discussion led to several conclusions.

Information and knowledge are critical to issues of habitat manage-ment.

MDC committed to en-

hancing the training of managers on shorebird management.

If ASM members are to be partners with MDC, then we need to find ways to in-crease the information transfer from MDC to ASM on wetland management systems, including the pur-pose and need for refuges during the waterfowl seasons.

The group agreed that ASMneeds to better under-stand the MDC manage-ment systems and philosophy so members know why decisions are made if we are to influence the management at conser-vation areas. The more knowledgeable we are, the more effective we can be in pursuing our commitment to building quality habitat for a broad range of bird species.

A consistent emphasis in the discussion was the im-portance for MDC conser-vation area managers to have ongoing contact with local birders to increase two-way education and in-formation flow. If ASM is going to assist MDC in being birder friendly, we must make the effort to be

22

known by and to have regular conversations with local staff.

Following a lengthy dis-cussion, we agreed to two specific actions.

First, there will be a greater MDC presence at the fall ASM meeting to educate ASM about wildlife management systems and philosophy as a basis for further discussions with ASM members on wildlife management issues, espe-cially as they relate to wet-lands.

Second, ASM members should make a greater ef-fort to get to know the staff at local conservation areas and begin having regular conversations on how the area can be more birder friendly.

Regulations Two topics were dis-

cussed: 1. How can ASM be more in-volved in the decision-making process, especially regarding some of the hunt-ing regulations, and; 2. What are the policies and

processes affecting special use permits?

The question of regula-tions is a most difficult one, because it always involves multiple special interests. However, it was clear that if we want to affect the decision process, we must be know-ledgeable about it. With this in mind, the group agreed on several actions.

MDC will prepare an ar-ticle for The Bluebird on the MDC regulations process.

Emphasis will be on public participation processes and the differences in regulations for resident birds and migratory birds.

Rail hunting issues w1ll be further researched.

Additional follow-up dis-cussions are needed and will be held.

MDC will provide ASM with the policy and proces-ses affecting conservation area special use permits.

Conservation Area Access for Birding during Hunting Seasons

The first ASM concern was the overlap between turkey season and the Na-tional Migratory Bird Count

23

the second Saturday in May, especially on conservation areas.

Although there is no easy resolution to this issue, the group did have several action recommendations. Andy For-bes will work with ASM to gather more information on this issue, including actions in other states. At the same time, the president of ASM will begin meeting with a rep-resentative of the National Wild Turkey Federation to explore options.

All-day turkey hunting during the wild turkey hunt-ing season is being con-sidered by the Department. ASM will be a part of that decision process. A sugges-tion that signage on MDC areas to notify birders and turkey hunters of the other group's presence was deemed impractical. Finally, it was agreed that ASM mem-bers should contact area managers ahead of the bird count day, discuss the situa-tion, and seek local accom-modations. This could be an opportunity to meet and talk

with local managers about is-sues relating to birding and bird habitat.

This is an issue with no easy resolution. We will con-tinue to work on it.

A second access concern was the Christmas Bird Counts that occur between December 14 and January 5 and other long-term bird sur-veys that overlap with water-fowl season. MDC is working on a bird conservation action plan to guide staff in involv-ing birders in management is-sues. Brad Jacobs and Andy Forbes will include recom-mendations for greater com-munication between MDC and ASM during the Christmas Bird Count, espe-cially related to access of Department waterfowl ref-uges.

Another action discussed was to have a presentation at an ASM meeting by MDC on regulations, waterfowl man-agement and other topics as part of a shared effort to in-crease coordination.

24

Reporting and Notifying about Bird Sightings by MDC Staff

A protocol will be developed and MDC will make management staff aware of procedures for notifying birders of unusual bird sightings on department lands.

MDC'S Perception of Being Birding Friendly and Potential Role of ASM

MDC reiterated its com-mitment to "being birding friendly." ASM needs to find ways to assist and encourage MDC. One of the difficulties is that MDC needs to know about the usage of the conser-vation areas for birding. One way to do that is for birders to provide bird lists to MDC managers and to contact MDC managers with bird sightings as well as informa-tion about visits to Depart-ment lands. ASM will have a proposal to the membership in the near future on how we can best provide this to local managers and at the same time provide a statewide

summary. A second action discussed

was to have MDC managers write articles about depart-ment lands with good bird-ing opportunities. Finally, through Andy Forbes, MDC is developing procedures for standardizing bird monitor-ing on department lands in order to involve birders in the tracking of management im-pacts on birds.

What ASM Bring to the Table

The last topic discussed was what ASM brings to the table in a cooperative en-deavor. Andy Forbes will send recent North American Wetland Conservation Act and other grant information to ASM. ASM could become involved in bird manage-ment grants as a partner by assisting with monitoring of bird response to manage-ment before and during grant implementation.

ASM needs to become more aware of the Grassland Focus Areas and the Central

25

Hardwood Bird Conserva-tion Region Focus Areas and the contribution of these ex-tensive partnerships to grass-land bird conservation and find opportunities to make a greater contribution to these efforts.

In conclusion, MDC has made a significant commit-ment to be "birding friend-ly." ASM must now accept the responsibility to provide MDC information on how successful they are and ways they can do better.

We agreed that an annual coordination meeting would be important. The next meet-ing will be held no later than next spring.

Working Together on Conservation Regulations

David Urich, Missouri Department of Conservation

A s I walked out of the Department of Conservation's Central Of-fice main lobby, I passed a steady stream of visitors coming into the building. The parking lot was full of vehicles including two large buses that were mixed in with the cars. The de-partment's Regulation Com-mittee was meeting to discuss new rules related to the trap-ping and hunting of raccoons and other furbearers. Trap-ping and hunting groups were attending this public meeting to voice their com-ments and opin-ions. I could feel the tension in the air. The Regulations Committee was attempting to set season dates that would protect wildlife species, but still allow for the harvest of fur-bearers by trappers and

26

hunters. Unfortunately, man-y trappers and hunters had different concepts for the best season dates and were present to promote their preferred alternatives.

This public debate on fur-bearer hunting and trapping regulations occurred several years ago, but illustrates the open forum nature of rules related to hunting, fishing and public use on Depart-ment of Conservation lands. The Missouri Department of Conservation has the legal authority to establish regula-tions for hunting, fishing, and trapping. The process is not complicated and is open to public input and comment. This process is familiar to many hunters and anglers, but maybe less known to the Audubon Society of Missouri (ASM) members.

•

Creating new regulations or revising existing regula-tions involves several steps. The first step is consideration by the Department's Regula-tions Committee. This com-mittee is chaired by the Deputy Director and consists of five other senior level de-partmentadministrators. The committee typically meets on a monthly basis to consider regulations related to hunt-ing, fishing, trapping, and other public use issues on department lands, such as camping, horseback riding, boating, and similar outdoor recreational activities. The meetings are open to the public; agendas are available prior to the meeting. Agenda items can be proposed by department staff, a citizen, or organization. Usually, new rules or changes to existing rules are initially proposed and submitted to the Regula-tions Committee by one the department's divisions.

Contact with the Regula-tions Committee can be through a letter or telephone call to the Deputy Director.

27

Members of the Regulations Committee review all cor-respondence from the public, and any suggestions for regulation changes are dis-cussed at committee meet-ings. Testimony from citizens is welcome and encouraged.

The second step in the regulations process involves the Conservation Commis-sion. Any rule changes proposed by the Regulations Committee must be ap-proved by the four-member Conservation Commission. Monthly commission meet-ings are also open to the public. Comments regarding regulations can be addressed at the commission meetings by contacting the Director's Office at the Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, to request some time at the meeting to make a statement.

The final step in the process involves filing the proposed regulation with the Office of Secretary of State for a 30-day public comment period. The draft regulation is published in the Missouri Register. Public comment can

result in no change to the regulation, a revision, or oc-casionally some rules were withdrawn based on com-ments received during the 30-day review period.

The Department of Con-servation has the authority to establish regulations related to resident wildlife. How-ever, migratory wildlife is regulated cooperatively by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice and the states under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Every year in July, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes a rules framework for hunting rails, doves, and woodcock. A similar rules framework is es-tablished in August by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for waterfowl. MDC can make certain adjustments to the migratory hunting regulations within the federal framework. The final state migratory bird hunting rules are also approved by the Reg-ulations Committee and the Conservation Commission. Public comment is welcome during both of these steps.

28

Members of the ASM can become involved in the rulemaking process for the hunting seasons as well as public use issues on MDC lands. To make a proposal in person before the Regula-tions Committee, call or write the Director's Office at the Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, to request time at an upcoming meeting. In addition, letters received by the Director's Office request-ing changes in regulations will be considered by the committee.

MDC staff and a special ASM advisory committee recently met to discuss several issues related to regulations. These issues in-cluded access to department wetland conservation areas during the waterfowl season, closing turkey hunting on department lands during the annual North American Migratory Bird Count Day, and closing the hunting season on certain rails. De-partment staff also indicated that ali-day, spring turkey hunting was being con-

..

sidered as a new regulation. Allocating the public use

of Missouri's fish and wildlife resources is becom-ing an increasingly compli-cated process as the state's human population continues to grow, and the best habitat conditions become confined to a shrinking public land base. Typically, the agency has resisted attempts by various groups to establish exclusive uses for fish and wildlife resources. The department's regulation pro-cess is a mechanism for in-itiating a dialogue among Missouri citizens for protec-tion and management of wildlife resources and al-locating recreational oppor-tunities. ASM members are invited and encouraged to become engaged in the rule making process through con-tact with department staff, the Regulations Committee, and the Conservation Com-mission meetings.

29

Bluebird Nesting Info Needed

Lawrence Herbert has volunteered to collect data to determine nesting success of Eastern Bluebirds using blue-bird houses in MO. Anyone who maintains one or more bluebird boxes is invited to send information about their 2003 nesting results to Lawrence for later publication in The Bluebird.

The only information re-quested is: 1) the name of the county where the bluebird box or boxes are located; 2) the number of boxes maintained; 3) the number of successful nests (at least one bluebird fledged); and 4) the number of bluebirds fledged (if known).

Please send data to Lawrence Herbert at lher-bert@4state.com or 1711 Goetz Blvd. Joplin, MO 64801 at the end of this year's nesting season.

Early Spring Birding in Phoenix, Arizona, 2003-

Ending a 31-Year Jinx Paul M. McKenzie

A ny birder who has been birding for l o n g e r than four hours has one thing in common with their fellow birders-a jinx bird. You know the ones-everyone has seen the species but yourself, and you hear boastful comments like, "You should have been here two minutes ago," (e.g., like two unfortunate Columbia birders who missed the Cur-lew Sandpiper at Eagle Bluffs a few years back due to their prolonged admiration of a Dickcissel); "I've seen several of those," or, "I got that species my first minute of birding."

It also seems that jinx birds have no respect for a birder's age, sex, number of species on his life list, number of species on his state list, or

30

birding expertise. Since I have been birding for longer than four hours (actually 31 years if I admit it!), I also have my list of jinx species. Of these, none has been more ag-gravating than the Western Screech-Owl.

In 31 years of birding I had looked for this species in no less than seven western states: Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. I have played a tape recording of this specie's calls thousands of times over the years without success. Prior to this year, the only response I ever got was of another birder in New Mexico who just so happened was in the same park, the same night, with a tape player looking for the same

•

species-what are the odds!? Pretty good if the species you are looking for is a jinx bird! I even heard one birder brag how she observed her life W. Screech-Owl when it perched on top of the tent she was in (perhaps, but sorry if I remain a little skeptical).

A recent business trip to Arizona the last week of February and the first week of March 2003, started off as usual. The first week was on the south rim of the Grand Canyon where I saw a whop-ping six species the entire week: Pygmy Nuthatch, Brown Creeper, Western Bluebird, Common Raven, Mountain Chickadee, and Dark-eyed Junco (some house cats have a larger kill list than this!). And yes, I looked for W. Screech Owl, even in the driving snow.

When I arrived there was no snow, but when I left there was a foot. Of course I spent time between snow storms looking for California Con-dors without success. By now you might have guessed that I heard one fellow classmate

31

who was not looking for con-dors proclaim, "I was just sit-ting in the restaurant and two beautiful condors flew right past the restaurant window." And guess where I was when this event took place?-at another overlook where con-dors are consistently seen. But this is a report on W. Screech-Owls, not California Condors.

Despite my failure to see any condors, the views made up for the lack of bird diver-sity and I was on a quest-see a W. Screech Owl and end a 31-year jinx. So I followed the chief naturalist of Grand Canyon NP's suggestion of going to a place where the bird has been heard before. I played a tape recording of the specie's calls and, stealing a

thought from an old John Denver song, "I took two hours, got no W. Screech-Owls, and cold, cold hands!"

The other highlight of the trip, outside the incredible views of the Grand Canyon, was my experience with a Pygmy Nuthatch one morn-ing when it was snowing hard. As I backed up on a trail to get a closer look at a Pygmy Nuthatch that I had not seen in a few years, the hair stood up on the back of mv neck as I suddenly had the i n c r e d i b l esense that either someone or something was standing be-hind me. I slowly turned around to see, standing five feet away and looking right at me, a magnificent 5 x 5 (that's five antler points on each side of rack large enough to hang an entire spring wardrobe) bull elk! "Oh, oh," I thought-"I'm in deep trouble because that sucker is going to charge me any minute!" I started to back up and he shook his head-"I'mtoast," I thought. "This is going to tum out to be a birding trip that impales beyond comparison to

32

anyone I have ever been on!" But I kept backing up, and to my surprise, he never charged-he simply decided to take it out on a few branches hanging down above his massive antlers. With my heart in my throat I retreated to the safety of the training center where I had class and decided that my massive list of six species for the Grand Canyon was suffi-cient! Surely the following week of birding (err, I mean business) could not bade as bad?

The second week of busi-ness was in Phoenix where I saw more species of birds leaving the airport than I had seen the previous week! I had made several local contacts to

see if I could add a few life birds to my list, especially that darn screech-owl. One local expert told me of a place in the desert where she guaranteed a W. Screech-Owl-"they'll be calling all over the desert from the saguaros." (Any reader ever heard that one before?) I fol-lowed directions exactly and played a tape over eight miles of rugged, desert road for three hours in the Supersti-tion Mountains (like I had a prayer birding here!), and you guessed it-not one W. Screech-Owl! I birded every day, and by the second to last morning I had recorded 113 species (many I had not seen in years)including the follow-ing lifers: Bendire's Thrasher, LeConte's Thrasher, Rufous-backed Robin, and Sage Spar-row (the one that willeventually be split from Bell's Sparrow), but noW. Screech-Owl! I also spent some of my time with a Kansas birder, Dan Mulhern, and was able to get him the following lifers: Crissal, Bendire's, and LeConte's thrashers, Costa's

33

Hummingbird, and Gilded Flicker. Unfortunately Dan missed the striking robin as it disappeared after flushing from the ground; however, such a North American rarity would not qualify as a jinx species unless you have missed it on numerous oc-casions.

With only one night left on my trip, I told Dan, "I am not going back to Missouri without W. Screech-Owl? The jinx ends tonight!" Since Dan needed the species for a lifer as well, he was eager to join me. Following the sug-gestion of another local bir-der to go to another desert with saguaros, we took off with tape player, binoculars, and flashlight. We walked on

a hiking trail away from the main parking lot (all Phoenix parks are crammed with numerous hikers, joggers, and mountain bikers) in hopes of finding some. secluded spot away from traffic and noisy humans.

To my shock, but expec-tancy after 31 years of being jinxed by W. Screech Owl, the desert we picked was in direct line for incoming and outgoing flights of a small airport in east Phoenix! Every time I tried to tune in my radar for a response to my tape, I heard the annoying roar of a planes engine. In dis-gust I told Dan, "Keep walk-ing-! am not giving up, and I am not going back to Columbia without this bird!"

After about an hour of playing the tape, I heard some faint toots in the dis-tance and exclaimed to Dan in an excited voice, "I don't believe it! I hear one! No wait-I hear two different birds!" Dan calmly replied, "Actually, I think there are three birds." Now the trick was to see if we could see one.

34

We ceased playing the tape (birds were now answering one another) and for the next 30 minutes we approached one bird, got within 30-40 feet, and then had it suddenly become quiet. We then ap-proached another calling bird only to have it shut up, but now the one we pre-viously heard was calling where we had been standing a few minutes earlier. (Does any of this sound familiar to anyone?) Becoming more frustrated as the minutes passed by, we now heard at least four different birds call-ing back and forth among the saguaros and adjacent desert washes! Within a few minutes I heard two birds that sounded to me to be within 10-15 feet in a desert willow. Dan heard them too, but was convinced they were on the distant hillside. Turn-ing on my flashlight on the willow in front of me I desperately looked for the bird making the noise. Dan now thought the bird must be near the top of the willow if it was there at all, because he

was still not convinced the calls are not coming from the distant hillside. I zeroed in on the location of the calls and shone the light on the willow, but about one foot off the ground, perched side by side on a small branch, are two W. Screech-Owls, one respond-ing to the other individuals calling in the distance, and the other with a somewhat nonchalant, "You're the largest and ugliest W. Screech-Owl I have ever seen," look on its face.

Taking turns holding the light while the other looked through binoculars, we ad-mired the two birds in front of us for several minutes. We were so close we could see every feather and even the diagnostic dark bill. It had been well worth the 31-year wait!

Finally, observing W. Screech-Owl was more than simply adding another species to my life list. It ended a 31-year jinx. Although I en-joyed the other life birds I saw that week (especially the Rufous-backed Robin and the

35

LeConte's Thrasher), they paled in comparison to the satisfaction in seeing a species that had eluded me for so many years. This is just one aspect of birding that makes the past time so rewarding. I'm sure every reader has a similar story to tell. As for me, I will remem-ber this trip for a long time-everything from almost becoming an elk shish kabob to finally seeing a bird that had eluded me for 31 years. Now it's off to other species. If I could only see an Evening Grosbeak in Missouri I would end a 14- year jinx! and ...

Office of the Governor State of Missouri

Proclamation

WHEREAS, Missouri's citizens believe conserving our states natural environment is one of the most important concerns for current and future generations; and

WHEREAS, according to the Audubon Society of Missouri, 402 species of birds have been recorded in Missouri; and 167 species are listed in the Missouri Breeding Bird Atlas as confirmed or likely to breed in Missouri; and

WHEREAS, bird watching is one of the fastest growing recreational activities in the United States; and nearly 1.3 million Missouri residents participate in bird watching; and 8 out of 10 Missourians feed birds and wildlife at their homes; and

WHEREAS, within Missouri, wildlife-watchers spend $444.1 million, generate $997.7 million in total business-generated activity, support 13,110 jobs and create $21.4 million in sales tax revenue; and

WHEREAS, more than 50 organizations, representing a diverse array of Missouri's governmental, business, industry, and nonprofit interests, have established a partnership called the Missouri Bird Conservation Initia-tive in order to deliver the full spectrum of bird conservation; and

WHEREAS, the second Saturday in May has been established as an international celebration of birds and bird conservation:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BOB HOLDEN, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, do hereby proclaim the second Saturday in May to be:

BIRD CONSERVATION DAY IN MISSOURI.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have here unto set my hand and caused to be affixed the Great Seal of the State of Missouri, in the City of Jefferson, on this l0th day of May, 2003.

Bob Holden, Governor-Attest: Matt Blunt, Sec. of State

36

SEASONAL SURVEY

Winter Report December 1, 2002 - February 28, 2003 Brad Jacobs, Seasonal Survey Editor

A relatively mild early December gave way to a very cold January and February. Very dry conditions per-sisted through the period in northwest Missouri, but away from the north, many snow storms repeatedly left from just a few inches to two feet of snow on some areas, usually the heaviest snows farther south. For a month or so most north M i s s o u r i lakes were frozen.

Some highlights for the season were Clark's Nutcracker, Say's Phoebe, Snowy Owls, and Varied Thrush. Additional records of interest were reports of several late Eastern Phoebes, many more Greater Roadrunner at bird feeders, very few Red-breasted Nuthatches, more locations for Eurasian Col-lared Doves, more Sandhill Cranes in eastern Missouri loca-tions, wintering Least Sandpipers*, and Marsh Wrens all winter at Fountain Grove CA. Also of interest was a phone call report to my office of a Ruffed Grouse at a bird feeder in Callaway Co.

In northern Missouri, Steve Kinder noticed that Northern Harriers, Short-eared Owls, Rough-legged Hawks and Long-eared Owls were absent from some roosts and in low numbers in others. In the Osage Plains wintering raptors seemed to be at normal levels. Northern Bobwhite appeared to be more numerous this year that in the last few. Loggerhead Shrikes

37

seemed to be holding on at least in western Missouri. Pileated Woodpeckers were noted in forested areas along the Grand River.

An asterisk indicates it needs to be documented and reviewed by the MO Bird Record Committee.

LOONS THROUGH VULTURES One Common Loon was seen on Mozingo Lake, Nodaway

Co. on 4 Dec. by DAE. One Common Loon was seen on Creve Coeur Lake, St. Louis Co. on 1 Jan. by IH. Four Pied-billed Grebes were tallied on the Maryville CBC by DAE et al. on 14 Dec. A Homed Grebe was seen on Creve Coeur Lake by DB on 23 Feb. LL reported a Red-necked Grebe at Lake Jacomo, Jackson Co. on 7 Dec., seen by m.obs. An Eared Grebe was observed on 8 Dec. negotiating ice flows on Lake Jacomo by RM.

R M discovered a suspected injured American White Pelican at Four Rivers CA on 14 Dec. A high count for January, 79 American White Pelicans and 16 Double-crested Cor-morants were counted at Montrose Power Plant, Henry Co., on 20 Jan. by MR. SK found 12 Double-crested Cormorants at Fountain Grove CA on 3 Dec. Two Double-cresteds were observed by DAE on Mozingo Lake, Nodaway Co. on 7 Dec. BS et al. counted 49 Great Blue Herons on the Clarence Cannon CBC on 28 Dec. Six Great Blue Herons lingered south of Chillicothe on 27 Dec. (SK, LL), but may not have wintered this year due to the long cold spell. Two birds stayed throughout the winter last year at SLNWR. Two Great Egrets were seen on 1 Feb. at Ameren Portage Des Sioux Power Plant, St. Charles Co. by JE. A Plegadis Ibis was repeatedly seen by duck hunters walking on the ice in front of hunting blinds on a private marsh south of SLNWR, Chariton Co. (fide SK).

Turkey Vultures continue to winter father north in Mis-souri. Dave Henness reported on overhead in Joplin, Newton

38

Co. on 26 Dec. On 12 Jan., JE, JMa, and CM documented 150 Turkey Vultures and eight Black Vultures in what they described as the northernmost roost in the Mississippi Valley. Although no location was given it was likely in St. Charles Co. as most of their reports are from there (BJ).

WATERFOWL THROUGH FALCONS BS found six Mute Swans at the Elsberry Sewage Lagoons,

Lincoln Co., on 1 Feb. There were no external signs of domes-tication such as wing, neck, or leg tags on any of the birds. Two Trumpeter Swans without collars were present from mid-Nov. to mid-Jan. when all the open water was frozen by the long cold period during the second half of the count period. MT reports 52 Trumpeter Swans and three Tundra Swans on 8 Dec. at REDA this winter. Two Trumpeters with red collars were seen in the Fountain Grove CA area during Nov. and Dec. by SK. Three Trumpeters with red collars were at SCNWR on 21 Jan. according to TR, along with three Northern Pintails, 80 Mallards, and 22 Green-winged Teal.

One Greater White-fronted Goose was seen on the Maryville CBC on 14 Dec. (DAE et al.) . BG reports six Greater White-fronted Geese at Eagle Bluffs CA on 2, 12, and 19 Feb. Fifty White-fronts, along with 500 Canada and 200 Snow Geese, 10,000 Mallards, and two Northern Pintails were seen at SCNWR by TR on 26 Feb., where she noted that open water had finally returned to north Missouri. LH observed 14,000 Snow Geese in a winter wheat field on 20 Jan. in west central Barton Co. SK and LL reported a high count at SLNWR was 200,000 on 20 Feb. However, Canada Geese were in low num-bers at SLNWR. About 2,000 Canada Geese were at Mozingo Lake, Nodaway Co. on 4 Dec. (DAE).

Three Wood Ducks were back at SLNWR on 12 Feb. (SK). SK repeatedly observed two American Black Ducks among 50,000 Mallards at SLNWR throughout the period. Between

39

50,000 and 75,000 Mallards were at Winfield Lock and Dam, Lincoln Co. on 16 Jan. BS tallied about 27,000 Mallards and 22 American Black Ducks on the recently started Clarence Can-non NWR CBC on 28 Dec. BG tallied 10 Canvasbacks at Eagle Bluffs CA, Boone Co. on 20 Feb., and six at Little Dixie Lake CA, Callaway Co. on 28 Feb. PB tallied 1800 Canvasbacks and 18 Greater Scaup among the ducks at REDA on 8 Dec. A high count of 40 was tallied by RM for Greater Scaup at Lake J acoma, Jackson Co. An American Black Duck was seen by RM et al. at Four Rivers CA, Bates Co. and a pair with the male displaying at Mozingo Lake, Nodaway Co.

SK tallied 450 Northern Pintails and 250 Ring-necked Ducks at SLNWR on 19 Feb. DAE reported one female Greater Scaup, one female White-winged Scoter, and one female Red-breasted Merganser on Mozingo Lake, Nodaway Co on 4 Dec. with about 1,000 Mallards, 12 Lesser Scaup, four Common Goldeneye and one female Common Merganser. A flock of 46 Common Mergansers and eight Common Goldeneye were noted by TR at Langdon Bend on the Missouri River in Atchison Co on 27 Jan. RM spotted two immature female White-winged Scoters on 8 Dec. at Lake J acoma. A lone female Black Scoter at Mozingo Lake, Nodaway Co. on 7 Dec. was reported by DAE and PK as the first winter record for this species away from the Mississippi River. By 14 Dec. DAE and PK added one Bufflehead and two Hooded Mergansers to the waterfowl list present at Mozingo Lake, Nodaway Co. The female Red-breasted Merganser was still present. MR counted 940 Hooded Mergansers at Montrose Power Plant, Henry Co on 20 Jan. This is a state high count for all seasons. Two Long-tailed Ducks were reported by CA at REDA on 1 Feb.

JH reported a Sharp-shinned Hawk frequenting his home bird feeders all winter, and a Cooper's Hawk near Pershing State Park, Linn Co., on 29 Dec. This species is probably under-reported by birders as it appears to be increasingly more

40

common in recent years. Up to three Northern Harriers were present at Eagle Bluffs CA, Boone Co., during Jan. and Feb. according to BG.

Buteos were common in their normal wintering areas of southwest Missouri. TR located a Rough-legged Hawk at SCNWR on 21 Jan. and two Rough-legs and a dark western morph Red-tailed Hawk still lingered on 26 Feb. On 3 Feb. LH located a Rough-legged Hawk, four Red-tailed Hawks, and four other buteos along US 71 in southern Barton Co. A Red-shouldered Hawk was seen at Montrose CA and another at Poague CA, Henry Co., on 20 Jan. by MR. LB spotted a Red-shouldered Hawk at Lake Springfield, Greene Co., on 14 Dec. BG reported one Red-shouldered Hawk at Rock Bridge Memorial SP on 23 Feb., and two at Little Dixie Lake CA, Callaway Co. where one individual sparred with a Red-tailed Hawk near where they have nested in the past. On 4 Feb. SK saw an immature Golden Eagle south of Chillicothe; refuge manage John Guthrie observed an adult near SLNWR.

American Kestrels stayed in good numbers all winter in the Chillicothe area according to SK. From 5 Dec. through at least 4 Mar. DB regularly saw a Merlin near St. Johns Hospital. It was seen on 9 Jan. in the hospital parking lot by LP. Two Merlins were seen by JM and m.obs. on 1-2 Jan. in Affton, St Louis Co. MR discovered a richardsoni subspecies Merlin in the Deepwater area of Truman Lake, Henry Co. on 20 Jan. On 2 Dec. a Merlin and a Prairie Falcon were observed by LL at Mud Lake, south of St. Joseph, Buchanan Co. A Prairie Falcon was seen by CB one mile west of Bronaugh, Vernon Co. on 1 Dec. A Prairie Falcon was noted by SKat SLNWR on 19 Feb.

GROUSE THROUGH TERNS Greater Prairie-Chickens (GPC) continue to hold their own

and perhaps gain ground in northern Missouri. SK reported 15

41

GPCs at Dunn Ranch Preserve on 24 Dec. and 24 GPCs on 7 Jan. LL reported 12 Northern Bobwhite at Lake Contrary, Buchanan Co. on 2 Dec.

Five Virginia Rails and one Sora were documented by BG at the Columbia wastewater treatment cell on 14 Dec., and one Virginia was still present on the 20 Dec. Six American Coots were seen on Mozingo Lake, Nodaway Co. on 4 Dec. and 18 on 7 Dec. by DAE. Up to three American Coots were at Eagle Bluffs CA during Jan. and Feb. (BG). Seven Sandhill Cranes were observed in St. Mary, St. Genevieve Co. on 2 Feb. by JE and JMa. One Sandhill was observed by MR near Montrose Power Plant, Henry Co., on 20 Jan.

A Franklin's Gull was observed at REDA on 1 Feb. by DR. MR reported seeing eight adult Bonaparte's Gulls at Truman Darn on 20 Jan. On 23 Feb., JE documented a first winter and a first winter in transition to summer plumage Great Black-backed Gull at REDA. JE also reported a first winter Iceland Gull at REDA on 3 Feb. DC located a Herring Gull in Taney Co. on 28 Dec.

Twelve Killdeer were still present at Fountain Grove CA on 1 Jan. in the Boardwalk Marsh. LL saw 15 at Lake Contrary, Buchanan Co. on 2 Dec. A Killdeer was observed on several occasions at Eagle Bluffs CA during Jan. and Feb. by BG. A Lesser Yellowlegs lingered for a month until 5 Dec at a lake near Lebanon, Laclede Co. (LP). An amazing report, on Jan. 23 BS found about 6-10 Least Sandpipers at the Winfield Lock and Dan, Lincoln Co.; twelve were present on 1 Feb.; and, the flock remained into March. A single Least Sandpiper was detected on the Four Rivers CBC by RM et al. on 14 Dec. FB and TB reported an American Woodcock at Busch CA on 1 Jan. Arriv-ing time is later this spring for American Woodcocks due to the extended cold weather period. JH saw one on 16 Feb. in Springfield. About 35 Wilson's Snipe were at the Winfield Lock and Darn, Lincoln Co. on 18 Jan. (BS).

42

DOVES THROUGH CROWS Eurasian Collared-Doves were present in several areas in

the southwest area, with one at Carthage Park, Jasper Co observed by Barry Jones on 28 Feb.; in Neosho, Newton Co., they are regularly reported by LC; and Janice Linkletter reported three in her Newton Co. backyard for severaldays in mid-Jan. LP noted that several ECD wintered in Lebanon, LaClede Co., at a grain elevator. Greater Roadrunner sightings seemed to be much more common this winter, with several reports of them actively foraging at bird feeders. LB found one in Taney Co. on the Christmas Bird Count on 14 Dec.

In a dedicated search for Bam Owls on 14 Feb., SK located one in Livingston Co. and one in Carroll Co. LL relocated the Livingston Co bird on 20 Feb in the same abandoned building south of Chillicothe. YH and JZ discovered a Bam Owl at Busch CA on 28 Dec. One Snowy Owl was located by SK in Harrison Co. on 25 Jan. Although not reported to the seasonal survey editor, a Snowy Owl and Northern Saw-whet Owl were present near Edina, Knox Co. for many weeks and seen by m. obs. Ann Downing enabled many visitors in the area to see and photograph the birds. Several Short-eared Owls were present in fields nearby and were seen by JR. Four Long-eared Owls were present on a roost in Livingston Co. according to SK, LL, and DF. SK found two Long-eareds at Grand Trace CA in Harrison Co., and two more at Pony Express CAin DeKalb Co.

Fourteen Short-eared Owls were seen at Shawnee Trail CA in Barton Co. on 1 Feb. CB, LB, and GOAS field trip with m.obs. JC revisited the area on 15 Feb. and found 24 individuals. JH reported aN orthem Saw-Whet Owl near Maryville, Nodaway Co, on 29 Dec. On 4 Jan. KG and DAE reported a Northern Saw-Whet Owl about 17 miles west of Maryville at Bilby Ranch CA, Nodaway Co. (I believe this was discovered earlier by Kirby and subsequently seen by several others).

43

A Belted Kingfisher was located near Guilford, Nodaway Co, on 4 Feb.

A red -shafted Northern Flicker was observed east of Oronogo, just north of Joplin, Newton Co. on 28 Feb. by BJo. TMcN found a red -shafted Northern Flicker on the Swan Lake CBC on 28 Dec. LL and SK saw one at Poosey CA on 4 Nov. and 16 Feb.

Eastern Phoebe lingered in several places this winter. An individual first reported at Walter Woods CA, south of Joplin, Newton Co., on 28 Dec. was also observed by JC and DH on 15 Jan. JC and MK saw an Eastern Phoebe at the Walter Wood CAin Newton Co. on 28 Dec., 7 Jan., and 5 Feb. DC also saw one on 28 Dec. on the Taney Co. CBC. JE located an Eastern Phoebe on the B. K. Leach CA on 5 Jan. MR and RM discovered a Say's Phoebe on 14 Dec. at Four Rivers CA, Bates Co.

An amazing five Loggerhead Shrike were in Maryville, Nodaway Co. on 14 Dec. for the CBC (DAE et al.). A single Loggerhead was noted on 5 Dec. and 28 Feb. by BG at Bradford Farms, Boone Co. KG and DAE found a Northern Shrike at Bilby Ranch CA, Nodaway Co. on 4 Jan. On Jan. 5 DAE and PK found a Northern Shrike one half mile west of Skidmore, Nodaway Co. RM photographed a Northern Shrike at the Emmit and Leah Seat CA, Worth Co., on 25 Jan.

A highlight for the season was a single Clark's Nutcracker seen by many observers over several days and reported by Rich Kostecke at the Busch CA on 28 Dec. This is the first record for many years, although only Rich's report was sent in. This is a common occurrence with unusual sightings; everyone thinks that someone else took care of the report details being sent to the seasonal editor.

LARKS THROUGH TANAGERS TR counted about 60 Horned Larks near Rock Port,

Atchison Co. on 27 Jan. There was a limited number of Red-

4 4

breasted Nuthatches around the state this year. Single birds were seen by Jane Hendrickson at Valley Water Mill on the GOAS CBC on 14 Dec., and by Jo Strange the Taney Co. CBC on 28 Dec. DAE and others found 11 Brown Creepers during the 14 Dec. CBC in Maryville, Nodaway Co.

A Bewick's Wren was seen and heard in east Newton Co, an area of the state where this species winters in small numbers, on 22 Feb by JC. A Winter Wren was reported by BG along the woodland trail near the river at Eagle Bluffs CA on 10 and 26 Jan. SK reported Marsh Wrens all winter at the Fountain Grove Boardwalk Marsh. BG reported six Marsh Wrens at Columbia wastewater treatment cells on 14 Dec. A single Marsh Wren was seen and heard at Four Rivers CA by RM on 14 Dec. Golden-crowned Kinglets were seen regularly by BG in Jan and Feb. when one to three individuals were present on most woodland walks near Columbia, Boone Co. Nineteen Golden-crowned Kinglets lingered in north Missouri and were noted by the Maryville CBC count participants. Three Ruby-crowned Kinglets were observed by RM at Four Rivers on 14 Dec.

Four Hermit Thrushes were present on 28 Dec. in Taney Co. on the CBC. On 7 Jan. LL observed about 500 American Robins apparently traveling south along the Nodaway River in Honey Creek CA. LH reported a Brown Thrasher observed several times in bad weather in a backyard in residential Joplin, Jasper Co. DR reports that single Brown Thrashers were present on the GOAS, Joplin, and Taney Co. CBCs.

Twelve American Pipits were at Smithville Lake on 7 Dec. according toLL. On 14 Dec., RM tallied a very impressive 68 American Pipits in the fallow corn fields on the Four Rivers CA, Bates Co. On 14 Dec. 122 Cedar Waxwings were in the CBC circle in Maryville, Nodaway Co. according to compiler DAE. Cedar Waxwings became more evident in Feb. with 70-80 observed in a flock of American Robins feeding on holly berries in Joplin, Jasper Co. on 26 Feb. JH was frequently visited

45

by a flock of Cedar Waxwings all winter in St. Joseph, Buchanan Co. Very few American Robins or Cedar Waxwings wintered in northern Missouri after the first month of the period (SK, LL, BJ). Margy Terpstra saw a Varied Thrush on 23 Jan.

Bo Brown located a n Orange-crowned Warbler on the Taney Co. CBC on 28 Dec. JE took field notes on an Orange-crowned he observed in St. Charles Co. on 5 Jan. Twenty-three Yellow-rumped Warbers also were seen on the Taney Co. CBC. An Audubon's Yellow-rumped Warbler was seen by Mike Brady on the KATY Trail on 9 Feb. A lone Common Yellowthroat was present on 26 Dec. and was seem by SK in the Fountain Grove Board\valk Marsh.

TOWHEES THROUGH OLD WORLD SPARROWS Evelyn Ford reported a Spotted Towhee in Ozark Co. on

24 Dec. A lone Field Sparrow returned to the Grand River region in Livingston Co. on 3 Feb. (SK). LL reported a wintering or early returning migrant Savannah Sparrow at Mud Lake, Buchanan Co. on 24 Feb. Normally Savannah Sparrows are unusual in winter in the St. Joseph area. Seventy-nine Savan-nah Sparrows at Clarence Cannon NWR, Pike Co., and 44 Lapland Longspurs at Prairie Slough CA, Lincoln Co., were counted on the CBC by BS et al. on 28 Dec. Fox Sparrows seemed to stay a little farther north this winter with up to four at BJ's feeders all winter in Boone Co. BG reported a Fox Sparrow on 24 Jan. and JL saw one on 19 Jan., both in Boone Co. Swamp Sparrows were common all winter at the Fountain Grove Boardwalk Marsh. Seventeen Harris's Sparrows were tallied on the Maryville CBC, Nodaway Co. on 14 Dec. Just west of Chillicothe and south of US 36 in the mitigation wet-lands area up to 75 Lapland Longspurs were present all winter (SK). Four Snow Buntings were regularly seen by SK in the same area from 29 Nov. to 13 Dec. One was at REDA on 1 Dec.

46

' (JU). Two Snow Buntings were seen at SLNWR on 3 Dec. by SK. KG and DAE had one male Snow Bunting at Bilby Ranch CA, Nodaway Co. on 4 Jan. On 31 Jan. SK observed about 200 Lapland Longspurs just south of Grand Pass CAin Saline Co. LL reported three Lapland Longspurs at Lake Contrary, Buchanan Co. on 2 Dec. On 4 Jan. an Indigo Bunting was closely observed and documented at St. Mary, Ste. Genevieve Co. by JE.

Ten Western Meadowlarks were heard by RM et al. at the Four Rivers CA, Bates Co., on 14 Dec. A well observed Brewer's Blackbird was at a feedlot in the Four Rivers CBC circle on 14 Dec. (RM). Thirty-two Rusty Blackbirds were culled from all the blackbird flocks at Four Rivers CA on 14 Dec. by RM. Thirty-eight Rusty Blackbirds were in the Maryville CBC circle on 14 Dec. (DAE et al.) TR located five Rusty Blackbirds on 27 Feb. in eastern Holt Co. along a country road. Three Great-tailed Grackles present at SCNWR on 12 Feb. were reported by TR. Joplins enormous blackbird roost normally located about 0.5 mile east of Missouri Southern State College was absent this winter. Great-tailed Grackles were present during the entire period at U. of Missouri South Farms, Boone Co., with 1,000 estimated by NY on 4 Dec. Brown-headed Cowbirds were present during the period with two seen by BG on 3 Jan. in Boone Co.

One Pine Siskin in Mound City, Holt Co. at TR's home, was one of the few reported this winter. About 150 Eurasian Tree Sparrows were seen by BS at the Winfield Lock and Dam, Lincoln Co. area on 18 Jan.

Observers: Connie Alwood (CA), David Becher (DB), Bo Brown (BB),

David Blevins (DBl), Lisa Berger (LB), Paul Bauer (PB), Char-les Burwick (CB), Jeff Cantrell (JC), David Catlin (DC), Ann Downing (AD), Joseph Eades (JE), David Easterla (DAE),

47

David Henness (DH), Jack Hilsabeck (JH), Ian Hunt (IH), Brad Jacobs (BJ), Barry Jones (BJo), Steve Kinder (SK), Peter Kondrashov (PK), Lawrence Herbert (LH), Janice Linkletter (JL), Larry Lade (LL), Jean Leonatti (JLe), Roger McNeill (RM), Terry McNeely (TMcN), Jerry Majka (JM), Charlene Malone(CM), Jim Malone (JMa), Lester Pannell (LP), Mark Robbins (MR), Dave Rogles (DR), Tommie Rogers (TR), Dean Rising (DR). Bruce Schuette (BS), Mike Thelen (MT), Neal Young (NY), Josh Uffman (JU), Jim Ziebol (JZ).

ABBREVIATIONS: BMCA Busch Memorial Conservation Area CA Conservation Area (FormerlyWildlife Areas,

CBC GOAS lCCM NWR m.obs. REDA

SOCA SCNWR SLNWR

Mo. Dept. Cons.) Christmas Bird Count Greater Ozark Audubon Society Little Creve Coeur Marsh, St. Louis Co. National WildlifeRefuge many observers Riverlands Environmental Demonstration Area, West Alton, St. Charles Co. Schell-Osage Conservation Area Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Holt Co. Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Livingston Co.

48

Purple Martin Scouts-Dispelling a Myth

Paul M. McKenzie

A long with Killdeer, American Wood-cock, Eastern Phoebe, Rough-winged Swallow, and Louisiana Waterthrush, the Purple Martin is one of the earliest North American species to return in spring to Missouri from their winter-ing grounds. This species winters exclusively in the lowlands east of the Andes, South America, where they concentrate in large numbers primarily between E. Bolivia and Brazil (American Or-nithologists Union 1998, Brown 1997). Migrants ap-pear in s. Florida and extreme se. Louisiana as early as 15 January; s. Texas, central Florida as early as 1 February; and there are even records in Missouri for as early as 11 and 19 February in Springfield

49

and St. Louis, respectively (Brown 1997, Robbins and Easterla 1992). The first birds that appear are usually a few males, with the bulk of migration occurring later (Robbins and Easterla 1992, Jacobs 2001). Not a single spring passes without people frequently describing these early arriving males to me as "scouts." Although I am never amazed that many non-biologists use this term, I am bewildered when in-dividuals who have some biological and ornithological training use the same expres-sion.

An examination of the problems associated with this idea will reveal that the term "scouts" is a myth (Brown 1997, Jacobs 2001) with no scientific foundation. The

straight-line distance from central Brazil to Columbia is approximately 8,274 km (~5141 mi.). For a Purple Martin to act as a "scout," then the following scenario would have to transpire. "Scouts" would expend numerous fat reserves in flying the 8,274 kilometers between Brazil and Columbia. Assuming that the purpose of "scouts" is to inform the bulk of migra-tion that it is either safe to

migrate (i.e., there are no major obstacles to hinder migration), or that there is an ample supply of insects to supplement the diets of migrating birds, these birds then would have to reverse the distance they traveled (8,274 km + 8,274 km= 16,548 km or ~10,283 mi.) and then bum additional but limited fat reserves.

Given that the subspecies that occurs in Missouri (i.e.,

Progne subis subis- Brown 1997) weighs approximately 54 g (Brown 1997), expends an average of 3.5 kcal/h in flight (Utter and LeFebvre 1973), and flies an average of seven to eight hours per day (Utter and LeFebvre 1973), return-ing "scouts" would not have enough fat reserves to make the return trip without spend-ing some unknown amount of time replenishing their reser-ves, yet alone make a second trip back north (a total now of 16,548 km + 8,274 km= 24,822 km or ~- 15,424 mi.) after in-forming the bulk of Purple Martin migrants in Brazil that it was OK to migrate! That a 54 g bird would be able to acquire sufficient fat reserves to travel 16,548 km within a few weeks seems highly un-likely.

Furthermore, assuming that natural selection works on individuals rather than species as a whole, one would have to ask why such "scout" behavior evolves? What benefit would there be to the individual scouts? Why would they behave in a way

51

that appears, to the biologist anyway, as altruistic? Most would expect the first-arriv-ing males to be more con-cerned with their own genetic future by claiming the best nest sites than with signaling all clear to the rest of the population.

So how do such myths get generated? Some people simply look at the fact that some male Purple Martins appear ahead of the bulk of migration and assume, incor-rectly, that these are "scouts." Our anthropomorphic ten-dency to ascribe human in-tentions and goals to animal behavior blocks us from criti-cally analyzing the facts from the standpoint of natural selection. Given the un-likelihood of scouting from the perspective of energetics and genetics, the burden-of-proof in this case, in my opinion, is on those who per-ceive the first-arriving males as "scouts."

Acknowledgments

Helpful suggestions by J.V. Remsen, Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University, B a t o nRouge, Louisiana, sig-nificantly improved an ear-lier draft of this manuscript.

American Ornithologists' Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 7th ed. American Ornithol-ogists' Union. Washing-ton, D.C. 829pp.

Brown, C.R. 1997. Purple Martin (Progne subis). In The Birds of North America, No. 287. (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C., 32pp.

Jacobs, B. 2001. Birds in Mis-souri. Missouri Depart-ment of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 375pp.

52

Robbins, M.B., and D.A. Easterla. 1992. The Birds of Missouri- Their Distribu-tion and Abundance. University of Missouri Press, Columbia, MO. 399 pp.

Utter, J.M., and E.A. Le-Febvre. 1973. Daily ener-gy expenditure for free flight by the Purple Mar-tin (Progne subis). Camp. Biochem. Physiol. 35:713-719.

CONSERVATION REPORT Dave Bedan

Dark Days in the State Legislature

Unprecedented Attacks on the Environment

The current trends in the Missouri General Assembly are very disturbing for anyone who cares about the conservation of Missouri's natural resources. In a broad-scale, unprecedented attack, dozens of anti-environment bills and proposals for budget cuts have been introduced that would roll back the gains in environmental protection and conservation that Mis-sourians have made over the last 30 years.

Cuts to DNR's Budget The budget process is

being used to drastically weaken the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) which is responsible for the implementation of most of Missouri's existing environ-mental protection laws. There is no doubt that Mis-souri, like many other states, is facing a severe budget crisis. But the cuts to DNR' s

53

general revenue (GR) funds have been greater than those of any other department. While DNR depends on rela-tively little GR (most of DNR's funds are earmarked fees and taxes or federal funds) these vital funds are often used to match federal funds and support innovative approaches to environmental protection. In recent years DNR has used GR to develop the Outreach and Assistance Center which includes staff that provide direct assistance and information to citizens, business, farmers, schools, and local governments. This innovative and proactive ap-proach, which helps prevent problems before they occur, could be lost under the cur-rent proposed cuts. General Revenue also supports DNR' s Geological Survey and Resource Assessment Division which is an impor-tant part of the scientific ex-pertise of DNR.

A separate threat to DNR' s budget is the "Sweeps Bill" (SB 675) which would sweep the balances of special earmarked funds into General Revenue. DNR has many of these special funds (e.g., the Parks Earnings Fund and the Hazardous Waste Fund) and the result would be even more devas-tating than the direct reduc-tions in GR.

Threats to Environmental Protection

Many other bills would roll back the authority and capability of the DNR to protect Missouri's environ-ment. House Bill (HB215) would restrict Missouri's ability to develop laws to protect Missouri's unique resources such our streams, caves, springs, and wetlands. Another bill (SB36) would impose extreme new require-ments for