Indelible

A funny thing happened the other day on my way to taking winter snow images in Garden of the Gods park here in Colorado Springs. Just as I settled into position for a great scenic shot of Pikes Peak between two rock formations, a commercial jet arced over the mountain, dead center, leaving a bright contrail in its wake.

Timing really is everything in a case like this. Had I gotten my butt on the road even a few minutes earlier, the morning light would have been even better, and there would have been no ugly airline graffiti. I am sure the navigator aboard the aircraft would argue the plane was not at all “misplaced,” but I would beg to differ, from my vantage point on terra firma.

I pride myself on not retouching any of my images with digital software like Photoshop or GIMP, and I am still debating on whether to bother in this case. People viewing a manipulated image would never know the contrail was there, but no matter what I do to obscure or erase the “defect,” I would still know. I literally “can’t un-see that!” It will always be an indelible vapor trail in the landscape of my mind.

That is what really bothers me, I think. Any time afield, no matter what the results, is time well spent, but a true wilderness experience is getting harder and harder to come by. It is nearly impossible to avoid litter of some kind, and then there are those planes. I have to wonder how many flights I have been on that spoiled someone else’s photographic souvenirs 30,000 feet below me.

Yesterday I walked the dog around our complex of townhouses, just after another snowfall. Ours were the first footprints, even on the sidewalk. I have to admit it was both exciting to be a momentary pioneer, and disappointing to spoil the pristine cover of white.

Bluebird Trifecta

Sunday, February 17, my wife and myself and Debbie Barnes of the Aiken Audubon Society set out to find a flock of Bohemian Waxwings that had been seen the day before at the U.S. Army Turkey Creek Recreation Area south of Colorado Springs. We did not find them. The outing was, however, far from a total loss. What we lacked in waxwings we more than made up for in bluebirds.

Our first stop was at the intersection of Barrett Road and Highway 115, where the Bohemian Waxwings had been seen most recently. No sign of them despite a fair crop of juniper berries in the area. Upon exiting back onto 115, we did spot a pair of birds on a telephone wire. They were quickly identified as male Western Bluebirds, Sialia mexicana. One of the two birds obligingly glided to the ground, then popped back up to sit on a fence post about thirty feet from our vehicle, affording the view shown above.

We backtracked to the Turkey Creek Recreation Area, pulling into a playground area with a collection of buildings and the stables where horses for the mounted color guard reside. A Lewis’ Woodpecker is known to hang out there, too, and was sighted earlier in the day, but was a no-show when we were there. No waxwings, either, just more Western Bluebirds, a Common Raven or two, and a flock of Dark-eyed Juncos.

While taking in the austere scenery, Debbie connected with another birder friend, Jeannie Mitchell, via cell phone. Jeannie was kind enough to share that news that a group of birders who were in Turkey Creek that morning had seen a huge flock of Mountain Bluebirds, Sialia currocoides. I admit I was skeptical, but we followed the appropriate road and….

Sure enough, here were probably at least 200 Mountain Bluebirds, distributed on each side of the road. A handful of American Robins, Turdus migratorius, were in their ranks, but the sight of all that turquoise blue was jaw-dropping. One dead tree in particular was essentially festooned with living, feathered ornaments.

By now, around 4 PM in the afternoon, the wind had gotten gusty, the sun lower, and the temperature was dropping. Reluctant to leave, we took it slow and found still more Mountain Bluebirds in a vast open field studded with old yucca and mullein stalks, plus the obligatory barbed wire fences and metal fence posts. Various Mountain Bluebirds took turns alighting on all available perches in really great light.

We also saw what we initially thought was another Western Bluebird. Looking at her pictures once she got home, Debbie realized it was actually a male Eastern Bluebird, Sialia sialis. Note that the Eastern Bluebird lacks the blue throat of the Western Bluebird. The belly of the Eastern Bluebird is also bright white, in contrast to the dirty appearance of the Western Bluebird’s underparts.

Bluebird trifecta! Looking at the distribution maps for bluebirds in the various field guides, one would not guess that the Eastern Bluebird ranges this far west, but here is proof to the contrary. There are always strays, of course, but as habitat, climate, and other factors change, birds adapt and their geographic ranges change accordingly, even from week to week. The convergence of all three species here is now a regular occurrence, especially at this time of year.

Debbie mentioned that bluebirds are feeding on juniper berries when flying insects, grasshopper nymphs, and other prey is not readily available. Cold fronts may push the birds into protected valleys and other warmer situations, but they quickly return when the temperatures warm up again. Sounds like me.

Of Birds and Blades

I like birds, I really do. I am also a strong proponent of renewable energy like solar and wind power. Imagine my dismay at finding many of my birding friends denouncing the huge wind farms popping up all over the place these days. Ok, the objections are mostly concerning the location of the big turbines, but the arguments are not going to end well if taken out of context as the press is prone to do.

There are two problems that occur to me immediately. One, if “environmentalists” first object to traditional energy sources like coal, gas, and oil, but then start whining about commercial pursuit of alternative energy, they lose credibility and are dismissed as “NIMBYs” (Not in my Backyard). Secondly, if we invest too heavily or too quickly in a technology that demonstrates itself to have severe detrimental side effects, then we are back to square one on all fronts.

No question, oil, coal, and gas involve truly horrific extraction procedures and equally risky transportation methods. Time and again we have seen the outcome in the form of petroleum-soaked pelicans, black beaches, mountain-top removals, and other disasters. Virtually anything is better than that. A recent online article and chart from Mother Jones purports to show that wind turbines kill just a few birds compared to the mortality inflicted by…..cats.

Naturally, any bird fatalities attributable to humans, or their pets, is intolerable to many in the birding community. Here is another article, in PDF file format, that offers statistics on bird fatalities associated with cell phone towers. There seems to be no end to the number of ways we are killing our fauna, including automobiles, airplanes, and wanton executions at the end of (insert random weapon here).

I am not saying I am in favor of preventable slaughter. There are alternative designs for wind-driven devices that harness power. Raymond Green has created one that looks promising. The roadblocks to its manufacture at any scale will undoubtedly come from the companies making money with the status quo. That is what must change: Our corporate addiction to whatever is making money at the cost of everything else. We need industries to be flexible to accommodate new findings and better ideas that benefit humanity as a whole, and are sustainable.

I will continue supporting wind energy, and promote safer designs. I will also always love cats, but agree that they should be kept indoors, and/or walked on a leash. I will also continue opposing the stock market as the driving force of our society. It is driving alright, driving down wages, driving through consumer rights, and driving our natural environment to hell. I’m all ears when it comes to an alternative to that.

Just Shoot Me

I try to avoid rants on this blog. I prefer a thoughtful, well-reasoned approach to even the most controversial topics. I am not sure I can hold it together much longer, though, when it comes to the current subject of guns, gun control, and gun ownership. I am dismayed by how many of my “friends” on Facebook are posting so aggressively to defend their Second Amendment “right” to bear arms. This debate, if you can call the mudslinging and vitriol a debate, spawns of course from another massacre at an elementary school, carried out by yet another disturbed male individual armed with automatic weapons.

The fear in the wake of this event astounds me. Not the fear that there could be more of these incidents if we continue down our present cultural, social, and legal paths, but the fear gun owners have of losing their weapons, or losing the right to buy still more guns, and more powerful ones at that.

First of all, absolutely nothing has been done yet by our President or congress. No restrictive laws have been enacted. Elected officials are consulting with all parties, including the National Rifle Association, which is more than I would do if I was in a position of authority. I generally don’t find lobbyists of any stripe to be beneficial to legislation. So, why is there so much outrage already?

Secondly, what quantity of arms is enough? The Second Amendment was written at a time in history when the Revolutionary War was still fresh in the minds of the newly-free American citizenry. The goal was to avoid having to go through that again. So, the law was meant to insure that “well-organized militias” had access to arms to defend the greater good of freedom and liberty. Today, this “right” has been twisted in its meaning. We conveniently interpret it to mean defense of our personal lives, the lives of our family members, and, most importantly, our property and material belongings. I am not saying that one should not be able to defend themselves or loved ones from bodily harm, of course, but it is important to note the spirit of the law here.

Another problem today is that our well-organized militias are all too often street gangs, drug cartels, survivalists, racists, religious cults, and other hate groups using arms not for defense but for intimidation and aggression. Our collective priority as citizens should be to do whatever it takes to keep guns out of the hands of these organizations and individuals, even if it entails an inconvenience (background check, psychological exam) to our own rights as law-abiding citizens.

It has rightly been pointed out by more reasoned people in this debate that our mental health system is suffering from severe neglect. We clearly need to address the mental health aspect of this trend toward mass shootings. Personally, I would prefer having a potentially violent person, clinically diagnosed as such, incarcerated instead of someone convicted of possession of marijuana, for instance. The point is we need to have all options on the table as to how to prevent more tragedies on any scale, be it a single murder or a massacre.

We also have to change our collective mentality about our individual rights, and our tolerance for violence in all aspects of our society. Why do we find violence entertaining in movies, music lyrics, and video games? Why are we so obsessed with material wealth, fame, and power to the extent that we are willing to use violence to achieve these “goals,” or protect them once we have them? Yes, I am more afraid of armed corporations and the groups I mentioned earlier than I am paranoid over the government seizing what few assets I have. Unfortunately, government and corporate America seem to be getting increasingly cozy, but that is a topic for another blog.

My bottom line, for now, is this: Until you have concrete evidence that your rights as a gun-owner are under attack, your hue and cry is useless and immature at best. Second, take a good hard look in the mirror and ask yourself what you are really afraid of, and why. The answer won’t likely be “the government.” Don’t agree with me? Then just shoot me. Go ahead, I dare you.

Monopoly

Right now the board game Monopoly is making headlines because Hasbro, the company that currently produces the game, is asking people to vote for which game pieces they want to retain in future editions. So, if you like the thimble, or the top hat, or some other token, you are supposed to vote for it. Whichever piece gets the least number of votes will be retired in favor of a new piece “that’s more representative of today’s Monopoly players.” (CNN story). I wonder if the real question should be whether the entire game should be retired.

Aside from the question of whether anybody still plays it, one should be reminded of its origins. It was inspired, at the very least, by The Landlord’s Game, created by Elizabeth Maggie and patented in 1904. Its purpose was to show how rent enriched landowners while creating poverty for tenants. Eventually, the game morphed into the exact opposite, where the goal of each Monopoly player is to dominate their opponents.

Today, in the real world, personal material wealth and power are simply not qualities we should be aspiring to. We literally can’t afford to pursue capitalism at the scale we have now. The gap between the wealthiest few and everyone else grows wider almost daily. Much of the world resides in substandard housing (forget about rent!), and many populations are starving. Too many children right here in the U.S. go hungry every day. These situations are avoidable, and to allow them to persist is unconscionable.

So, my vote would go to abolish the game entirely. Scrabble is much more fun, but perhaps family nights might be better spent helping out at the local homeless shelter. Meanwhile, maybe UNICEF can come up with a game that rewards sustainability, charity, and volunteerism. I’d buy that.

Time for a new Environmentalism?

Charmlee Wilderness Park in Malibu, California

That is the question being asked in a popular article over on Slate.com. It seems that “eco-pragmatists” (aka “modernist greens”) are asserting that it is at best illogical and unhelpful to assume that pristine habitats are the only definition of “natural.” At least one even lauds GMOs (genetically modified organisms) and nuclear power as essentially to the continued success of our species. Others think invasive species are not all that bad. I believe the truth lies somewhere between the modern movement and the old guard that still clings to the belief the only good wilderness is….well, wilderness.

Here are the fundamentals that I believe we must collectively address if we are to move forward for a better planet:

• Recognize that Homo sapiens is itself an animal. That’s right, we continue to ignore that we are animals, subject to the same drives and instincts as any other animal species. We seek to reproduce, limit mortality factors, and accumulate resources. We are also subject to adversity like any other animal: competition, predation, parasitism, natural disaster, etc. Increasingly, as we conquer our natural enemies, we replace them with others of our own species who act as competitors, predators, and parasites in both the literal and economic sense.
• Agree that Earth’s climate is changing. What else do I need to say? It should be obvious by now, but we must continue seeking changes in natural resource extraction (like slowly eliminating it), and embrace any and all potential, sustainable solutions. We can have wind power without excessive avian fatalities. We simply need the will and the flexibility to follow new innovations, even if we find ourselves already producing some other device.
• Curb rampant consumerism. Our Western culture must cease to aspire to material wealth. We must revolt against advertising that attempts to convince us we need product such-and-such for our well-being or self-improvement. Self-improvement will come when we downsize our existing material possessions, share what we have left, and focus on physical and mental health. We can raise world standards of living by lowering our own at the extreme end of the spectrum.
• Assign higher value to all living organisms. We should hold living things in higher esteem than anything else, especially financial profit. We need to properly revere those organisms we rely on for food, and protect diversity above all else. There is a reason there are so many other species on the planet. We just don’t always know the “why” of it. We must also remember that we are living organisms ourselves, and treat labor and consumers accordingly.
• Establish a spectrum of ecosystems and habitats. Our national parks, for example, should have a mandate to reflect the historical natural spectrum of our lands. Re-introducing species that formerly occupied an area is in keeping with this philosophy. Eliminating invasive species from such areas is equally important. Meanwhile, creating parks at the national, state, county, or city level should reflect habitats that may not be pristine, but have varying degrees of human alteration.
• Remove barriers to local agriculture. It is appalling that there are still ordinances in some places preventing the erection of community gardens, backyard farms, and other means of self-sufficient food production. Our government has no responsibility to protect agri-business at the expense of the citizenry. Most of our future advancements in agriculture will come through experimentation at a smaller scale. Meanwhile, local agriculture may buffer us from the impact of large scale droughts and disasters on much larger farms (if one can still call agri-business enterprises “farms.”).
• Reduce federal budgets for weaponry. Homo sapiens has proved again and again that its greatest capacity is for destruction. We no longer have the luxury of invading other countries, in any sense. See “assign higher value to all living organisms” above. Yes, there may be need to deploy troops to make peace in places of conflict, but we have to eliminate all nuclear weapons at the least. I would gladly pay more in taxes for DISarmament.
• Cease an “Americentric” approach to domestic problems. The U.S. has an enormous ego problem. We can no longer dismiss the successes of other nations in solving common problems like unemployment and substance abuse. “Our way or the highway” is an attitude that leads to failure. There is no shame in adopting the ways of others when those solutions are demonstrably successful.

Perhaps one of the good things that will come from rising fuel prices (as a result of dwindling oil supplies) is that people will be forced to look at their immediate surroundings and lifestyle and realize that they need to appreciate what is close to home. I hope it doesn’t come to rationing and other extreme measures before we come to our senses, though. I truly believe that biodiversity begins at home. So does conservation, sustainability, and environmentalism.

The Red Bull Rampage

My wife likes to turn on the Today show in the morning while we have breakfast. The trivia that passes for news is usually only mildly annoying, but one story today set me on fire. Reporter Jenna Wolfe covered the “Red Bull Rampage,” an extreme mountain biking competition in what I suspect used to be a pristine Utah landscape. I am not sure which turns my stomach more: the event itself, or the fact that NBC is glorifying this destructive spectacle.

Here in Colorado Springs I see firsthand the deep gullies and gashes eroded by mountain bikes. While most of the riders are courteous and careful when it comes to sharing trails with pedestrian hikers, the damage done to the soil is appalling. I will still grant them the right to ride on trails in an urban or suburban setting, but to carry out their freewheeling in wilderness (officially designated or not)? No way. I have another solution, which I will discuss later.

Back in the day we used to call extreme sports participants “daredevils.” We could still call them that today, but the emphasis should be on “devil.” We could also call it “wreckreation,” because that is what is happening to the environment in the wake of tire treads, litter, and other negative impacts. Erosion, siltation of streams and other water courses, and destruction of wildlife habitat is what you get out of repeated abuse by trail bikes, motorized or pedaled.

In any event, you are defacing something beautiful. There is no other word to describe this competition except “vandalism.”

Then there is the scenic aspect. What was once something sculpted completely by wind, water, and geologic upheaval is now scarred permanently in the name of “sport.” I find it ironic that this is billed as a dangerous sport, yet people with pick-axes and shovels carve out “routes” for the bikers to use in the Red Bull Rampage. In any event, you are defacing something beautiful. There is no other word to describe this competition except “vandalism.” You might as well ride over the paintings in the Louvre. It is just as disrespectful an act, if not moreso, to scribble permanent tracks over a landscape eons in the making.

What would I do instead? I would hold events like this in landscapes already compromised by human enterprise. Abandoned open pit mines come to mind. I can think of one in Bisbee, Arizona that would be ideal. Think about all the upsides to this. You can make a course as difficult as you like. You can have emergency medical personnel and transportation standing close by in the event of a horrible accident. Your closer proximity to a city or town would generate revenue for that municipality. Abandoned mines, old landfills, and other parcels of land already scarred by human activity abound on this planet. There is absolutely no need to exploit pristine wilderness.

I plan to write to NBC News to protest both the story on this morning’s Today show and their plan to air the Red Bull Rampage event in its ugly entirety next month. This is not sport, and we have to stop glorifying it as such. Push for alternative locations for such things. Take a piece of land that is beyond repair and hold such competitions there. Everyone can be happy if we put our minds to it. We conquered Nature long ago. What we are doing now is tantamount to torture. There are international agreements against torturing human beings. Maybe we need that kind of accord to protect Mother Nature, too.