Bluebirding and the Law (Part 1)

We had a case in Wisconsin in the late 1980's when a local state conservation warden arrested and successfully prosecuted through county court one or two men who were found guilty of shooting house sparrows on a bluebird trail. The warden contended that either a state small game hunting license or a state trapping license were required for such control. The Bluebird Restoration Association of Wisconsin (BRAW) worked through the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to get the state Natural Resources Board to modify its Rules to allow HOSP and EUropean STarling control by persons who have bluebird houses on property that they do not own if they have the written permission of the land owner or land manager.

It took BRAW two years to iron this problem out.

Don Bragg, Rhinelander, Wisconsin

The Digest of Federal Resource Laws Of Interest To The Fish And Wildlife Service: Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 is found at: http://www.fws.gov/laws/digest/reslaws/migtrea.html

From: PTom [mailto:ptom"at"austin.rr.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 5:49 PM
Subject: people don't know it's against the law to collect eggs and nests

Typically, 40,000 - 50,000 attend the annual Texas Parks & Wildlife Expo over a 2-day period, so there are dozens at the Texas Bluebird Society booth at a time.  (This year it rained on Saturday morning, so ONLY 8,000 came through.)  Quite an experience! As I showed kids nests and eggs of cavity-nesting birds (and let them touch gently with one finger) along with photos of the various species and the nestlings, I mentioned that I have special state and federal permits which make it possible to show the nests and eggs.  That was my gentle way of educating the kids and parents that it's against the law to collect nests and eggs. Now, you know kids say the darndest things!  More than one told about finding eggs and hatching out woodpeckers in their room.  It was at that point that red-faced parents were pulling the kids away with, "Come on, Johnny.  We've got to go now." Pauline Tom Mountain City (no mountains) TX

From: Evelyn Cooper [mailto:emcooper"at"bayou.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 5:44 PM
RE:people don't know it's against the law to collect eggs and nests

Pauline, I do have a sign I made that states that we have been authorized by the US Wildlife & Fish Service to have possession of nests and eggs. In fact, it is stated on the permit you are required to do that, so to me that would be an added bonus in educating the public. Evelyn Cooper Delhi, LA

From: Evelyn Cooper [mailto:emcooper"at"bayou.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 10:15 AM
RE: Advice for new bluebirders - help from BBL pls

There have been people fined for possessing feathers and parts of birds. I know a man that was fined $400.00 for possessing 2 doves over the limit here in this community. I know a lady that wrote an article about Hummingbirds in a paper in a city not far from me and she told about possessing their nests. She got a visit from the Wildlife people that next day wanting to see her permit. It really shook her up. They told her she better get one. She told me to be sure I was legal with my stuff and that was in the early beginnings of our organization and of course we had not gotten our permit. However, I was not carrying nests but did have one member that insisted on doing it regardless of my asking him not to. I did find out though, that LBBS would not have been responsible for his actions should he have been scrutinized. Mary Jane Shearer can tell you how she was scrutinized when she called to get a state and federal permit to carry nests and eggs. While none of us have been put in jail, we can be fined if we are not legal with it!!! Evelyn Cooper Delhi, LA

From: Evelyn Cooper [mailto:emcooper"at"bayou.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 10:32 AM
RE: Advice for new bluebirders - help from BBL pls

P.S. Also, many might not know that just because an organization is authorized to carry nests, it does not mean that every member can do it. I had to list subpermittees that could be authorized to carry nests and eggs. I was also told that members not authorized to do it and did, LBBS was not responsible. Also, they stated that all the nests and eggs had to stay at my place. (LBBS headquarters) I explained to them that it would not be feasible for the subpermittees to drive all the way across the state to pick up nests and eggs to give at a presentation and then drive all the way back to return them. After several conversations and explanations about this, they agreed to give the subpermittees permission to keep nests and eggs at their residence and carry them. I think Pauline is VERY right in explaining to the children and parents what the law is on this subject! I do display the sign I made at every meeting and presentation as I have nests and eggs to display and feel sure it gets their attention that permission is needed. A situation was brought up at our last nestbox workshop. One man talked about a Blue Jay that was running his Bluebirds off and he said he would get his gun out. Mary Jane Shearer was quick to point out that all these birds are protected by law. It is amazing how many people DON'T know this!!! To me it is really more for the protection of the birds as much as for punishment for the person that does it that we should certainly make them aware of the laws. Evelyn Cooper Delhi, LA

P.S.S. Another situation came to light when a person told my son that she had been raising Bluebirds in her home for 9 years. Apparently, she would go out and retrieve them from their nests and bring them in and keep them inside for ages. My son told her what the law is and that she better not be spreading the word. She had NOT a clue that she was breaking the law. Now, you know this could have not been good for the Bluebirds. I do hope she discontinued her practice. Evelyn ...

I have never heard of the law stopping or fining a person from monitoring a nestbox. In fact, my wildlife people support me for it, but I have heard of it fining and reprimanding a person for having in their possession dead or live birds, their parts, eggs and nests illegally. Adults and children should know this. Evelyn

[Note from the webmaster: This post relates to egg collecting, which is now illegal without a permit.]

...Oology and the tallest soldier in the Civil War seem pretty far apart unless you are from East Texas.

The tallest soldier was a confederate man who stood 7 foot 7 and 1/2 inches tall by the name of H.C. Thruston coming from the small town of Mt. Vernon, TX. just west of Mt. Pleasant. He survived the entire war fighting in many major battles and never received so much as a scratch! Legend has it that he died of a heart attack late in life sitting at the kitchen table while applying a thick pat of butter to a fresh homemade biscuit! He is buried in Edwards Cemetery right here in Mt. Pleasant!

ALL of you did know that Oology is the study of bird eggs did you NOT! How does the "Giant" of the Civil War come to be connected to Oology?

"Egg collecting was a fashionable hobby from the mid-19th century into the 1940's. People bought and traded eggs like baseball cards. Magazines catered to collectors, and oology, or the study of eggs was popular."

When birds became rare there was a huge "rush" to gather their eggs as they were worth a LOT of money! Average collectors would have common bird eggs but high rollers and museums and zoos would spend whatever it took to get something like an Ivory Billed Woodpecker or a California Condor egg into their collection!

Here is a short story of a small egg collection: An Ohio taxidermist named William Cleveland and his son began collecting bird eggs in the 1880's. In the 1920's Mr. Cleveland moved to Texas and brought his oology collection containing 220 eggs with him. He died in Texas and his daughter Ruby Cleveland Rockwell sold the collection 8 years after his death to A.W.
Nations a man more interested in collecting butterflies than bird eggs. When AW died his son Matt inherited the eggs.

Having an old egg collection and dead butterflies with no place to display them he heard about the efforts in Mt. Vernon to rebuild the H.C. Thruston homeplace and turn it into a small town museum and decided to donate the 220 eggs and his father's butterfly collection to the Franklin County Historical Society whose members are in charge of several fine collections......

This created quite a stir in the Oology world when the 220 eggs from this small collection placed in the Thruston museum turned up holding some pretty rare eggs. There was one Passenger Pigeon egg along with an egg from the extinct Heath Hen but the really exciting find was the egg from the Carolina Parakeet! According to Dr. Linnea S. Hall director of the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology in Camarillo, California this is only the 13 th confirmed egg left in the world from this now extinct parakeet....

It seems most of these "small" egg collectors tossed their eggs out when they grew tired of this "extinct" hobby or when it became illegal to "Possess the eggs or nests of birds". On the webpage of the Chicago Academy of Sciences oology page there is a photo of.....BLUEBIRD EGGS.....Two years ago Eastern Bluebirds nested across the street from Edwards Cemetery and would hunt from the tops of tombstones. I don't know if H.C.Thruston ever put up a bluebird nestbox but his marker makes a good hunting perch for them! These bluebirds were actually nesting on the side of a building with their nest sitting under the eave on top of a 3" wide beam.

Mt. Vernon is just south of Daphne Prairie. The prairie is mostly gone now but it was the only short grass prairie in East Texas and grassland birds flocked to this area each winter by the millions once upon a time. Today like everyday, within 40 miles of Mt. Vernon more than 4&1/2 million birds laid eggs, but people don't come thousands of miles to look at chicken eggs!
KK

From: Evelyn Cooper [mailto:emcooper"at"bayou.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:59 AM
Subject: RE: Anyone interested in Oology?

Keith, this post just "cracks" me up. (No pun intended!!!!!!) That is quite a story! I'm sure the Migratory Bird Act put all those folks out of business!! ... Evelyn

From: Paula [mailto:PaulaZ"at"columbus.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 1:29 PM
Subject: OT Tallest Soldier

Well, I just had to comment. Why am I not surprised that the biggest and best soldier came from Texas? And why am I not surprised that Keith felt obliged to point that out to all of us? :) Paula Z Powell (Central) Ohio

In the winter edition of the “Bluebird” NABS Journal, there is an article by Dorene Scriven that states that there are two identical bills before Congress that could lead to significant help on our bluebird trails.

By clarifying and extending the language in the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the bills would give additional power to state governments to make it illegal to release HOSP an Starlings and other introduced exotic species.

It states that innumerable rehabilitators and rehabilitating centers as well as humane societies across the U.S. spend money and countless volunteer hours to rehabilitate HOSP and Starlings and release them. Some large rehab centers treat and release over 500 HOSP a year.

It goes on to say that it would clarify that Act to ensure that legal protection under the act is not extended to invasive species. It states that H.R.4114 and S.2547 would restore the Migratory Bird Act Treaty so that it applies to native bird species only. Many environmental organizations – National Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, Izaak Walton League, etc. support these bills.

The article asks that you call or write your two senators and representative. Urge them to take and pass H.R.4114 and S.2547 this year.

For further information about these bills check this website. http://www.capitolconnect.com/audubon/summary.asp?subject=332

In my opinion, every little bit helps. I intend to do my part, how about you?

I also commend Bet Zimmerman for her letter to the editor non-native plants.

Evelyn Cooper

Delhi, LA

[January 2005 Note from Webmaster: Excerpt from Audubon Advisory]

" VICTORY - MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT STRENGTHENED:   The brightest spot this year was pazzzge of an Audubon-top priority measure that restores Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protection to the law's intended beneficiaries, America 's native migratory birds.  The provision, known as the "Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004" was designed to strengthen the existing law by ensuring that invasive species that cause harm to native migratory birds would not be protected under the MBTA.  A court ruling earlier this year put America 's migratory birds at risk from the very law designed to protect them.  That decision, Hill v. Norton, turned the Migratory Bird Treaty Act on its end by extending the law's protection to destructive invasive species such as the European Starling, English Sparrow, and Mute Swan, all of which cause significant ecological damage and out-compete America 's native birds for precious remaining habitat.

The provision passed by Congress this year closes the loophole created by this decision, ensuring that legal protection is not extended to the human-introduced invasive species that are decimating some of America 's most endangered bird populations."

From: GRANT, Catherine [mailto:cgrant"at"audubon.org] On Behalf Of Audubon Action
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 10:55 AM
Subject: RE: Amendments H.R.4114 And S.2547

Hello and thanks for your Message. Prior to closing the books last year, the U.S. Congress did pass part of those bills: strengthenthing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The provision, known as the “Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004” was designed to strengthen the existing law by ensuring that invasive species that cause harm to native migratory birds would not be protected under the MBTA. A court ruling earlier this year put America’s migratory birds at risk from the very law designed to protect them. That decision, Hill v. Norton, turned the Migratory Bird Treaty Act on its end by extending the law’s protection to destructive invasive species such as the European Starling, English Sparrow, and Mute Swan, all of which cause significant ecological damage and out-compete America’s native birds for precious remaining habitat. This closes the loophole created by that decision, ensuring that legal protection is not extended to the human-introduced invasive species that are decimating some of America's most endangered bird populations. Attached you will find more information on the measure.

The second part of the legislation, reathorizing, enhancing and expanding the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, did not pass, however, it's an Audubon top priority to see that the U.S. Congress does so this year.

Please let us know if you would like more information, or if there are any other questions you may have. Thanks!

HR 4114 Will Control Invasive Species and Improve Conservation of Native Birds

Invasive species are one of the key factors in the decline of many migratory bird species. Many threatened birds on the Audubon WatchList are imperiled by invasive species, and invasive species have been partly or wholly responsible for a number of bird extinctions since 1800. Thus, as part of the program to achieve its mission, Audubon consistently has supported efforts to control invasive species for the benefit of native birds and other native wildlife.

A recent court decision, Hill v. Norton, turned conventional wisdom on its ear by extending Migratory Bird Treaty Act protection to the invasive, non-native Mute Swan, a bird native to Eurasia that is causing significant ecological damage to the Chesapeake Bay. Mute Swans displace and adversely affect native birds of the Chesapeake Bay such as Tundra Swans, Least Terns, Black Skimmers, Common Terns, and Forster’s Terns and may affect many species of waterfowl such as Black Ducks. Mute Swans consume large amounts of Bay grasses, perhaps as much as 12 million pounds a year. The grasses are essential to sustain the Bay’s Blue Crab population (its most valuable seafood), as well as to sustain many other aquatic resources, to ensure adequate water quality, and to protect and sustain native species of waterfowl.

While it is difficult, and indeed painful, for the Audubon Society to support the reduction of any bird population, it also is painful to watch the decline of the Chesapeake Bay, and the decline of the skimmers, terns, and other native birds that depend on a healthy bay ecosystem. The Audubon Society cannot support offering limited conservation dollars and effort to a single introduced, invasive bird species at the expense of an entire ecosystem and the associated natural functions and habitat values that are needed by an entire range of native bird species.

The Hill decision is inconsistent with a longstanding common interpretation of the MBTA developed by professional biologists, environmental professionals, and agency officials in both the United States and in countries that are signatories of the treaties underlying the MBTA. There is broad agreement that the Act is not intended to protect nonnative, human-introduced birds, and instead these birds often are a serious threat to the hundreds of other migratory bird species that are protected by the law.

This problem is not just limited to Mute Swans, nor is it limited to the state of Maryland or the nation’s eastern coastline. For example, the European Starling has demonstrated widespread negative impacts on native migratory birds throughout the country. Although estimates vary, it is commonly believed that a total of about 100 individuals were released into Central Park in New York City in 1890 and 1891. The entire North American population, now numbering more than 200 million and distributed across the continent, is derived from these few birds. Unfortunately, these millions of European Starlings offer intense competition for nesting cavities and have had a detrimental effect on many native cavity-nesting species.

Affording the protection of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to invasive, human-introduced birds that are not native to this country is ecologically unsound and contrary to the purpose of the Act.

HR 4114 would restore the Migratory Bird Treaty Act so that it applies only to native birds, providing state fish and wildlife agencies with the management flexibility they need to control nonnative, human-introduced birds that are causing serious ecological damage as well as causing serious harm to native birds.

In addition to National Audubon Society, a wide range of major national conservation organizations support HR 4114, including Environmental Defense, The Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, and The Izaak Walton League of America. In addition, a large number of bird conservation organizations support HR 4114, including the American Bird Conservancy, New Jersey Audubon, Audubon Pennsylvania, Madison Audubon Society, Chappee Rapids Audubon Society, Maryland Ornithological Society, Virginia Society of Ornithology, Delmarva Ornithological Society, Georgia Ornithological Society, Cooper Ornithological Society, Wisconsin Society for Ornithology, and Connecticut Ornithological Society.

From: Larry A Broadbent
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2005 3:08 PM
Subject: Federal Legislation could help control House Sparrows and European Starlings

Deal List,

I have a photocopy of an article entitled: Federal Legislation could help control House Sparrows and European Starlings, By Dorene H. Scriven

Could anyone tell me if they know where this article and the photo in the article can be found on the net, so I can print off some more copies to give to people?

Regards, Larry A Broadbent

Subject: RE: Federal Legislation could help control House Sparrows and European Starlings
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:00:54 -0600
From: Evelyn Cooper <emcooper"at"bayou.com>

Larry, this article is in the winter issue of the “Bluebird”, the quarterly journal that NABS puts out. It is the article that I posted to the list sometime back. I don’t know if Bet has it up on the NABS site yet, but she does have quite a few of them there.

From what I was told by Dorene, some state agencies can write the words in their requirements. In other words, in some states it does not have to be voted on. She said that the way it is written, people trapping and releasing HOSP’s could be charged and fined. (passive control) The words “being unlawful to release” was what was added. This brought into prospective that it also included rehabbers. Some on here got all bent out of shape saying the children would be so traumatized if a rehabber could not take the HOSP or Starling. The leading rehabber in Louisiana told me that it is the adults she has problems with, not the children. She says they can pitch a bigger fit than the kids.

I have the article before me if and if I can scan it and you can print it out, let me know.

Evelyn Cooper, Delhi, LA

From: Elizabeth Zimmerman [mailto:ezdz"at"charter.net]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 4:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: Federal Legislation could help control House Sparrows and European Starlings]

Hi folks - actually Jim McLoughlin is posting the current issues of Bluebird - I've been working on the back issues (when it was Sialia) and have gotten very little done lately since I've been traveling so much for work.

Back issues of Sialia and the Bluebird Journal are only available to NABS members. To access electronic issues, go to http://www.tbt.nabluebirdsociety.org/, and log in, and then you will see a link on the left hand side. THe Winter 2004 version is online.

Bet

Following up on a thread from last week (I finally got caught up on my email after being on extended travel):

The Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973. To my knowledge, no species of bluebird has ever been placed on any federal lists of endangered or threatened species. If I am wrong, please let me know.

Eventually many states passed similar laws (see State of CT definitions below), providing limited protection, usually depending on the funding source for projects (e.g., protection only applies if the project has state or federal funding.)

Evelyn's post on listing (and removal from list) in New York State was interesting. Does anyone else know of any other state that ever listed a bluebird species?

I think we should use caution before implying that bluebirds were nearly extinct. They may have been extirpated in many localities.

A frequently used statistic is that at one point bluebird populations had declined by 90%. The main source for this statistic is Larry Zeleny's wonderful book, The Bluebird - How You Can Help Its Fight for Survival. Zeleney estimated that bluebird populations declined drastically from the late 1920s-1970s. He estimated that the eastern bluebird population had declined by 90% over that period based on his own recollections and other friends of bluebirds who had lived long enough.
It is believed that the bluebird population peaked around 1900. Some sources say there was a marked decline from 1938 - late 1970s.

The Christmas Bluebird Count (CBC) started in 1900, but very little population data on bluebirds is available prior to 1941. The normalized populations on charts from the CBC were actually lowest in the 40's. (You can generate your own chart at http://audubon2.org/birds/cbc/hr/graph.html.)

While Zeleny was incredibly knowledgeable about bluebirds, and corresponded with people all over the country, his 90% estimate was NOT based on national bird surveys, or other scientific population study that I know of (although he probably looked at CBC data.)

Don't get me wrong - there is no doubt in my mind that the bluebird population was in serious trouble, and would probably not have recovered without assistance from humans who were largely responsible for the decline in the first place. And as Nancy and Linda Violett have noted, western bluebird populations are still not recovering like those of eastern bluebirds.

I'm working on a history of bluebirds that tracks impacts to the bluebird population in time, but it's still pretty drafty - comments on it (or anything on my website) are always welcome. http://www.sialis.org/history.htm
Bet from CT
***
State of CT definitions:
"Endangered Species" means any native species documented by biological research and inventory to be in danger of extirpation throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the state and to have no more than five occurrences in the state, and any species determined to be an "endangered species" pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act.
"Threatened Species" means any native species documented by biological research and inventory to be likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the sate and to have no more than nine occurrences in the state, and any species determined to be a "threatened species" pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act, except for such species determined to be endangered by the Commissioner in accordance with section 4 of this act.
Species of Special Concern" means any native plant species or any native nonharvested wildlife species documented by scientific research and inventory to have a naturally restricted range or habitat in the state, to be at a low population level, to be in such high demand by man that its unregulated taking would be detrimental to the conservation of its population or has been extirpated from the state.

In my haste, I think I used the word "nearly extinct", but I think I corrected myself to say that I had read in several books that they were near being put on the endangered list, just "near it". There's no doubt in my mind that we "helped to bring them back". My own area has a huge population now because of many nestboxes being put up. (and monitored)

With that many TRES, it might not be very effective, but you could try removing incomplete nests (someone correct me if that is illegal). I was under the impression that until a nest had a cap or cup, as in still under construction, you could remove it legally. Maybe if you did that to at least some of the boxes, for example one of two that were paired, maybe the TRES would give it up after a while? You might have to be quite dilligent, however.

Kathy Haines
Central Ohio

As I understand the laws protecting migratory birds, this is illegal except in the case of imported species like the house sparrow. I will try to find the exact wording of the law and post it to the list, unless someone else has it handy.

Kate Arnold
Paris, TX, 100 mi NE of Dallas

I know that you can remove dummy HOWR nests, dummy nests being defined as NOT having a cup made by the female. I assume because I thought I read this in my Monitor book that this is extrapolated generally to all nests - you can remove incomplete nests. However, a confirmation
would be appreciated.

Kathy Haines
Central Ohio

Here you go...

Specific provisions in the statute include: (Migratory Bird Act of 1918)

Establishment of a Federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to
"pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill,
possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for
shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport,
cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means
whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at
any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of
this Convention . . . for the protection of migratory birds . . . or any
part, nest, or egg of any such bird." (16 U.S.C. 703)

Also just FYI, technically it's illegal to retain/possess a nest (i.e.
Bluebird nest) unless you have a salvage permit issued from the USFWS/USGS
(and if needed your state wildlife agency). Not saying you're going to be
sought out, but the Mig Bird Reform Act also added the provision associated
with many previous points as a "know or should have known" clause. Salvage
permits are not difficult to get as long as you have a reason (and BB trail
monitoring might likely qualify, but you'd need to see) and go through the
paperwork process (this is what takes the most effort).
--J

I hope I'm not sounding ditzy but it is just my ignorance for reading
legal documents: Does this include or not include removing but not
posessing the very beginnings of a nest, such as twigs from a HOWR, or
the beginnings of another nest, like a TRES? And to be clear, I mean
CLEARLY the beginnings, such as the first day, so very minimal
material? I'm just curious as far as legality - I am aware of the fact
that these kinds of things aren't really huge offenses in the grand
scheme of things.

Kathy Haines
Central Ohio

That's a better question for a USFWS or state wildlife officer. Given the
"should have known" clauses, I don't want to be the first to find out by
trying. So, my response would be to make the necessary calls.

Sorry I can offer little more incite. Just let everyone know what you find
out in the end.

--J

In the case of vandalism, if you can prove what kind of nest has been started or finished, you can prosecute. The first thing would be to catch the villains.

I had this happen on a school trail and talked to my wildlife folks. A unit was knocked down that had a bluebird nest well under way.

There was no way I could catch the culprit, so I sent an article to the local newspaper about the problem and what could happen to people that do such things. He saw fit to put it on the front page of papers in two towns close to me.

Evelyn

My boss is very specific about House Wren nests. Any that are clearly dummy nests are OK to remove. Once the female starts the grass lining, it's an active nest & cannot be removed, even if there aren't any eggs yet.

Tree Swallows don't build dummy nests -- If they build it, they're intending to use it. Therefore, TRES
nests cannot be removed at any building stage.

This is one of those issues where if we say anything patently illegal, the Cornell folks will gently
correct us.

Torrey Moss
Kalamazoo Nature Center
Kalamazoo, MI

From: Bet Zimmerman [mailto:ezdz"at"charter.net]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 9:14 AM
Subject: Encouraging other cavity nesters in bluebird boxes and the law

I’ve heard three reports this week of folks who have innocently evicted species other than bluebirds that were attempting to nest in their “bluebird” boxes. Nuthatches or titmice had started a nest in the box, and the nesting material was removed. I have also heard of folks who have a plethora of tree swallows removing their nests or trying to discourage nesting.

SO I thought it might be good to post a reminder about this – not intended to be a lecture, but just some additional information, or a reminder that we need to keep working to educate. (BTW, if there’s somebody on this listserv who’s never done anything wrong or stupid, I’d love to know who you are, and I want to be you!)

Anyway, these folks really wanted bluebirds to nest. That’s great, and it’s wonderful that they’re doing everything they can to attract them. But a better option would be to put up additional houses if there is a lot of competition. Or simply to enjoy nesting by other native birds, as they need homes too. Habitat destruction, removal of snags (dead trees), removal of orchards or of rotten branches, replacing wooden fence posts with metal ones, competition with starlings and house sparrows, etc. have reduced the availability of natural nesting sites for ALL native cavity nesters.

It is uncommon for titmice to use nestboxes, so they are interesting to observe, besides the fact that they are delightful birds. And I would LOVE to have a nuthatch nest on my trail! Tree swallows eat many insects, are entertaining aerial acrobats, have beautiful plumage, enchanting courtship rituals, and are quite brave (I remember a photo of TRES attacking a huge snake trying to climb a pole to reach a nestbox. They often tightly sit on their eggs when a box is opened for monitoring.)

As Megan Whitman of TBN reminded us, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits disturbing a nest with eggs of any bird (house sparrows and starlings are excepted as they are considered non-native invasive pests). Permits can be obtained (e.g., from the USFWS – with difficulty) when there are critical issues like safety concerns, or for valuable research. (And for those who are concerned about “disturbance” caused by passive monitoring of nests on a trail, I think it’s useful to remember why the Act went into effect in the first place – it was intended mainly to control hunting and stop people from collecting eggs, nests or feathers for commercial or hobby purposes - a practice that by the early years of the 20th century, had wreaked havoc on the populations of many native bird species. See http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/intrnltr/treatlaw.html for a nice summary by the USFWS of laws that protect birds.)

As discussed last week, dummy nests created by house wrens may be removed if you choose. Do try to determine that the source is a house wren, and not a Bewick's wren, which is uncommon or in decline in some areas. You can assume a nest is a dummy if it has no eggs in it after 3 weeks. Dummy nests generally consist of loose sticks only (no lining of feathers or fibers.) A nest with a lining would be considered an active nest and must be left alone.

Anyway, I figure that native cavity nesters are depending on us to help restore some balance to the ecosystem that has so often been thoughtlessly disrupted. One person can make so much difference. I was doing an environmental audit once, and was talking with custodial staff about “doing the right thing.” He made a very astute comment - “in the end it all comes down to what we do when no one is watching.”

Bet from CT

From: bookfanaticef-bluebird"at"yahoo.com [mailto:bookfanaticef-bluebird"at"yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: Encouraging other cavity nesters in bluebird boxes and the law

Great post Bet!
Thanks for reminding everyone that all native birds are protected, and they cannot, by law, be molested in any way, including removing their nests/eggs, unless you have a special permit to do so from USFWS. A further note--this also technically includes removal of Brown-headed Cowbird eggs, *unless* there is a special law for your particular area that would allow you to do so (to find out if this is the case, contact your local wildlife agency or extension office). As someone who now has a degree in Wildlife Ecology, I had much of what you posted drummed into my head in several of my classes (including the date & major provisions of the Migratory Bird Act). Such laws have been passed for very good reasons.

I always am delighted when another native species nests in one of the boxes I help monitor--I would never consider deterring them from nesting (though I often wish the bluebirds wouldn't claim nearly all of our kestrel boxes so early--I want to have a successful kestrel nest from them one of these days!). This year, we even have 2 (!) Carolina Chickadee nests--the first one fledged last week. We've had one titmouse nest (fledging 6 chicks), a couple Carolina Wren nests, and even a couple Great Crested Flycatchers (which I think are great birds, and I'd love to have one nest in a kestrel box again) within the past 4 years.

Enjoy and appreciate all birds--they're just as fascinating and beautiful as bluebirds.
Elizabeth Farley
Northern FL

Yes, Bet - very good post. I do have a question for all of you relating to removal of nest starts that have been abandoned. Bet indicated that a HOWR nest can be considered a "dummy" if the nest isn't completed in 3 weeks.

What is the "rule of thumb" for other nest starts? On weekly trail checks, if there is no activity on nest building for three weeks, can we consider this nest attempt to be abandoned and remove it so another bird can use the box? What say all of you?

When I check the trail in the spring, I am careful to try to leave all material in the boxes (sometimes a gust of wind grabs a couple strands). It is good to remember the huge expenditure of energy that goes into building a nest. It is early spring and food supplies may be scarce. The mother bird, regardless of species, is working very hard to build that nest. As a "monitor" of native cavity nesters, my job should be to help her - not hinder her.

Paula Z
Powell (Central) Ohio

See remainder of thread under abandoned nests

From: Autumn L. Kruer [mailto:autumnk"at"iglou.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:09 AM
Subject: RE: Encouraging other cavity nesters in bluebird boxes and the law

A new joy last year was a nestbox full of tree swallows. I grew to absolutely love the little guys. To be honest, I was here by myself and ended up having my own
first successful kill of a male English house sparrow with my shotgun protecting nesting tree swallows last year. Right in the nick of time, I suppose, because the HOSP had actually begun fighting with the male tree swallow, rolling around in the driveway. I’ve seen pictures of what HOSP do to boxes of tree swallows and it’s very ugly. I got great joy when the time came for the fledging of four little swallows. Adorable little birds. The mother peeking out with her white chin is comical.

This year, I watched the bluebirds move in the box they took last year, the one further across the creek, then about a week later the tree swallows moved into the box they took last year, closer to the house. The little male glides with such fury when you’re anywhere near the box and is amazingly brave. Really cute. As they tend to defend the territory, including the bluebird’s box, they’re very welcome here. It was the return of the swallows mobbing the kestrel (who got a few of my bluebirds last year) that ran the kestrel off. I watched them gang up and dive-bomb it until it quit hunting on this part of the farm.

Autumn in Kentucky

Thank you, Bet.

Maybe I'm a rare type for this list. I'm NOT a Bluebirder. I enjoy birds. I provide them homes and food. All native birds are welcome. I don't have a Bluebird trail. I do have 5 EABB hatchlings in one box, 4 EABB eggs in another. I also have Chickadees and Tree Swallows currently in my nest boxes. I have Goldfinches, Robins, Cardinals and Mocking Birds nesting in trees or bushes, a pesky male House Wren building nests in a dozen or more boxes and gourds. I have a small colony of Barn Swallows in the barn and a nest cup in the detached garage that isn't yet occupied this year. I'm in my second year of trying to establish a Purple Martin colony. A White Breasted Nuthatch pair ignored the boxes I built for them, finding a natural cavity in a dead Maple tree attractive...
along with other birds including European Starlings that I haven't managed to shoot yet. There are lots of holes in that old Maple snag. Next Saturday, I'll get my extension ladder, mirrors & flashlight to see what species are present for TBN. Oh, and the Chimney Swifts are back in the barn's chimney before I got it cleaned... so no more fires out there even on chilly mornings.

I hope that many more folks will enjoy all native birds. I love Bluebirds. They perch on the pea fence while I till, jumping down to snatch grubs and bits of worm while I'm still in the garden. I fed mealworms for the earliest pair on cold days so the hatchlings wouldn't suffer even though I'm NOT a bluebirder. My favorite birds are swallows.
I can sit still and the TRES will dive and swoop around my head to feed on the gnats and mosquitoes that I attract. Barnies follow my lawn tractor when I mow to snatch the insects that I stir up near the ground. Once there are babies to feed, the swallows here continue hunting into the night, snatching the bugs attracted by the floodlights on the back of the barn. Watching the EABB & TRES squabble over control of a cluster of boxes is entertaining. Once eggs are laid, they tolerate each other and only defend their territory from others of the same species. After hatching, the parents are too busy feeding their young to worry about the birds nesting the the next box.

I hope that many will choose to host lots of different native birds.

Take care,

R J 'Tree' Greenwood
Catlett VA

Your story sounds similar to mine, except I AM a bluebirder. My place is like a bird sanctuary. I know for sure I have 4 different resident species of Woodpeckers. The big old Pileated sailed across my yard and landed on a tree in the backyard and I got a great view. I have a resident Redheaded Woodpecker, Northern Flicker and Red Bellied pair right on the edge of my yard. I have Carolina Wrens, Carolina Chickadees, Indigo Bunting, Cardinals, Blue Jays that nest. I am still seeing the Chipping Sparrow and am wondering will they nest here? I have not seen them around here this late. They are usually gone from my place. We have what seems like hundreds of Mockers. A dove built in a Cedar tree not far from my bedroom window. I had 70 Bluebird eggs and have not made a check in about 3 days to see just how many are babies now. I had 2 Carolina Chickadee babies. Their little black heads are adorable.

Of course in the fields, we have lots of other species.

When a major roosting place for the Purple Martins was harassed a few years ago in Louisiana, no one was more upset than I was.

When I first became active in our organization and giving presentations, I was met sometimes with a feeling that we only care about Bluebirds. In fact, some made remarks that were a little uncomfortable to me. So now, I start my presentation with the statement that our mission statement states that we support all native cavity nesters. I make sure I tell about my Carolina Chickadees and Bluebirds being good neighbors and how I paired the boxes and why.

I am certain that there are many just like me on this list. In fact, I would say you fit right in!!!

Evelyn Cooper...
Delhi, LA

FROM: Kathy Haines
SENT: April 28, 2005
RE: Encouraging other cavity nesters...

As far as removing the nest, I have an answer. But I did want to comment, our blues built two full nests, and shortly after they had chosen one, we had TRES take over the second nest. So unless you're keeping the nest as a backup, you might just leave it in there?
(Yes... I know you're not supposed to keep nests...)

Kathy Haines
Central Ohio

From: Afinechef"at"aol.com [mailto:Afinechef"at"aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:40 PM
Subject: Update on Migratory Bird Treaty Act

To the List,

I'm reading an article in the July '05 Vanity Fair magazine titled, "Ruffled Feathers on Fifth Avenue". The article deals with the background of the red-tailed hawk, Pale Male, and his different partners, and segues to the whole controversy leading up to the taking down of their nest in October of 2004 by the building managers at 927 Fifth Avenue in New York City (5th and 72nd Street).

One section of the story struck me as pertinent to this List: " When the building managers applied for a permit to take down the nest, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Migratory Bird Permit Office had denied it, but it came with an interesting explanation: "We do not issue permits for the [removal] of inactive nests. An inactive nest is a nest without birds or eggs". Attached was a memorandum from the agency, dated April 15, 2003, which clarified the Migratory Bird Treaty Act when it came to the matter of destruction."

(At the time, Pale Male and Lola were between nestings, so it was legal for the building's managers to have their nest removed. That was never clarified for me in any of the news articles about the controversy!)

I did not know of this official clarification and wonder how it would affect our positions on house wren dummy nests and other cavity nesting issues.

Donna U
41.6107°N, 72.4589°W
Marlborough, CT

From: Afinechef"at"aol.com [mailto:Afinechef"at"aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:40 PM
Subject: Update on Migratory Bird Treaty Act

One section of the story struck me as pertinent to this List: " When the building managers applied for a permit to take down the nest, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Migratory Bird Permit Office had denied it, but it came with an interesting explanation: "We do not issue permits for the [removal] of inactive nests. An inactive nest is a nest without birds or eggs". Attached was a memorandum from the agency, dated April 15, 2003, which clarified the Migratory Bird Treaty Act when it came to the matter of destruction."

It would seem that no permit was necessary because the act was not illegal. Removing an inactive nest is proper management with most species. In the case of the hawks though, if the species is known to reuse their nests, it may not be fair to call them “inactive” between nestings.

Kenny Kleinpeter
Baton Rouge, LA

I have a dilema here in Kansas; well I actually have several and guess I will tell you about both of them. I have purple martins in my back yard, ready to fledge and one sparrow nest in the Martin house with sparrows.
About 20 feeet away is a bluebird box with tiny babies in it; my qustion is, should I lower the martin house and remove the sparrows as I don't know how old they are or take the chance on them fledging rather than to have the adult sparrows fly into a rage and kill my bluebirds. I am convinced that canhappen as I have seen evidence of it before when I have destroyed nests with babies, especially. Also I am afraid the little martins might fledge prematurely. I think they are a day or two from being ready to take off, but haven't kept as close track of them as I should have. The other thing is what I am really burned up about ; our little town has taken down 10 of our bluebird houses, several of which had active nests; birds almost ready to fledge and several new nests, ready for eggs. Also one wren nest with eggs in it. These were in very inobtrusive locations near the city cemetery and also our old abandoned landfill. I guess all boxes were on city land (which we had obtained permission to place boxes on) and I am stunned that they sent us a letter advising they had been taken down and were in a pile at a location near the old landfill. I know it is illegal for individuals to harm nests and boxes and am assuming the same goes for city governments and small minded local bureaucrats. Any ideas as to what I should do?
Have any of you run into this problem? I just couldnt believe they wouldn't even call us before they took this action.

The city definitely violated the Migratory Bird Act, and they are not exempt from penalties. I would respond to the person/agency who sent you the letter advising you where the nestboxes were and let them know as much. I know of one city that moved a bunch of egret nests from a pond, in order to fill the pond in, but they were prepared to pay several thousand dollars per nest for doing so, because they knew about the law. (Unfortunately it didn't stop them, because no one knew about it until after the fact, they just paid the fine.) I bet your city officials would be quite upset to know they could be liable for similar penalties, especially if you had records indicating the presence of eggs and nestlings! Maybe your informing them of this type of penalty could prevent any such thing happening again.

I would definitely raise a fuss. At the very least common courtesy would have made them inform you prior to taking your nestboxes down, since you had permission to put them up. You could have let them know about the Migratory Bird Act in advance of them doing anything. They could have allowed you to remove any empty nestboxes and remove the others after they were empty.

Kate Arnold
Paris, Texas

From: bookfanaticef-bluebird"at"yahoo.com [mailto:bookfanaticef-bluebird"at"yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 3:35 PM
Subject: dilemma in Kansas

I don't have any suggestions for your first problem regarding the birds, but as for the problem with the city taking down the boxes (I can't believe they didn't bother to at least look inside for eggs or nestlings before removing them! And then doing it without telling you beforehand), I do have one suggestion.

I would contact your local wildlife agency (perhaps the state one or even better, the US Fish & Wildlife Service), and explain to them what happened, file a report, etc. They may not be able to do much, and it might take them a while (being a bureaucracy, they do move slow) but maybe they can at least let the city officials know that what they've done is illegal, and the consequences for performing such a violation--from another official source. The city might not think much about it if you approach them, but if it comes from another official source, it might mean more. If you're lucky, the city may even get slapped with a fine or worse--but I don't know how that works, exactly--it's probably a case of having to be caught "red-handed/in the act" for them to do that.

No guarantees that something similar won't happen again (unfortunately), but maybe someone will at least think before doing in the future. I'll bet *none* of them are aware such a thing is a federal crime--the vast majority of Americans don't know about those laws, despite them having been on the books for over half a century. (Migratory Bird Act of 1930-something, I think, though my memory's a bit hazy right now).

Anyway, if that fails (or maybe even if its successful), maybe contact your local newspaper, or something to make it known that harming, molesting, or removing ("taking") nests, eggs, nestlings or adult birds of native species is illegal. And do your best not too get overly emotional about it--be rational, and methodical in whomever you talk to you, and make sure your facts are correct. Some emotion is good, but a calm, rational, backed-up person comes across as much more legitimate than an emotional, yelling, ranting & raving person.
Good luck!
Elizabeth F
Gainesville, FL

Now, just think if signs had been up advocating the law, maybe they would
have thought twice. I am not fussing at you Jeanette, but maybe it would be
a good idea to put signs up on property like that BIG enough for them to see
and read.

I would certainly raise a stink. They were way out of line. Ignorance is no
excuse.

Evelyn Cooper

On Sun 24 Jul 2005 at 14:55, Jeanette Stamm <jeanettefromks"at"webtv.net> wrote:
> ... I have purple martins in my back yard, ready to fledge and one
> sparrow nest in the Martin house with sparrows. .. my qustion is,
> should I lower the martin house and remove the sparrows as I don't
> know how old they are or take the chance on them fledging rather than
> to have the adult sparrows fly into a rage and kill my bluebirds. ..

Jeanette, this is one case where you should 'leave well enough alone.' Deal with the House Sparrows after your Purple Martins leave for a pre-migratory roost. Once they fledge, Martins only stay around their natal colony for a few weeks, just long enough for the fledglings to learn to feed on-the-fly. I love watching PM fledglings, so graceful in flight but clumsy as they learn to land... on the 15th try!

If you lower the PM house now, it's likely that the PM nestlings will fledge prematurely. Do what's best for your native birds and deal with the HS later. Unless the HS pair tried to nest in your Bluebird box, a rage probably wouldn't extend there but 'better safe than sorry.' In my experience, newly fledged HS are stupid and easy to trap or shoot.

> ... our little town has taken down 10 of our bluebird houses, several
> of which had active nests; birds almost ready to fledge and several
> new nests, ready for eggs. ... Any ideas as to what I should do?

I'm stuck on cliches. 'The squeaky wheel gets the grease.' Write a polite letter to the town council, mayor and manager (if you have a manager type of town government). Quote pertinent parts of the Migratory Bird Act. Have friends write letters to the editors of your local newspapers that aren't as polite. Stay politely annoying until you get official, written assurance that nothing similar will ever again occur. I work for a small city government. If you persist, you may even get the town council to proclaim support for the environment, including native birds as long as it doesn't cost anything.

Good luck,

R J 'Tree' Greenwood
Catlett VA

From: Keith & Sandy Kridler [mailto:txbluebirder"at"sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: dilemma in Kansas

Keith Kridler Mt. Pleasant, Texas
Ask a newspaper reporter to go along with you and go pick up the nestboxes from the pile. Open every nestbox with the reporter present and ask them to take photographs of any dead birds or destroyed eggs. You can now make a productive article about how the nestboxes should have either been removed before nesting season or right after a brood of babies fledged. You can now make a plea for "new" areas on private land to install these nestboxes or show that MORE nestboxes are needed to be placed by citizens in the area for the benefit of the birds.

Only negative thing about prosecuting the city is that their legal expenses and fine money comes from taxpayers. Some taxpayers will resent seeing nestboxes next year if each box removed costs the city say $500 a pop.

For some strange reason a reporter did an article on my expanding bluebird trail back in 1983 and mentioned that the state had given me a grant for all of the nestboxes. I DID apply for a small grant one time but was turned down. The rumor spread that the state was paying me to drive around and check all of the boxes too! Anyway it ticked off people and 69 of 475 nestboxes "disappeared" within two months! They felt that every box they stole was saving them tax money! KK

From: Kate Arnold [mailto:koscharn"at"cox.net]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 12:48 PM
Subject: RE: dilemma in Kansas

Good point, Keith, regarding the use of taxpayer money for legal fees, etc. I thought of that when I encouraged making a fuss, and should have made it clear. The intent was to put a scare into the officials responsible, telling them what could have happened, then making constructive suggestions for any future situations. Just showing them pictures of dead birds or smashed eggs, and a contrasting picture of healthy babies and a beautiful mature bluebird would make at least some officials feel bad about what happened. Many people don’t think before acting, and all that can be done now is prevent it happening again.

Using the situation to encourage more nestboxes in the area would make something good come out of it—great suggestion!

Kate Arnold
Paris, Texas

Hi Friend:

I am very glad to hear this! Looks like this thing is headed in the right direction! I've been mulling over it all afternoon. I wonder if this comes under vandalism. (even though employees did it) Just don't know how it would be classified. Cities and towns usually have laws that can get things done pronto. It might take more red tape with the wildlife people. I am just saying this from an experience I had with vandalism at a school inside the city limits. If you don't get help at the first stop, keep trying! Involve all that can help you.

Hey, a letter from me on the front page of two small town papers did the trick for me. Phone calls would not hurt either.

I remember when the harassment of the Purple Martins thing was going on and you can believe it was the ire of the birding community (nation wide)being stirred that got some action. It was a city law that stopped the harassment.

Just a few days ago, I found a nestbox with one baby had been knocked down by the mowers on one of our state park trails. They had put it back up, but the guard was damaged to where a snake could have gotten past it. The rangers were very unconcerned about it, saying "it is just one of those things". They didn't care really. A lot of people don't and we have to get their attention. Yes, be nice, but if nice doesn't get it, got to plan "B".

Evelyn Cooper
Delhi, LA

Chuck's suggestion about how to deal with the town concerning the Bluebird houses is right on target. It will give them something to think about, and you might just get something out of it. At least they'll know they did something wrong, and you will start your dialogue on a civil note.

Just as a matter of tact and politics, try not to use such words as "idiots," "cretins," "halfwits," "numbskulls, " "imbeciles."Such word choice is likely to be counter-productive.

Bruce Burdett

Are pigeons a protected bird or can I trap them and dispose them?

Cal ZZZ

From: bookfanaticef-bluebird"at"yahoo.com [mailto:bookfanaticef-bluebird"at"yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: pigeons

Do you mind if I ask you why you want to get rid of them? Most people want to get rid of House Sparrows, or European Starlings--both species are known to be actively harmful to native birds and ecosystems--but pigeons tend to be more of a nuisance than anything else.

As for your question:
If the pigeons you're referring to are Rock Doves, or the common "city pigeon," they are an introduced, invasive exotic species, and *should* not be protected by federal law. All other doves/pigeons, except for Eurasian Collared Doves, are native, and under protection by the Migratory Bird Act and other laws. Some native pigeons/doves in some regions of the country can look very similar to the "city pigeon," so do not get them confused.

But there are issues with some of those Rock Dove pigeons being "racing" pigeons that actually belong to people, and are not truly wild, and you could probably not distinguish them in the field unless they are banded or tagged or something. I don't know how the law works in that instance.

*However,* you will want to check your local (contact your county extension office if you have one) and state regulations (contact your state wildlife agency if the county extension doesn't have the answer) to check on their status in your area. Some areas consider *all* wildlife, native or not, to be protected, and these laws are just as valid as the federal ones. Also, there may be laws regulating the methods used for capture and/or disposal of the animals you trap/kill.

Do your research, and thoroughly and officially, before you do anything!
Perhaps others on this list would have better info/suggestions
Elizabeth F
Gainesville, FL

I have to ask the question: Why would you want to trap and dispose? You don't list your location or why you are asking the question, but I can tell you that across the country this is the time of year when young raptors (hawks and falcons that have fledged this season) are practicing and trying to fine tune their hunting skills that will help them survive - pigeons can be a big part of urban and suburban raptors diets. (I know here in Buffalo, NY pigeons and EUST make up the majority of the Peregrine Falcon family's diet).

Yes, pigeons are nuisance birds for some of us, but by impacting their populations you may impacting other species as well. If you have a problem with a flock hanging out under you feeders then look to see what you can do to prevent them from showing up, making it an undesirable location (i.e. put out black oil sunflower seed instead of millet or cracked corn, or just take the feeders down - most birds are eating natural sources of food/seed/insects this time of year anyway). If they are roosting in the area ask yourself why and what can you do to close off the area to make it undesirable or inaccezzzble to them. There are other alternatives here besides trapping. Most of all check with your local/state regulations.

Did you know that one of the dangers that raptors and owls face is eating poisoned pigeons and rodents? Think before you put out poisoned bait - you may be killing more than one species.

kimmarie :)
Buffalo/Varysburg, Western NY

From: bookfanaticef-bluebird"at"yahoo.com [mailto:bookfanaticef-bluebird"at"yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: OT Re: pigeons

Great response, KimMarie!
You addressed all the follow-up stuff I was planning to post that I didn't have time to do earlier. I totally agree that there are better ways to discourage pigeons than whole-sale trapping/killing; if they actively harmed the native birds (like HOSP), I might be more for it, but not if they're just an annoyance. While I think (theoretically) it would be great if we could eliminate all exotics from our native ecosystems, it's not possible, especially where they fill vital niches. Like you said, in some urban areas, pigeons have become an extremely important food source for some other animals, especially as they are one of the only other animals around for predators to eat in urban areas--since we've eliminated pretty much all of our native birds from such areas that would provide the same ecosystem "service." In some cases, it is often better to leave the exotics in place if their presence has resulted in such an ecological shift. HOSP, to ! my knowledge (which is admittedly lacking in the specific area of truly urban wildlife), do not serve such an important role in most urban ecosystems as pigeons.

And to Cal: You responded to me individually that the pigeons are filthy and carry diseases. To be honest, *all* birds are exactly the same way. Pigeons are no more so than any other bird--though they often look dirtier because of their coloring/markings, and because they congrgate in large flocks. In fact, the supposed disease-carrying ability of birds is why I needed to have a current tetanus shot, as well as blood drawn for "serum banking" when I helped out on a monitoring project through a university, so that if I contracted an avian-borne disease, it could be found out if I had it before or after I did all my bird-handling. But I was going to be actually handling the birds--had it been simply observational, such a measure wouldn't have been necessary. Pigeons are no more dirty than any other bird--even the "cleanest" bird carries myriad parasites, with dirt and bits of feather sheath, etc all over, among other less savory things.

Many other animals are far more likely to carry and transmit diseases than birds--mammals, in particular--and with most avian-borne (and many other) diseases, you can't actually contract them except through a vector, like a mosquito or a tick, which has to bite a diseased creature (human or otherwise), then bite you in turn. For example, West Nile Virus & other encephalitis diseases (which birds and other animals can carry) are transmitted by certain mosquitoes, and Lyme disease is transmitted by deer ticks (which, by the way, take mice, humans, and many other mammals as their hosts, not just deer).

You're far more likely to get a disease from another human than anything else--we like to think that we're all "clean," but we're far dirtier than we like to think about.
Elizabeth F
Gainesville, FL

Cal,
We used to hunt Rock Doves (Park Pigeons) regularly when we
were kids. Huge flocks, - thousands of birds, - would fly across the
river from Springfield MA and forage in the market garden fields on the West
Springfield side. Each bird has two delectable chunks of breast meat which
we cooked up with gravy and onions. Outstanding! Not too different from
Squab, really. In fact I guess it *is* Squab. Three or four pigeons feed one
person, and we often brought home 20-30.

Bruce Burdett

PS We never saw a single banded bird

---Elizabeth wrote:
But there are issues with some of those Rock Dove pigeons being "racing" pigeons that actually belong to people, and are not truly wild, and you could probably not distinguish them in the field unless they are banded or tagged or something. I don't know how the law works in that instance.

---Torrey expands:
Here at the nature center, we sometimes get calls about pigeons with bands. Bands used on tame pigeons are not the same as the bands used on wild birds.
I've never seen one in real life, but in pictures they've always been colored, like blue aluminum or something. Most expensive caged birds *do* have bands on them (think of the parrots in a pet store), & racing pigeons would need to be positively identified for the time to be valid.

Homing pigeons would be the most common tame pigeon to find in the wild, but there are also many varieties of "fancy" pigeons (& some of them are pretty crazy looking). These can also get loose, but they are much less likely to look like a regular city pigeon.

All that being said, we get maybe a call a year about banded pigeons. There aren't a lot of people who raise pigeons anymore. I don't even know who you should contact if you find a dead pigeon with a band
-- its owner would probably like to know what happened to it -- but i'm sure you could google it.

Torrey Moss
Kalamazoo Nature Center
Kalamazoo, MI

From: Evelyn Cooper [mailto:emcooper"at"bayou.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 8:27 AM
Subject: Jeanette Stamm's Project

Many of you remember last nesting season when Jeanette Stamm (from Kentucky I think, may be wrong) wrote us that they had a bluebird trail on some city property and some employees came and took down their boxes with nest, eggs and babies in them. I forget what their reasoning was, but Jeanette went to bat and a great portion of the city/town was up at arms about it

She wrote me a few days ago telling me she was to meet with the city council last night and was pretty worried. I just told her to write down the pros and cons of theirs and to address each one as best and sincerely as she could.

She wrote me this morning that they met and told her she could put them up. She said the manager was not too happy, but I bet he does not take the boxes down again. I am sure from all that went on last year, Jeanette made him and all involved aware of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Persistence pays, and knowing Jeanette she was firm but very nice. She told me she is still battling Lyme disease, so all be careful out there.

Evelyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Evelyn Cooper [mailto:emcooper"at"bayou.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 6:22 PM
To: Bluebird-L
Cc: Jeanette Stamm
Subject: Fw: Any ideas?

Jeanette told me to post this for her. Many of you may remember last year
during nesting season the manager had his employees take their boxes down
with eggs and babies in them. I forgot to ask her state again, but will
find out. (still think it's Kansas)

She went to great length to be able to get them put back up. It really took
a lot of hard work and perseverance to go through with it. She has done this
in spite of illness that made some days bad for her.

I say " Big Cheers"! for Jeanette. This is what I call a real "true
bluebirder".

I am copying her even though she is on the List because she does not read it
all.

Evelyn
www.labayoubluebirdsociety.org

> HI Evelyn, Well, I got 4 new boxes and baffles up on the road where I
> got permission from the city council. I too am pretty pleased that they
> came through so well for me. I had been afraid that they would just
> roll over and play dead andlet the city manager get by with his crap.
> He is new to the area and they are all friends of mine, so I was very
> happy that they stuck their neck out to help me. I hope they don't get
> a lot of flack from him somehow. Anyway, there are lots of bluebirds on
> this road and they were all looking for boxes to nest in this spring.
> It's s though they know I am trying to help them; they fly along with
> me as I walk out there and it just seemed so terrible that there were no
> boxes. So I'm glad they let me put these up. Well I am going to sleep
> here at the keyboard so must close for now. Thanks for your caring
> about this problem of mine. I'm sure a lot of people would laugh at the
> whole thing but I feel it is a real victory for me and the bluebirds.
> Take care.

To those of you that belong to your state society, if it has a Permit to carry nests and eggs, here is an idea I acted upon. You have to be listed as a subpermittee on the Permit to be able to do this

The state of Florida allows us to register via a website, download and print your own permit.
I have mine laminated and wear it around my neck when on the trail..
Phil Berry

I am wondering if you are talking about the permit that states give to monitors to remove nest, handle birds, etc.?

That is different than the federal and state permit that you have to get to carry nests and eggs, etc for show and tell.

Evelyn
www.labayoubluebirdsociety.org

Yes , and easy to get....but looks very impressive if onlookers want to know if we are "licensed" to do what we do. I whip out the card and they are totally impressed. Absolutely necessary for a permit of some kind on a golf course. Too many people ask questions.
Phil

Phil, I am talking about a Federal Permit. We had to get a state permit before we could get the Federal Permit. You definitely have to have a Federal Permit to carry nests and eggs.

Evelyn

Phil,

I wish it was that easy in Michigan to get a permit. They make it so hard that only one out of 100 people can get a permit.

Maynard Sumner
Flint, MI

From: Linda Ruth [mailto:lindaruth"at"earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 7:36 PM
Subject: Reminder- the Migratory Bird Treaty Act affects you

Regarding some of the recent emails regarding abandoned eggs, nests and others:
I’d just like to remind everybody that it is illegal under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703) to kill, band or have in your possession any native bird (dead or alive, including nestlings, eggs, nests, road kills or even feathers) unless you:
1. Are hunting within the applicable rules of your jurisdiction
2. Are a farmer who catches a predatory bird in the act of killing livestock or poultry
3. Are a native American who is exempt for religious or cultural reasons or
4. Are a scientist, wildlife rehabilitator or bird bander with appropriate permits.
Non-native birds, including House Sparrows, Starlings, Rock Doves (Pigeons) and Parakeets are exempt.
That means that you cannot legally disturb the nests of wrens or other native birds that may decide to nest in your houses, or remove an egg, nest or nestling, even if dead or abandoned, from a box. Good intentions do not exempt you.
Believe it or not, people have been prosecuted for this. In an Alaska case, a painter removed a nest and nestlings from under an eave before painting a house (intending to bring them to a rehabilitator) and he was arrested. In another case the construction of a large shopping mall was temporarily halted when an active hawk's nest was found in a tree slated for removal. (Chalk one up for the birds!)
Regardless of how you feel about this law, or the likelihood that you will get caught, be careful about what you recommend to others in this forum.
For details, refer to www.animallaw.info or www.birdiq.com/learn/laws.html

From: Evelyn Cooper [mailto:emcooper"at"bayou.com]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder- the Migratory Bird Treaty Act affects you

Everyone that has "The Bluebird Monitor's Guide" should read page 77 and 78 and it really lets you see how the law looks upon us. In this article, it recommends that you talk with your wildlife people and let them know you are monitoring and raising cavity nesters. It also states that we are looked upon as "Good Samaritans" by them as stated by Susan Lawrence, USFWS Natioinal Coordinator for migratory Bird Permits (at that time). She compares "bluebirders to well-meaning Good Samaritans who help out at the scene of an accident. When people are really acting for the welfare of the bird, we don't want to discourage them, she says".

I received a phamplet put out by Louisiana Wildlife & Fisheries last weekend at our spring meeting. It states that it is important to "clean out the old nest as soon as the birds fledge. This will increase the chances of a second nest in the same box.", it states. (These nests also have infertile, abandon eggs and some dead chicks) It also states that opening the box to check on the babies (which they recommend) will not cause abandonment. It also stated that if a hatchling falls out of the box, it is o.k to pick it up and place it back in the box. (They are not going to put us in jail for that)

We've had this discussion on here a thousand times and we have all agreed that none of us have been put in jail for "helping" the Bluebirds and cavity nesters, so far . I don't think we are going to be arrested by carrying an old nest with its contents away from the box and that is what we recommend doing. We give advice to the "newbies" what do to in the best interest of the cavity nesters. "Old timers learn a thing or two also".

Bear in mind that we are not talking about collecting these things to keep. We are talking about monitoring, maintaining the box and guards and cleaning out for the next cycle. That is what this forum is about. Rehabbers are there for us to carry injured and orphaned birds to. We are advised to call the rehabber and have the telephone number handy if you were to be stopped by an official in transporting.

It's the ones that do the vandalism that I would like to see get their dues.

Evelyn

Hi group,

Technically, the MBTA does not protect nests from disturbance if there is no posession. I guess they didn't hire lawyers that know anything about nature when writing that law.

Evelyn Cooper made a vaild point. Will law enforcement choose to prosecute a good intentioned Bluebird trail monitor for carrying an old nest away from a nest box to deter predators, or a conservation minded volunteer wanting to bring an abandoned nest to a library as an educational display? Legally, they can interpret and enforce the law as such if they choose to.

As the law is written, a nest can be disturbed, with a few exceptions, such as bald eagles and colonial nesting birds, as long as no posession of the nest, feathers etc. occurs. Obviously, that wasn't the spirit of the law, but that is what is says.

Rob Barron
Warrenton, Virginia

I wouldn't advise anyone without a legal permit to carry nests and eggs to display anywhere in public. That is a completely different matter than cleaning out a used nest and disposing of it for the next cycle. You most certainly MAY be asked if you have permission to "carry" if you do this. Our organization has the permit to collect and display abandoned nests and eggs, but there again, members have to be listed as subpermittees on our Permit. We also display a sign at every event we show them stating we are authorized.

Evelyn

From: Robert Barron [mailto:rebarron"at"gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: Barn Owl Pet

….

Just as an aside, CITES stands for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. It has grown from 80 to 169 countries that voluntarily adhere to its regulations and today it offers varying degrees of protection to 30,000 species of animals and plants, whether they are live specimens, preserved, or even as dried herbs. They claim that not one protected species has been lost to "trade" since its inception.

...
Rob Barron

From: Donna [mailto:spraydm"at"earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 6:54 PM
To: bluebird-l"at"cornell.edu
Subject: unused nestbox for EABL

Okay, so setting up a new box the day after my blues kicked the new pair of blues that attempted to
nest in the paired box didn't work. No takers.

We're not done yet!

Today we noticed a bluebird nest in my brother-in-law's mailbox - actually in the opening underneath
the mailbox for packages. It was all pine needles, and because there isn't much space, a very, very
shallow cup all the way at the back. Not a good nest site, and very vulnerable to predators. My
brother-in-law said he was going to throw it out in the morning.

So this evening we went down with our unused box, put it a few feet back from the mailbox in a
shaded area, and transferred the nest into it. They were going to lose the nest anyway, at least
this gives them a chance to take the new location. I hope they take it.

Donna

-----Original Message-----
From: Bet Zimmerman [mailto:ezdz"at"charter.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 12:29 PM
To: 'Donna'; 'BLUEBIRD-L'
Subject: RE: unused nestbox for EABL

Hi Donna - ideally I think it is good to wait until there is one egg before making a move - makes it
more likely the parents will go where the nest is relocated to. Please let us know if the birds
accept the box (which I'm guessing they will - bluebirds are pretty tolerant of this kind of thing.)

As you probably know, it's a good thing your brother-in-law did not throw the nest out. It is
illegal (without a permit, which is almost impossible to get) to disturb an active nest of a native
bird, even if they chose a most inconvenient location. Adults, nests, eggs and young of NATIVE
birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Act provides for serious penalties,
both civil and criminal.

Of course some of the things bluebird monitors do (like a nest change when a nest is soaking wet or
infested) are technically violations of the Act also, but I've never heard of anyone enforcing the
law against these types of actions by experienced bluebird monitors.

Bet from CT

Continued at Bluebirding and the Law (Part 2)

BEST OF BLUEBIRD_L CLASSIFIEDS HOME | Audubon Society of Omaha | The Bluebird Box | Bluebird FAQs | Search | Contact me

All material was originally posted on the Bluebird_L or Bluebird mailing list, and has been reposted here with slight modifications to make the posts more readable in an HTML format.  In cases in which quoted material has been deleted to save space, this is indicated by an ellipsis (...)

For more information about Bluebird_L, check out http://www.cit.corn.edu/cit-pubs/email/using-lists/index.htm. If you wish to contact the author of a post, you will need to edit the e-mail address, replacing "at" with the "at" symbol (above the number 2 on your keyboard). (This change was made to discourage spammers.)

If you are the author of a posting and would like to see a particular post (or posts) removed from these web pages, please contact me with the web page address, title of post, and date and time of the post(s), and I will remove whatever material you like.  If you have a different opinion from one posted here, you need not contact me, as often I will have a different opinion too. The intent is to try and provide both sides to the issues facing bluebirders, and to do so in an impartial and objective manner.

If you have problems, encounter broken links (unless they are within an e-mail thread, as I do not maintain those links), or have suggestions on how the site can be improved to make it more useful, please contact the Best of Bluebird-L Classifieds webmaster. 

Website design by Chimalis