Audubon New Mexico Summer 2004
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
New Mexico Birding Destinations - Elk Mountain by Bill West
Elk Mountain is located in San Miguel County north of the
village of Pecos, NM. Three major river drainages have their origins op the
slopes of Elk Mountain--the Pecos, Gallinas, and Cow Creek. A reasonable Forest
Service Road (646) leads above tree line to the peak at 11600 feet. As you might
expect, this road is open in the warm weather months only (check with the Pecos
District Ranger Station for opening and closing dates). To reach FS 646 head
north from Pecos on NM 63. In about 10 miles you will reach the Terrero General
Store--a great place to watch hummingbirds in July and August. On the way north
you might want to pause at Windy Bridge picnic area to look for American Dipper,
which often nests under the bridge. After the store, NM 63 leaves the valley
floor to climb the east wall of the canyon. About a mile further north, watch on
the right (east) for a small Forest Service sign that says Davis/Willow
Campground. This is the beginning of FS 646. Set your trip odometer to zero
here--in a mere 14.5 miles you will be on top of the world. Birding is good all
along the road. In the ponderosa pine zone in the summer of 2003 (about 4-6
miles up), there was a small colony of Purple Martins right along the road.
Western Bluebird, Grace’s Warbler and Red Crossbill were also at this elevation.
Higher than the Ponderosas, there is a right fork but that is signed as private.
Keep straight. Further up you will reach the only major fork in the road--left
obviously goes back downhill so take the right, which is a very steep (but
short) uphill section. This part of the road has hosted numerous Band-tailed
Pigeons: At about 10 miles, after 2 long, gradual switchbacks, the road turns
sharply to the north. Here you will be crossing a long meadow. Around this is
some of the best birding the mountain has to offer. In July 2003 I observed Gray
Jay (just open a bag of chips and they should appear), Pine Grosbeak, Clark’s
Nutcracker, Three-toed Woodpecker and Blue Grouse. The remaining drive to the
top of the mountain, though not really birdy, is worth the effort for the
wildflowers and the view. At the top, one is seemingly at eye level with all the
major peaks of the southern Sangre de Cristos – Lake Peak, Santa Fe Baldy,
Jicarita, and the Truchas trio. Plus to the east, you can look down on the top
of Hermit Peak near Las Vegas (a mere 10200’) and out to the plains beyond. A
couple of cautions: don’t be above treeline in thunderstorm season (past about
10:00 in the morning) and check hunting schedules in the fall. I was camping up
there the end of September last year and there were quite a few 4-wheelers on
the road. Enjoy this treasure of New Mexico!
New state park to focus on Rio Grande habitat
restoration and education by Kevin Bixby
A citizen-led effort to establish New Mexico’s newest state park along three
miles of the Rio Grande near Las Cruces Is about to achieve success. By this
time next year, the Mesilla Valley Bosque Park should be up and running, thanks
to recent actions by the Legislature and Governor Richardson.
For years, conservationists have been interested in a wooded area known as “the old refuge” on the west side of the river near the town of Mesilla. Although much of the site is covered in salt cedar, there are remnant stands of cottonwoods and willows, as well as an overgrown agricultural drain containing beavers and catfish. Long known as one of the best birding spots in the Mesilla Valley, the site was first proposed for state park status by the Southwest Environmental Center in 1999.
SWEC teamed up with the Trust for Public Land, Mesilla Valley Audubon Society, and other conservation groups to mobilize public support and funding for the project. At the same time, SWEC partnered with the City of Las Cruces, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Elephant Butte Irrigation District, World Wildlife Fund and others to remove salt cedar and construct wetlands in an area that will form the core of the new park.
Efforts to establish the park received a boost when the 2003 Legislature, led by retiring state representative J. Paul Taylor from Mesilla, and Senator Mary Kay Papen of Las Cruces, and Governor Bill Richardson appropriated nearly $300,000 for land acquisition and a master plan. This was supplemented by matching federal funds obtained by the State, and a Farm Bill grant landed by the Trust for Public Land. The park’s future was secured when the 2004 Legislature and the Governor approved $1.87; million for land acquisition and development.
When fully developed, the Mesilla Valley Bosque Park will include about 300 acres on the west side of the Rio Grande near the town of Mesilla, as well as up to 1500 acres of adjacent uplands managed by the BLM. The park will feature a variety of natural habitats associated with the river, including trails and wildlife viewing areas, as well as a visitor’s center that also highlights the area’s history and culture. Management of the park will emphasize continued habitat protection and restoration, as well as education.
"This park has the potential to be one of New Mexico’s finest examples of resource protection and education-based recreation," said New Mexico State Parks Director Dave Simon. “This area offers natural and cultural resources that may be the best in the region for a park of this type,” Simon said. “It contains some of the last remaining native bosque vegetation in the region and offers unique opportunities to protect native plants, animals and several archaeological sites.”
As a pilot river restoration project, establishment of the Mesilla Valley Bosque Park comes at an opportune time. The federal agency which manages the river channel and floodway in southern New Mexico, and which is also a partner in the proposed park, the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), is currently considering alternatives to its long-standing river management practices, which include such environmentally harmful measures as dredging and annual mowing. River advocates hope the park could serve as a model for similar restoration projects undertaken in cooperation with IBWC up and down the river, strung together like beads on a necklace.
The author is executive director of the Southwest Environmental Center. For more information about the park and Rio Grande restoration efforts in southern New Mexico, readers are encouraged to contact SWEC at 505-522-5552.
Night Watch in Southwest New Mexico (excerpt) by Robert Wilcox
“Why is it that I so love to bird?” I ask myself. One of the big thrills is
simply knowing what’s out there. And all of us who do some birding have learned
that there are a few surprises in store for persistent observers. About two or
three years ago I was thumbing through my field guide as I like to do sometimes.
I was looking at range maps and suddenly realized that I was completely in the
dark about the actual populations of night birds in our area. Sure I’d seen
great horned owls during many day trips. I’d also seen a few barn owls and
several “mystery owls”: I xièck4ed to do some reading about the strange sport of
owling. It didn’t seem that complex, rather a bit inconvenient. So off into the
night I started to go. At first, I just went by habitat descriptions and range
maps. There were a daunting number of possibilities and a dozen or more calls to
become familiar with. I stopped in a number of nearby locations which seemed
reasonable and had only limited success. Slowly, though, a few hot spots started
to emerge. This isn’t totally satisfying, however. I really like to get my
understanding of bird behavior into a more generalized form. It’s great to know
that red-faced warblers can be found at Cherry Creek Campground, but what about
other areas. I thought that I’d share with you a few of my musings and
experiences. I’m going to organize this little essay by species.
Northern Spotted Owl: It is great to live in New Mexico within a half hour drive of both desert and groves of aspen mixed with Douglas fir. I don’t know of anyone who’s actually eaten spotted owl for breakfast, but I have seen the bumper sticker around Silver City. The endangered status of this bird resulted in the cessation of all logging in the Gila National Forest about 15 years ago. One physician I knew suffered the loss of his family’s large sawmill operation in the Mimbres Valley as .a result. These things are not without damaging consequence to some people. We walk that fine line down here in SW New Mexico. The spotted owl makes its home in forested canyons often near rocky cliffs in the Gila Forest. I still can’t get a good fix on how common they actually are. I know of one faithful location. I’ve heard them call in several other spots around the Signal Peak area. These sites are sporadic at best though. I have to believe that there are some dozens of pairs in various canyons about the Gila National Forest. The spotted owl is endangered in a legal sense, of course. Therefore calling the bird with a tape is not permitted. Many birders have skirted this problem by simply using their own voice to call the bird. Spotted owls are the loudest and most impressive-sounding of all our night birds. Their cousin the barred owl is equally noisy. Curiosity will usually bring spotted owls quite close to any caller. I’ve had several breathtaking views of these beauties both perched and fling over my head. May the gods bless you with some spotted owl barking and cackling one of these days. It’s unforgettable.
Flammulated Owl: This is really my favorite owl, I think. For one thing the name sounds made up by Monty Python’s Flying Circus. But the real charm is its habitat combined with its call. The bird makes a faint but penetrating hoot that is repeated at 3 — 4 second intervals. It definitely rises out my own subconscious mind in the restless silence of dark mountain forest. I can’t quite explain it, but that sound has been marking time for millions of years up in the woods. Often one bird will start to call, and then another on a different territory perhaps- 200 yards away will also call. That second sound will be extremely faint, but truly present even with rustling winds covering ft. Or could I be imagining it? Biologically, the thing that impresses me about flammulated owls is how very common they seem to be. I believe there are over a hundred of them on Signal Peak alone. What kind of numbers does that represent for the whole chain of the Rocky Mountains? Expert birders nod patiently at me when I make these statements, but I’m the one out there listening after all. Perhaps flammulated owls don’t exist unless someone is listening for them. That is the kind of bird they are. Louis and I had a good look at one of the tiny insectivores the other night at the end of Little Cherry Creek road. They do have dark eyes.
Elf Owl The smallest owl there is. We usually associate these birds with Sonoran desert habitat and the signal plant Saguaro Cactus. The bird definitely does occur along the western border of the Gila National Forest that faces Arizona. I was thrilled to discover an unknown population of them that are regular In Saddlerock Canyon near Mangas Creek. These birds are very responsive to taped calls, -- very responsive, indeed. The return calls usually come from two or even three different directions. Their call is a potpourri of high pitched cackling. They seem to have none of the usual shyness and reserve that other owls show. If you stay low and keep your eyes on the sky, you can usually see them fly into a nearby tree. We usually get very good looks at them without too much effort. Driving up and down the canyon, reveals that there are at least six or seven pairs in the narrower parts. I’m told that they prefer areas with sycamores.
One of the nice things about New Mexico, as you know, is that irritating insects are not numerous. When one is out at night, however, and using light, getting in and out of the car, etc., you find out that night-flying moths and other insects are quite common. In fact they’re usually flying into your face and filling the vehicle quickly on every stop. This is instructive, though. These are exactly the critters that both bats and nocturnal birds depend on. I think that an elf owl behaves in the dark much like a kingbird does during the day. They do have a reputation for being quite bold in attacking birds and other prey even larger than themselves. I have not observed that behavior myself.
Northern Pygmy Owl: I was just returning to the trailhead at Gallinas Canyon. Birds were a bit scarce, but my group was happy, because we had a good view of a red-faced warbler along the cliff wall. The tree ahead was jumping with noise and activity. There were mountain chickadees, bridled titmice, and bushtits scolding with all their might. I heard a very faint series of quiet hoots, and suddenly it dawned on me. Something special was about to happen, and a few seconds of searching did, indeed, reveal a life bird for me. He was sitting fifteen feet off the ground in clear view, seemingly impervious to any attempts at mob intimidation by the local song birds. A northern pygmy owl!! How lucky!! We got a clear view of the “eye-spots” on the back of his head. An elegant fellow, all right.
That’s one NPO, I’ve seen now in 8 years of birding here. I’ve heard other reports, but that’s it for me. Like the case of burrowing owls, this is a very surprising and disturbing dearth of birds. The previous generation was accustomed to hearing these birds call in mountain canyons during the day, as they do. Where have pygmy owls gone? Well, it seems that they are simply becoming quite rare as breeders in our area. Reports come from remote canyons in the Black Range or the Gila National Forest. I’ve beard a pair of Ferruginous Pygmy Owls calling in Mexico during a birding trip there. I know about what I’m supposed to be listening for.
Pygmy owls are diurnal feeders. They preferentially hunt birds — that would explain the mobbing behavior shown by their usual prey. They have been seen attacking birds as large as doves, though they themselves are smaller than a robin.
Look for them in Gallinas canyon, Emory Pass, Iron Creek
canyon, Little Cherry Creek canyon, Meadow Creek canyon and places high up like
that. If you find a pair breeding somewhere, please let me know. I guess we
might ruefully call these birds one of the “index species” that give us warning
that human activities somewhere are damaging the ecosystem in a disastrous way.
For the complete series of articles look at back issues of the
Southwest Audubon Newletter at
http://www.swnmas.org/.
Mexican Wolf
Fate Teeters Between Progressive Science and Outdated Politics by
Michael J. Robinson
By unanimous vote on April 7, 2004, the New Mexico
Game-Commission, consisting entirely of Governor Bill Richardson’s appointees
(and including Audubon’s very own David Henderson), passed a motion formally
reversing the state’s opposition to reintroduction of the Mexican gray wolf, and
endorsing reform of the reintroduction program to allow more wolves to survive.
The vote followed overwhelmingly pro-wolf testimony the previous day at a public hearing in Silver City, and a campaign pledge to be a “friend” to the wolves issued by candidate Richardson when visiting Silver City in February 2002.
The Commission’s motion directed its Department of Game and Fish to negotiate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to implement the recommendations of the Paquet Report, the June 2001 review of the reintroduction program that was conducted by four independent scientists led by renowned carnivore expert Paul C. Paquet, Ph.D. of the University of Calgary (Alberta).
The motion specifically cited two of the Paquet Report’s recommendations: that wolves be allowed to roam freely outside the boundaries of the Mexican wolf recovery area, which consists of the Apache and Gila National Forests (in respectively Arizona and New Mexico) and that the interagency field team be allowed to release wolves from the captive breeding program into New Mexico.
Reintroduction handicapped by politics
The federal register rules for this reintroduction, which
only FWS has the authority to change, bind the government to capture or kill
wolves who establish territories outside the recovery area. The same regulations
also forbid release of wolves in New Mexico unless they had previously been
captured from the wild.
Neither of these provisions apply to any other endangered species managed by FWS. Both reflect the New -Mexico Game Commission’s opposition to the proposed reintroduction in the 1980s and 1990s, when the Commission was dominated by livestock interests. And both provisions — as well as a third not specifically mentioned by the Commission but discussed in detail in the Paquet Report — have proved devastating.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has not implemented any of the 86-page Paquet Report’s principal recommendations. As a result, there were less than one third fewer wolves being tracked in the wild at the end of May, 2004 than there were in June 2001 when the report was released — even though nine wolves were captured from the wild during this interval, re-released and outfitted with collars. There are seventeen radio collared and monitored wolves now versus twenty-seven three years ago. There were and are also an unknown number of uncollared wolves.
Federal hunters succeeded where state bounties failed.
The Mexican gray wolf, “lobo” or, as Aldo Leopold fondly
called it, the “desert wolf,” is native to Mexico and to the Sky Island
Mountains of New Mexico’s bootheel and southeastern Arizona. Across the West in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, deer, elk, pronghorn
antelope, bighorn sheep and bison were gunned down by the uncounted millions.
They were replaced by domestic livestock, and gray wolves, largely deprived of
their natural prey, readily turned to this new food source.
The federal government began killing wolves in 1915 because of the failure of ranchers and bounty hunters to exterminate this fecund and adaptable creature in previous decades. In 1917 the predecessor agency to FWS set up the Eradication Methods Laboratory in Albuquerque (moved a few years later to Denver) to mass-produce poison. By the early 1920s it was producing around three million tabs of strychnine each year, which its hundreds of hunters concealed in one-inch chunks of horse flesh and dropped around water sources and wildlife trails.
This centralized program of salaried hunters assigned to specific districts proved far more efficient than bounty laws that often allowed a few savvy wolves to escape and perpetuate their kind. By the late 1920s, only lone wolves and few if any breeding packs existed in the western United States.
But in the Sierra Madre Mountains of Mexico the lobo was still abundant, and individuals periodically crossed over into Arizona and New Mexico. So in 1950, the Fish and Wildlife Service (as it had become known ten years previously) began sending salaried personnel and poison to Mexico to replicate the district-by-district extermination program that it had pioneered here.
Current policies target Mexican wolves unlike other
endangered species.
Only passage of .the Endangered Species Act in 1973
reversed these policies and led to the capture alive between 1978 and 1980 of
the last five wolves known in Mexico for an emergency captive breeding program.
Despite consistent rumors and legends, no lobos have since been confirmed from
Mexico and the subspecies is presumed extinct in its native ground.
The 1998 reintroduction In the Apache and Gila National Forests, largely outside the Mexican wolf’s original range, was compelled by conservationists’ litigation. But Mexican wolves were burdened with a requirement to stay within the recovery area; they are not-enallowe4 to re-inhabit other national forests or BLM public lands, including the Sky Islands which originally constituted their US range.
And because FWS prohibited itself from releasing into New Mexico wolves from the captive breeding program, every wolf released into the Gila heretofore has gone through the trauma of trapping and relocation. Every pack “translocated” has broken apart, and the individual animals then wander widely in unfamiliar areas that in some cases are less secure from poaching than where they had been living previously.
Finally, as noted critically in the Paquet Report, ranchers in the Southwest, unlike their counterparts in the northern Rocky Mountains when that reintroduction began in 1995, are not required to take any responsibility for removing or rendering unpalatable the carcasses of livestock that die of non-wolf causes, and that the wolves feed on. Such scavenging habituates the wolves to livestock, often leading to depredations and, then to the government’s removal of the wolves. (Carcasses can be rendered unpalatable by liming them.)
The primary cause of the Mexican wolf s present predicament is government “control” actions — just as it was during most of the twentieth century. Ten Mexican wolves have died in the course of being removed since the reintroduction began — nine accidentally and one shot by FWS. Now that Governor Richardson’s game commission has given notice that scientific-recommendations must be followed, it remains to be seen whether the federal government will finally grant the protection the lobo desperately needs — or .find a new political justification for continuing a long history of persecution.
Michael J. Robinson represents the Center for Biological Diversity and lives in Pinos Altos, at the edge of the Gila National Forest. He is seeking a publisher for his book on the biological, political and cultural history of government policies toward gray wolves and their ecosystems.
Of Wolves And Audubon by David Henderson
To me, there are few things that could symbolize wildness more fully than the
wolf. Yet for decades in the last century there were no Mexican Wolf howls to be
heard in New Mexico or the Southwest. That all changed in the Iate-199os when
the first Mexican Wolves were reintroduced into the Blue Range of Arizona.
Slowly, ever so slowly, wolves have found their way into New Mexico. With any
luck, we may all have an opportunity to experience one of nature’s greatest
wonders: the distant howl or the passing glimpse of one of nature’s most revered
predators.
Their return to New Mexico did not come easily, nor is their survival anywhere close to being out of the woods. Although the wolves were listed as endangered in 1976, the captive breeding and reintroduction program languished within the bureaucracy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Audubon New Mexico and our members played a key role in getting the program moving again. In the late 198os, Audubon New Mexico, along with some bold wildlife conservationists, started an organization known as the Mexican Wolf Coalition. The Coalition launched a media campaign that included billboards and public service messages by the University of New Mexico’s basketball coach. With a lot of work by many volunteers, the captive breeding program started to have legs again. More zoos became interested in using their facilities to enhance the efforts of the program. However, simply making more wolves does not get them into the wild. That goal, though required under the Endangered Species Act, was not being embraced at either the state or national level. Again Audubon New Mexico, after much deliberation and negotiation, joined the Coalition in suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for failure to reintroduce and recover the Mexican Wolf. The lawsuit got the agency’s attention, and after more serious negotiations the reintroduction effort was back on track, despite the fact that the state of New Mexico never endorsed the effort.
A major milestone was accomplished in 1998 when the first wild wolves were released into the Blue Range of Arizona. These were the first wolves to live in the wild in the Southwest in over 50 years. Another major milestone was attained in April of this year when the New Mexico Game and Fish Commission reversed its previous position and voted unanimously to work cooperatively with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies involved in the reintroduction effort to ensure the success of the program.
As a member of the New Mexico Game and Fish Commission I can say that this was one of my proudest moments. There is only one other event that I can remember that can rival that vote, and it will be forever etched in my mind. In 1998, 1 was chosen to participate in the first release of a Mexican Wolf to the wild. I can only guess that it was because of all the hard work Audubon put into the effort of making sure that wolves would one day be living in the wilds of the Southwest again. I helped carry the release cage into the wilderness, lifted the release door and waited anxiously for the wolf to spring to freedom. It is moments like these that make all the hard work so worthwhile. There will always be more work and new hurdles to overcome, but let’s be sure to take the time to remember the victories we have accomplished on behalf of our environment.
What is the Healthy Forest Initiative?
by Eileen Everett, Education Specialist
Fire suppression activities over the last century have changed the landscape of
forest ecosystems throughout the western United States. The catastrophic
wildfires we see today are unlike the low intensity fires that occurred in
Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests before large-scale fire suppression was
implemented in the West. In the past two years, over 147,000 fires have burned
almost ii million acres across the western landscape. These high intensity burns
have affected wildlife and forest ecosystems, and people and their homes. In
response to these catastrophic wildfires, government agencies have initiated a
number of programs to reduce the threats of wildfires. These management tools
include prescribed burns, fuel reduction, and Wildland Urban Interface Projects
and are designed to benefit both wildlife and humans. Like most projects that
are authorized, permitted, licensed, or funded by a Federal agency, these
management programs, even though they are aimed, at reducing the threat of
catastrophic wildfire, require compliance with environmental laws such as the
National Environmental Compliance Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act.
In August 2002, President Bush proposed the Healthy Forest Initiative, which was represented as a way to reduce the amount of administrative time and money spent to ensure compliance with environmental reviews. Specifically, President Bush directed Agriculture Secretary Veneman, Interior Secretary Norton, and Council on Environmental Quality Chairman Connaughton to “improve regulatory processes to ensure more timely decisions, greater efficiency, and better results in reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires by restoring forest health.” Reducing “excessive red tape” should promote forest health and thus benefit everyone including wildlife, and the ecosystems they depend upon, right?
To help implement the Healthy Forest Initiative, President Bush signed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. This piece of legislation is designed to reduce the time needed for environmental compliance while reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfire and benefiting communities, firefighters, and threatened and endangered species. The goals of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act are as follows:
Regardless of the intent of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, it is clear- that there are potential threats to both wildlife and communities as a result of this act. This bill reduces the evaluation of alternatives normally presented to the public by the NEPA process and provides a categorical exclusion for projects up to 1000 acres in size intended to combat forest-damaging insects. The categorical exclusion virtually eliminates public input into the process and reduces the number of alternatives normally required by NEPA, which gives less information to the public about the proposed project. From our viewpoint here in Santa Fe, this bill translates into giving blanket permission to federal agencies to reduce fuels in areas up to 1000 acres in size that could be threatened by the bark beetle. Additionally, road building is not restricted in any way, even in “roadless areas.” The bill requires maximizing the retention of old growth trees, except in areas where disease or insects inevitably leaves the decision in the hands of local land managers.
For projects supporting the National Fire Plan, exceptions are given to the rules governing the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Those rules require that federal agencies consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the agency ultimately responsible for the ESA) to determine the effects of actions/projects on threatened and endangered species. On actions that could potentially impact an endangered or threatened species, the federal agency can make a determination that an action is “not likely to adversely affect an endangered or threatened species.” However, the federal agency must receive written concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The new legislation, contrary to the ESA, sets up a procedure to eliminate communication from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on any project th4t is “not likely to adversely affect an endangered or threatened species.” This means that the decisions -on how proposed projects affect endangered and threatened species and their habitat are being made by land managers, rather than by biologists.
For more information about the impacts of the Healthy
Forest Initiative, please visit the following websites:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/healthyforests/
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/search.html
National Board Meets, Considers Chapters, State Offices by Tom
Jervis and Steve Melander-Dayton
The National Audubon Society Board of Directors held a retreat May 21-23 in Park
City, UT with representatives of the state offices, (many of them newly
created). Attending from New Mexico were State Board president Steve Melander-Dayton
and Council president Tom Jervis.
There were 26 state programs represented. While there are many new people involved who have little experience with Audubon, they do share a passion for the mission, for saving birds, wildlife, and their habitats. Although the rate of growth in creating new state offices will probably slow down on account of some funding shortfalls, it is nevertheless an impressive change over what Audubon was just a few years ago. President John Flicker has reinvigorated the organization, and the national board is backing him up by agreeing to a deficit budget for the short term to avoid truly Draconian cuts that would otherwise be necessary because of shortfalls in fundraising.
It is change and by definition somewhat uncomfortable, but in the end it will be a good thing. There are growing pains, in terms both of the discomfort from what is familiar and in terms of what in hindsight may have been too ambitious -growth targets, but real and meaningful progress is being made.. The Deb’s Park project in east Los Angeles, a major gamble and in the short-term a financial burden, has opened to Audubon the support of the Hispanic caucus in the U.S. Congress, which in turn holds dividends for the Arctic refuge and other items on Audubon’s national agenda. The New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas state offices made a joint presentation about a new national initiative on the Rio Grande that could never have been imagined just a few years ago. The Board endorsed that initiative and asked that a more detailed plan be developed.
A Task Force on the relationship between National Audubon
and the Chapters will be presenting a draft vision of how that relationship will
evolve later this summer. Chapters will have an opportunity to comment and make
changes during the fall. The resolution may perhaps not be the easiest one for
all to accept, but we believe, having talked with the task force members
involved, that it will meet both the needs of the chapters and those of the
national organization.
There has been much turmoil in Audubon as a result of John Flicker’s ambitious
plans for the organization. Without denying the severity of the problems that,
rapid change has produced, and acknowledging that some changes might have been
implemented in less disruptive ways, we do think that the organization is facing
those problems, perhaps not in the way we would suggest but facing them
nevertheless. Just as important as the content of the weekend agenda was the
opportunity for state board volunteers to establish and strengthen relationships
both with their peers and with national board members and staff. As an
established and financially secure state office, the New Mexico program has an
important leadership role as a part of the larger Audubon family.Al1 is not
perfect, but the Audubon that ‘emerges from this episode will be a stronger and
more vibrant organization.
Welcome New ANM Board Members
The Audubon New Mexico board of directors recently elected two
new members to its ranks:
Ruth Burstrom, an Albuquerque physician, has been active in Audubon, the Central New Mexico Audubon Society and the New Mexico Audubon Council for years. An avid birder and member of Audubon’s Birdathon team, she also helps out with Hawks Aloft, and supports many other birding and conservation organizations.
Mary Kay Papen, a retired businesswoman, represents Las Cruces and Doña Ana County in the New Mexico Senate. She has championed many causes in southern New Mexico including the environment, children, education and healthcare. She is seeking her second Senate term this year.
MVAS Awarded Grant
Mesilla Valley Audubon Society has been awarded a $4700 grant by the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to support the development of a public
outreach program for the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge. The funds will be
used to pay for computer and projection equipment that will be used to develop
and deliver PowerPoint presentations about the refuge.
The San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, roughly 20 miles northeast of Las Cruces, is surrounded by military lands that limit public access; the on1y time people can visit the refuge is when special arrangements are made for a guided field trip to the site. Because there are no signs, tour loops, or festivals for our local refuge, the average Las Crucen is much more likely to be aware of the Bosque del Apache NWR (over ioo miles away) than of this refuge in our own backyard.
The refuge is involved in numerous important conservation efforts, including the reintroduction of Desert Bighorn Sheep to the rugged slopes of the San Andres Mountains. Habitat restoration efforts include controlled burns and salt cedar control. Perennial springs in some of the desert canyons support patches of riparian vegetation that are wildlife hotspots; more than 140 species of birds have been observed on the refuge.
By spreading the word about such resources and conservation efforts we hope to increase public support for the refuge. Auduboners statewide are invited to join us on a field trip to the refuge on November 13. Contact Nancy Stotz at 505-521-8087 or ristotzdzianet.com for more information about the trip.
Bears in New Mexico by Jan Hayes, Sandia Mountain
Bear Watch
The black bear population is in trouble in many areas of New Mexico. For an
example of what is happening to our state’s bears, Sandia Mountain Bear Watch
(BW) will focus on the Sandia and Manzano mountains, two small forested islands
surrounded by Albuquerque, New Mexico’s largest city, on the western slopes and
a large and growing bedroom community on the eastern slopes. These two East
Mountain bear populations are isolated from each other by the 1-40 interstate.
About four years ago, New Mexico Game Fish (NMGEF) completed a $2.4- million bear study that estimated approximately 50 bears in the Sandias and about 75 in the Manzanos. In just the past three drought-stricken years, hunters plus depredation/road deaths have killed 90 bears in these two ranges. Furthermore, during this same period, 105 East Mountain bears have been trapped and relocated, mostly in the Sandias. Lucky bears were moved to a different spot within their same mountain range and the unlucky bears to other non-home ranges. NMG&F has been worried enough about these two populations to cut back hunting in 2003 to just one month, Oct. to Nov. and to allow only males to be taken by hunters who use hounds. This will help save the Manzano bears because a too-aggressive hunt was destroying that population. The Sandia Mountain Range is a completely different story. Hunters in this mountain range have taken fewer bears because only bow & arrow can be used in this wildlife refuge and of course, recently, only males can be taken by hunters with hounds in very rugged terrain.
In the Sandias, trapping is more destructive than hunting. The sad truth is that the more times a bear Is trapped and tagged, the more likely it will be destroyed by NMG&F. Trapping simply doesn’t work as it stresses and in many instances destroys the bear. It is a useless and expensive tool for an under funded NMG&F. Obviously there are times when an aggressive bear should be trapped and destroyed. But these instances are extremely rare. The solution is for mountain residents to maintain a clean home site with nothing edible (birdseed, hummingbird nectar, garbage, pet food) available to entice a hungry bear to come near their home.
Unfortunately, unknowing and sometimes uncaring mountain residents are destroying the Sandia bear population. Residents who leave unprotected garbage out or put their garbage out for pickup the night before are a problem. But so are those who call and demand the NMG&F to trap bears in their apple trees or birdfeeders. This past year, NMG&F officers at the behest of concerned NMG&F Commissioners, have started issuing tickets for feeding bears. Several of the tickets were given for irresponsible use of bird feeders and large fines were levied.
There are simple solutions to all of the above. I can attest to that. I’ve lived in the Sandia Mountains for over 20 years in a rich riparian area with streams and apple trees. I’ve learned to keep my garbage in a sturdy metal shed and have recently purchased a bear-proof garbage can at Davis Hardware in Cedar Crest. I put my garbage out only on the morning of pickup. I have apple trees that are visited frequently by bears in drought years and I’m happy that drought-stressed bears can relieve their hunger by consuming the majority of apples left on the trees that I don’t use. And I use common sense and take the necessary steps for the proper ‘non-bear’ feeding of the many species of birds that make my home their home
Some tips for feeding birds, not bears
Tip One: Hang your seed feeders and hummingbird feeders 10 feet up on a sturdy
metal line suspended between poles or tree branches. Position your feeders 10
feet from each end of the poles/limbs. Stop feeding for a time if seed is
accumulating on the ground.
Tip Two: If you have high eaves, or second story eaves, you can hang feeders from them.
Tip Three: Feed small amounts of seed each morning that will last only several hours. This will work only if you’ve had no bear visitors. If a bear has recently been in your feeders, you will need to stop feeding for a time and try tip one, two or four.
Tip four: Stop feeding birds from July 1 thru Oct. 1. Last summer many people called NMG&F to complain or ask for trapping of bears for being in their bird feeders. They were told by NMG&F Officers to stop feeding birds during these recommended dates.
BW believes that if birdfeeders are hung and maintained properly, we can enjoy our feathered friends and in the process help protect our dwindling bear population.
For more information on how to coexist with bears, please call BW Founder Jan Hayes at 281-9282. Be sure to join us for a fun day at the Sandia Mountain Bear Fair on June 12th!
Science Fair Winners 2004
Dedicated, bright, enthusiastic, energetic, busy -- that’s not just
the students chosen as Science Fair winners by CNMAS this year, but it’s the
CNMAS judges themselves! Thanks to Lannois Neely, Nancy Murray, Virginia Lawler,
and Jennifer Lawler for choosing this year’s CNMAS Science Fair honorees. The
winning students each received a $50 saving bond from Central NM Audubon
Society, as well as a one-year subscription to the Burrowing Owl/State
Newsletter. The teachers or sponsors who encouraged the students receive a
one-year membership in National Audubon Society, which includes a subscription
both to Audubon Magazine and to our local newsletters. The judges receive our
heartfelt thanks. Congratulations to one and all!
Senior Division
Dan Tooker - I.os Lunas High School A BUG’S LIFE - USING MACROINVERTEBRATES
TO DETERMINE WATER QUALITY OF THE RIO GRANDE, PHASE III
Teacher: Alan Spencer
The year 2003 was declared “International Year of Freshwater;” however, the Rio
Grande was seventh on the “Endangered River List.” By studying animals,
vegetation, and water conditions, biologists can better understand the problems
this river faces.
The purpose of this project was to determine if the capacity of dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand have an impact on the amount and diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates along the Middle Rio Grande in determining water quality. It was hypothesized the benthic macroinvertebrate population would diminish as oxygen levels decline, indicating a decrease in water quality.
A site was established at Rio Bravo Bridge in Albuquerque, NM, measuring three square meters. Observations occurred twice a month from May-October 2003. A riffle of fast-moving water was located along the bank to observe benthic macroinvertebrates. Species were counted and assigned index values according to whether they are pollution sensitive, somewhat pollution ‘sensitive, or pollution tolerant. Water samples and temperature were collected to calculate percent saturation of dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand. A water quality index was used to determine river conditions for each parameter.
Results proved the hypothesis mostly correct. As the diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates diminished, there was a correlating decrease in oxygen levels, contributing to a decline in water quality. The number of benthos slightly increased, however, as more pollutant tolerant species appeared under worsening river conditions. A buildup of sediment, salt, fecal coliform, pesticides, nutrients, metals, and urban pollutants may account for lower oxygen levels, contributing to poorer water quality.
Senior Division
Seth Beavis - Rio Rancho High. School HYDROGEN AS AN ALTERNATIVE FUEL
SOURCE: PHASE I
Teacher: Rene Saucedo
Hydrogen has been suggested as an abundant alternative fuel to meet
transportation needs. Most hydrogen is found in water molecules. Solar cells are
used to convert solar energy into electricity that can be used to separate
hydrogen from water through electrolysis. Do different properties of water
affect how much energy is needed to obtain hydrogen?
1. If the source of water is varied, then the amount of energy that is required
to produce a ml of hydrogen varies.
2. If the pH of either tap water or de-ionized water is reduced, then the amount
of energy needed to produce a ml of hydrogen is reduced.
The hypotheses were tested by evaluating the amount of energy required, in four replications, to produce a ml of hydrogen from tap water (pH 7.8), de-ionized water (pH 7.0), acidified tap water (pH 6.0), and acidified de-ionized water (pH 6.0).
Hydrogen was produced from tap water but not de-ionized water, and the amount of energy required to produce hydrogen from both was reduced by reducing the pH. Future experiments should evaluate the amount of energy produced by a ml of hydrogen when combined with oxygen.
Junior Division
Jonathon Cole - Daniel Fernandez Int. DO WE SPOIL THE SOIL?
Teacher: Felipe Armijo
I chose 13 locations in the community from which to gather samples of soil. This
is a Phase 2 project. Last year I simply tested the soils one time for chemical
composition. This year I am also measuring bacterial colonies in the soil and I
am doing the entire project monthly over the course of four months to determine
if there are any seasonal effects on soil composition. Then once I collect the
soils, I will test one soil at a time for color, odor, classification, PH,
nitrogen, and bacteria. I hypothesized that the north hillside study site would
be the healthiest of all the soils and that the parking lot-road drainage would
be the least healthy soil. Healthy means best suited to support life. Nine of 13
soils experienced a change in structure or classification during the study
period. Twelve of the 13 soils changed color, and all of the samples changed
odor. All of the sites had fluctuating pH readings over four months. The site
with the highest average pH, 7.55, was the trash dump. The abandoned dairy, at
.5.1, was the lowest. Five of the 13 study sites gained nitrogen in the four
months. Three of the sites experienced no change in nitrogen levels between
September and December. And five of the sites lost nitrogen during the study
period. All of the sites had bacteria, but their numbers fluctuated from less
than 20 colonies to hundreds. •
My hypothesis was proven incorrect. I predicted that the north hillside study site would be the healthiest and that the parking lot-road drainage site would be the least healthy, but I was wrong. The healthiest soil was actually the alfalfa field, and the least healthy soil was the bulldozed site. Alfalfa field was the healthiest because it had the best average readings for color, odor, structure, pH, nitrogen, and bacteria counts. The bulldozed site was the least healthy because it had the worst average readings in each category. I have learned that soil health varies over time. It can be good or bad without people working it. It can also be good or bad depending on how people work it. What is important is that people realize how fragile the soil is and learn to take care of it wisely.
Junior Division
Raymond Van Buskirk - Jackson Middle School THE ROSY FINCH PROJECT:
SITE FIDELITY IN ROSY FINCHES?
Sponsors: Steve and Nancy Cox
The Black Rosy-finch (Leucosticte atrata), Gray-crowned Rosy-finch (Leucosticte
tephrocotis), and Brown-capped Rosy-finch (Lecosticte australis) breed in high
alpine tundra mountain ranges above 9,000 feet and migrate south in winter to
lower elevations. Every year, Rosy-finches are present at the Sandia Crest
House, located at the top of the Sandia Mountain range. Little is known about
these bird species, including whether site fidelity is present, or if the same
individuals return each year to the same location. The primary goal in this
research project is to learn the Rosy-finch population in the Sandia Mountain
range has site fidelity. In this project, a live walk-in trap, specially devised
for this project, is used. The trap is attached to a string that simultaneously
triggers two doors when pulled. The doors and entrap the finches within. The
finches are then retrieved within a few seconds of the trap being closed. A
metal band is secured around the right tarsus. Each band has a specific number
identifying each bird as an individual. Next, measurements and weight are
recorded fat content and feather composition are observed. The birds
subsequently are released safely. This project will continue for as many years
as necessary to obtain data from recaptured finches. If a large percentage of
finches are recaptured in more than one consecutive year, this may prove that
Rosy-finches present in the Sandia Mountains do indeed have site fidelity. If a
large percentage of the finches are not recaptured in more than one consecutive
year, this may mean that the finches do not have site fidelity. In the latter
case, more years of data collection will be needed. Either way, this data will
be new to ornithological science and will contribute to further knowledge about
Rosy-finches.