Saturday, December 23, 2006

Romance of the Wild


Pictures of Yosemite's Half Dome, Sargent's painting of the Delaware Water Gap, and movies like Dances with Wolves ingnite in many of us a yearning for a time before drastic human interference in the natural world. Banner Marsh is for me a window on that Eden. It is not a primeval marsh. It was once a strip mine that was reclaimed to the tune of 15 million dollars by the Army Corps of Engineers over a period of 10 years. But now you can see clear water and lots of fish. The birds fly free. Deer, muskrats, beaver, and coyotes wander at will living off the bounty of nature in the midst of our developed world.

This proximity of nature to civilization started me thinking about how I took my best picture of a Red-tailed hawk.

Red-Tailed Hawk taken near Banner Marsh, February 2006


These hawks, which I see along the highway every time I make the 15 mile trip to Banner from my house, do not mind perching next to busy highways to watch for their next meal. You spot a white blob near the top of a tree, on a fence post, near Hoerr's nursury, or on top of a highway light fixture as you wiz by. But they are elusive to photograph. The only way to get close to them long enough for a shot is to use the car as a blind and take the picture through an open window. If you are lucky, you have about 5 seconds to push the shutter release before they fly away.
I have observed many times that birds do not feel threatened by many of the trappings of civilization, including cars, highways, and power lines, but they do fear humans, whom they see as predators. This made me wonder: are these birds "wild"? Are they "living in a natural state" as the dictionary defines "wild"?
The feeling I have for the wildness of the marsh is related to the emotions I have when thinking about saving the Artic Wildlife Refuge, managing our national parks well, restoring prairies, and all the other worthy Nature Conservancy type of projects. It is emotionally necessary for me to feel that there are places that have been spared excesses of human development-- sanctuaries, places to begin anew.
This may be part of our brain's wiring, akin to the natural aversion to snakes and spiders many of us have. Everyone I know finds a little thrill in being the first to dip a knife into the fresh surface of a new jar of peanut-butter. It's fun to make the first tracks on a sandy beach or snowy hill. Before the footprints you see a wild, pure expanse of sand or snow; after footprints are made it becomes part of the known world, explored territory, and mundane.



LEFT:Snipe on snow, Banner Marsh December 2005.






BELOW: Marbled Godwit, Point Reyes , California, August 2005




Perhaps to ancient nomadic peoples, being first to mar the landscape equated with opportunity: prolific pasture, ample game, fertile soil, little human excrement, less disease, renewed vigor for the clan, and nobody to argue about territory. The economic benefits made up for having to leave familiar haunts. Perhaps people willing to venture into the unexplored were more likely to thrive during the hundreds of thousands of years that humans survived as hunter-gatherers.

Or, it may be more a factor of our national culture. Taking a chance on unknown wilderness is as American as apple pie. The Pilgrims, Daniel Boone, fur-trappers, settlers on Conestoga wagons, ranchers, farmers, and railroad men were all in their own way besotted with the Manifest Destiny of taming a new, wild land.
The downside of this strategy of always moving on to greener pastures is that there is a lot of garbage left behind. For small groups of hunter-gatherers, this was not a big deal. Deserted camps healed themselves over time, or could be used again by newcomers in later seasons or years. But slash and burn farming is an extension of this principle that can seriously degrade soil because the land does not have time to heal before it is needed again. The urban American equivalent of slash and burn occurs when we desert the inner-city neighborhoods and shopping areas and build new ones in the suburbs, allowing city centers to decay at great social and economic cost.
Photo by Hibdon Hardwood, Inc.1410 N. Broadway, St. Louis, MO
So while the idea of moving on, finding a better place, getting away from it all by losing oneself in unspoiled nature may be a natural instinct or a cultural imperative, it is one we can no longer afford. There are simply too many of us humans. We need to sustain the viability of the places we have. We cannot afford the luxury of thinking that we have wild places where we can begin anew.
Consider this. There is no place on the planet that is unaffected by human habitation. We have explored all of the land masses, and much of the oceans. Seals in the artic have been found to develop cancers due to toxins dumped in the oceans thousands of miles away from their breeding grounds. Global warming affects all life. Over grazing has converted large tracts of range land into deserts in North Africa. Midwestern and western states consume the pure water of their aquifers at an alarming rate to support agriculture that will not be sustainable in the long term.
No, I need to think about Yosemite, the Artic Wildlife Refuge, and Banner marsh not as romantic wild sanctuaries, but as models of sustainable ecosystems. If we do not learn the details of stability from these places, we will destroy ourselves and much of the life on the planet. They are not places to which we can escape from the disaster of our excesses. Instead, they contain the blueprint for our survival.



Thursday, December 14, 2006

A Wider View

After a snowbound week in early December, I finally got out to Banner on a crisp cold (below zero) day, glittering with hoar frost. The marsh was utterly quiet, empty except for a few red-tails roosting with fluffed out feathers. I reveled in snow pictures for an hour, and then went home to thaw out. Coffee in hand, I warmed up by the fire and dug out some summer/fall pictures and my new used copy of the Audubon Society Encyclopedia of Birds of North America. If you’re stuck inside on a cold day, you might as well enjoy some bird pictures.



One wading bird I had shots of in September, a Lesser Yellow-legs, intrigued me. I only had seen him in fall and in spring, so clearly he was a migrant. It was time to put a little information about him with his picture. On page 807 of the Encyclopedia I found this:

“Yellowlegs, lesser, Tringa flavipes,….In summer, Alaska and across Canada; one of the tattlers.. very noisy on nesting grounds at the approach of an intruder; ..in migration seen about coastal ponds and pools in salt marshes, inland on mudflats and on wet short-grass marshes with ponds…..in spring migrating north from Patagonia, arrives in Fla. in late Mar.; moves up both coasts in Apr-May but in far greater numbers up the western side of the Mississippi Valley;…arrives in nesting grounds in Canada in Apr-May.”

Patagonia to Canada! Wow! A journey of about 8000 miles twice a year! If they take from late March to May to get from Florida to Canada, they travel a little more than 2000 miles a month. Amazing! No wonder they don’t seem to hang around the marsh very long; they are on the move.

This would have rendered me speechless, except I wasn’t talking. If my little guy was a tour guide, what could he tell us about? So I decided to fill in the information a bit. What refuges and parks would be on the northward route from Patagonia? What landscapes and animals might my little yellowlegs have seen?

When I looked at the map, I realized that I knew very little of the landscape south of the border: the Andes, Brazilian rain forest, drug farms in Columbia, and the storm tossed straights of Magellan below Tierra del Fuego. That’s it. My knowledge is limited and certainly inaccurate.






So today I began my journey on the Internet to catch up with my Yellowlegs. The first item was to learn the names of the countries of South America. Then I used Wikipedia to locate national parks and wildlife refuges, complete with photographs copied from Google images. I have to guess about the exact route, and I haven’t even begun to investigate the influence of the trade winds on their flight, but I think I can safely assume that many of the Yellowlegs follow the coast and others surely make use of one of the largest wetland areas in the world, the Pantanal, which spreads from Paraguay and parts of Bolivia into southern Brazil. Anyway, here is a map with a few possibilities located on it, accompanied with pictures of the landscape and some of the local animals and birds that are permanent residents.










1. Tierra del Fuego National Park, Argentina












2. IguazĂș National Park
The Devil's Gorge, fed by the river IguazĂș, is a stunning waterfall 70 meters in height, which serves as a barrier separating two National Parks, one of which is in Argentina and the other in Brazil. Both have been declared World Heritage sites.







3. The Panatanal, Paraguay











4. The Pantanal, Bolivia















5. Manu National Park, Peru













6. Parque Nacional Tayrona, Columbia









7. Parque Nacional Jaragua Dominican Republic















8. Everglades National Park, Florida











9. Wheeler Wildlife Refuge, Alabama











10. Mississippi River Valley flyway












11. Wapusk National Park, Manitoba














It’s amazing to think that this innocuous little 9 ½ to 11 inch bird is a world class traveler with experience in ecosystems that are inhabited by animals adapted to the artic, temperate zones or the tropics: parrots, jaguars, beluga whales, polar bears, and the huge variety of species found in the Caribbean. They survive the journey twice a year, and pass on their navigational techniques to each new generation. That’s adaptability!