Bird Checklist Available for Scenic Niobrara Valley

Bald Eagle, adult and nestling. All photographs courtesy of the National Park Service/Stuart Schneider.

A bird checklist for the Niobrara National Scenic River is available now from the National Park Service. It is a single over-sized sheet which lists the species and their known relative abundance and seasonal occurrence. There is a blank space with each, useful for marking which birds have been seen.

This list will be useful for the casual birder to record species observed along the river, perhaps as they float along the placid waters.

There are some species that occur in this portion of the river valley which aren't on the list. They include the following, which are given as suggestions for inclusion in a subsequent version of the checklist.

• Cackling Goose: noted in February 2006 at Turpin Lake, northwest of Bassett, and expected where flocks of the Canada Goose occur during the winter
• Canvasback: in July 2002, along the scenic river in Cherry county
• Neotropic Cormorant: in May 2001, also in Cherry county
• Great Egret: in May 1986 on the river near Fred Thomas WMA
• Merlin: in 1981 along the river in Cherry County, and October 2004 at Borman Bridge WMA
• Broad-tailed Hummingbird: noted by a Nebraska birder in May 2008, along the river in Rock County
• American Pipit: observed in October 2005 at Fort Niobrara NWR

One glaring omission is the Winter Wren. There are several records of this feathered mite — an uncommon, yet iconic species present primarily during the winter — at places where groundwater flows provide open water, even during the coldest weather. This species also occurred late one spring at Fort Niobrara NWR.

Red Crossbill, male.

The Tundra Swan, Common Raven, Tufted Titmouse and American Dipper have also been recorded in past times, but are understandably not included as there has not been any modern occurrence.

A species recently added to the valley avifauna is also not yet listed as it has just recently been seen. A Pygmy Nuthatch was noted in November 2011 at Smith Falls State Park, by NPS staff.

There are a few names improperly presented, such as yellowlegs being given as yellow-legs. Wood-Pewee is preferable to the list's use of Wood Pewee. The "McCowan's" Longspur includes an obvious typographic error, and Brewer's is the proper spelling for the blackbird. The short version of the common name is given for what is now the Eastern Whip-poor-will.

There is no indication of the potential for bird hybridization among the buntings and orioles, for example, and which could have been done with a few words in the introductory paragraph. The use of a typographic mark could have been used to mark those species with which this might occur.

The Niobrara National Scenic River extends 76 miles from southeast of Valentine to the Highway 7 bridge north of Bassett. A diverse variety of habitats in the area provide an interesting landscape for casual or serious bird watching.

Red-breated Nuthatch.

No Further NET Funding for Carter Lake Project

The following comments were submitted via email to the Nebraska Environmental Trust for consideration by members of the board.

The Nebraska Environmental Trust should not provide any further funding for the Carter Lake Restoration and Rehabilitation Project, project number 11-174-2.

This project though it is expressed as a water quality/fisheries project is primarily a fisheries project, to the exclusion of other uses of the lake, as has become apparent after closely following this project during the past few months. Numerous documents have also been reviewed to provide additional specifics used to develop this conclusion.

Particular pertinent items to convey, include one item or another, and indicate a common thread of a single purpose project with only just one purpose, despite what additional empty words were submitted in the grant application.

The Omaha City Council accepted and approved a bid for the project. The council would not have approved a bid unless sufficient funding was available. Thus, there is no need for the NET to provide any further dollars as the bid would not have been approved if sufficient funds were not available to cover the expected cost.

If this is a water quality project, why has nothing been done to address runoff from Eppley Airfield at the east side of the lake. There are several drains from this site, yet the project does not include any features to address its runoff which could include oil, gasoline and other transportation-related things.

The inclusion of bank stabilization, dredging to increase water depth, dumping rip-rap to create groins, removal of unwanted fish and placing breakwaters are conveyed as being beneficial for improving the fishing resource. Yet, there has been no evaluation of how these features will impact current values of the lake.

Placing more than 12,000 tons of rock — based upon bid specifications — in Carter Lake is not an improvement. It is a focused effort that will degrade the quality of this oxbow lake — with a history dating to 1877 — and create an unsightly lake of an industrial sort. Rather than finding environmentally benign options, the project proponents accepted the use of rip-rap which is in no manner conducive to a naturalistic setting.

This project appears to be nothing more than an effort to subsidize fishing, to the exclusion of other values.

Funds provided by the Nebraska Environmental Trust should reflect a holistic view, rather than providing a subsidy to two state agencies so they might be able to sell some more fishing licenses.

The primary runoff feature is in the northwest corner of Levi Carter Park. The pond will be dramatically altered because of this focus. The pond is now an important micro-habitat for birds but will cut-apart, once bisected by four fill structures of an immense extent of rock meant to impede water flows. Work associated with the placement of the necessary rock riprap will also clear vegetative growth along the pond's shore, causing further degradation. During many bird surveys in the area, the fowl like the pond setting and swim along freely, and massive amounts of rock will create a changed habit. There was no consideration presented in the planning documents as to how this alteration would impact the avifauna associated with the pond.

The in-lake breakwaters to be dumped into the lake will negatively impact use of the lake by waterfowl. The birds will no longer be able to swim to these portions of the lake, so the habitat important to their survival has been constricted.

These communications have included concerns regarding just one groin at the northeast part of the lake. This one bunch of rock is among the more than twenty to be placed in the lake waters, and for the inane reason given by the state agency staff: people do not like to fish from the bank.

Most of the project proponents have not been interested in any sort of compromise to exclude one groin to provide a setting conducive for signage that would recognize the Sandy Griswold Bird Sanctuary, established in the latter 1920s - then forgotten and unknown for decades — until newly expressed in an editorial published in the Omaha World-Herald. Numerous discussions have occurred with staff of the NGPC about one groin and birdlife of the lake. One discussion in this regard - concerning one unnecessary groin — occurred with an senior administrator of the NGPC occurred on November 17, 2011. Even after nearly two months, he did not respond, despite expressive comments that he would. Subsequent inquiries as to the status of this met with no reply other than a decision had not been made.

The reality of bird use has been derived from more than fifty bird surveys done about Carter Lake since late March, 2011. Even though staff with NGPC has been told of this effort, they have continually ignored these facts.

Use of the lake by birds has not been considered in any manner by project proponents. Based upon numerous communications, this is readily apparent, especially based upon comments from staff at the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Staff have said — again and again — that the lake is not important for birds. This is an erroneous opinion.

How incorrect they are, since when it comes to bird use they have no current information and have not shown any interest in considering the known aspects of fowl at the lake in the past few months.

It is now obvious that the NGPC staff have made a decision based upon a focus on fisheries, and have no interest in considering other values and uses that can be derived from the waters of Carter Lake.

The history of this cutoff lake date to origins in 1877. Changes again and again have altered this oxbow, and reduced its value to migratory birds. Least terns and piping plover formerly raised young here. Bird enthusiasts conducted numerous surveys in the latter 1920s and subsequent years to document bird use. None of this history has been considered in the current, short-sided planning for a project designed to reduce the value of the lake for birds, which is a perspective derived from three decades of studies of birds and the habitats where they occur.

Carter Lake has had a greater extent of bird use by some species during the past few months. This is based upon an evaluation of details from Missouri River valley sites from Desoto NWR and southward to Lake Contrary, near St. Joseph, Missouri.

Also worth considering is the response due to the removal of the unwanted fish from the lake. There was a "great bloom of growth" by aquatic vegetation. Then boaters complained, so a boat was used to clear away the plants. Yet this is an essential reason for the ongoing occurrence of many sorts of waterfowl.

This is disingenuous. The project proponents wanted to improve water quality, and when it happened and water flora flourished, they did not like the results. This indicates, again, a weak plan which deserves not further funding from the NET.

Considering bank stabilization, this is another questionable project feature. Carter Lake has a very consistent water level, as maintained by a pump. During bicycle rides along the lake shore, there have been no problematic bank erosion noted. The plan calls for placing tons of ugly rock along the bank, without any consideration given to how the currently sufficient situation is foraging habitat for birds and more aesthetic than glaring piles of rock! An option was given to where the rock would not get covered by earth which would at least make it have an appearance more suitable for the park setting.

The number of groins proposed is excessive. More than twenty of these will be built, with most along the east shore of the lake, and a spaced just a short distance apart. The extent of these intrusive constructs is another indication that this is primarily a project with an intent to promote fishing, i.e., a subsidy for selling fishing licenses. The reason for these is that apparently people do not like fishing from the bank. So a massive amount of rock riprap will be dumped into a lake to make it easier to fish, but without any consideration of how these intrusions will change the lake's condition.

Quarterly reports provided by the entity which has already received money are incomplete. There is nothing given in the two most recent reports which indicate a number of email communications which expressed concerns or provided up-to-date options for project modifications. The response was that the project was already designed and would not be changed, no matter what might have changed. This indicates a blatant disregard to public input and any interest in utilizing the best possible design.

There was no public meeting for the final project design where the proposed options could be presented, discussed and suitably considered. This is another obvious disregard of public involvement. A public meeting to discuss project goals and a timeline is being held in mid-January, but none was held to receive final comments on project options, or to accept plan improvements. There should have been such a meeting for project planners to hear comments regarding the massive changes to occur to the lake and adjacent Levi Carter Park, an appreciated public green space.

The project website also has not given details of any significance. Any details presented have been trite and lacking in detail. So there has obviously been an ineffective effort to inform the public. Yet this project relies upon millions of public dollars!

This project does not convey any effort to consider all aspects of the project environment about Carter Lake. It is instead focused upon one particular intent — fishing — with additional inadequate measures for another project purpose thrown to convey benefits which are dubious or only partially implemented.

The results will establish an industrial lake — changed from a Missouri river oxbow to a setting created by engineers sitting at their desks — which does not reflect a multiuse project beneficial to the environment.

It would be wrong for the Nebraska Environmental Trust to provide any additional funds for this project. Site plans convey a design which will degrade the lake environs. The NET promotes project which benefit the environment and are done in a thoughtful manner. The Carter Lake project does not — in many ways — conform with the standards of broad-based and multi-purpose projects which are beneficial to the general populace which provide the NET its funds.

There are a multitude of other proposals which could derive a greater benefit if funded. The Nebraska Environmental Trust should not be involved with any project that has an obvious bias, which misrepresents project purposes, which avoids public scrutiny, and that will result in an overall negative impact to a unique oxbow lake of Missouri River valley.

La Platte Bottoms Bird Observations During 2011

For the La Platte Bottoms, 2011 was a period of dramatic change. Especially prominent was construction associated with the new freeway alignment directly through its midst, and then came the great flood.

Birders on an outing for observe what might be about made the first known visit on February 20th. During March to the end of May, nearly twenty visits were reported. There were then three visit dates for June, and then the great flood occurred. It wasn't until October that any reports of the birds present could be done, as access had been restricted. The roads were blocked to watchers, though undoubtedly there were birds present.

There were at least 94 distinct species reported for this locality. The tally is skewed towards waterfowl and waterbirds, but a few observations of other species were indicated. Ducks were prevalent with an expressive variety of shorebirds also present.

One particular highlight was the Eurasian Wigeon seen in mid-May during the Sarpy County spring count. Phone call communication brought many local birders to the scene to appreciate this vagrant.

Among the waterfowl, was a hybrid Blue-winged Teal x Cinnamon Teal, also noted in earlier May. Other species noted only once or twice during the year include the Canvasback, Horned Grebe, Eared Grebe, Least Bittern, and Common Moorhen, which represent waterbirds. More than 30 Semipalmated Plover on April 30th, was a distinct occurrence, noted during the days when a Black-necked Stilt and Willet were also observed. In mid-May, a Stilt Sandpiper was added to the site bird-list for the year.

Other occurrences matching this criteria were the Cooper's Hawk, Golden Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, and others. During the year, a single recorded instance of the Downy Woodpecker in latter November indicates a bias in species occurrence. The same perspective applies to the availability of only one record each for the Eastern Kingbird, Western Kingbird, American Crow, as well as the Brown Thrasher. Add in single reports of the Savannah Sparrow, Lincoln's Sparrow and White-crowned Sparrow. There was only one report of the American Goldfinch.

Each of these birds are relatively common in the area, yet rarely noted for the La Platte Bottoms as the focus is on shorebirds, waterbirds and waterfowl.

If there was greater access to the habitat of the area -especially the wooded areas - there would be a subsequent increase on the species reported.

Without the contributions of many area bird watchers, as expressed especially on the NEBirds online forum as well as personal bird surveys, this report could not have been prepared. The birders' efforts are gratefully acknowledged and appreciated as important contributions to ongoing history of ornithology in Nebraska, and since they indicate the value of the wild habitat remnants within the valley of the Missouri River.

There have been at least 144 different species recorded at the La Platte bottoms, since 1980 when local birders realized the place was a site that attracted birds of interest to watchers of the various species. Considering 2010 and 2011, the tally is 117 species.

This is a list of the species known to occur at the wetlands north of the Platte River confluence, during 2011.

Species with an asterisk (*) are new additions for this locality Greater White-fronted Goose Snow Goose Cackling Goose Canada Goose Gadwall Eurasian Wigeon American Wigeon Mallard Blue-winged Teal Northern Shoveler Northern Pintail Green-winged Teal Canvasback Redhead Ring-necked Duck Lesser Scaup Bufflehead Ruddy Duck Pied-billed Grebe Horned Grebe Eared Grebe American White Pelican Double-crested Cormorant Least Bittern Great Blue Heron Great Egret Green Heron White-faced Ibis

Turkey Vulture Bald Eagle Northern Harrier * Cooper's Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Golden Eagle * American Kestrel Peregrine Falcon Sora Common Moorhen American Coot American Golden-Plover Semipalmated Plover Killdeer Black-necked Stilt * Spotted Sandpiper Greater Yellowlegs Willet Lesser Yellowlegs Hudsonian Godwit Sanderling Semipalmated Sandpiper Least Sandpiper White-rumped Sandpiper Baird's Sandpiper Pectoral Sandpiper Dunlin Stilt Sandpiper Long-billed Dowitcher Wilson's Snipe Wilson's Phalarope Red-necked Phalarope Franklin's Gull Bonaparte's Gull * Ring-billed Gull

Least Tern Black Tern Forster's Tern Mourning Dove Belted Kingfisher Downy Woodpecker Western Kingbird Eastern Kingbird American Crow * Horned Lark Purple Martin Tree Swallow Bank Swallow Cliff Swallow Barn Swallow Eastern Bluebird American Robin Brown Thrasher * European Starling American Pipit Yellow-rumped Warbler * Savannah Sparrow Lincoln's Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow * Red-winged Blackbird Eastern Meadowlark Yellow-headed Blackbird Common Grackle Great-tailed Grackle Brown-headed Cowbird American Goldfinch

Contractors Deface Trees at Omaha Park

Private contractors working for the city of Omaha were found to be defacing trees in Spring Lake Park on January 10th. They were responsible for mapping trees larger than nine inches diameter, and used the paint to indicate those which had been done. Both guys claimed the paint was temporary, but could not indicate how long it would remain.

They would not consider using an option which would be completely temporary and not deface the trees in the city park.

Vehicle driven by the two guys defacing trees in the park

Dozens of trees had been vandalized with a slash.

Opposition and displeasure to the use of paint was subsequently expressed at the downtown office of the Public Works Department, which is responsible for the activity, associated with the CSO! project pending for the park.

It was found out later that the contractor had been told to use some temporary mark, such as plastic ribbon that could be removed once the survey was done. A Public Work employee did inform the contractor that the use of spray paint was to be stopped immediately.

The two guys responsible for defacing the trees, as well as their supervisor that okayed the use of paint, should have to atone for their actions. They should each spend four hours picking up trash in Spring Lake Park.

Considering a Stormwater Grant Request Involving Spring Lake Park

The following comments were submitted via email to the Nebraska Environmental Trust for consideration by members of the board.

The following comments regard the Nebraska Environmental application submitted by the Public Works Department of the city of Omaha: Spring Lake Pond Restoration, Phase 4, grant number 12-146.

The applicant requests $3.142 million, with small amounts attributed to partners ($10,000 from Papio NRD; $2,320 from Keep Omaha Beautiful and $15,904 from Spring Lake Park neighborhood groups (which are inkind services rather than actual funds), and which are an insignificant portion of the more than $11 million total expected cost for this specific project, with a proposed spring 2014 start.

There are a number of reasons why NET funds should be not be provided for this application. Based upon a close review of the grant application, particular and obvious concerns occur. This grant applications uses opinion to convey benefits, with assumptions based on false premises, has a lack of specific details on how funds would be spent, promotes change though the current situation suits the park, conveys a blatant degradation of the current park setting, all based upon the lack of a final design.

Some of these comments were originally prepared November 15, 2011, after having attended a public meeting which presented a "10%" plan for the CSO project as its involves Spring Lake Park. There were public comments given that evening at South High School which conveyed a community perspective. There have also been further considerations, with additional comments prepared in January 2012 after further review of the grant application submitted to the NET. There was also a meeting of discussion with project planners — at their email request as attended via a bicycle ride in mid-morning — on January 9 when these comments were conveyed, and considered further in a collaborative manner.

The apparent plan as known in mid-January 2012, reflects an unknown design and changeable design. If the project design is only ten percent completed, how can an application state with any accuracy the expected results from any grant funds. With only a small portion of the design known, any project plan cannot accurately convey the final design with the details necessary to indicate how money would be spent on specific features, rather than concepts as presented in the reviewed application.

NET should not provide money to a project that would negatively impact a unique and historically significant Omaha park. The Trust should not provide funds for this grant, especially since the presented plan is incomplete and vague.

Particular items to consider, include the following specific items.

The $3+ million requested from NET is a large and significant portion of cost for this Omaha project. The applicant should pursue other sources as there are many other proposals which could benefit from the dollars which might be used for one project.

Project proponents did not adequately announce the early November meeting — nothing was seen in the newspaper or on a regularly watched television station? Yet, the project conveys that community awareness is one of its more important features.

How does the stormwater project preserve the meadow and sparse wetlands as specifically recognized in a document prepared years ago in association with recognition of parkland features?

"Wetland, pond, and dry detention facilities will enhance wildlife habitat within the park" - this is conjecture as there are no particular details given on how it would be achieved.

"Wetland, pond, and dry detention facilities will keep the uniqueness of a natural area within an urban park" says the grant application. This is a twisted claim. Newly constructed features cannot keep any uniqueness within the park, as they would be new and something new cannot retain any sort of unique aspect because they have never been present.

The park is unique because of its woodland features, and any mention of wetlands, a pond or dry detention item indicates that the project would create something and the creators could say it is unique. A piece of distinctive trash thrown along a street could potentially derive great value for its uniqueness, but would it really mean anything?

The application states: "Does not cause harm to the environment and results in a net gain for the environment because it enhances existing wetlands, provides additional wildlife habitat, and improves stormwater quality." This is a mish-mash of perspectives that should be addressed individually. There will be no enhancement to existing wetlands, because based upon the "10% plan" the existing wetlands would be inundated, and which is obviously no enhancement but an outright destruction. Any newly created wetlands would increase habitat diversity and perhaps increase the variety of flora and fauna. It does not provide additional wildlife habitat, but provides a different mix of habitats. There is no additional property that would be included because of this proposed project. It is proposed for certain tracts within a constricted area, thus nothing more. As for improving stormwater quality. Making sure that stormwater runoff is not tainted with sewage is an obvious improvement, and would occur even without altering the Spring Lake park environs.

Information within the grant application does not present any details on the wildlife present — especially the wild birds — so how can project proponents indicate any sort of enhancement?

If the park cannot be kept clean of trash and free of tires now, how would the project result in making the place more attractive or discourage illegal dumping? Park cleanups in recent years have never accomplished the goal of completely removing unwanted trash or debris from the park woods. A POP-TOP document was personally prepared many years ago about the pervasive trash in three Omaha parks, including Spring Lake Park. Nothing has changed, with tires still a prominent feature, as well as trash from runoff from city streets.

How will project address ongoing erosion due to runoff into park from the corner at 18th and G Street? This is now a dangerous situation for hikers in the park woods. It seems that project designers are aware of this unacceptable situation, though the engineered solution is unknown.

It is not possible to improve water quality in the park, as the only water now in the park is spring water, and it does not need any improvement! This is another example of a false claim.

What is the depth of the proposed pond just north of F Street; what type of fishery would it provide? How much of the present woods need to be inundated to provide any sort of fishing experience. The tradeoff is not acceptable.

What are the infiltration basins, proposed for just south of F Street? These constructs would appear to impact the woods, and the actual influence is unknown.

A given reason for bonus points is: "Recognizes community and economic values that may affect conservation action and designs appropriate actions to enhance attainment and sustainability of resource objectives." This statement is basic mumbo-jumbo which conveys nothing of any sustenance or indicates actual measures which a grant might finance.

This project would not supplement or enhance groundwater — though this is mentioned as a bonus feature. And as if this means anything in this area anyway where there is no use of groundwater and no recognition given now to its occurrence!

How does this project help sustainability of resources? This is an opinion of the grant writer.

The habitat in the park does not need the type of so-called enhancement as indicated for the project; "Significant tree removal required -- an indicated five acres -- for the middle pond" — with removal of shrubs to increase visibility also mentioned. The park setting is just fine now, and could continue in its present condition for decades without either of these two proposals as given in the grant application.

The grant proposal says that in order to make the site more attractive, underbrush would have to be cleared. Habitat is not enhanced by clearing underbrush, so any claim associated with this item, is a biased opinion.

How many tons of "ugly" rock would be used with the constructs of this project and get dumped into this green space? The many stormwater drains proposed will cut through the woods, fragmenting this feature, and seemingly require constructs on the low end to dissipate the runoff in a manner which would not result in erosion. There is no indication of how this would be accomplished in a manner conducive to a park space. Cement boxes of the sort newly placed in Elmwood Park, do not — in any manner — enhance the natural setting currently present. The new box at Elmwood may work to retard stormwater runoff, but the results of its design include a prime condition to create a mosquito breeding nuisance.

A 450' riprap channel - four feet wide, 2 feet high and deep - is not a feature conducive to a park setting, yet this would be installed to provide a drainage channel for the middle pond.

Spring Lake Park has a bird history of more than 120 years. The first known notes on birds are from June 1890. More than 100 species have been subsequently recorded, primarily since 2000, as derived from nearly fifty personal surveys. The grant proposal does not even recognize this resource, though it does refer to subtropical birds. There are no such species of this sort, which occur anywhere near Omaha. Perhaps the grant writer meant neotropic migrants.

The grant indicates a plan of intent for changing habitats, yet there is no evaluation of how the proposed changes would impact the local avifauna within the park.

The pond proposed just north of F Street will inundate several distinct springs; there are none similar in any other Omaha park — existing wetlands and brooks are not enhanced by inundation. The plan does not enhance existing wetlands, it inundates the scant bits now present! To create this pond and its adjacent walkway, trees would have to be cleared and it would require "slicing away" slopes so a cement sidewalk -- which would increase runoff -- could be provided for an occasional walker(s).

The project developers, at the public meeting, had not even considered alternative pond sites, especially south of F Street where there would be no impact on the native woodland habitat and springs. The city was averse to this particular site - -- an unused portion of the park -- because it would also require cleaning up a historic landfill. Removing the landfill material and placing the pond there would an obviously preferential option.

Many of the proposed project items do not necessarily represent Best Management Practices; educational signage would be nothing but an opinion of an erroneous sort. Anyone can claim that inundating natural springs is a best management practice, but that is an entirely false assertion. Destroying an ever-flowing brook is not a best management practice! Removing natural earthern features and their native flora is not a best management practice. Clearing shrubs and trees - prominently used by native fauna - is not a best management practice.

Several members of the Omaha Audubon Society familiar with the park are opposed to any changes which would ruin the natural setting of the park and be detrimental to the bird life. They would especially not like to see any inundation of the natural springs and the resultant creek or brooks.

These particular items are a multitude of reasons why this grant should not receive any funds from the Nebraska Environmental Trust.

The city of Omaha is using Spring Lake Park as a means to an end. They have not adequately considered the current natural features of this park, but instead consider it a place to render into a "facility" to assist with stormwater runoff problems.

Spring Lake Park is a historic place of significance, yet is being blithely considered as a public property suitable to address a current mandate to address stormwater runoff. A park is a park, and should not be drastically altered just because it is there.

Are there are other alternatives being ignored since a park site is convenient and can be altered? A park is a park and not property to convert to a stormwater site.

These comments were presented to project planners including city of Omaha officials, a project designer and a resident of the neighborhood, during a one hour meeting on the morning of January 9th.

Snowy Owl Reportage - 1875-1885

Newspaper accounts during 1875-1885 report visits by the Snowy Owl, from the Arctic north. There are many indications of local instances of some of its presence.

The irruption in the winter of 1876-1877 was well reported.

It was a "mild and open season," for the winter, according to a weather almanac report from Montreal written by Henry G. Vennor. Snowy owls had wandered as far south as Washington, D.C. There was also a southward migration of the Great Gray Owl and Bohemian Waxwings.

Another report of the white owl was December 1876, for the Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania area. The local paper said: "... to judge from the number which have been shot in neighboring counties, we should fancy that they are about as numerous as sparrows. Half of our exchanges contain reports of the shooting of these owls."

In Montreal in January, 1877: "People happening to pass through the Place d'Armes, in front of the French Cathedral have witnessed a sight rarely seen in this or indeed any other city; viz.: Two, three or even more individuals of the Snowy or White Arctic owl species, perched upon the eaves of the bank buildings or flying from place to place on the opposite sides of the square."

The report continued, indicating these owls were being reported not only in Canada, but southward through the northern and middle United States. Many were being sold in local markets, according to the Montreal Witness.

Specimens were also taken at Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., according to another report. In Philadelphia, forty were sent to taxidermist John Krider.

The extent of the owl's occurrence is concise in this statement from an observer on the east coast: "I have heard of some five hundred specimens that have been seen, the majority which have been shot."

Worth considering were large numbers of these owls first appeared at New England about the first of November, 1877, according to a journalistic report. Dozens of owls got shot and "sent to the markets and to taxidermists." Fifteen were seen on a small island off the coast of Rockport, Massachusetts. In Maine, they appeared in September, with more than 150 shot in the vicinity of Portland.

Towards the end of the winter, an extent of the irruption is given in these few words: "A taxidermist during the past winter stuffed 176 snow owls, shot on the Long Island coast."

Another southward movement was in the early 1880s.

A bird taken late November 1880 was shot while perched on a telephone pole at North Hinsdale, Pennsylvania. The lifeless carcass got stuffed, attached to a perch — a seemingly inevitable fate — in multitude during these years.

One well-done specimen was a prominent display in the window of an establishment at Brattleboro, Vermont. It was from north of Townshend, taken in the autumn of 1881, the carcass had gone through the regular process of becoming a mount, set in a window for show purposes. The dead animal's wing-span was 7½ feet.

The "handsomest members of the owl family" were being seen in large numbers in eastern New York state, according to news of early 1882: "It is the first winter in which they have been abundant in four years. They are in good demand for ornaments and ornithological collections, when stuffed."

One bird from the north was displayed in Waco, Texas, its story indicating: "In spite of its strange situation this bird peculiar to tropical regions, seemed much at home, and stared steadfastly and unblushingly with its single eye, into the faces of curious visitors."

An owl taken near the Scranton reservoir was being stuffed in the autumn of 1882 by a taxidermist at Lehigh University. Harfang was an alternate common name for the large white owl of the winter.

New York City in January, 1883 had a lively market. One business-district taxidermist said nine of his ten customers wanted to buy an owl, the New York Sun story said. Most of his stock was recently sold, with only a few screech owls left for a willing buyer with cash.

Two of the white owls were shot in Jersey City, with one each taken at Riker's Hospital and Bellevue Hospital, within the metropolis.

A stuffed snowy owl cost $25, with less "superb specimens" for "as low as $15, $12, and even $10." A great horned owl specimen could be bought for $10, or a barred owl for $6. The small-size screech owl was being sold for $2.50.

Another taxidermist in the big city was selling an owl a day.

The reason?

"Capt. William Fowler says the great increase of the owls popularity is due to the vast social, moral, and generally artistic and aesthetic influence of the 'Owl Club," which is wont to gather in 'the hollow tree roost: at the Knickerbocker Cottage at midnight, there — in the language of the call for their recent dinner — 'too eate, too drynke, too be merrie, to hoote ande too screeche l' ye barne.'" — New York Sun reporter depiction"

The original story headlines were "Minerva's Bird in Fashion. All Sorts of Stuffed Owls in Lively Demand at Extraordinary Prices." This report went national, published February in the Los Angeles Herald and the Washington D.C. Bee in March.

Newspaper Accounts

Snowy owls mentions from prior to 1885 are especially expressive records for birds among the historic chronicles. The "rags" are one of five primary sources. Two great values of any newspaper are the timely and wide-spread venue, as issued in nearly every major town and city. It would have been a short walk from the post-office to the paper's office to spread the observations for a community story, soon printed. Prior to 1875 there were sporting journals with huntists tales, but nothing yet for an ornithological society. Bird journals were ready to fledge because of birdly endeavors in the eastern United States.

An editor — with so many across states and western frontier — had a focused interest, most ready for something to include on their daily or weekly pages. The page content is a wealth of details, with many an essential aspect of research in historic ornithology. Research derived from the millions of pages online has dramatically furthered known bird history.

Words from the past, mostly during the drab winter weeks, made white owls the news then. And the Snowy Owl is still news, once again.

A Legend of the Rock

This legend was taken from the journal of Paul Kane, as presented in Wanderings of an Artist, published in 1859. It was written after having left Vancouver Island, and while on the way to Nasqually, before ascending the Cowlitz River.

"June 14th [1847].—Whilst passing an isolated rock, standing six or seven feet high above the water, and a little more than four feet in circumference, the old chief asked me if I knew what it had originally been. On my replying in the negative, he told me the following legend:—

'It is many moons since a Nasqually family lived near this spot. It consisted of a widow with four sons,—one of them was by her first husband, the other three by the second. The three younger sons treated their elder brother with great unkindness, refusing him any share of the produce of their hunting and fishing; he, on the contrary, wishing to conciliate them, always gave them a share of his spoils. He, in fact, was a great medicine-man, although this was unknown to them, and, being tired of their harsh treatment, which no kindness on his part seemed to soften, he at length resolved to retaliate. He accordingly one day entered the lodge, where they were feasting, and told them that there was a large seal a short distance off. They instantly seized their spears and started in the direction he pointed out, and, coming up to the animal, the eldest drove his spear into it. This seal was 'a great medicine,' a familiar of the elder brother, who had himself created him for the occasion. The foremost of them had no sooner driven in his spear than he found it impossible to disengage his hand from the handle, or to draw it out; the two others drove in their spears with the like effect. The seal now took to the water, dragging them after it, and swam far out to sea. Having travelled on for many miles they saw an island in the distance, towards which the seal made. On nearing the shore they found, for the first time, they could remove their hands from their spears. They accordingly landed, and supposing themselves in some enemy's country, they hid themselves in a clump of bushes from observation. While lying concealed, they saw a diminutive canoe coming round a point in the distance, paddled by a very little man, who, when he came opposite to where they were, anchored his boat with a stone attached to a long line, without perceiving them. He now sprang over the side, and diving down, remained a long time under water. At length he rose to the surface, and brought with him a large fish, which he threw into the boat: this he repeated several times, each time looking in to count the fish he had caught. The three brothers being very hungry, one of them offered to swim out while the little man was under water, and steal one of the fish. This he safely accomplished before the return of the fisherman; but the little fellow no sooner returned with another fish than he discovered that one of those already caught was missing, and, stretching out his hand, he passed it slowly along the horizon, until it pointed directly to their place of concealment. He now drew up his anchor and paddled to the shore, and immediately discovered the three brothers, and being as miraculously strong as he was diminutive, he tied their hands and feet together and, throwing them into his canoe, jumped in and paddled back in the direction from whence he had come. Having rounded the distant point, where they had first descried him, they came to a village inhabited by a race of people as small as their captor, their houses, boats, and utensils being all in proportion to themselves.

'The three brothers were then taken out and thrown, bound as they were, into a lodge, while a council was convened to decide upon their fate. During the sitting of the council an immense flock of birds, resembling geese, but much larger, pounced down upon the inhabitants, and commenced a violent attack. These birds had the power of throwing their sharp quills like the porcupine, and although the little warriors fought with great valour, they soon became covered with the piercing darts and all sunk insensible on the ground. When all resistance had ceased the birds took to flight and disappeared.

'The brothers had witnessed the conflict from their place of confinement, and with much labour had succeeded in releasing themselves from their bonds, when they went to the battle ground, and commenced pulling the quills from the apparently lifeless bodies; but no sooner had they done this, than all instantly returned to consciousness. When all of them had become well again they wished to express their gratitude to their preservers, and offered to grant whatsoever they should desire. The brothers requested to be sent back to their own country. A council was accordingly called to decide on the easiest mode of doing so, and they eventually determined upon employing a whale for the purpose. The brothers were then seated on the back of the monster, and proceeded in the direction of Nasqually. However, when they had reached about half way, the whale began to think what a fool he was for carrying them instead of turning them into porpoises, and letting them swim home themselves. Now the whale is considered as a 'Soch-a-li-ti-yah,' or Great Spirit, although not the same as the 'Hias-Soch-a-li-tiyah,' or Great High Spirit, possessing greater powers than all other animals put together, and no sooner had he thought upon the matter than he carried it into effect. This, accordingly, is the way that the porpoises first came into existence, and accounts for their being constantly at war with the seals, one of which species was the cause of their misfortunes. After the three brothers had so strangely disappeared, their mother came down to the beach and remained there for days, watching for their return and bewailing their absence with tears. Whilst thus engaged one day the whale happened to pass by, and, taking pity on her distress, turned her into that stone.'

"I could not observe any very special peculiarity in the formation of this rock while paddling past it in a canoe; and, at least from the points of observation presented to my eye, no resemblance to the human figure, such as the conclusion of the legend might lead us to anticipate, appeared to be traceable. Standing, however, as this rock does, entirely isolated, and without any other being visible for miles around, it has naturally become an object of special note to the Indians, and is not uncalculated, from its solitary position, to be made the scene of some of the fanciful creations of their superstitious credulity."

Little Dallas, Columbia River.
Sketched — possibly September 23, 1947 — by Kane when likely twenty miles above Kettle Falls, near Fort Colville. This image reflects the character of the landscape which could result in tribal legends about rock features.