It is truly a shameful waste when a long-standing, respected organization throws away its principles, credibility and honor over politics. However, it appears that this very type of action is the latest and hottest trend in America’s popular campaign to become a Third World country.
A most recent member in this lemmings’ march to the sea is none other than the National Audubon Society who, for over 100 years, was known for its dedication to the natural world.
Science is apparently no longer an important consideration when public funding, national environmental policy and social engineering are at stake.
The headline that prompted this editorial read “Birds shifting northward” and I knew where the story was headed even before I started into the first paragraph. Nonetheless, I decided to give it a thorough read:
When it comes to global warming, the canary in the coal mine isn’t a canary at all. It’s a purple finch.
That was how the article began in my local paper but news services across the country gave column inches to this same “news” while offering personalized and customized slants for their specific readers. Here are two examples:
Study: Birds wintering farther north could signal climate change
Most Hoosiers delight in spying increasing numbers of robins and bluebirds braving Indiana winters, but researchers fear the wintering birds could be the canary in the coal mine signaling climate change.
Robins in winter a harbinger of global warming, Audubon Society study says
The first robin of spring usually warms the heart after a long winter in Colorado, but a study released last week by the National Audubon Society says the red-breasted harbingers have stopped leaving the state in the winter and herald warming of a different kind.
Regardless of local spin the judgment was reported in the same way. The Audubon Society had released a report in February of 2009 concluding that temperatures were rising in the U.S. due to global warming and birds were wintering farther north as a result.
The study put forth by Audubon may be interesting to read and it may even create some questions for further future investigation but there is no doubt that the overall conclusion was not science-based.
Excerpt:
Bird ranges can expand and shift for many reasons, among them urban sprawl, deforestation and the supplemental diet provided by backyard feeders. But researchers say the only explanation for why so many birds over such a broad area are wintering in more northern locales is global warming.
Frankly, there is neither the inclination nor the space to jump into the entire “global warming” debate in this article. Instead, we will simply look at that single conclusion noted above and ask one simple question of our own:
Is there any potential explanation, other than global warming, for the apparent winter migration changes reported in the Audubon study?
Each of the following discussions represents potential alternative explanations for their “conclusion”.
1. The data they used to form their conclusion may be unreliable.
Collecting wildlife survey data is very tricky business. An example that comes immediately to mind was the wide disparity of results that were noted when doing research for an article on mourning doves a few years ago.
Four different types of studies were used at the time to gauge mourning dove population status including the Mourning Dove Call-Count Survey (CCS), the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), individual state harvest surveys, and the federal Harvest Information Program (HIP) survey.
When reviewing those data sets we found that each of the survey methods produced a different depiction of mourning dove populations. Different surveys often equal different results.
It is important to understand that these surveys are, for the most part, conducted by wildlife professionals. The results are, nonetheless, unreliable or questionable on an individual basis.
(For a more detailed explanation, see Prairie State Dove Hunting in the Master Hunter Products archives).
So what does this have to do with the Audubon survey?
First, volunteers who are not trained professionals conduct the Audubon survey, also known as the Christmas Bird Count (CBC). Therefore, while their methodology may be similar across the country it may not necessarily be the same. Differing methods often result in different outcomes.
Second, the CBC groups are of variable size both across the nation and within specific locations over time. Differing numbers of eyes may detect differing numbers of birds; therefore it is questionable whether there is a correlation between results over space and time in a given year or sequence of years.
Third, the total number of participants has changed dramatically over the course of CBC activities. In example, when looking at the CBC count records for the purple finch (cited as the canary in the coal mine in our local paper) it shows that there were 6,162 observers reporting sightings during Count 65. Forty-three years later, in Count 108, there were 23,204 observers reporting sightings. Certainly, a difference of 17,000 pairs of eyes would make some difference in the number and location of sightings.
Fourth, the CBC can take place in any given location during a three-week period of time between mid-December and early January. I’ve lived and visited a vast number of places throughout this country and know first-hand that conditions can change – and sometimes drastically – over the course of those three weeks. Even if two winters are basically identical to one another, were the counts not conducted on the same date the results may certainly be different – regardless of changing bird activity.
Alternative explanation: It is most certainly possible that the data they used to form their conclusion may be unreliable.
2. A growth in the population and range of birds may be an explanation.
In basic terms, what the Audubon folks did in their research was take all the sightings for a given species and find the geographic center for those sightings. In example, if the southernmost sighting of a bird was in New Orleans, the northernmost sighting of that bird was in Chicago, the easternmost was near Augusta, GA and the westernmost was Oklahoma City then the geographic center of their “wintering” activity would be somewhere just north of Memphis.
Over the course of their 40-year review, the average geographic center for the entire list of birds moved north approximately 35 miles.
Just for the sake of argument let’s assume that this change in average geographic center is accurate. Let’s look at four birds on their list.
In 1975 there were 324 documented breeding pairs of peregrine falcons across the nation. In 2008 that number had climbed to an estimated 2,000-3,000 breeding pairs.
In 1963 there were 417 documented active bald eagle nests. In 1998 the estimate exceeded 5,748 active nests. Studies indicated that the population has been essentially doubling every 7-8 years.
There were less than 4,000 trumpeter swans known to exist in 1968. In 2000 that number had climbed to nearly 24,000 with an annual population growth of 5.9 percent.
In 1973 the national wild turkey population was estimated at 1.3 million birds. Today that number is in excess of 7 million.
There are over 300 species of birds on their list. Looking at only these four we see a population gain of almost 6 million birds and, as noted above, we have 17,000 more eyes looking for them.
Alternative explanation: It is most certainly possible that a growth in bird populations and the corresponding expansion of their ranges represents another possible explanation for the Audubon study conclusion.
3. A change in landscape characteristics and habitat may be an explanation.
Because the information was relatively easy to locate we looked at data regarding the land area and composition of forests in the United States as reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The specific information addressed the “inventory” of timber resources in the U.S.
Under the category of “all species” the USDA reported 103.7 billion cubic feet (bcf) of timber in the northern region of the United States in 1953. In 1997 that same region was reported to contain 214.3 bcf of timber. That represents a net gain of 110.6 bcf of standing timber.
In the southern region in 1953 the inventory contained 148.5 bcf of timber and in 1997 that inventory had changed to 256.4 bcf. That represents a net gain of 107.9 bcf of standing timber.
In the western region the 1953 inventory was 363.7 bcf while in 1997 that inventory was 365.1 bcf. That represents a net gain of 1.4 bcf of standing timber.
Altogether, that represents a net gain of 219.9 billion cubic feet of standing timber across the United States between 1953 and 1997.
Alternative explanation: It is most certainly possible that a change in landscape characteristics and habitat of that magnitude could represent yet another possible explanation for their conclusion.
Excerpt:
But researchers say the only explanation for why so many birds over such a broad area are wintering in more northern locales is global warming.
I can only wonder at the political agenda that must be driving these folks.
In this office it took no more than a couple hours of casual research to find three potential explanations other than “global warming”. More dedicated research would most certainly provide additional alternatives.
This entire topic brings to mind a quote by Mr. John Schulz, a wildlife research biologist for the Missouri Department of Conservation. When he was interviewed for the September 2003 dove article cited above he made an interesting and compelling comment:
“Implying that dove population trends are related to habitat changes is weak thinking and assumes that we understand what constitutes dove habitat,” Schulz said. “Although many have tried to define dove habitat, they have failed. Not only are ecosystems more complicated than we think they are, but they are also more complicated than we can think.”
The Audubon Pitch is an attempt to sell us a very large bottle of snake oil. Look beyond the label.