Birdingonthe.Net

Recent Postings from
The Arkansas Birding List

> Home > Mail
> Alerts

Updated on Friday, May 22 at 02:59 PM EST
The most recently received Mail is at the top.


Giant Ibis,©BirdQuest

22 May Re: Red-tailed Hawks [kjdillard ]
22 May LRRAS Saturday Walk; Painted Buntings [diane yates ]
22 May Black terns @ Lollie Bottoms [David Ray ]
22 May Re: white-winged dove [Jacque Brown ]
22 May Ruddy Turnstone Centerton fish hatchery. 5/22/15 12:45 [Jacque Brown ]
22 May CAW Grass Farm [Dan Scheiman ]
22 May Red-tailed Hawks [Lenore ]
22 May Re: Ruddy turnstones [David Ray ]
22 May Ruddy turnstones [Ryan Risher ]
22 May Cicada hatch [Charles Anderson ]
22 May white-winged dove [Terry Butler ]
22 May Re: More on the 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax and how it impacts birds [Bill Thurman ]
22 May Sundown Snapper [diane yates ]
21 May Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax [Jodi Morris ]
21 May High Flyers [Bill Thurman ]
21 May Re: More on the 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax and how it impacts birds [Janine Perlman ]
21 May More on the 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax and how it impacts birds [Barry Haas ]
21 May Murray mulberries [Karen Konarski-Hart ]
21 May Conservation Tax Discussion [diane yates ]
21 May Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax [Richard Baxter ]
21 May Windows to Wander About [diane yates ]
21 May Re: Joyce Hartmann's Birding License [diane yates ]
21 May Re: Joyce Hartmann's Birding License [Joyce Hartmann ]
21 May Re: Counting the Crested Caracara [Karen And Jim Rowe ]
21 May Re: Counting the Crested Caracara [Sarah Morris ]
21 May Re: Counting the Crested Caracara [Will Britton ]
21 May Re: Do I exist? [Jamie Gwin ]
20 May Re: Thibault Rd [Will Britton ]
20 May Re: Nature PBS 7 pm Greater Sage-Grouse is featured. [Ellen Fennell ]
20 May Re: Mud Drive - from a farmer's perspective [Karen And Jim Rowe ]
20 May Re: Thibault Rd [Jonathan Perry ]
20 May Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax [Jeffrey Short ]
20 May Mud Drive - from a farmer's perspective ["Anderson, Leif E -FS" ]
20 May Nature PBS 7 pm Greater Sage-Grouse is featured. [Jacque Brown ]
20 May Re: Another White-winged Dove in Benton County [Jacque Brown ]
20 May Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax [Jack and Pam ]
20 May Joyce Hartmann's Birding License [diane yates ]
20 May Shorebirds at Centerton this morning ["Joseph C. Neal" ]
20 May Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax [Joe Mosby ]
20 May Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax [Keith de Noble ]
20 May Another White-winged Dove in Benton County ["Joseph C. Neal" ]
20 May Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax [Joyce Hartmann ]
20 May Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax [Janine Perlman ]
20 May Thibault Rd [Bob Harden ]
20 May 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax [Barry Haas ]
20 May Re: On Mowing... [Joyce Hartmann ]
20 May Re: Mud Drive [Jim and Karen Rowe ]
20 May Re: Mud Drive - can we have your support? [Jim and Karen Rowe ]
20 May FW: On Mowing... [Butch Tetzlaff ]
20 May On Mowing... [diane yates ]
20 May Re: Mud Drive [Butch Tetzlaff ]
20 May Re: Mud Drive [ ]
19 May Hawks ID'd [Alyson Hoge ]
19 May Red Slough Bird Survey - May 19 [David Arbour ]
19 May Re: Mud Drive [Jonathan Perry ]
19 May Re: Mud Drive [Jeffrey Short ]
19 May Photo ID help needed [Alyson Hoge ]
19 May Nightjars [diane yates ]
19 May Mud Drive [Janine Perlman ]
19 May Bill and Nightjars [diane yates ]
19 May Nightjars [diane yates ]
19 May Re: Mud Drive - can we have your support? [Karen And Jim Rowe ]
19 May Nightjar Surveys, begging for help, May 25th - June 8th ["Anderson, Leif E -FS" ]
18 May Nighthawk [Bill Thurman ]
18 May Re: Mud Drive - can we have your support? [Jeffrey Short ]
18 May Re: White-winged Dove [Jacque Brown ]
18 May Mud Drive - can we have your support? [Jim and Karen Rowe ]
18 May Re: THE SHRIKES OF CENTERTON [Bill Thurman ]
18 May THE SHRIKES OF CENTERTON ["Joseph C. Neal" ]
18 May Re: Fallout, or "Thanks to All! ["George R. Hoelzeman" ]
18 May Re: Fallout, or "Thanks to All! [Jeffrey Short ]
18 May starling behavior [ ]
17 May Fallout, or "Thanks to All! ["George R. Hoelzeman" ]
17 May Weekend trip to Arkansas - Report [Aaron Balogh ]
17 May Lake F'ville warblers from Joanie Patterson ["Joseph C. Neal" ]
17 May Nighthawks [d goodpasture ]

Subject: Re: Red-tailed Hawks
From: kjdillard <kjdillard AT SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 14:57:23 -0500
    
Who took the great photo?
Karyn Dillard 


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Lenore  
Date: 05/22/2015  11:46 AM  (GMT-06:00) 
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 
Subject: Red-tailed Hawks 

The Red-tailed Hawk chicks that made the Arkansas Democrat Gazette yesterday. 
..one of the chicks is at the top of the tree trying out his wings.  This is 
in downtown Little Rock. 


Lenore from work downtown LR
Sent from my iPhone
Subject: LRRAS Saturday Walk; Painted Buntings
From: diane yates <maribird AT OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 18:55:16 +0000
I’ve been getting 2 female painted buntings after a gorgeous male first came 
to call. Don’t know where he’s hiding but sometimes I hear him sing. The 
females come to the deck trays outside my window along with indigo buntings, A. 
goldfinches and the occasional blue grosbeak that will spook if I so much as 
scratch my chin. 



For those planning to join us on the Gulf Mountain drive/walk tomorrow--I will 
be at the Dunham’s store in Scotland a little before 8:00AM unless it’s 
pouring down rain throughout the north-central counties. We never know what the 
weather is like from one area to another. They have great coffee and sweet 
rolls as well as home-made egg/sausage biscuits for the hungrier among you. I 
birded a little later than usual today, drive-birding from 8:15 to 9:00, then 
walking the Auto Loop for another hour-and-a-half. Some of the birds that were 
still being sleepy-heads on the way up were singing and flitting around when I 
came back down the mountain. 



No shorebirds at Scotland Farms but lots of vireos, warblers, tanagers, 
flycatchers and a flock of cedar waxwingson the WMA; a pair of red-tailed hawks 
circling right over me against that beloved and never-so-appreciated blue sky. 
Most of the migrants have packed it north already but I haven’t stopped 
crossing all fours for a Canada- or mourning warbler. Without everybody (avian) 
singing at once it will be easier to concentrate on learning the individual 
songs and putting words to them where we can, funny or memorable phrases where 
we have only cadence to work with. If it doesn’t rain we should have a day 
much like today. I’m happy for those of you who went with Dan to the Grass 
Farm and wish I could’ve been among you. One time soon, I hope. Have a great 
birding weekend wherever you spend it and a heart-felt Memorial 
Day.--Dianemarie 







Marie
Subject: Black terns @ Lollie Bottoms
From: David Ray <cardcards AT SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 14:18:41 -0500
Twenty or so black terns present at Lollie Bottoms in Conway by new Conway 
airport. They are dividing their time between flooded fields on either side of 
the road. 

David Ray 
NLR 
Sent from my iPhone
Subject: Re: white-winged dove
From: Jacque Brown <bluebird2 AT COX.NET>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 13:11:20 -0500
My White-winged dove in Centerton is still around, too, it’s been around 
seven days now. It was going from feeder to feeder, to the grass and up to the 
fence for about 45 minutes yesterday evening. I have photos of it on the fence 
next to a Mourning Dove. I was hoping a Eurasian-collared Dove would sidle up 
beside them but it wasn’t going to happen. 


I probably had 6 Collared and 10 Mourning Dove in the yard at the time. 

Now I’m working on trying to get photos of the White-winged Dove where you 
can see the open wing. Jacque 



> On May 22, 2015, at 8:31 AM, Terry Butler  wrote:
> 
> Still coming to our ground feeder most days, over a period of almost for 
three weeks now. I keep wondering when he will head back to Fort Smith. Still 
here this morning. 

>  
> Terry Butler
> Pangburn, AR
Subject: Ruddy Turnstone Centerton fish hatchery. 5/22/15 12:45
From: Jacque Brown <bluebird2 AT COX.NET>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 13:05:20 -0500
I took a ride around the hatchery and saw nothing until I was leaving. By the 
spring hole near the entrance with the white building I saw what I thought was 
a Killdeer but then it turned sideways. Ruddy Turnstone, it was picking around 
the mown grass. 


I was able to drive around and come up beside it, took photos from about 20 
feet. Closer than I could get at the beach! 


 it moved when a big hatchery truck rumbled by but it didn’t go far, just off 
the grass to down by the waters edge. 


There were also a lot of Waxwings going for the mulberries and two T Vultures 
going at it. I had never seen vultures fight. 




Jacque Brown
240 Township Dr
Centerton, AR 72719

479-224-6099
bluebird2 AT cox.net





Subject: CAW Grass Farm
From: Dan Scheiman <birddan AT COMCAST.NET>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 17:29:34 +0000
Fourteen birders could not have asked for a more beautiful morning to watch 
birds at Central Arkansas Water's grass farm in western Pulaski Co., especially 
given the recent weather pattern. We had long looks at a male PAINTED BUNTING 
and brief but good looks at another. A Scissor-tailed Flycatcher chased an 
adult Bald Eagle. Brown-headed Nuthatches, Indigo Buntings, a Yellow-breasted 
Chat, and an Eastern Wood-Pewee, among other birds, were easy to see. 


The full list is on eBird here 
http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S23577568 


Dan Scheiman 
Little Rock, AR 
Subject: Red-tailed Hawks
From: Lenore <elgiffor AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 11:46:50 -0500
The Red-tailed Hawk chicks that made the Arkansas Democrat Gazette yesterday. 
..one of the chicks is at the top of the tree trying out his wings. This is in 
downtown Little Rock. 


Lenore from work downtown LR
Sent from my iPhone
Subject: Re: Ruddy turnstones
From: David Ray <cardcards AT SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 11:44:38 -0500
Was there yesterday and only saw a little blue heron. 
David Ray 
NLR 

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 22, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Ryan Risher  wrote:
> 
> Does anybody know if they are continuing where Bob saw them in Little Rock?
> 
> Ryan
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
Subject: Ruddy turnstones
From: Ryan Risher <rrisher2 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 11:28:19 -0500
Does anybody know if they are continuing where Bob saw them in Little Rock?

Ryan

Sent from my iPhone
Subject: Cicada hatch
From: Charles Anderson <cmanderson AT UALR.EDU>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 11:23:19 -0500
To the person tracking the hatches: we have a monster hatch of the red eyes 
variety going on in the Western Hills neighborhood off Colonel Glenn in 
southwest Little Rock. It seems pretty contained in our subdivision. Millions. 
Skeletons everywhere. The whole place sounds like the alien ray guns in the 
original War of the Worlds film. 


Chuck Anderson. 

Sent from my iPhone
Subject: white-winged dove
From: Terry Butler <twbutler1941 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 08:31:06 -0500
Still coming to our ground feeder most days, over a period of almost for
three weeks now.  I keep wondering when he will head back to Fort Smith.
Still here this morning.

 

Terry Butler

Pangburn, AR
Subject: Re: More on the 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax and how it impacts birds
From: Bill Thurman <bill.masterofmusic AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 07:02:35 -0500
It seems to me that that the AGFC needs to be overhauled and straightened
up in a significant number of ways. Especially when it comes to goals, aims
and benefits to all Arkansans, not just the sports and anglers clubs. AGFC
is not the Secret Service or the CIA. They should be transparent in dealing
with Natural State issues for All people, not just the obvious special
interests.
       Furthermore they should try harder than ever to get all people on
the side of natural habitat preservation rather than let the public slide
into indifference and apathy.
       Most of modern day America has become very unnatural.

                           Bill Thurman
On May 21, 2015 8:24 PM, "Janine Perlman"  wrote:

>  Thanks very much for this, Barry.
>
> I live in Saline County.  It *appears* that most or all of the $89,727
> spent here by AGFC was in service of fishing.
>
>
> The document's complete list of AGFC promises for spending the
> conservation tax:
>
> • To strengthen law enforcement efforts
> • To acquire and improve wildlife habitat
> • To educate Arkansans about conservation
> • To upgrade fish and wildlife management efforts
> • To create habitat for threatened and endangered species
> • To bolster support services and agency administration
>
>  Perhaps the $89,727 was spent in the following category, since under
> accomplishments, AGFC lists:
>
> • Fisheries programs such as the Family and Community
> Fishing Program have been formed to address issues of
> convenience and access to quality fishing destinations
> by working with cities to provide seasonal fisheries in
> many parks. Thousands of pounds of catfish, trout and
> hybrid striped bass are stocked annually at Family and
> Community Fisheries Program locations in an effort to
> enhance inner-city fishing areas.
>
>  I confess I don't see where---in their promises, or in any conservation
> scheme---a consumptive fisheries program fits.
>
>
> But another listed accomplishment is:
>
> • Public communication efforts have been given a facelift.
>
>  Well, it seems (thanks to your lifting the veil, Barry) that maybe the
> facelift hasn't succeeded in smoothing over some troubling truths?
>
> Janine
>
>
>
> On 5/21/2015 7:44 PM, Barry Haas wrote:
>
> Dear ARBIRDers,
>
> I'm glad to see some responses, agree or disagree, re my comments on the 1/8% 
conservation tax. The Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AGFC) receives $0.45 out 
of every conservation tax dollar collected, and that amounts to tens of 
millions of dollars a year. 

>
> How much good could that $26 million in annual revenue (FY2008 and 2009) have 
done to help endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers, all the declining warblers 
and all the other avian and other wildlife species of concern that are in 
increased trouble due to human mismanagement of the landscape on a global 
scale? 

>
> My point, which some commenters seem to have missed, is whether those tens of 
millions of dollars flowing to AGFC each year from the conservation tax are 
being spent in keeping with promises made to voters when the issue was approved 
AND the project areas noted for those funds on AGFC's website even now. Most of 
those dollars are coming from the pockets of non-consumptive Arkansans, 
non-hunters and non-fishermen, so it seems fair and reasonable to me that those 
dollars go toward benefiting the non-consumptive, non-game interests of those 
Arkansans. Hunter and fishermen money can go toward their much different 
interests. 

>
> I know Keith de Noble who took issue with my comments is a renowned bow 
hunter. And I believe Dick Baxter has posted previously about being a hunter. 
That's for them to decide for themselves. Hunting and fishing is perfectly 
legal. But I guess I don't think that has anything to do with AGFC keeping 
faith with the public on how conservation tax money is spent. 

>
> Keith wrote: "Land acquisition for the purpose of hunting and fishing always 
has a beneficial result for birding, and conservation in general." He didn't 
write: "Land acquisition for the purpose of birding or birds always has a 
beneficial result for hunting and fishing, and conservation in general." Anyone 
see a difference? 

>
> I know at one time AGFC hired Catherine Rideout as a staff ornithologist, but 
she took another job years ago and has never been replaced. Karen Rowe has 
always worked on non-game species and is terrific, but she is only one person 
and can do only so much (although at times it seems there must be 3 or 4 
Karens!). I don't think failure to replace Catherine Rideout is due to a lack 
of funds or a trained ornithologist being willing to take that position if it 
was offered. The cost of that one position is chump change in AGFC's budget. I 
think there are other factors at play, mainly the reality that hunters and 
fishermen have always called the shots at AGFC and weren't about to give up 
this new multi-million dollar annual revenue stream for non-game purposes, 
maybe even especially birdwatchers! When those funds get spent for other 
purposes, they do no good for red-cockaded woodpeckers and all our beloved 
warbler species, many in precipitous decline. 

>
> I appreciate Dick's comments re more wildlife officers being funded through 
the conservation tax as promised. Bill Hailey, who was once the chief 
enforcement officer for AGFC, a long-time member of the Audubon Society of 
Central Arkansas and a good friend, counseled our chapter members on the need 
for more and better enforcement. We agreed and supported those efforts- in 
spirit and with our tax money. 

>
> Maybe instead of birders paying for a license or bird stamp, we need to 
establish a new state agency charged with fostering and protecting non-game 
wildlife. We could call it the "Arkansas Non-Consumptive Wildlife Agency" or 
the "Foster Nature, but not in a Deadly Way Agency" (sorry, after Keith's 
comments, I couldn't help myself). 

>
> Dick asks how "AGFC could determine which activities are only benefiting game 
or non-game species"? Good question, and not an easy one to answer, especially 
with the nature centers. Let me answer his question with one of my own- if I'm 
right that 100% of the nature center construction and ongoing expenses are 
coming from conservation tax money, do those nature centers benefit hunters and 
fishermen in any way? If the answer is yes, then some related percentage of 
those expenses should have come from game and fish license fees or other income 
streams from those individuals. 

>
> Back to the passage of the conservation tax almost two decades ago. AGFC's 
finances were in serious trouble at that time, as I recall. They weren't 
getting sufficient funding from the legislature to do what needed to be done to 
protect and preserve the state's wildlife. That new multi-million dollar 
revenue stream allowed AGFC (45% of that new revenue), Parks & Tourism (also 
45%), Arkansas Heritage Commission (9%) and Keep Arkansas Beautiful (1%) to do 
more good things for the state. 

>
> Amendment 75, the conservation tax, passed with 50.6% approval. To his credit 
former Governor Huckabee campaigned in favor of the tax, but I can assure Keith 
and Dick that without the votes of environmentalists/conservationists who 
neither hunt nor fish it would have been defeated. 

>
> I'm attaching the conservation tax 10-year report (1997 to 2007, I think) for 
those who would like to dig further into the weeds. 

>
> Finally, AGFC has made my request for copies of their annual reports, 
something I thought was simple and required nothing more than e-mailing me the 
requested already existing documents, has turned into a much more time 
consuming chore due not to the nature of my request, but to AGFC's wish to make 
it much more complicated. In response to my request I got an e-mail that they 
would need more information from me before meeting my request, but didn't tell 
me what information they needed/wanted. They also told me they would have to 
verify I was an Arkansas citizen BEFORE the three day period allowed under the 
law to provide the documents would begin. My understanding of Arkansas's 
Freedom of Information Act is that there are no preconditions like verifying 
state citizenship before the time allowed to produce requested documents 
begins. At least three people in AGFC's legal department plus their 
communications person has unnecessarily wasted time in response to a simple 
reques 

>  t for p
> ublic information- copies of their annual income and expense reports with 
every page included. All of that rigamarole makes me think of part of Dick's 
post: "Asking someone to submit a formal request is not the government's way of 
snubbing their nose at anyone. As many are aware, requests for information are 
frequent, and it often takes real work by real human beings to compile the data 
requested since it may be housed in several files by dozens of people." Yep, 
real unnecessary, wasteful work at whose hand? 

>
> From the deep woods just west of Little Rock,
> Barry Haas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Subject: Sundown Snapper
From: diane yates <maribird AT OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 01:55:07 +0000
Down the road it’s still Wilderness Trail. Unless there’s gas field traffic 
(which there wasn’t) nobody’s in a hurry on 389. 


Nor was the terrapin. Just moseying down the middle line not suspecting anyone 
would jog over it and take him out. 


Two and a half feet long, best guess. Died standing and but for the buzzards I 
wouldn’t have guessed him dead. Well, that and, on closer inspection, the 
bashed-in shell. “He” couldn’t have suspected, still munching veggies 
when I finished my morning walk. We found him near dusk, Joe at the wheel, me 
shotgun and Kluie between us on his shag-carpeted console. 


Did Snapper see the sunset? Don’t know. It was a fine one with threads of 
every color woven across the yawning fire; three bobwhites whistling, a towhee 
talking tea-drinking and a pair of bluebirds smooching. Who can see inside the 
soul, or truly know another heart? Smiles smooth over dark devices, words just 
cleaver renderings of the mundane and the macabre. Doctor Phil would say the 
killer suffered a battered self-image. Our preacher would say they needed God. 


Maybe it’s both.

I wonder how long it took a snapper to get that big? Or to die of a broken 
shell? The turkey vultures are having a tailgate party tonight. Something to 
beat armadillo. I praise the Painter’s hands, who splashes the sky with 
purple and gold and blood, setting on earth a smorgasbord. So live honorably, 
love deeply and bird from the heart!--Dianemarie 
Subject: Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax
From: Jodi Morris <mjodimorris AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 21:09:19 -0500
By my last count there are 4 AGFC Nature Centers and 4 smaller, lower
budget Education Centers. But the Game and Fish has also been creating
marked water trails led by Kirsten Barlow and adding more and trails and
watchable wildlife blinds, platforms to many of their sites. Of course most
wildlife management areas provide excellent habitat for nongame as well as
game species. I am not a hunter and haven't renewed my fishing license in a
couple of years just for lack of time, but I visit many wildlife management
areas as a hiker, kayaker and wildlife watcher.  I do think we all need to
keep AGFC and the legislature aware of the majority of Arkansans who love
wildlife and want to keep Arkansas the Natural State though they aren't
avid hunters or anglers but it is hard to split AGFC's spending into strict
for hunters/anglers and for everyone else categories.  We just need to make
sure all agencies are spending funds and practicing transparent strategies
(lawmaking, policiy enforcing, etc) in sustainable, environmentally
accountable ways.

On May 20, 2015 1:56 PM, "Joyce Hartmann"  wrote:
>
> To add to the discussion…There are 8 nature centers, not 4, operated by
AGFC…our Little Red River Audubon Society visited all of those on field
trips. We also took free boat rides to count eagles on Lake Dardanelle,
provided by the conservation tax. I think those centers are just great
expenditures for educational purposes…most hunters and anglers enjoy the
nature centers, too, but what they really want and pay for is habitat and
game… also, to figure the % of persons owning licenses, a number of license
holders have lifelong licenses, not annual ones (like me)…and the total
population count includes children, who would not own licenses…so the
percentage may not reflect the adult population. I would think those
figures should be made available, but… sorry you had trouble, Barry; a few
non-caring people can leave a sour taste for a whole agency…know there are
wonderful caring people on the agency who are doing all they can for our
natural resource (all wildlife) in Arkansas…
>
>
>
> The best thing birders can do is to buy an annual duck stamp. This
habitat improvement benefits ducks, yes, but also eagles and all birds. And
it’s a financial help to an agency that is probably the best thing we have
in the state to promote and support wildlife.
>
>
>
> Joyce Hartmann, Choctaw
>
>
>
> From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List [mailto:
ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Barry Haas
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:50 AM
> To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax
>
>
>
> Joyce & Other ARBIRDers,
>
>
>
> Joyce's post struck a nerve with me due to past experiences.  In
September 2009 I sent a request to the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission
(AGFC) for information I assumed was available to the public and already
compiled- overall income and 1/8% conservation tax income the previous
fiscal year (FY), numbers of assorted hunting (small game, big game) and
fishing licenses (annual, short-term), etc.  That information was mostly
forthcoming, although the Receipts, Disbursements and Balances report I
received only included pages 1 and 9, not 2-8.  Odd, I thought.  A follow
up request failed to get those missing pages.  Page 1 of that report showed
AGFC received $26.4 million from the conservation tax in the FY ended June
30, 2009 and $26.5 million in the previous FY.  That's 26.6% of FY2009
income and a startling (at least to me) 37.3% of FY2008 income.
>
>
>
> Conservation tax funds come from every Arkansan.  The reason I was
curious about the number of hunting and fishing licenses is to know what
percentage of Arkansans have a hunting or fishing license, i.e. what
percentage of Arkansans are consumptive payers of that tax.  Total hunting
and fishing licenses for Arkansas residents totaled 642,080 in FY2009.
AGFC said they estimated "40-50% of residents purchase both hunting and
fishing" licenses.  Let's be generous and use the 40% figure.  That would
mean 385,248 Arkansans purchased one or the other license or both.  Using
2010 census figures for Arkansas there were 2,915,958 residents.  That
means an estimated 13.2% of Arkansans bought a license.  It also means an
estimated 86.8% did not buy either license.  Finally, that means an
estimated $3.5 million of the FY2009 conservation tax money came from
license holders and the remaining $22.9 million came from non-license
holders.
>
>
>
> What did the non-license holders get for their $22.9 million in the way
of non-game projects?  Here's a link to the AGFC website re Amendment 76,
the Conservation sales tax:
>
>
>
> http://www.agfc.com/aboutagfc/Pages/AboutAmendments.aspx
>
>
>
> I think one can make a pretty good case that far, far more of the
conservation tax money than 13.2% has been spent in areas that benefit
hunters and fishermen than non-consumptive users: birders, other nature
lovers and members of the general public who don't have any interest in
nature.
>
>
>
> It's my understanding that 100% of the cost of the 4 nature centers came
from conservation tax money, assumedly "(3) more education about wildlife"
from the AGFC website info re Amendment 75.  I guess AGFC commissioners
assume hunters and fishermen don't benefit from the nature centers.  I'm
also curious what "(2) more wildlife habitat for public use" has been
purchased with these funds for the use of non-consumptive taxpayers-
birders and other nature lovers.  And I suspect a negligible amount of the
$26 million plus each year has been spent on "(4) more work with endangered
species".
>
>
>
> Bottom line- AGFC receives a substantial portion of its income from
Arkansans who neither hunt nor fish (without licenses, at least).  I was
curious if AGFC was spending conservation tax income as promised when it
was put to voters and approved.
>
>
>
> Birders and other nature lovers as well as those who are neither are
contributing substantially to AGFC income, and given the stated intent of
how the conservation tax money would be spent we may not be getting our
money's worth or what we were promised when the tax was passed.
>
>
>
> Does that mean I wish the tax had failed to pass?  No, just that when
promises are made they should be kept.  AGFC should be much more
forthcoming and specific regarding how conservation tax income is
benefiting birders and other nature lovers who don't hunt or fish.
>
>
>
> I'll close with the following.  In June 2013 I requested updated fiscal
information from AGFC and got the following response: "you will need to
submit a Freedom of Information request to our legal division for this
information. Please let me know if there is something else I can help you
with. Thanks."  So much for keeping the public informed and transparency.
And state government is even less transparent today than it was two years
ago.  Sigh.
>
>
>
> A caveat- I've always appreciated the work of Karen Rowe and others (AGFC
once had a staff ornithologist if you can imagine that) who have worked on
non-game species before the conservation tax was passed.  Like Joyce, I
thought we non-consumers were getting a bonus back then with Karen's work
on bluebirds, barn owls and many other non-game species.
>
>
>
> From the deep woods just west of Little Rock,
>
> Barry Haas
>
>
>
> P.S.  Joyce, thanks for the opportunity to attempt to explain all this
again as I did several years ago.  I doubt most folks really care if AGFC
or other state agencies are spending money as promised to the voters.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 20, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Joyce Hartmann wrote:
>
>
>
>> I may be wrong (I have been many times) but programs are usually the
result of budgets and who pays for what…AGFC conducts a great deal of
research and education to provide good services for wildlife, but their
budget is mostly paid for by hunting and fishing licenses, and game
management has to be their priority...Birders can’t accomplish as much as
we’d like in nongame activities, which includes parks and tourism and
maintenance etc. etc. because very little public tax money goes to these
state agencies…isn’t it just the 1/8% sales tax?...AGFC does accomplish a
lot of nongame activities with these funds…Just a thought…if birders and
other nongame groups bought birding licenses to financially support their
interests (as hunters and anglers do), then those activities would have a
larger priority…I am grateful to AGFC because birds and birders get so many
free benefits from all those who buy licenses…and I have always bought
hunting and fishing licenses…eek, a birding license? Well….sometimes I feel
like a freeloader…
>>
>>
>>
>> Joyce Hartmann, Choctaw, Van Buren County
Subject: High Flyers
From: Bill Thurman <bill.masterofmusic AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 20:56:41 -0500
I saw 5 high flying Nighthawks awhile ago chasing insects over a large
pastoral field of a farm not far from Shiloh Creek which is gushing like a
fresh waterfall at the moment.
       There were also plenty of swallows and Purple Martins flying around.
Not much later one of the Nighthawks swooped by only 8 or 9 feet away.
Amazing! And they are graceful acrobatic artists.
       I've seen a truckload of Scissor Tails lately - seemingly
everywhere. And quite a few calling meadowlarks. Heard the rattling cry of
the Belted Kingfisher even at 8:30 pm.
        The Shiloh Creek watershed is a very birdy area with dozens of
species.

                             Bill Thurman
Subject: Re: More on the 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax and how it impacts birds
From: Janine Perlman <jpandjf AT SWBELL.NET>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 20:24:11 -0500
Thanks very much for this, Barry.

I live in Saline County.  It /appears/ that most or all of the $89,727 
spent here by AGFC was in service of fishing.


The document's complete list of AGFC promises for spending the 
conservation tax:

     To strengthen law enforcement efforts
     To acquire and improve wildlife habitat
     To educate Arkansans about conservation
     To upgrade fish and wildlife management efforts
     To create habitat for threatened and endangered species
     To bolster support services and agency administration

Perhaps the $89,727 was spent in the following category, since under 
accomplishments, AGFC lists:

     Fisheries programs such as the Family and Community
    Fishing Program have been formed to address issues of
    convenience and access to quality fishing destinations
    by working with cities to provide seasonal fisheries in
    many parks. Thousands of pounds of catfish, trout and
    hybrid striped bass are stocked annually at Family and
    Community Fisheries Program locations in an effort to
    enhance inner-city fishing areas.

I confess I don't see where---in their promises, or in any conservation 
scheme---a consumptive fisheries program fits.


But another listed accomplishment is:

     Public communication efforts have been given a facelift.

Well, it seems (thanks to your lifting the veil, Barry) that maybe the 
facelift hasn't succeeded in smoothing over some troubling truths?

Janine



On 5/21/2015 7:44 PM, Barry Haas wrote:
> Dear ARBIRDers,
>
> I'm glad to see some responses, agree or disagree, re my comments on the 1/8% 
conservation tax. The Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AGFC) receives $0.45 out 
of every conservation tax dollar collected, and that amounts to tens of 
millions of dollars a year. 

>
> How much good could that $26 million in annual revenue (FY2008 and 2009) have 
done to help endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers, all the declining warblers 
and all the other avian and other wildlife species of concern that are in 
increased trouble due to human mismanagement of the landscape on a global 
scale? 

>
> My point, which some commenters seem to have missed, is whether those tens of 
millions of dollars flowing to AGFC each year from the conservation tax are 
being spent in keeping with promises made to voters when the issue was approved 
AND the project areas noted for those funds on AGFC's website even now. Most of 
those dollars are coming from the pockets of non-consumptive Arkansans, 
non-hunters and non-fishermen, so it seems fair and reasonable to me that those 
dollars go toward benefiting the non-consumptive, non-game interests of those 
Arkansans. Hunter and fishermen money can go toward their much different 
interests. 

>
> I know Keith de Noble who took issue with my comments is a renowned bow 
hunter. And I believe Dick Baxter has posted previously about being a hunter. 
That's for them to decide for themselves. Hunting and fishing is perfectly 
legal. But I guess I don't think that has anything to do with AGFC keeping 
faith with the public on how conservation tax money is spent. 

>
> Keith wrote: "Land acquisition for the purpose of hunting and fishing always 
has a beneficial result for birding, and conservation in general." He didn't 
write: "Land acquisition for the purpose of birding or birds always has a 
beneficial result for hunting and fishing, and conservation in general." Anyone 
see a difference? 

>
> I know at one time AGFC hired Catherine Rideout as a staff ornithologist, but 
she took another job years ago and has never been replaced. Karen Rowe has 
always worked on non-game species and is terrific, but she is only one person 
and can do only so much (although at times it seems there must be 3 or 4 
Karens!). I don't think failure to replace Catherine Rideout is due to a lack 
of funds or a trained ornithologist being willing to take that position if it 
was offered. The cost of that one position is chump change in AGFC's budget. I 
think there are other factors at play, mainly the reality that hunters and 
fishermen have always called the shots at AGFC and weren't about to give up 
this new multi-million dollar annual revenue stream for non-game purposes, 
maybe even especially birdwatchers! When those funds get spent for other 
purposes, they do no good for red-cockaded woodpeckers and all our beloved 
warbler species, many in precipitous decline. 

>
> I appreciate Dick's comments re more wildlife officers being funded through 
the conservation tax as promised. Bill Hailey, who was once the chief 
enforcement officer for AGFC, a long-time member of the Audubon Society of 
Central Arkansas and a good friend, counseled our chapter members on the need 
for more and better enforcement. We agreed and supported those efforts- in 
spirit and with our tax money. 

>
> Maybe instead of birders paying for a license or bird stamp, we need to 
establish a new state agency charged with fostering and protecting non-game 
wildlife. We could call it the "Arkansas Non-Consumptive Wildlife Agency" or 
the "Foster Nature, but not in a Deadly Way Agency" (sorry, after Keith's 
comments, I couldn't help myself). 

>
> Dick asks how "AGFC could determine which activities are only benefiting game 
or non-game species"? Good question, and not an easy one to answer, especially 
with the nature centers. Let me answer his question with one of my own- if I'm 
right that 100% of the nature center construction and ongoing expenses are 
coming from conservation tax money, do those nature centers benefit hunters and 
fishermen in any way? If the answer is yes, then some related percentage of 
those expenses should have come from game and fish license fees or other income 
streams from those individuals. 

>
> Back to the passage of the conservation tax almost two decades ago. AGFC's 
finances were in serious trouble at that time, as I recall. They weren't 
getting sufficient funding from the legislature to do what needed to be done to 
protect and preserve the state's wildlife. That new multi-million dollar 
revenue stream allowed AGFC (45% of that new revenue), Parks & Tourism (also 
45%), Arkansas Heritage Commission (9%) and Keep Arkansas Beautiful (1%) to do 
more good things for the state. 

>
> Amendment 75, the conservation tax, passed with 50.6% approval. To his credit 
former Governor Huckabee campaigned in favor of the tax, but I can assure Keith 
and Dick that without the votes of environmentalists/conservationists who 
neither hunt nor fish it would have been defeated. 

>
> I'm attaching the conservation tax 10-year report (1997 to 2007, I think) for 
those who would like to dig further into the weeds. 

>
> Finally, AGFC has made my request for copies of their annual reports, 
something I thought was simple and required nothing more than e-mailing me the 
requested already existing documents, has turned into a much more time 
consuming chore due not to the nature of my request, but to AGFC's wish to make 
it much more complicated. In response to my request I got an e-mail that they 
would need more information from me before meeting my request, but didn't tell 
me what information they needed/wanted. They also told me they would have to 
verify I was an Arkansas citizen BEFORE the three day period allowed under the 
law to provide the documents would begin. My understanding of Arkansas's 
Freedom of Information Act is that there are no preconditions like verifying 
state citizenship before the time allowed to produce requested documents 
begins. At least three people in AGFC's legal department plus their 
communications person has unnecessarily wasted time in response to a simple 
request for public information- copies of their annual income and expense 
reports with every page included. All of that rigamarole makes me think of part 
of Dick's post: "Asking someone to submit a formal request is not the 
government's way of snubbing their nose at anyone. As many are aware, requests 
for information are frequent, and it often takes real work by real human beings 
to compile the data requested since it may be housed in several files by dozens 
of people." Yep, real unnecessary, wasteful work at whose hand? 

>
>  From the deep woods just west of Little Rock,
> Barry Haas
>
>
>
>
Subject: More on the 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax and how it impacts birds
From: Barry Haas <bhaas AT SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 19:44:41 -0500
Dear ARBIRDers,

I'm glad to see some responses, agree or disagree, re my comments on the 1/8% 
conservation tax. The Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AGFC) receives $0.45 out 
of every conservation tax dollar collected, and that amounts to tens of 
millions of dollars a year. 


How much good could that $26 million in annual revenue (FY2008 and 2009) have 
done to help endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers, all the declining warblers 
and all the other avian and other wildlife species of concern that are in 
increased trouble due to human mismanagement of the landscape on a global 
scale? 


My point, which some commenters seem to have missed, is whether those tens of 
millions of dollars flowing to AGFC each year from the conservation tax are 
being spent in keeping with promises made to voters when the issue was approved 
AND the project areas noted for those funds on AGFC's website even now. Most of 
those dollars are coming from the pockets of non-consumptive Arkansans, 
non-hunters and non-fishermen, so it seems fair and reasonable to me that those 
dollars go toward benefiting the non-consumptive, non-game interests of those 
Arkansans. Hunter and fishermen money can go toward their much different 
interests. 


I know Keith de Noble who took issue with my comments is a renowned bow hunter. 
And I believe Dick Baxter has posted previously about being a hunter. That's 
for them to decide for themselves. Hunting and fishing is perfectly legal. But 
I guess I don't think that has anything to do with AGFC keeping faith with the 
public on how conservation tax money is spent. 


Keith wrote: "Land acquisition for the purpose of hunting and fishing always 
has a beneficial result for birding, and conservation in general." He didn't 
write: "Land acquisition for the purpose of birding or birds always has a 
beneficial result for hunting and fishing, and conservation in general." Anyone 
see a difference? 


I know at one time AGFC hired Catherine Rideout as a staff ornithologist, but 
she took another job years ago and has never been replaced. Karen Rowe has 
always worked on non-game species and is terrific, but she is only one person 
and can do only so much (although at times it seems there must be 3 or 4 
Karens!). I don't think failure to replace Catherine Rideout is due to a lack 
of funds or a trained ornithologist being willing to take that position if it 
was offered. The cost of that one position is chump change in AGFC's budget. I 
think there are other factors at play, mainly the reality that hunters and 
fishermen have always called the shots at AGFC and weren't about to give up 
this new multi-million dollar annual revenue stream for non-game purposes, 
maybe even especially birdwatchers! When those funds get spent for other 
purposes, they do no good for red-cockaded woodpeckers and all our beloved 
warbler species, many in precipitous decline. 


I appreciate Dick's comments re more wildlife officers being funded through the 
conservation tax as promised. Bill Hailey, who was once the chief enforcement 
officer for AGFC, a long-time member of the Audubon Society of Central Arkansas 
and a good friend, counseled our chapter members on the need for more and 
better enforcement. We agreed and supported those efforts- in spirit and with 
our tax money. 


Maybe instead of birders paying for a license or bird stamp, we need to 
establish a new state agency charged with fostering and protecting non-game 
wildlife. We could call it the "Arkansas Non-Consumptive Wildlife Agency" or 
the "Foster Nature, but not in a Deadly Way Agency" (sorry, after Keith's 
comments, I couldn't help myself). 


Dick asks how "AGFC could determine which activities are only benefiting game 
or non-game species"? Good question, and not an easy one to answer, especially 
with the nature centers. Let me answer his question with one of my own- if I'm 
right that 100% of the nature center construction and ongoing expenses are 
coming from conservation tax money, do those nature centers benefit hunters and 
fishermen in any way? If the answer is yes, then some related percentage of 
those expenses should have come from game and fish license fees or other income 
streams from those individuals. 


Back to the passage of the conservation tax almost two decades ago. AGFC's 
finances were in serious trouble at that time, as I recall. They weren't 
getting sufficient funding from the legislature to do what needed to be done to 
protect and preserve the state's wildlife. That new multi-million dollar 
revenue stream allowed AGFC (45% of that new revenue), Parks & Tourism (also 
45%), Arkansas Heritage Commission (9%) and Keep Arkansas Beautiful (1%) to do 
more good things for the state. 


Amendment 75, the conservation tax, passed with 50.6% approval. To his credit 
former Governor Huckabee campaigned in favor of the tax, but I can assure Keith 
and Dick that without the votes of environmentalists/conservationists who 
neither hunt nor fish it would have been defeated. 


I'm attaching the conservation tax 10-year report (1997 to 2007, I think) for 
those who would like to dig further into the weeds. 


Finally, AGFC has made my request for copies of their annual reports, something 
I thought was simple and required nothing more than e-mailing me the requested 
already existing documents, has turned into a much more time consuming chore 
due not to the nature of my request, but to AGFC's wish to make it much more 
complicated. In response to my request I got an e-mail that they would need 
more information from me before meeting my request, but didn't tell me what 
information they needed/wanted. They also told me they would have to verify I 
was an Arkansas citizen BEFORE the three day period allowed under the law to 
provide the documents would begin. My understanding of Arkansas's Freedom of 
Information Act is that there are no preconditions like verifying state 
citizenship before the time allowed to produce requested documents begins. At 
least three people in AGFC's legal department plus their communications person 
has unnecessarily wasted time in response to a simple request for public 
information- copies of their annual income and expense reports with every page 
included. All of that rigamarole makes me think of part of Dick's post: "Asking 
someone to submit a formal request is not the government's way of snubbing 
their nose at anyone. As many are aware, requests for information are frequent, 
and it often takes real work by real human beings to compile the data requested 
since it may be housed in several files by dozens of people." Yep, real 
unnecessary, wasteful work at whose hand? 


From the deep woods just west of Little Rock,
Barry Haas

Subject: Murray mulberries
From: Karen Konarski-Hart <karen AT KONARSKICLINIC.COM>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 22:58:17 +0000
Orchard and Baltimore Orioles among other birds in the 2 trees at 6 pm

Sent from my iPhone
Subject: Conservation Tax Discussion
From: diane yates <maribird AT OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 21:40:38 +0000
I for one, do see a lot of positive stuff happening on managed lands. Despite 
the changes and “restorations”--I parenthesize only because E. red cedar, 
however invasive, has been a part of the forest community as long as men have 
been writing policies--still the numbers of most species are recovering from 
those couple of years of dozer dust. 


I have no problem with limited timber sales. They keep the human community 
employed; (my own pastor is a logger) and reopen fire lanes that would 
otherwise be lost to weeds and brush while managers who could be out mowing 
them are instead piled high with book work and electronic red tape. I only 
object when I see hirees sent in to “thin” the cedar groves and leave the 
slash laying on the forest floor to become tinder. Loggers aren’t allowed to 
have or even to purchase the logs, which also are left to please the flickers 
but there are only so many flickers. 


As for the idea of another income source for the wildlands--let’s don’t 
look a gift horse in the mouth. We birders are not moochers and have always 
been willing to anty up. Say YES to the birding stamp or what ever it morphs 
into and continue with all these great efforts to benefit wildlife--just 
remembering that these mixed hardwood/pine slopes are part of the last large 
legacy of their kind in the country. My daily surveys of the WMA show Forest 
Edge--where woods or brush converge with fields--to be the most bird-abundant 
of the habitats on 


Gulf Mountain, saying that indeed we need both. And all the in-betweens, except 
maybe the over-crowded pine or oak woods that let no light into the sub-canopy. 
I list very few birds here; a wren or two, an ovenbird or hooded warbler which 
occur as readily in sparser cover near the edges. 




All in all, I say good work, you guys.--Dianemarie
Subject: Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax
From: Richard Baxter <dickbaxter100 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 16:27:58 -0500
I am just curious how the AGFC could determine which activities are only
benefiting game or non-game species???

Also, I believe Joyce mentioned that many folks buy lifetime licenses, and
that's true, but to clarify, those are also counted annually in the AGFC's
license certification (which drives the division of federal wildlife
restoration excise tax funds among states).

Also, I am not sure what to think of Barry's comments about the Freedom of
Information Act. Asking someone to submit a formal request is not the
government's way of snubbing their nose at anyone. As many are aware,
requests for information are frequent, and it often takes real work by real
human beings to compile the data requested since it may be housed in
several files by dozens of people. The way the world is now, everyone and
every piece of information is accessible due to email, social media, etc.
Imagine how many more contacts have now with elected officials than before
the internet existed??

The AGFC's education division has probably quadrupled since the tax was
passed, and many of these folks staff the nature centers that have been
discussed. A good resource for the state, though mostly unpopular with
hunters and anglers.

Voters also stated they wanted more wildlife officers. There are at least
two enforcement positions per county now, and these folks are essential
to protect game and non-game species. Conversely, there are no more
wildlife biologists than there were prior to 1996.

Gas lease funds were used to purchase Richland Valley and Choctaw Island's
West Unit (formerly Wallace Land Trust), a conservation easement of Moro
Big Pine (Red-cockaded Woodpeckers, Yellow-breasted Chats, Prairie
Warblers; check it out!), $2 million for wildlife observation trail
grants, funds to the Bayou Meto irrigation district project for natural
resource features, about $3 million for deferred maintenance projects on
AGFC facilities (WMAs included), and about $1 million to ADEQ for
inspection of gas drilling activities. Might be off a little, but this is
pretty accurate.

The AGFC has a strategic plan, and will provide annual reports. Hopefully,
some of this sort of stuff will be highlighted in future reports. Actions
that benefit non-game species and non-hunters/ non-anglers are happening.

Woodland and savanna restoration projects, prairie establishment and
management, desired forest conditions within bottomland hardwoods, all on
AGFC-owned areas, are at all-time highs. Glade restoration efforts on
several upland WMAs have been criticized since they have often
been encroached by eastern red cedar; Theo Witsell is finding rare plant
species on these glades that would not have been there without restoration
(cedar removal) efforts. Eastern red cedar is abundant; so are robins
and waxwings. The NRCS allowed AGFC to restructure some existing WRP
easements in an effort to provide long-term habitat specifically for marsh
birds; Karen and others have found King Rails within 2 years of project
initiation, when prior to that, none were found for several years.   The
AGFC's wildlife management division has plans to set back succession of
several pole-stands of sweet gum in an effort to provide habitat for
Painted Buntings, Bell's Vireos, American Woodcock, Swamp Rabbits and other
habitat specialists. Feral hog control efforts have been ramped up more
than ever before to benefit ground-nesting birds including Whip-poor-will,
Ovenbird, Wild Turkey, Black-and-white Warbler. Projects are in the works
to improve habitat for pondberry, an endangered plant, in eastern Arkansas.
Moist-soil impoundment management activities are beneficial to Nelson's
Sparrows, Sedge Wrens, White-faced Ibis, shorebirds, etc.; by the way AGFC
manages close to 7,000 acres of this type of habitat.

Timber sales, often scrutinized, are essential to provide habitat for
almost all of our bird species except closed canopy tolerant species. The
money from those timber sales goes right back into funding habitat work;
fire-lane development, forest inventories, etc. Woodlands host Red-headed
Woodpeckers; bottomlands with no understory host Carolina Wrens, Red-eyed
Vireos, and Prothonotary Warblers; managed bottomlands will have Kentucky,
Hooded, Yellow-throated Vireo, and others; group-select cuts may favor Wood
Thrushes and Swainson's Warblers on higher elevation sites within
bottomlands. This is all on the mind of AGFC habitat biologists when
timber prescriptions are written.

There is much more fire on the landscape now than there was 20 years ago,
and this practice is often scrutinized as well. Narrow burn windows often
lead to postponed planned fires; this allows succession to get that much
more advanced, and the fire intensity or timing may need to change to meet
management objectives. This gives you two options: walk away since low
intensity fire will only reduce fuel or burn during the growing season
(April-October). I would personally rather have the habitat in good shape
for 3-5 more years than lose the ability to manage a piece of property
effectively with fire. Long-term benefit usually outweighs short-term loss.

A few years ago, I put together a survey, sent the link to this list and
asked if folks ever bird WMAs. 50 people completed the survey, and 45 had
been on a WMA specifically to bird during the past year. One of these
years, I would like to do a big year only on WMAs and AGFC hatcheries and
lakes; I bet I could get close to 290 species. That sounds pretty good for
places managed for game and hunters.

Finally, something that biologists struggle with sometimes is how do you
manage a particular piece of property: to make it look like it did
historically or for the habitat type that is most limited in that
geographical area? I think it depends on land-use around the area and what
is conducive on the particular site. Choctaw Island West Unit was probably
historically a bottomland, bitter pecan/ sugarberry/ cedar elm/ green ash/
overcup/ nuttall oak forest (which we have lost millions of acres of in the
delta), before it was cleared and farmed, but King Rail habitat is
currently much more limited in the state than bottomland hardwood forest.


Let me know what you think about this stuff. I would be glad to talk to
anyone more in person, on the phone, or via email.

Good birding and thinking,

-Dick Baxter


On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jeffrey Short 
wrote:

> Thanks for distributing this and making it easy to review some past
> history.  Basically, after creation in 1915, after 30 years, Amendment 35
> gave the commission police powers to enforce the wildlife regulations.
> AGFC  activities were  not funded in any substantial way until Amendment
> 76—and another 50 years—had passed.
>
>
>
> In the May-June, 2014 of *Arkansas Wildlife*, AGFC Deputy Director, Jeff
> Crow, writes, “Roughly one-third of the revenue in the AGFC budget comes
> from sales of licenses and permits.”  (I assume he means hunting and
> fishing licenses and not license plates.)  “Revenue” may be the operative
> word and maybe means income.   The thrust of his editorial is to recruit
> more hunters and anglers so they can help support the mission.
>
>
>
> All four receiving organizations have implemented some noteworthy programs
> which continue to benefit Arkansas citizens and visitors.  In the last
> seven years, I understand some of the land owned by AGFC has generated
> revenue,  from fracking mostly.  Where is this revenue reported and how is
> it used?  Is there a way that a small portion of this revenue could be
> diverted to non-consumptive uses and to benefit  non-game critters?
>
>
>
> I would hope that the AGFC will open up its books to scrutiny.   As we
> have seen, those with something to hide are very protective of that
> information.  Sunshine has a cleansing effect—and we certainly could use
> more of it this Spring.
>
>
>
> Jeff Short
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List [mailto:
> ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Barry Haas
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:50 AM
> *To:* ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> *Subject:* 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax
>
>
>
> Joyce & Other ARBIRDers,
>
>
>
> Joyce's post struck a nerve with me due to past experiences.  In September
> 2009 I sent a request to the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AGFC) for
> information I assumed was available to the public and already compiled-
> overall income and 1/8% conservation tax income the previous fiscal year
> (FY), numbers of assorted hunting (small game, big game) and fishing
> licenses (annual, short-term), etc.  That information was mostly
> forthcoming, although the Receipts, Disbursements and Balances report I
> received only included pages 1 and 9, not 2-8.  Odd, I thought.  A follow
> up request failed to get those missing pages.  Page 1 of that report showed
> AGFC received $26.4 million from the conservation tax in the FY ended June
> 30, 2009 and $26.5 million in the previous FY.  That's 26.6% of FY2009
> income and a startling (at least to me) 37.3% of FY2008 income.
>
>
>
> Conservation tax funds come from every Arkansan.  The reason I was curious
> about the number of hunting and fishing licenses is to know what percentage
> of Arkansans have a hunting or fishing license, i.e. what percentage of
> Arkansans are consumptive payers of that tax.  Total hunting and fishing
> licenses for Arkansas residents totaled 642,080 in FY2009.  AGFC said they
> estimated "40-50% of residents purchase both hunting and fishing"
> licenses.  Let's be generous and use the 40% figure.  That would mean
> 385,248 Arkansans purchased one or the other license or both.  Using 2010
> census figures for Arkansas there were 2,915,958 residents.  That means an
> estimated 13.2% of Arkansans bought a license.  It also means an estimated
> 86.8% did not buy either license.  Finally, that means an estimated $3.5
> million of the FY2009 conservation tax money came from license holders and
> the remaining $22.9 million came from non-license holders.
>
>
>
> What did the non-license holders get for their $22.9 million in the way of
> non-game projects?  Here's a link to the AGFC website re Amendment 76, the
> Conservation sales tax:
>
>
>
> http://www.agfc.com/aboutagfc/Pages/AboutAmendments.aspx
>
>
>
> I think one can make a pretty good case that far, far more of the
> conservation tax money than 13.2% has been spent in areas that benefit
> hunters and fishermen than non-consumptive users: birders, other nature
> lovers and members of the general public who don't have any interest in
> nature.
>
>
>
> It's my understanding that 100% of the cost of the 4 nature centers came
> from conservation tax money, assumedly "(3) more education about wildlife"
> from the AGFC website info re Amendment 75.  I guess AGFC commissioners
> assume hunters and fishermen don't benefit from the nature centers.  I'm
> also curious what "(2) more wildlife habitat for public use" has been
> purchased with these funds for the use of non-consumptive taxpayers-
> birders and other nature lovers.  And I suspect a negligible amount of the
> $26 million plus each year has been spent on "(4) more work with endangered
> species".
>
>
>
> Bottom line- AGFC receives a substantial portion of its income from
> Arkansans who neither hunt nor fish (without licenses, at least).  I was
> curious if AGFC was spending conservation tax income as promised when it
> was put to voters and approved.
>
>
>
> Birders and other nature lovers as well as those who are neither are
> contributing substantially to AGFC income, and given the stated intent of
> how the conservation tax money would be spent we may not be getting our
> money's worth or what we were promised when the tax was passed.
>
>
>
> Does that mean I wish the tax had failed to pass?  No, just that when
> promises are made they should be kept.  AGFC should be much more
> forthcoming and specific regarding how conservation tax income is
> benefiting birders and other nature lovers who don't hunt or fish.
>
>
>
> I'll close with the following.  In June 2013 I requested updated fiscal
> information from AGFC and got the following response: "you will need to
> submit a Freedom of Information request to our legal division for this
> information. Please let me know if there is something else I can help you
> with. Thanks."  So much for keeping the public informed and transparency.
> And state government is even less transparent today than it was two years
> ago.  Sigh.
>
>
>
> A caveat- I've always appreciated the work of Karen Rowe and others (AGFC
> once had a staff ornithologist if you can imagine that) who have worked on
> non-game species before the conservation tax was passed.  Like Joyce, I
> thought we non-consumers were getting a bonus back then with Karen's work
> on bluebirds, barn owls and many other non-game species.
>
>
>
> From the deep woods just west of Little Rock,
>
> Barry Haas
>
>
>
> P.S.  Joyce, thanks for the opportunity to attempt to explain all this
> again as I did several years ago.  I doubt most folks really care if AGFC
> or other state agencies are spending money as promised to the voters.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 20, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Joyce Hartmann wrote:
>
>
>
> I may be wrong (I have been many times) but programs are usually the
> result of budgets and who pays for what…AGFC conducts a great deal of
> research and education to provide good services for wildlife, but their
> budget is mostly paid for by hunting and fishing licenses, and game
> management has to be their priority...Birders can’t accomplish as much as
> we’d like in nongame activities, which includes parks and tourism and
> maintenance etc. etc. because very little public tax money goes to these
> state agencies…isn’t it just the 1/8% sales tax?...AGFC does accomplish a
> lot of nongame activities with these funds…Just a thought…if birders and
> other nongame groups bought birding licenses to financially support their
> interests (as hunters and anglers do), then those activities would have a
> larger priority…I am grateful to AGFC because birds and birders get so many
> free benefits from all those who buy licenses…and I have always bought
> hunting and fishing licenses…eek, a birding license? Well….sometimes I 
feel 

> like a freeloader…
>
>
>
> Joyce Hartmann, Choctaw, Van Buren County
>
Subject: Windows to Wander About
From: diane yates <maribird AT OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 20:08:15 +0000
Tuesday I thought I died and went to heaven--who could get enough? Wednesday I 
thought I’d need a paddle. Donned my raincoat, pushed into irrigating boots, 
and grabbed another window between washouts. 


The happy wolf-dog romped “puddle-puppying” beside me, never missing a 
splatter--mostly on me. Jumped back startled at a sliding green snake, once 
again at a pair of quail. To Kluie everything is a playmate--”Hi, I just want 
to sniff you, maybe pat you with a paw a time or two!” I KNOW that dog has an 
angel! 


Wood frogs are drowning out the chats known only by blaze breasts atop sapling, 
snag or bush. Mockingbird sings triads while spiffy thrasher parrots in pairs. 
Common yellowthroats echo “witchety-witchety,” arrayed for Halloween, 
masked bandits of the bird world. White-eyed vireos declaring, “Chick, 
you’re crazy!” (You don’t say?) Carolina Wrens saying, “Answer-it-- 
answer-it--answer-it!” I don’t carry the cell, I leave it home. Along with 
the weight and worries of the droning world. Wade through woods dayflowers and 
purple prairie clover, oxeye daisies and coreopsis; evening primrose and yarrow 
and lilty pale-purple coneflowers. A deer flushes into the blowdown. I remember 
and thank God for seasons survived without tornadoes. 


Sun fingers start to flicker through the fog and drizzle, causing a towhee to 
chant, “Drink your 


tea-ea-ea-ea-ea!” I picture it in a tall glass, with ice and very sweet. 

Today’s been a fickle mix of gloom and glory; I’ll sieze the latter. I live 
for spring. Hopefully I’ll 


die unclasping the wolf-dog from my waist and adding one last warbler to my 
life-list. 




Dianemarie
Subject: Re: Joyce Hartmann's Birding License
From: diane yates <maribird AT OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:54:45 +0000











From: diane yates
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎May‎ ‎21‎, ‎2015 ‎1‎:‎52‎ ‎PM
To: Joyce Hartmann





This isn’t a bad idea either, Joyce. The only problem I can see is that 
voluntary things (at least for me and I suspect a lot of us) tend to get 
forgotten in the shuffle of daily tasks and other mean-to-do’s. Perhaps if 
every time we bought birding books, apps, binoculars, even bird seed someone 
would remind us and have available the Birders’ Stamp to purchase, we’d 
take care of it. I don’t know how compliant some vendors would be but I’m 
sure Wild Birds Unlimited and other specialty shops would get on board, as 
would local feed stores.--Dianemarie 














From: Joyce Hartmann
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎May‎ ‎21‎, ‎2015 ‎1‎:‎12‎ ‎PM
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU






A Birding Stamp might be a better way for birders to support bird habitat…a 
voluntary thing, not a license-to-use-binoculars-thing…the duck stamp already 
in existence is a great help we can all support now, whether or not we 
hunt….and I surely like all the nature centers…a wonderful way to educate 
the public about birds…thank you, AGFC! 


 



From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List [mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] 
On Behalf Of diane yates 

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 4:18 PM
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Joyce Hartmann's Birding License

 



Joyce, I agree with all you’ve said, and I think the Birding 
License--purchased annually like a fishing or hunting license--is one of the 
best ideas I’ve heard of yet. Keep the fee in the $25 range +/- and I think 
even the budding birder could handle it. Of course we’ll have to be careful 
to renew it in a timely manner. I get along great with Jay Hagan but he does 
his job first--I’d hate to get hauled off to the clink when caught raising my 
binocular on the first of Jan. before running down to WalMart to get my 
license!--Dianemarie 
Subject: Re: Joyce Hartmann's Birding License
From: Joyce Hartmann <hart AT ARTELCO.COM>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 13:11:48 -0500
A Birding Stamp might be a better way for birders to support bird habitat…a 
voluntary thing, not a license-to-use-binoculars-thing…the duck stamp already 
in existence is a great help we can all support now, whether or not we 
hunt….and I surely like all the nature centers…a wonderful way to educate 
the public about birds…thank you, AGFC! 


 

From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List [mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] 
On Behalf Of diane yates 

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 4:18 PM
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Joyce Hartmann's Birding License

 

Joyce, I agree with all you’ve said, and I think the Birding 
License--purchased annually like a fishing or hunting license--is one of the 
best ideas I’ve heard of yet. Keep the fee in the $25 range +/- and I think 
even the budding birder could handle it. Of course we’ll have to be careful 
to renew it in a timely manner. I get along great with Jay Hagan but he does 
his job first--I’d hate to get hauled off to the clink when caught raising my 
binocular on the first of Jan. before running down to WalMart to get my 
license!--Dianemarie 


 

 

 
Subject: Re: Counting the Crested Caracara
From: Karen And Jim Rowe <rollingrfarm AT ROCKETMAIL.COM>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:30:00 -0500
I was contacted by a researcher who I (and biologists with the USFWS) consider 
to be extremely knowledgeable about crested caracaras. Under her direction we 
will pull blood and send it to her lab which will determine the birds' origin. 
She explained that there has been an unusual number of caracaras found outside 
of their range recently and she is interested in tracking these extralimital 
birds to determine their migration routes and determine if they return to their 
place of origin. Plans are to band the AR caracara with both a USFWS band and a 
unique color band as well as a transmitter to track the bird by cell signal. 
She will also assist Rodney Paul in a accessing the birds suitability for 
release to assure that it is completely healthy and able to survive in the 
habitat at the release site. I discussed her proposal with Rodney Paul (the 
rehabber) and he supported it. 


Sent from my iPhone

> On May 21, 2015, at 9:40 AM, Sarah Morris  wrote:
> 
> Just curious, but why did the plans change? I thought the rehabbers had 
concerns about releasing the bird near where it was found. 

> 
> Sarah Morris
> Jonesboro
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On May 21, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Will Britton  wrote:
>> 
>> The plans have changed and RRCA will release the Caracara near Oil Trough, 
AR. It still has a couple weeks of rehab left. 

>> 
>>> On Tuesday, May 12, 2015, Donna Haynes 
<00000003bd9d64d2-dmarc-request AT listserv.uark.edu> wrote: 

>>> 
>>> In a comment last night on one of of the posts on Facebook regarding the 
Caracara, Rodney Paul stated that the bird would be transported to south Texas 
for release, if it recovers. I would assume the bird is from the Texas 
population, but it is possible that it could be from the Florida population. 
Someone on the ABA page suggested DNA be collected to compare to those 
populations. I don't know how practical this is but it would be interesting to 
definitively learn what area it came from. 

>>> Donna Haynes
>>> West Pulaski Co.  
>>> 
>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>>> 
>>> From:"Dan Scheiman" 
>>> Date:Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:50 PM
>>> Subject:Counting the Crested Caracara
>>> 
>>> I received a question about the countability of a rehabbed and then 
released Crested Caracara. 

>>> 
>>> See the American Birding Association's listing rules: 
http://listing.aba.org/aba-recording-rules/ 

>>> 
>>> Relevant section:
>>> RULE 3: The bird must have been alive, wild, and unrestrained when 
encountered. 

>>> 3.C. “Unrestrained” means not held captive in a cage, trap, mist net, 
hand, or by any other means, and not under the influence of such captivity. A 
bird is considered under the influence of captivity after its release until it 
regains the activities and movements of a bird that has not been captured. 

>>> 3.C.(i) A bird is under the influence of captivity during its initial 
movement away from its release point and during subsequent activity reasonably 
influenced by the captivity. 

>>> 
>>> It seems there is room for interpretation as to when the bird is no longer 
showing signs of being under the influence of captivity. Though an ABA blog 
post discussing the recent update to the rules says this: 

>>> 
>>> Rule 3.B – The RSEC unanimously agreed that birds that are rehabilitated 
and then released may be counted upon their release. The RSEC also unanimously 
agreed in principle that to prevent a bird’s access to medical care that 
needs it so that other birders may count the species prior to its 
rehabilitation is completely unethical. 

>>> 
>>> 
http://blog.aba.org/2014/10/news-from-the-aba-reording-standards-and-ethics-committee-supplemental.html 

>>> 
>>> Dan
>>> 
>>>   ­­  
Subject: Re: Counting the Crested Caracara
From: Sarah Morris <saraha.morris1 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 09:40:58 -0500
Just curious, but why did the plans change? I thought the rehabbers had 
concerns about releasing the bird near where it was found. 


Sarah Morris
Jonesboro

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 21, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Will Britton  wrote:
> 
> The plans have changed and RRCA will release the Caracara near Oil Trough, 
AR. It still has a couple weeks of rehab left. 

> 
>> On Tuesday, May 12, 2015, Donna Haynes 
<00000003bd9d64d2-dmarc-request AT listserv.uark.edu> wrote: 

>> 
>> In a comment last night on one of of the posts on Facebook regarding the 
Caracara, Rodney Paul stated that the bird would be transported to south Texas 
for release, if it recovers. I would assume the bird is from the Texas 
population, but it is possible that it could be from the Florida population. 
Someone on the ABA page suggested DNA be collected to compare to those 
populations. I don't know how practical this is but it would be interesting to 
definitively learn what area it came from. 

>> Donna Haynes
>> West Pulaski Co.  
>> 
>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> 
>> From:"Dan Scheiman" 
>> Date:Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:50 PM
>> Subject:Counting the Crested Caracara
>> 
>> I received a question about the countability of a rehabbed and then released 
Crested Caracara. 

>> 
>> See the American Birding Association's listing rules: 
http://listing.aba.org/aba-recording-rules/ 

>> 
>> Relevant section:
>> RULE 3: The bird must have been alive, wild, and unrestrained when 
encountered. 

>> 3.C. “Unrestrained” means not held captive in a cage, trap, mist net, 
hand, or by any other means, and not under the influence of such captivity. A 
bird is considered under the influence of captivity after its release until it 
regains the activities and movements of a bird that has not been captured. 

>> 3.C.(i) A bird is under the influence of captivity during its initial 
movement away from its release point and during subsequent activity reasonably 
influenced by the captivity. 

>> 
>> It seems there is room for interpretation as to when the bird is no longer 
showing signs of being under the influence of captivity. Though an ABA blog 
post discussing the recent update to the rules says this: 

>> 
>> Rule 3.B – The RSEC unanimously agreed that birds that are rehabilitated 
and then released may be counted upon their release. The RSEC also unanimously 
agreed in principle that to prevent a bird’s access to medical care that 
needs it so that other birders may count the species prior to its 
rehabilitation is completely unethical. 

>> 
>> 
http://blog.aba.org/2014/10/news-from-the-aba-reording-standards-and-ethics-committee-supplemental.html 

>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>>   ­­  
>> 
Subject: Re: Counting the Crested Caracara
From: Will Britton <wabritton AT HARDING.EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 07:32:50 -0500
The plans have changed and RRCA will release the Caracara near Oil Trough,
AR.  It still has a couple weeks of rehab left.

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015, Donna Haynes <
00000003bd9d64d2-dmarc-request AT listserv.uark.edu> wrote:

> In a comment last night on one of of the posts on Facebook regarding the
> Caracara, Rodney Paul stated that the bird would be transported to south
> Texas for release, if it recovers.  I would assume the bird is from the
> Texas population, but it is possible that it could be from the Florida
> population.  Someone on the ABA page suggested DNA be collected to compare
> to those populations.  I don't know how practical this is but it would be
> interesting to definitively learn what area it came from.
> Donna Haynes
> West Pulaski Co.
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> 
> ------------------------------
>   *From*:"Dan Scheiman"  >
> *Date*:Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:50 PM
> *Subject*:Counting the Crested Caracara
>
> I received a question about the countability of a rehabbed and then
> released Crested Caracara.
>
> See the American Birding Association's listing rules:
> http://listing.aba.org/aba-recording-rules/
>
> Relevant section:
> RULE 3: The bird must have been alive, wild, and unrestrained when
> encountered.
> 3.C. “Unrestrained” means not held captive in a cage, trap, mist net,
> hand, or by any other means, and not under the influence of such captivity.
> A bird is considered under the influence of captivity after its release
> until it regains the activities and movements of a bird that has not been
> captured.
> 3.C.(i) A bird is under the influence of captivity during its initial
> movement away from its release point and during subsequent activity
> reasonably influenced by the captivity.
>
> It seems there is room for interpretation as to when the bird is no longer
> showing signs of being under the influence of captivity. Though an ABA blog
> post discussing the recent update to the rules says this:
>
> Rule 3.B – The RSEC unanimously agreed that birds that are rehabilitated
> and then released may be counted upon their release. The RSEC also
> unanimously agreed in principle that to prevent a bird’s access to medical
> care that needs it so that other birders may count the species prior to its
> rehabilitation is completely unethical.
>
>
> 
http://blog.aba.org/2014/10/news-from-the-aba-reording-standards-and-ethics-committee-supplemental.html 

>
> Dan
>
>   ­­
>
>
Subject: Re: Do I exist?
From: Jamie Gwin <aarongwin AT COMCAST.NET>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 02:30:39 +0000
Robins are having a feast in my little part of the world.  So much rain the 
earth worms have crawled out of the ground  to the side walks.  The robins 
are going down the sidewalks picking the worms off the side walks and eating 
them. 

I hope Jack dosen't need to go to the doctor.  Being invisible the doctor 
couldn't see him. 

  
Aaron Gwin 
  
  
From: "Jack and Pam" <00000064a46c579c-dmarc-request AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> 
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 12:58:20 PM 
Subject: Do I exist? 

I'm beginning to suspect that I don't exist, that I am an illusion.  The 
hummingbirds around here pay me no heed.  This morning while putting out a 
fresh batch of nectar they flew in and landed on the feeder while it was still 
in my hand.   


Last evening, while we sat on the porch, there was a typical hummer aerial 
dogfight wherein my body was used as cover.  The angry little creatures buzzed 
behind and in front of my head.  The wind created by their wings ticlked the 
hair in my ears.  At times I feared for my eyes as the rapier like bills 
seemed to threaten my cornea. 


Jack 
Invisible in Newton County 




Subject: Re: Thibault Rd
From: Will Britton <wabritton AT HARDING.EDU>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 21:16:40 -0500
Thanks for the tip, Bob.  The Turnstones were still there at ~5:30pm today.


Thibault Road is in Little Rock over near the Airport.  Fourche Dam Pike
exit I think.

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Jonathan Perry 
wrote:

> Sorry, Bob, where is this?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On May 20, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Bob Harden  wrote:
> >
> > There are lots of shorebirds in the farm field on Thibault Rd near the
> sod farm curve. At least 50 Dunlin 20 semipalmated sandpipers and two Ruddy
> Turnstones in breeding plumage
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
>
Subject: Re: Nature PBS 7 pm Greater Sage-Grouse is featured.
From: Ellen Fennell <f.ellen AT COMCAST.NET>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 21:08:51 -0500
    
What a great show. Audubon has a big project out there.Ellen  Fennell 


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Jacque Brown  
Date: 05/20/2015  4:59 PM  (GMT-06:00) 
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 
Subject: Nature   PBS  7 pm    Greater Sage-Grouse is featured. 

I haven’t seen this one.   





Jacque Brown240 Township DrCenterton, AR 72719
479-224-6099bluebird2 AT cox.net







Subject: Re: Mud Drive - from a farmer's perspective
From: Karen And Jim Rowe <rollingrfarm AT ROCKETMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 19:44:31 -0500
Thank you Leif. This past summer I spent a few days at the rice dryers in 
Arkansas County specifically asking them when they could close their 
structures. The 2 week post harvest time period was based on their input. They 
typically are not interested in holding water until November because, in my 
opinion, that's when the see ducks arrive. They are not as familiar with 
shorebirds or their habitat needs. It was amazing to see the reaction of the 
farmers not familiar with shorebirds to the farmers that knew what shorebirds 
were, Peer pressure is amazing; the farmers without shorebirds wanted to know 
how to get the birds their neighbors had, 

Also , AGFC biologists have been working with farm bill programs so that 
farmers can receive financial benefits for closing structures 2 weeks after 
harvest instead of November 1 . 

As with so many things education is the key and we must educate farmers and 
work cooperatively with them. 



Sent from my iPhone

> On May 20, 2015, at 6:23 PM, "Anderson, Leif E -FS"  
wrote: 

> 
> Greetings all,
> I’m forwarding this from a farmer from NE Arkansas.
> “A lot of fields in my area are already in some kind of program that pays 
the farmer for holding water through the winter. Primarily this is supported by 
duck hunters. I am involved in some conservation programs that pay a little for 
holding water. Most of the time it’s not quite worth the trouble. I actually 
do it mostly for weed control. If I put water on the fields early in the fall, 
I will be the first to retain ducks in any numbers and they in turn eat the 
weed seed that has been left on the ground. We have a lot of problems with a 
wild rice called “red-rice”. It is becoming more and more resistant to 
chemicals we have to use. Your timing that you are looking for is pretty quick. 
In most cases, we will leave fields dry as long as possible so we can do field 
work. Holding water typically won’t happen till November. 

> My opinion of the program is good. But the abililty to get work done in the 
fall is invaluable. Especially in a year like this one. This spring we have 
been able to work ground for only 12 days total. That hurts!” 
Subject: Re: Thibault Rd
From: Jonathan Perry <jonathanperry24 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 19:40:13 -0500
Sorry, Bob, where is this?

Sent from my iPad

> On May 20, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Bob Harden  wrote:
> 
> There are lots of shorebirds in the farm field on Thibault Rd near the sod 
farm curve. At least 50 Dunlin 20 semipalmated sandpipers and two Ruddy 
Turnstones in breeding plumage 

> 
> Sent from my iPhone
Subject: Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax
From: Jeffrey Short <bashman AT EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 19:21:43 -0500
Thanks for distributing this and making it easy to review some past history.
Basically, after creation in 1915, after 30 years, Amendment 35 gave the
commission police powers to enforce the wildlife regulations.  AGFC
activities were  not funded in any substantial way until Amendment 76-and
another 50 years-had passed.   

 

In the May-June, 2014 of Arkansas Wildlife, AGFC Deputy Director, Jeff Crow,
writes, "Roughly one-third of the revenue in the AGFC budget comes from
sales of licenses and permits."  (I assume he means hunting and fishing
licenses and not license plates.)  "Revenue" may be the operative word and
maybe means income.   The thrust of his editorial is to recruit more hunters
and anglers so they can help support the mission.

 

All four receiving organizations have implemented some noteworthy programs
which continue to benefit Arkansas citizens and visitors.  In the last seven
years, I understand some of the land owned by AGFC has generated revenue,
from fracking mostly.  Where is this revenue reported and how is it used?
Is there a way that a small portion of this revenue could be diverted to
non-consumptive uses and to benefit  non-game critters?

 

I would hope that the AGFC will open up its books to scrutiny.   As we have
seen, those with something to hide are very protective of that information.
Sunshine has a cleansing effect-and we certainly could use more of it this
Spring.

 

Jeff Short

 

 

 


 

From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List
[mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Barry Haas
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:50 AM
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax

 

Joyce & Other ARBIRDers,

 

Joyce's post struck a nerve with me due to past experiences.  In September
2009 I sent a request to the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AGFC) for
information I assumed was available to the public and already compiled-
overall income and 1/8% conservation tax income the previous fiscal year
(FY), numbers of assorted hunting (small game, big game) and fishing
licenses (annual, short-term), etc.  That information was mostly
forthcoming, although the Receipts, Disbursements and Balances report I
received only included pages 1 and 9, not 2-8.  Odd, I thought.  A follow up
request failed to get those missing pages.  Page 1 of that report showed
AGFC received $26.4 million from the conservation tax in the FY ended June
30, 2009 and $26.5 million in the previous FY.  That's 26.6% of FY2009
income and a startling (at least to me) 37.3% of FY2008 income.

 

Conservation tax funds come from every Arkansan.  The reason I was curious
about the number of hunting and fishing licenses is to know what percentage
of Arkansans have a hunting or fishing license, i.e. what percentage of
Arkansans are consumptive payers of that tax.  Total hunting and fishing
licenses for Arkansas residents totaled 642,080 in FY2009.  AGFC said they
estimated "40-50% of residents purchase both hunting and fishing" licenses.
Let's be generous and use the 40% figure.  That would mean 385,248 Arkansans
purchased one or the other license or both.  Using 2010 census figures for
Arkansas there were 2,915,958 residents.  That means an estimated 13.2% of
Arkansans bought a license.  It also means an estimated 86.8% did not buy
either license.  Finally, that means an estimated $3.5 million of the FY2009
conservation tax money came from license holders and the remaining $22.9
million came from non-license holders.

 

What did the non-license holders get for their $22.9 million in the way of
non-game projects?  Here's a link to the AGFC website re Amendment 76, the
Conservation sales tax:

 

http://www.agfc.com/aboutagfc/Pages/AboutAmendments.aspx

 

I think one can make a pretty good case that far, far more of the
conservation tax money than 13.2% has been spent in areas that benefit
hunters and fishermen than non-consumptive users: birders, other nature
lovers and members of the general public who don't have any interest in
nature.

 

It's my understanding that 100% of the cost of the 4 nature centers came
from conservation tax money, assumedly "(3) more education about wildlife"
from the AGFC website info re Amendment 75.  I guess AGFC commissioners
assume hunters and fishermen don't benefit from the nature centers.  I'm
also curious what "(2) more wildlife habitat for public use" has been
purchased with these funds for the use of non-consumptive taxpayers- birders
and other nature lovers.  And I suspect a negligible amount of the $26
million plus each year has been spent on "(4) more work with endangered
species".

 

Bottom line- AGFC receives a substantial portion of its income from
Arkansans who neither hunt nor fish (without licenses, at least).  I was
curious if AGFC was spending conservation tax income as promised when it was
put to voters and approved.

 

Birders and other nature lovers as well as those who are neither are
contributing substantially to AGFC income, and given the stated intent of
how the conservation tax money would be spent we may not be getting our
money's worth or what we were promised when the tax was passed.

 

Does that mean I wish the tax had failed to pass?  No, just that when
promises are made they should be kept.  AGFC should be much more forthcoming
and specific regarding how conservation tax income is benefiting birders and
other nature lovers who don't hunt or fish.

 

I'll close with the following.  In June 2013 I requested updated fiscal
information from AGFC and got the following response: "you will need to
submit a Freedom of Information request to our legal division for this
information. Please let me know if there is something else I can help you
with. Thanks."  So much for keeping the public informed and transparency.
And state government is even less transparent today than it was two years
ago.  Sigh.

 

A caveat- I've always appreciated the work of Karen Rowe and others (AGFC
once had a staff ornithologist if you can imagine that) who have worked on
non-game species before the conservation tax was passed.  Like Joyce, I
thought we non-consumers were getting a bonus back then with Karen's work on
bluebirds, barn owls and many other non-game species.

 

From the deep woods just west of Little Rock,

Barry Haas

 

P.S.  Joyce, thanks for the opportunity to attempt to explain all this again
as I did several years ago.  I doubt most folks really care if AGFC or other
state agencies are spending money as promised to the voters.

 

 

 

On May 20, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Joyce Hartmann wrote:





I may be wrong (I have been many times) but programs are usually the result
of budgets and who pays for what.AGFC conducts a great deal of research and
education to provide good services for wildlife, but their budget is mostly
paid for by hunting and fishing licenses, and game management has to be
their priority...Birders can't accomplish as much as we'd like in nongame
activities, which includes parks and tourism and maintenance etc. etc.
because very little public tax money goes to these state agencies.isn't it
just the 1/8% sales tax?...AGFC does accomplish a lot of nongame activities
with these funds.Just a thought.if birders and other nongame groups bought
birding licenses to financially support their interests (as hunters and
anglers do), then those activities would have a larger priority.I am
grateful to AGFC because birds and birders get so many free benefits from
all those who buy licenses.and I have always bought hunting and fishing
licenses.eek, a birding license? Well..sometimes I feel like a freeloader.

 

Joyce Hartmann, Choctaw, Van Buren County
Subject: Mud Drive - from a farmer's perspective
From: "Anderson, Leif E -FS" <leanderson AT FS.FED.US>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 23:23:00 +0000
Greetings all,
I’m forwarding this from a farmer from NE Arkansas.
“A lot of fields in my area are already in some kind of program that pays the 
farmer for holding water through the winter. Primarily this is supported by 
duck hunters. I am involved in some conservation programs that pay a little for 
holding water. Most of the time it’s not quite worth the trouble. I actually 
do it mostly for weed control. If I put water on the fields early in the fall, 
I will be the first to retain ducks in any numbers and they in turn eat the 
weed seed that has been left on the ground. We have a lot of problems with a 
wild rice called “red-rice”. It is becoming more and more resistant to 
chemicals we have to use. Your timing that you are looking for is pretty quick. 
In most cases, we will leave fields dry as long as possible so we can do field 
work. Holding water typically won’t happen till November. 

My opinion of the program is good. But the abililty to get work done in the 
fall is invaluable. Especially in a year like this one. This spring we have 
been able to work ground for only 12 days total. That hurts!” 
Subject: Nature PBS 7 pm Greater Sage-Grouse is featured.
From: Jacque Brown <bluebird2 AT COX.NET>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 16:59:59 -0500
I haven’t seen this one.   





Jacque Brown
240 Township Dr
Centerton, AR 72719

479-224-6099
bluebird2 AT cox.net





Subject: Re: Another White-winged Dove in Benton County
From: Jacque Brown <bluebird2 AT COX.NET>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 16:57:07 -0500
Mine was seen on Friday, Sunday and Tuesday afternoons. I keep watching as it 
has dropped in between 4 and 5 pm. 



> On May 20, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Joseph C. Neal  wrote:
> 
> The Bowers family lives east of Rogers near Beaver Lake. They have feeders 
including a suet feeder visited all last winter by a Summer Tanager. On Monday 
May 18 they noticed a strange dove at the feeders and soon identified it as 
White-winged Dove. Interesting enough, Jacque Brown at Centerton saw one at her 
feeder on Sunday May 17. I think these are the first records for Benton County. 
Previously, there have been just a few scattered records in Washington County, 
including, most recently, one seen by David Chapman at a feed mill in 
Springdale December 13, 2013. 

Subject: Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax
From: Jack and Pam <00000064a46c579c-dmarc-request AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 21:52:03 +0000
What a terrific analysis.  It is particularly interesting to see the "hunting 
and fishing pays the way" argument get smacked down by the real numbers.  Like 
Joyce I've been told the same about why birders should not expect more from 
wildlife agencies. Not true it turns out. 

JackNewton County


 On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:33 PM, Janine Perlman  wrote: 

   

 I care a LOT, Barry, and I surely hope most other taxpayers (and non-game 
aficionados) do, too.  You went to a great deal of effort to obtain and 
analyze this information.  It, and---perhaps even more---what you were not 
able to obtain, are disappointing, to say the least. 

 
 I'd think it's surely worthy of some investigative reporting.  I know there 
are journalists on this listserv........ 

 
 Janine
 
 On 5/20/2015 11:50 AM, Barry Haas wrote:
  

Joyce & Other ARBIRDers, 
 Joyce's post struck a nerve with me due to past experiences.  In September 
2009 I sent a request to the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AGFC) for 
information I assumed was available to the public and already compiled- overall 
income and 1/8% conservation tax income the previous fiscal year (FY), 
numbers of assorted hunting (small game, big game) and fishing licenses 
(annual, short-term), etc.  That information was mostly forthcoming, although 
the Receipts, Disbursements and Balances report I received only included pages 
1 and 9, not 2-8.  Odd, I thought.  A follow up request failed to get those 
missing pages.  Page 1 of that report showed AGFC received $26.4 million from 
the conservation tax in the FY ended June 30, 2009 and $26.5 million in the 
previous FY.  That's 26.6% of FY2009 income and a startling (at least to me) 
37.3% of FY2008 income. 

 Conservation tax funds come from every Arkansan.  The reason I was curious 
about the number of hunting and fishing licenses is to know what percentage of 
Arkansans have a hunting or fishing license, i.e. what percentage of Arkansans 
are consumptive payers of that tax.  Total hunting and fishing licenses for 
Arkansas residents totaled 642,080 in FY2009.  AGFC said they estimated 
"40-50% of residents purchase both hunting and fishing" licenses.  Let's be 
generous and use the 40% figure.  That would mean 385,248 Arkansans purchased 
one or the other license or both.  Using 2010 census figures for Arkansas 
there were 2,915,958 residents.  That means an estimated 13.2% of Arkansans 
bought a license.  It also means an estimated 86.8% did not buy either 
license.  Finally, that means an estimated $3.5 million of the FY2009 
conservation tax money came from license holders and the remaining $22.9 
million came from non-license holders. 

 What did the non-license holders get for their $22.9 million in the way of 
non-game projects?  Here's a link to the AGFC website re Amendment 76, the 
Conservation sales tax: 

  http://www.agfc.com/aboutagfc/Pages/AboutAmendments.aspx 
 I think one can make a pretty good case that far, far more of the conservation 
tax money than 13.2% has been spent in areas that benefit hunters and fishermen 
than non-consumptive users: birders, other nature lovers and members of the 
general public who don't have any interest in nature. 

 It's my understanding that 100% of the cost of the 4 nature centers came from 
conservation tax money, assumedly "(3) more education about wildlife" from the 
AGFC website info re Amendment 75.  I guess AGFC commissioners assume hunters 
and fishermen don't benefit from the nature centers.  I'm also curious what 
"(2) more wildlife habitat for public use" has been purchased with these funds 
for the use of non-consumptive taxpayers- birders and other nature lovers. 
 And I suspect a negligible amount of the $26 million plus each year has been 
spent on "(4) more work with endangered species". 

 Bottom line- AGFC receives a substantial portion of its income from Arkansans 
who neither hunt nor fish (without licenses, at least).  I was curious if AGFC 
was spending conservation tax income as promised when it was put to voters and 
approved. 

 Birders and other nature lovers as well as those who are neither are 
contributing substantially to AGFC income, and given the stated intent of how 
the conservation tax money would be spent we may not be getting our money's 
worth or what we were promised when the tax was passed. 

 Does that mean I wish the tax had failed to pass?  No, just that when 
promises are made they should be kept.  AGFC should be much more forthcoming 
and specific regarding how conservation tax income is benefiting birders and 
other nature lovers who don't hunt or fish. 

 I'll close with the following.  In June 2013 I requested updated fiscal 
information from AGFC and got the following response: "you will need to submit 
a Freedom of Information request to our legal division for this information. 
Please let me know if there is something else I can help you with. Thanks." 
 So much for keeping the public informed and transparency.  And state 
government is even less transparent today than it was two years ago.  Sigh. 

 A caveat- I've always appreciated the work of Karen Rowe and others (AGFC once 
had a staff ornithologist if you can imagine that) who have worked on non-game 
species before the conservation tax was passed.  Like Joyce, I thought we 
non-consumers were getting a bonus back then with Karen's work on bluebirds, 
barn owls and many other non-game species. 

  From the deep woods just west of Little Rock, Barry Haas 
 P.S.  Joyce, thanks for the opportunity to attempt to explain all this again 
as I did several years ago.  I doubt most folks really care if AGFC or other 
state agencies are spending money as promised to the voters. 

  
  
  On May 20, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Joyce Hartmann wrote: 
 
 I may be wrong (I have been many times) but programs are usually the result of 
budgets and who pays for what…AGFC conducts a great deal of research and 
education to provide good services for wildlife, but their budget is mostly 
paid for by hunting and fishing licenses, and game management has to be their 
priority...Birders can’t accomplish as much as we’d like in nongame 
activities, which includes parks and tourism and maintenance etc. etc. because 
very little public tax money goes to these state agencies…isn’t it just the 
1/8% sales tax?...AGFC does accomplish a lot of nongame activities with these 
funds…Just a thought…if birders and other nongame groups bought birding 
licenses to financially support their interests (as hunters and anglers do), 
then those activities would have a larger priority…I am grateful to AGFC 
because birds and birders get so many free benefits from all those who buy 
licenses…and I have always bought hunting and fishing licenses…eek, a 
birding license? Well….sometimes I feel like a freeloader…   Joyce 
Hartmann, Choctaw, Van Buren County 

    
 

  
Subject: Joyce Hartmann's Birding License
From: diane yates <maribird AT OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 21:18:13 +0000
Joyce, I agree with all you’ve said, and I think the Birding 
License--purchased annually like a fishing or hunting license--is one of the 
best ideas I’ve heard of yet. Keep the fee in the $25 range +/- and I think 
even the budding birder could handle it. Of course we’ll have to be careful 
to renew it in a timely manner. I get along great with Jay Hagan but he does 
his job first--I’d hate to get hauled off to the clink when caught raising my 
binocular on the first of Jan. before running down to WalMart to get my 
license!--Dianemarie 
Subject: Shorebirds at Centerton this morning
From: "Joseph C. Neal" <joeneal AT UARK.EDU>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 21:25:30 +0000
Northbound shorebirds are still moving through the state fish hatchery at 
Centerton. Last night's storm system and all night rain slowed things down 
some. This morning, shorebirds at the hatchery included 9 species: 
Black-bellied Plover (1), Semipalmated Plover (1), Killdeer (6-8), Spotted 
Sandpiper (5), Semipalmated Sandpiper (~25), Least Sandpiper (~4), White-rumped 
Sandpiper (~10), Pectoral Sandpiper (1, with 1 leg), Wilson's Phalarope (4). 
There were also Bank Swallows (2) and a single Black Tern. Canada goslings from 
several nests have consolidated into a flock so that this morning a few adults 
were escorting about 25 walking around the hatchery. One of the adult geese is 
missing a foot. Native Swamp Dogwoods are in bloom along the south margin of 
the little cattail marsh that separates the hatchery. Another large pond has 
been partially drained, so there's fresh habitat available if northbound 
migrants are looking for a handy stop over. 

Subject: Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax
From: Joe Mosby <jhmosby AT CYBERBACK.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 16:18:52 -0500
This is merely terminology, but AGFC has four nature centers – Pine Bluff, 
Jonesboro, Fort Smith and Little Rock --and four conservation education centers 
– Ponca, Cook’s Lake, Grandview and Crooked Creek. All of them work with 
school groups and the public, and all their programs are free. There are also 
10 regional offices with biologists and other people who can answer questions 
and give suggestions. And these all are results of that conservation sales tax 
that went into effect in 1997. 


Yes, AGFC needs a full-time ornithologist in addition to Karen Rowe’s work, 
but the agency is in a belt-tightening mode at present. This may not change any 
time soon. 


Keith de Noble is accurate in pointing out that land acquisition for hunting 
and fishing has benefits for birding and conservation in general. 


Communication is vital in all walks of our lives. Can the birding community 
tell AGFC what it would like? And can AGFC reach out to the birding community 
with programs and possibilities? 


Joe Mosby
Conway

From: Keith de Noble 
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 2:30 PM
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 
Subject: Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax

Good afternoon,

I don't normally get involved in these discussions. However, I could not resist 
this time. Haas' analysis was dissected briefly, but accurately by Hartman. If 
FOI requests are good enough for the cynicism of the media, then it certainly 
is good enough for the general citizenry. I have a high level of trust for 
AG&F. Yes, I'm sure they make mistakes, but I'd much prefer placing my trust in 
them than I would the state legislature, the US congress, and the significant 
number of birders that are anti-hunters. 


As a hunter and avid outdoorsman, I've seen significant benefit from the many 
conservation programs performed by AG&F. Land acquisition for the purpose of 
hunting and fishing always has a beneficial result for birding, and 
conservation in general. 


Keith de Noble

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Joyce Hartmann  wrote:

 To add to the discussion…There are 8 nature centers, not 4, operated by 
AGFC…our Little Red River Audubon Society visited all of those on field 
trips. We also took free boat rides to count eagles on Lake Dardanelle, 
provided by the conservation tax. I think those centers are just great 
expenditures for educational purposes…most hunters and anglers enjoy the 
nature centers, too, but what they really want and pay for is habitat and 
game… also, to figure the % of persons owning licenses, a number of license 
holders have lifelong licenses, not annual ones (like me)…and the total 
population count includes children, who would not own licenses…so the 
percentage may not reflect the adult population. I would think those figures 
should be made available, but… sorry you had trouble, Barry; a few non-caring 
people can leave a sour taste for a whole agency…know there are wonderful 
caring people on the agency who are doing all they can for our natural resource 
(all wildlife) in Arkansas… 




 The best thing birders can do is to buy an annual duck stamp. This habitat 
improvement benefits ducks, yes, but also eagles and all birds. And it’s a 
financial help to an agency that is probably the best thing we have in the 
state to promote and support wildlife. 




  Joyce Hartmann, Choctaw



 From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List 
[mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Barry Haas 

  Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:50 AM
  To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
  Subject: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax



  Joyce & Other ARBIRDers,



 Joyce's post struck a nerve with me due to past experiences. In September 2009 
I sent a request to the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AGFC) for information 
I assumed was available to the public and already compiled- overall income and 
1/8% conservation tax income the previous fiscal year (FY), numbers of assorted 
hunting (small game, big game) and fishing licenses (annual, short-term), etc. 
That information was mostly forthcoming, although the Receipts, Disbursements 
and Balances report I received only included pages 1 and 9, not 2-8. Odd, I 
thought. A follow up request failed to get those missing pages. Page 1 of that 
report showed AGFC received $26.4 million from the conservation tax in the FY 
ended June 30, 2009 and $26.5 million in the previous FY. That's 26.6% of 
FY2009 income and a startling (at least to me) 37.3% of FY2008 income. 




 Conservation tax funds come from every Arkansan. The reason I was curious 
about the number of hunting and fishing licenses is to know what percentage of 
Arkansans have a hunting or fishing license, i.e. what percentage of Arkansans 
are consumptive payers of that tax. Total hunting and fishing licenses for 
Arkansas residents totaled 642,080 in FY2009. AGFC said they estimated "40-50% 
of residents purchase both hunting and fishing" licenses. Let's be generous and 
use the 40% figure. That would mean 385,248 Arkansans purchased one or the 
other license or both. Using 2010 census figures for Arkansas there were 
2,915,958 residents. That means an estimated 13.2% of Arkansans bought a 
license. It also means an estimated 86.8% did not buy either license. Finally, 
that means an estimated $3.5 million of the FY2009 conservation tax money came 
from license holders and the remaining $22.9 million came from non-license 
holders. 




 What did the non-license holders get for their $22.9 million in the way of 
non-game projects? Here's a link to the AGFC website re Amendment 76, the 
Conservation sales tax: 




  http://www.agfc.com/aboutagfc/Pages/AboutAmendments.aspx



 I think one can make a pretty good case that far, far more of the conservation 
tax money than 13.2% has been spent in areas that benefit hunters and fishermen 
than non-consumptive users: birders, other nature lovers and members of the 
general public who don't have any interest in nature. 




 It's my understanding that 100% of the cost of the 4 nature centers came from 
conservation tax money, assumedly "(3) more education about wildlife" from the 
AGFC website info re Amendment 75. I guess AGFC commissioners assume hunters 
and fishermen don't benefit from the nature centers. I'm also curious what "(2) 
more wildlife habitat for public use" has been purchased with these funds for 
the use of non-consumptive taxpayers- birders and other nature lovers. And I 
suspect a negligible amount of the $26 million plus each year has been spent on 
"(4) more work with endangered species". 




 Bottom line- AGFC receives a substantial portion of its income from Arkansans 
who neither hunt nor fish (without licenses, at least). I was curious if AGFC 
was spending conservation tax income as promised when it was put to voters and 
approved. 




 Birders and other nature lovers as well as those who are neither are 
contributing substantially to AGFC income, and given the stated intent of how 
the conservation tax money would be spent we may not be getting our money's 
worth or what we were promised when the tax was passed. 




 Does that mean I wish the tax had failed to pass? No, just that when promises 
are made they should be kept. AGFC should be much more forthcoming and specific 
regarding how conservation tax income is benefiting birders and other nature 
lovers who don't hunt or fish. 




 I'll close with the following. In June 2013 I requested updated fiscal 
information from AGFC and got the following response: "you will need to submit 
a Freedom of Information request to our legal division for this information. 
Please let me know if there is something else I can help you with. Thanks." So 
much for keeping the public informed and transparency. And state government is 
even less transparent today than it was two years ago. Sigh. 




 A caveat- I've always appreciated the work of Karen Rowe and others (AGFC once 
had a staff ornithologist if you can imagine that) who have worked on non-game 
species before the conservation tax was passed. Like Joyce, I thought we 
non-consumers were getting a bonus back then with Karen's work on bluebirds, 
barn owls and many other non-game species. 




  From the deep woods just west of Little Rock,

  Barry Haas



 P.S. Joyce, thanks for the opportunity to attempt to explain all this again as 
I did several years ago. I doubt most folks really care if AGFC or other state 
agencies are spending money as promised to the voters. 








  On May 20, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Joyce Hartmann wrote:





 I may be wrong (I have been many times) but programs are usually the result of 
budgets and who pays for what…AGFC conducts a great deal of research and 
education to provide good services for wildlife, but their budget is mostly 
paid for by hunting and fishing licenses, and game management has to be their 
priority...Birders can’t accomplish as much as we’d like in nongame 
activities, which includes parks and tourism and maintenance etc. etc. because 
very little public tax money goes to these state agencies…isn’t it just the 
1/8% sales tax?...AGFC does accomplish a lot of nongame activities with these 
funds…Just a thought…if birders and other nongame groups bought birding 
licenses to financially support their interests (as hunters and anglers do), 
then those activities would have a larger priority…I am grateful to AGFC 
because birds and birders get so many free benefits from all those who buy 
licenses…and I have always bought hunting and fishing licenses…eek, a 
birding license? Well….sometimes I feel like a freeloader… 




    Joyce Hartmann, Choctaw, Van Buren County
Subject: Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax
From: Keith de Noble <kdenoble AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 14:30:41 -0500
Good afternoon,

I don't normally get involved in these discussions. However, I could not
resist this time. Haas' analysis was dissected briefly, but accurately by
Hartman. If FOI requests are good enough for the cynicism of the media,
then it certainly is good enough for the general citizenry. I have a high
level of trust for AG&F. Yes, I'm sure they make mistakes, but I'd much
prefer placing my trust in them than I would the state legislature, the US
congress, and the significant number of birders that are anti-hunters.

As a hunter and avid outdoorsman, I've seen significant benefit from the
many conservation programs performed by AG&F. Land acquisition for the
purpose of hunting and fishing always has a beneficial result for birding,
and conservation in general.

Keith de Noble

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Joyce Hartmann  wrote:

> To add to the discussion…There are 8 nature centers, not 4, operated by
> AGFC…our Little Red River Audubon Society visited all of those on field
> trips. We also took free boat rides to count eagles on Lake Dardanelle,
> provided by the conservation tax. I think those centers are just great
> expenditures for educational purposes…most hunters and anglers enjoy the
> nature centers, too, but what they really want and pay for is habitat and
> game… also, to figure the % of persons owning licenses, a number of license
> holders have lifelong licenses, not annual ones (like me)…and the total
> population count includes children, who would not own licenses…so the
> percentage may not reflect the adult population. I would think those
> figures should be made available, but… sorry you had trouble, Barry; a few
> non-caring people can leave a sour taste for a whole agency…know there are
> wonderful caring people on the agency who are doing all they can for our
> natural resource (all wildlife) in Arkansas…
>
>
>
> The best thing birders can do is to buy an annual duck stamp. This habitat
> improvement benefits ducks, yes, but also eagles and all birds. And it’s a
> financial help to an agency that is probably the best thing we have in the
> state to promote and support wildlife.
>
>
>
> Joyce Hartmann, Choctaw
>
>
>
> *From:* The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List [mailto:
> ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Barry Haas
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:50 AM
> *To:* ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> *Subject:* 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax
>
>
>
> Joyce & Other ARBIRDers,
>
>
>
> Joyce's post struck a nerve with me due to past experiences.  In September
> 2009 I sent a request to the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AGFC) for
> information I assumed was available to the public and already compiled-
> overall income and 1/8% conservation tax income the previous fiscal year
> (FY), numbers of assorted hunting (small game, big game) and fishing
> licenses (annual, short-term), etc.  That information was mostly
> forthcoming, although the Receipts, Disbursements and Balances report I
> received only included pages 1 and 9, not 2-8.  Odd, I thought.  A follow
> up request failed to get those missing pages.  Page 1 of that report showed
> AGFC received $26.4 million from the conservation tax in the FY ended June
> 30, 2009 and $26.5 million in the previous FY.  That's 26.6% of FY2009
> income and a startling (at least to me) 37.3% of FY2008 income.
>
>
>
> Conservation tax funds come from every Arkansan.  The reason I was curious
> about the number of hunting and fishing licenses is to know what percentage
> of Arkansans have a hunting or fishing license, i.e. what percentage of
> Arkansans are consumptive payers of that tax.  Total hunting and fishing
> licenses for Arkansas residents totaled 642,080 in FY2009.  AGFC said they
> estimated "40-50% of residents purchase both hunting and fishing"
> licenses.  Let's be generous and use the 40% figure.  That would mean
> 385,248 Arkansans purchased one or the other license or both.  Using 2010
> census figures for Arkansas there were 2,915,958 residents.  That means an
> estimated 13.2% of Arkansans bought a license.  It also means an estimated
> 86.8% did not buy either license.  Finally, that means an estimated $3.5
> million of the FY2009 conservation tax money came from license holders and
> the remaining $22.9 million came from non-license holders.
>
>
>
> What did the non-license holders get for their $22.9 million in the way of
> non-game projects?  Here's a link to the AGFC website re Amendment 76, the
> Conservation sales tax:
>
>
>
> http://www.agfc.com/aboutagfc/Pages/AboutAmendments.aspx
> 
 

>
>
>
> I think one can make a pretty good case that far, far more of the
> conservation tax money than 13.2% has been spent in areas that benefit
> hunters and fishermen than non-consumptive users: birders, other nature
> lovers and members of the general public who don't have any interest in
> nature.
>
>
>
> It's my understanding that 100% of the cost of the 4 nature centers came
> from conservation tax money, assumedly "(3) more education about wildlife"
> from the AGFC website info re Amendment 75.  I guess AGFC commissioners
> assume hunters and fishermen don't benefit from the nature centers.  I'm
> also curious what "(2) more wildlife habitat for public use" has been
> purchased with these funds for the use of non-consumptive taxpayers-
> birders and other nature lovers.  And I suspect a negligible amount of the
> $26 million plus each year has been spent on "(4) more work with endangered
> species".
>
>
>
> Bottom line- AGFC receives a substantial portion of its income from
> Arkansans who neither hunt nor fish (without licenses, at least).  I was
> curious if AGFC was spending conservation tax income as promised when it
> was put to voters and approved.
>
>
>
> Birders and other nature lovers as well as those who are neither are
> contributing substantially to AGFC income, and given the stated intent of
> how the conservation tax money would be spent we may not be getting our
> money's worth or what we were promised when the tax was passed.
>
>
>
> Does that mean I wish the tax had failed to pass?  No, just that when
> promises are made they should be kept.  AGFC should be much more
> forthcoming and specific regarding how conservation tax income is
> benefiting birders and other nature lovers who don't hunt or fish.
>
>
>
> I'll close with the following.  In June 2013 I requested updated fiscal
> information from AGFC and got the following response: "you will need to
> submit a Freedom of Information request to our legal division for this
> information. Please let me know if there is something else I can help you
> with. Thanks."  So much for keeping the public informed and transparency.
> And state government is even less transparent today than it was two years
> ago.  Sigh.
>
>
>
> A caveat- I've always appreciated the work of Karen Rowe and others (AGFC
> once had a staff ornithologist if you can imagine that) who have worked on
> non-game species before the conservation tax was passed.  Like Joyce, I
> thought we non-consumers were getting a bonus back then with Karen's work
> on bluebirds, barn owls and many other non-game species.
>
>
>
> From the deep woods just west of Little Rock,
>
> Barry Haas
>
>
>
> P.S.  Joyce, thanks for the opportunity to attempt to explain all this
> again as I did several years ago.  I doubt most folks really care if AGFC
> or other state agencies are spending money as promised to the voters.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 20, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Joyce Hartmann wrote:
>
>
>
> I may be wrong (I have been many times) but programs are usually the
> result of budgets and who pays for what…AGFC conducts a great deal of
> research and education to provide good services for wildlife, but their
> budget is mostly paid for by hunting and fishing licenses, and game
> management has to be their priority...Birders can’t accomplish as much as
> we’d like in nongame activities, which includes parks and tourism and
> maintenance etc. etc. because very little public tax money goes to these
> state agencies…isn’t it just the 1/8% sales tax?...AGFC does accomplish a
> lot of nongame activities with these funds…Just a thought…if birders and
> other nongame groups bought birding licenses to financially support their
> interests (as hunters and anglers do), then those activities would have a
> larger priority…I am grateful to AGFC because birds and birders get so many
> free benefits from all those who buy licenses…and I have always bought
> hunting and fishing licenses…eek, a birding license? Well….sometimes I 
feel 

> like a freeloader…
>
>
>
> Joyce Hartmann, Choctaw, Van Buren County
>
>
Subject: Another White-winged Dove in Benton County
From: "Joseph C. Neal" <joeneal AT UARK.EDU>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 19:05:13 +0000
The Bowers family lives east of Rogers near Beaver Lake. They have feeders 
including a suet feeder visited all last winter by a Summer Tanager. On Monday 
May 18 they noticed a strange dove at the feeders and soon identified it as 
White-winged Dove. Interesting enough, Jacque Brown at Centerton saw one at her 
feeder on Sunday May 17. I think these are the first records for Benton County. 
Previously, there have been just a few scattered records in Washington County, 
including, most recently, one seen by David Chapman at a feed mill in 
Springdale December 13, 2013. 
Subject: Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax
From: Joyce Hartmann <hart AT ARTELCO.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:56:08 -0500
To add to the discussion.There are 8 nature centers, not 4, operated by
AGFC.our Little Red River Audubon Society visited all of those on field
trips. We also took free boat rides to count eagles on Lake Dardanelle,
provided by the conservation tax. I think those centers are just great
expenditures for educational purposes.most hunters and anglers enjoy the
nature centers, too, but what they really want and pay for is habitat and
game. also, to figure the % of persons owning licenses, a number of license
holders have lifelong licenses, not annual ones (like me).and the total
population count includes children, who would not own licenses.so the
percentage may not reflect the adult population. I would think those figures
should be made available, but. sorry you had trouble, Barry; a few
non-caring people can leave a sour taste for a whole agency.know there are
wonderful caring people on the agency who are doing all they can for our
natural resource (all wildlife) in Arkansas.

 

The best thing birders can do is to buy an annual duck stamp. This habitat
improvement benefits ducks, yes, but also eagles and all birds. And it's a
financial help to an agency that is probably the best thing we have in the
state to promote and support wildlife. 

 

Joyce Hartmann, Choctaw

 

From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List
[mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Barry Haas
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:50 AM
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax

 

Joyce & Other ARBIRDers,

 

Joyce's post struck a nerve with me due to past experiences.  In September
2009 I sent a request to the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AGFC) for
information I assumed was available to the public and already compiled-
overall income and 1/8% conservation tax income the previous fiscal year
(FY), numbers of assorted hunting (small game, big game) and fishing
licenses (annual, short-term), etc.  That information was mostly
forthcoming, although the Receipts, Disbursements and Balances report I
received only included pages 1 and 9, not 2-8.  Odd, I thought.  A follow up
request failed to get those missing pages.  Page 1 of that report showed
AGFC received $26.4 million from the conservation tax in the FY ended June
30, 2009 and $26.5 million in the previous FY.  That's 26.6% of FY2009
income and a startling (at least to me) 37.3% of FY2008 income.

 

Conservation tax funds come from every Arkansan.  The reason I was curious
about the number of hunting and fishing licenses is to know what percentage
of Arkansans have a hunting or fishing license, i.e. what percentage of
Arkansans are consumptive payers of that tax.  Total hunting and fishing
licenses for Arkansas residents totaled 642,080 in FY2009.  AGFC said they
estimated "40-50% of residents purchase both hunting and fishing" licenses.
Let's be generous and use the 40% figure.  That would mean 385,248 Arkansans
purchased one or the other license or both.  Using 2010 census figures for
Arkansas there were 2,915,958 residents.  That means an estimated 13.2% of
Arkansans bought a license.  It also means an estimated 86.8% did not buy
either license.  Finally, that means an estimated $3.5 million of the FY2009
conservation tax money came from license holders and the remaining $22.9
million came from non-license holders.

 

What did the non-license holders get for their $22.9 million in the way of
non-game projects?  Here's a link to the AGFC website re Amendment 76, the
Conservation sales tax:

 

http://www.agfc.com/aboutagfc/Pages/AboutAmendments.aspx

 

I think one can make a pretty good case that far, far more of the
conservation tax money than 13.2% has been spent in areas that benefit
hunters and fishermen than non-consumptive users: birders, other nature
lovers and members of the general public who don't have any interest in
nature.

 

It's my understanding that 100% of the cost of the 4 nature centers came
from conservation tax money, assumedly "(3) more education about wildlife"
from the AGFC website info re Amendment 75.  I guess AGFC commissioners
assume hunters and fishermen don't benefit from the nature centers.  I'm
also curious what "(2) more wildlife habitat for public use" has been
purchased with these funds for the use of non-consumptive taxpayers- birders
and other nature lovers.  And I suspect a negligible amount of the $26
million plus each year has been spent on "(4) more work with endangered
species".

 

Bottom line- AGFC receives a substantial portion of its income from
Arkansans who neither hunt nor fish (without licenses, at least).  I was
curious if AGFC was spending conservation tax income as promised when it was
put to voters and approved.

 

Birders and other nature lovers as well as those who are neither are
contributing substantially to AGFC income, and given the stated intent of
how the conservation tax money would be spent we may not be getting our
money's worth or what we were promised when the tax was passed.

 

Does that mean I wish the tax had failed to pass?  No, just that when
promises are made they should be kept.  AGFC should be much more forthcoming
and specific regarding how conservation tax income is benefiting birders and
other nature lovers who don't hunt or fish.

 

I'll close with the following.  In June 2013 I requested updated fiscal
information from AGFC and got the following response: "you will need to
submit a Freedom of Information request to our legal division for this
information. Please let me know if there is something else I can help you
with. Thanks."  So much for keeping the public informed and transparency.
And state government is even less transparent today than it was two years
ago.  Sigh.

 

A caveat- I've always appreciated the work of Karen Rowe and others (AGFC
once had a staff ornithologist if you can imagine that) who have worked on
non-game species before the conservation tax was passed.  Like Joyce, I
thought we non-consumers were getting a bonus back then with Karen's work on
bluebirds, barn owls and many other non-game species.

 

From the deep woods just west of Little Rock,

Barry Haas

 

P.S.  Joyce, thanks for the opportunity to attempt to explain all this again
as I did several years ago.  I doubt most folks really care if AGFC or other
state agencies are spending money as promised to the voters.

 

 

 

On May 20, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Joyce Hartmann wrote:





I may be wrong (I have been many times) but programs are usually the result
of budgets and who pays for what.AGFC conducts a great deal of research and
education to provide good services for wildlife, but their budget is mostly
paid for by hunting and fishing licenses, and game management has to be
their priority...Birders can't accomplish as much as we'd like in nongame
activities, which includes parks and tourism and maintenance etc. etc.
because very little public tax money goes to these state agencies.isn't it
just the 1/8% sales tax?...AGFC does accomplish a lot of nongame activities
with these funds.Just a thought.if birders and other nongame groups bought
birding licenses to financially support their interests (as hunters and
anglers do), then those activities would have a larger priority.I am
grateful to AGFC because birds and birders get so many free benefits from
all those who buy licenses.and I have always bought hunting and fishing
licenses.eek, a birding license? Well..sometimes I feel like a freeloader.

 

Joyce Hartmann, Choctaw, Van Buren County
Subject: Re: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax
From: Janine Perlman <jpandjf AT SWBELL.NET>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:32:43 -0500
I care a LOT, Barry, and I surely hope most other taxpayers (and 
non-game aficionados) do, too.  You went to a great deal of effort to 
obtain and analyze this information.  It, and---perhaps even more---what 
you were not able to obtain, are disappointing, to say the least.

I'd think it's surely worthy of some investigative reporting.  I know 
there are journalists on this listserv........

Janine

On 5/20/2015 11:50 AM, Barry Haas wrote:
> Joyce & Other ARBIRDers,
>
> Joyce's post struck a nerve with me due to past experiences.  In 
> September 2009 I sent a request to the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission 
> (AGFC) for information I assumed was available to the public and 
> already compiled- overall income and 1/8% conservation tax income the 
> previous fiscal year (FY), numbers of assorted hunting (small game, 
> big game) and fishing licenses (annual, short-term), etc.  That 
> information was mostly forthcoming, although the Receipts, 
> Disbursements and Balances report I received only included pages 1 and 
> 9, not 2-8.  Odd, I thought.  A follow up request failed to get those 
> missing pages.  Page 1 of that report showed AGFC received $26.4 
> million from the conservation tax in the FY ended June 30, 2009 and 
> $26.5 million in the previous FY.  That's 26.6% of FY2009 income and a 
> startling (at least to me) 37.3% of FY2008 income.
>
> Conservation tax funds come from every Arkansan.  The reason I was 
> curious about the number of hunting and fishing licenses is to know 
> what percentage of Arkansans have a hunting or fishing license, i.e. 
> what percentage of Arkansans are consumptive payers of that tax. 
>  Total hunting and fishing licenses for Arkansas residents totaled 
> 642,080 in FY2009.  AGFC said they estimated "40-50% of residents 
> purchase both hunting and fishing" licenses.  Let's be generous and 
> use the 40% figure.  That would mean 385,248 Arkansans purchased one 
> or the other license or both.  Using 2010 census figures for Arkansas 
> there were 2,915,958 residents.  That means an estimated 13.2% of 
> Arkansans bought a license.  It also means an estimated 86.8% did not 
> buy either license.  Finally, that means an estimated $3.5 million of 
> the FY2009 conservation tax money came from license holders and the 
> remaining $22.9 million came from non-license holders.
>
> What did the non-license holders get for their $22.9 million in the 
> way of non-game projects?  Here's a link to the AGFC website re 
> Amendment 76, the Conservation sales tax:
>
> http://www.agfc.com/aboutagfc/Pages/AboutAmendments.aspx
>
> I think one can make a pretty good case that far, far more of the 
> conservation tax money than 13.2% has been spent in areas that benefit 
> hunters and fishermen than non-consumptive users: birders, other 
> nature lovers and members of the general public who don't have any 
> interest in nature.
>
> It's my understanding that 100% of the cost of the 4 nature centers 
> came from conservation tax money, assumedly "(3) more education about 
> wildlife" from the AGFC website info re Amendment 75.  I guess AGFC 
> commissioners assume hunters and fishermen don't benefit from the 
> nature centers.  I'm also curious what "(2) more wildlife habitat for 
> public use" has been purchased with these funds for the use of 
> non-consumptive taxpayers- birders and other nature lovers.  And I 
> suspect a negligible amount of the $26 million plus each year has been 
> spent on "(4) more work with endangered species".
>
> Bottom line- AGFC receives a substantial portion of its income from 
> Arkansans who neither hunt nor fish (without licenses, at least).  I 
> was curious if AGFC was spending conservation tax income as promised 
> when it was put to voters and approved.
>
> Birders and other nature lovers as well as those who are neither are 
> contributing substantially to AGFC income, and given the stated intent 
> of how the conservation tax money would be spent we may not be getting 
> our money's worth or what we were promised when the tax was passed.
>
> Does that mean I wish the tax had failed to pass?  No, just that when 
> promises are made they should be kept.  AGFC should be much more 
> forthcoming and specific regarding how conservation tax income is 
> benefiting birders and other nature lovers who don't hunt or fish.
>
> I'll close with the following.  In June 2013 I requested updated 
> fiscal information from AGFC and got the following response: "you will 
> need to submit a Freedom of Information request to our legal division 
> for this information. Please let me know if there is something else I 
> can help you with. Thanks."  So much for keeping the public informed 
> and transparency.  And state government is even less transparent today 
> than it was two years ago.  Sigh.
>
> A caveat- I've always appreciated the work of Karen Rowe and others 
> (AGFC once had a staff ornithologist if you can imagine that) who have 
> worked on non-game species before the conservation tax was passed. 
>  Like Joyce, I thought we non-consumers were getting a bonus back then 
> with Karen's work on bluebirds, barn owls and many other non-game species.
>
> From the deep woods just west of Little Rock,
> Barry Haas
>
> P.S.  Joyce, thanks for the opportunity to attempt to explain all this 
> again as I did several years ago.  I doubt most folks really care if 
> AGFC or other state agencies are spending money as promised to the voters.
>
>
>
> On May 20, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Joyce Hartmann wrote:
>
>> I may be wrong (I have been many times) but programs are usually the 
>> result of budgets and who pays for whatAGFC conducts a great deal of 
>> research and education to provide good services for wildlife, but 
>> their budget is mostly paid for by hunting and fishing licenses, and 
>> game management has to be their priority...Birders cant accomplish 
>> as much as wed like in nongame activities, which includes parks and 
>> tourism and maintenance etc. etc. because very little public tax 
>> money goes to these state agenciesisnt it just the 1/8% sales 
>> tax?...AGFC does accomplish a lot of nongame activities with these 
>> fundsJust a thoughtif birders and other nongame groups bought 
>> birding licenses to financially support their interests (as hunters 
>> and anglers do), then those activities would have a larger priorityI 
>> am grateful to AGFC because birds and birders get so many free 
>> benefits from all those who buy licensesand I have always bought 
>> hunting and fishing licenseseek, a birding license? Well.sometimes 
>> I feel like a freeloader
>> Joyce Hartmann, Choctaw, Van Buren County
Subject: Thibault Rd
From: Bob Harden <flutterbybob AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 11:51:59 -0500
There are lots of shorebirds in the farm field on Thibault Rd near the sod farm 
curve. At least 50 Dunlin 20 semipalmated sandpipers and two Ruddy Turnstones 
in breeding plumage 


Sent from my iPhone
Subject: 1/8% Arkansas Conservation Tax
From: Barry Haas <bhaas AT SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 11:50:26 -0500
Joyce & Other ARBIRDers,

Joyce's post struck a nerve with me due to past experiences. In September 2009 
I sent a request to the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AGFC) for information 
I assumed was available to the public and already compiled- overall income and 
1/8% conservation tax income the previous fiscal year (FY), numbers of assorted 
hunting (small game, big game) and fishing licenses (annual, short-term), etc. 
That information was mostly forthcoming, although the Receipts, Disbursements 
and Balances report I received only included pages 1 and 9, not 2-8. Odd, I 
thought. A follow up request failed to get those missing pages. Page 1 of that 
report showed AGFC received $26.4 million from the conservation tax in the FY 
ended June 30, 2009 and $26.5 million in the previous FY. That's 26.6% of 
FY2009 income and a startling (at least to me) 37.3% of FY2008 income. 


Conservation tax funds come from every Arkansan. The reason I was curious about 
the number of hunting and fishing licenses is to know what percentage of 
Arkansans have a hunting or fishing license, i.e. what percentage of Arkansans 
are consumptive payers of that tax. Total hunting and fishing licenses for 
Arkansas residents totaled 642,080 in FY2009. AGFC said they estimated "40-50% 
of residents purchase both hunting and fishing" licenses. Let's be generous and 
use the 40% figure. That would mean 385,248 Arkansans purchased one or the 
other license or both. Using 2010 census figures for Arkansas there were 
2,915,958 residents. That means an estimated 13.2% of Arkansans bought a 
license. It also means an estimated 86.8% did not buy either license. Finally, 
that means an estimated $3.5 million of the FY2009 conservation tax money came 
from license holders and the remaining $22.9 million came from non-license 
holders. 


What did the non-license holders get for their $22.9 million in the way of 
non-game projects? Here's a link to the AGFC website re Amendment 76, the 
Conservation sales tax: 


http://www.agfc.com/aboutagfc/Pages/AboutAmendments.aspx

I think one can make a pretty good case that far, far more of the conservation 
tax money than 13.2% has been spent in areas that benefit hunters and fishermen 
than non-consumptive users: birders, other nature lovers and members of the 
general public who don't have any interest in nature. 


It's my understanding that 100% of the cost of the 4 nature centers came from 
conservation tax money, assumedly "(3) more education about wildlife" from the 
AGFC website info re Amendment 75. I guess AGFC commissioners assume hunters 
and fishermen don't benefit from the nature centers. I'm also curious what "(2) 
more wildlife habitat for public use" has been purchased with these funds for 
the use of non-consumptive taxpayers- birders and other nature lovers. And I 
suspect a negligible amount of the $26 million plus each year has been spent on 
"(4) more work with endangered species". 


Bottom line- AGFC receives a substantial portion of its income from Arkansans 
who neither hunt nor fish (without licenses, at least). I was curious if AGFC 
was spending conservation tax income as promised when it was put to voters and 
approved. 


Birders and other nature lovers as well as those who are neither are 
contributing substantially to AGFC income, and given the stated intent of how 
the conservation tax money would be spent we may not be getting our money's 
worth or what we were promised when the tax was passed. 


Does that mean I wish the tax had failed to pass? No, just that when promises 
are made they should be kept. AGFC should be much more forthcoming and specific 
regarding how conservation tax income is benefiting birders and other nature 
lovers who don't hunt or fish. 


I'll close with the following. In June 2013 I requested updated fiscal 
information from AGFC and got the following response: "you will need to submit 
a Freedom of Information request to our legal division for this information. 
Please let me know if there is something else I can help you with. Thanks." So 
much for keeping the public informed and transparency. And state government is 
even less transparent today than it was two years ago. Sigh. 


A caveat- I've always appreciated the work of Karen Rowe and others (AGFC once 
had a staff ornithologist if you can imagine that) who have worked on non-game 
species before the conservation tax was passed. Like Joyce, I thought we 
non-consumers were getting a bonus back then with Karen's work on bluebirds, 
barn owls and many other non-game species. 


From the deep woods just west of Little Rock,
Barry Haas

P.S. Joyce, thanks for the opportunity to attempt to explain all this again as 
I did several years ago. I doubt most folks really care if AGFC or other state 
agencies are spending money as promised to the voters. 




On May 20, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Joyce Hartmann wrote:

> I may be wrong (I have been many times) but programs are usually the result 
of budgets and who pays for whatAGFC conducts a great deal of research and 
education to provide good services for wildlife, but their budget is mostly 
paid for by hunting and fishing licenses, and game management has to be their 
priority...Birders cant accomplish as much as wed like in nongame activities, 
which includes parks and tourism and maintenance etc. etc. because very little 
public tax money goes to these state agenciesisnt it just the 1/8% sales 
tax?...AGFC does accomplish a lot of nongame activities with these fundsJust a 
thoughtif birders and other nongame groups bought birding licenses to 
financially support their interests (as hunters and anglers do), then those 
activities would have a larger priorityI am grateful to AGFC because birds and 
birders get so many free benefits from all those who buy licensesand I have 
always bought hunting and fishing licenseseek, a birding license? 
Well.sometimes I feel like a freeloader 

>  
> Joyce Hartmann, Choctaw, Van Buren County
Subject: Re: On Mowing...
From: Joyce Hartmann <hart AT ARTELCO.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 10:28:01 -0500
I may be wrong (I have been many times) but programs are usually the result of 
budgets and who pays for what…AGFC conducts a great deal of research and 
education to provide good services for wildlife, but their budget is mostly 
paid for by hunting and fishing licenses, and game management has to be their 
priority...Birders can’t accomplish as much as we’d like in nongame 
activities, which includes parks and tourism and maintenance etc. etc. because 
very little public tax money goes to these state agencies…isn’t it just the 
1/8% sales tax?...AGFC does accomplish a lot of nongame activities with these 
funds…Just a thought…if birders and other nongame groups bought birding 
licenses to financially support their interests (as hunters and anglers do), 
then those activities would have a larger priority…I am grateful to AGFC 
because birds and birders get so many free benefits from all those who buy 
licenses…and I have always bought hunting and fishing licenses…eek, a 
birding license? Well….sometimes I feel like a freeloader… 


On another note, a big thank you to George Hoelzeman and his great idea to have 
an art exhibit just “For the Birds”…in Morrilton at the Rialto Gallery. I 
was so honored to win a first place award for a watercolor of a Pileated 
Woodpecker, from the renowned painter/sculptor/creator juror Guy Bell! The 
reception was so much fun, with “real live birds”, great fiddle/violin 
music by Bill Thurman, the AGFC talk by Cliff Johnson on quail conservation, 
and the fantastic food…the exhibit continues til June 15th, if you happen to 
be close by… 


 

Joyce Hartmann, Choctaw, Van Buren County

 

From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List [mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] 
On Behalf Of Butch Tetzlaff 

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:40 AM
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: FW: On Mowing...

 

Diane, yes, thank you for reading between the lines in my post. I did not mean 
“do not mow – ever” just that there is probably a more ideal time to 
mow/burn than during the breeding season. But it is likely that many land 
owners may ignore or just overlook the fact that they can often use their land 
both in an economically productive way while simultaneously managing for birds 
and wildlife. 


 

The question becomes, how can we get AGFC (and others) to realize the benefits 
as well? Do we have a birding trail in Arkansas? Some states do as they have 
realized the economic benefits that birders and eco-tourism brings. 


 

Sorry, for my ignorance, but I just moved here 8 months ago. It sure is a 
beautiful state and the birds have been great! :) 


 

Anyway, thanks for the clarification!

 

Butch Tetzlaff

Bentonville, AR

 

From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List [mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] 
On Behalf Of diane yates 

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:09 AM
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU  
Subject: On Mowing...

 

I’m not sure the term “no-mow” isn’t a bit misleading, Butch. Because 
we know that if we never mow a field it becomes the victim of succession. And 
by your post you didn’t mean that. But we need to somehow get it through to 
our various Game and Fish coordinators that mowing in late winter--BEFORE 
nesting season--is vital. Here on the Gulf Mtn. WMA they’ve been held up a 
number of seasons by rains. This year of course is no exception. But they need 
to then wait until nesting season is over for the very turkeys and bobwhites 
they are trying to perpetuate, as well as for other ground- and low-level 
nesters. 


Because both mowing and much of the burning had to be delayed, we have a 
healthy crop of both of these game birds this year--more than I’ve seen in a 
long time. I recently met Karen Rowe and have learned she is one biologist who 
is not caving to the game-priority management practices. I only pray the 
decision-makers will listen to her and our reasoning in the near future. It is 
more hazardous to burn in the summer but it isn’t impossible, given the right 
window. And our songbirds as well as upland game birds will be grateful. 
--Dianemarie 


 

 

 
Subject: Re: Mud Drive
From: Jim and Karen Rowe <rollingrfarm AT ROCKETMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 15:13:06 +0000
Thanks Janine.  I am still the only nongame bird biologist for AGFC but we 
have many biologists and technicians in our agency who are interested in bird 
conservation and are currently birders or developing an interest in birding.  
Last week, 30 Wildlife Management Division employees spent 4 days at our Bird 
ID Workshop in preparation for conducting point counts on a number of our WMAs 
next year.  Our objective is to set up long term monitoring points and conduct 
point counts to measure bird response to current and planned habitat 
management.  We counted over 151 species during the  4 day workshops and had 
some fantastic looks at many species.  For me, the looks of excitement and 
interest I saw in our AGFC biologists and technicians when they got their 
first look at a Blue-winged Warbler, Bell's vireo or Parula was far more 
rewarding than any of the rare bird  that  I have ever seen (I'll admit that 
the seeing the Snowy Owl came close).   

I completely agree with your statement that "not only do birders enjoy watching 
birds, but we're willing to pay to help educate and incentivize farmers and 
future farmers to help assure that shorebirds have a future, too".  I think 
that is a powerful statement and I appreciate your support of the Mud Drive. 

Karen 
       From: Janine Perlman 
 To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 2:41 PM
 Subject: Mud Drive
   
 
  
| 
  | 
  |
| 
  | 
  |
| 
  | 
  |
| 
  | 
  |

 
 I support this initiative, and will vote with my checkbook.
 
 Arkansas is behind the rest of the country in many respects, and one of the 
most important (of many most-important ones!) is protection of non-game wild 
species.  The AGFC Board of Commissioners appears to be callously uninterested 
in conserving populations of everything from turtles to songbirds.  

 
 In my opinion, Karen and the other non-game biologists in AGFC are arguably 
doing the most valuable work in the agency.  Yet the last I knew, Karen was 
the only non-game avian biologist.  I hope that's changed, but if it has, it 
hasn't changed enough.  The non-game biologists are shamefully 
under-appreciated and underfunded.  

 
 Karen's proposal is one way we might inject some different and more positive 
developments into the currently dismal scene, and send both the AGFC Board and 
farmers a message that not only do birders enjoy watching birds, but we're 
willing to pay to help educate and incentivize farmers and future farmers to 
help assure that shorebirds have a future, too.   

 
 The powers that be in AGFC are likely to view financial support as real 
support.  A program like this might get the attention of such people, whose 
priorities need some major adjustment.  

 
 The program may turn out to be tiny and mainly symbolic---I hope not, and time 
will tell.  But symbolism can be useful and even powerful, in itself.  And no 
matter the size of the project, good things never happen unless individuals 
make them happen.    

 
 If we birders don't support the State non-game avian biologist(s) and their 
initiatives when we can, we lose a real opportunity....and, I think, ought to 
examine our own priorities. 



 
 Janine
 
 
 

  
Subject: Re: Mud Drive - can we have your support?
From: Jim and Karen Rowe <rollingrfarm AT ROCKETMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 14:52:24 +0000
Jeff, several agricultural research centers across the south have researched 
and measured weed germination and pesticide, nutrient and sediment runoff in 
fields post harvest with open structures vs. closed structures.  We consulted 
with researchers at these center to make sure that when the field structures 
were opened in January that the sediment in fields that had closed water 
control structures didn't just run off at that time.  We were provided with 
data showing that the sediment settled and stayed in the fields.  Similar 
research has been done with weed germination.  We felt that water quality and 
shorebird habitat was an issue that needed to be acted upon and was strongly 
supported by good science and additional studies to support the Mud Drive were 
unnecessary. 

 As part of the students' participation in the Mud Drive, the winners will 
need to compare their fields with closed structures with fields that are left 
to drain and will also need to document bird use of fields when the rains 
create our shorebird and waterfowl "mud".  We hope that the students reach out 
to birders in their area or in the state to help them document bird use.   
Shorebird migration research by the UA USGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 
Research Unit has documented the caloric needs of shorebirds migrating through 
the Arkansas Delta, estimated numbers of birds that move through the state 
and  their data shows that more late summer and fall mudflat habitat is needed 
in to get shorebirds through the state in good body condition.  

 This 2015 growing season is a tough one for producers and late planting will 
lead to a late harvest.  Here in AR county I usually see the fist rice  cut 
as early as the last week of July or first week of August.  That will not be 
the case this year with planting being several weeks to even a month behind 
schedule.  However, shorebird migration through AR starts in mid July and 
continues usually through mid November and for some birds, even beyond.  
Mudflat habitat during August - October is  scarce.  I have no doubt that 
closing structures and rebutting levees within 2 weeks of harvest will provide 
shorebird habitat when a late summer or early fall rain hits.  A field that is 
left to drain as fast as possible after harvest has no chance of providing 
shorebird habitat.  

I appreciate your interest and comments on our project and hope that you have 
an opportunity to mentor a Mud Drive student participant. 

Karen Rowe 


       From: Jeffrey Short 
 To: 'Jim and Karen Rowe' ; 
ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 

 Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 5:52 PM
 Subject: RE: Mud Drive - can we have your support?
   
#yiv4136841220 #yiv4136841220 -- _filtered #yiv4136841220 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 
6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4136841220 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 
3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4136841220 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 
2 4;}#yiv4136841220 #yiv4136841220 p.yiv4136841220MsoNormal, #yiv4136841220 
li.yiv4136841220MsoNormal, #yiv4136841220 div.yiv4136841220MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4136841220 a:link, 
#yiv4136841220 span.yiv4136841220MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4136841220 a:visited, #yiv4136841220 
span.yiv4136841220MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4136841220 
span.yiv4136841220EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4136841220 
.yiv4136841220MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv4136841220 
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv4136841220 div.yiv4136841220WordSection1 
{}#yiv4136841220 All sounds good on paper and is an innovative approach to 
crowdsourcing.  Has there been any thought about performance measures, both 
participation,  bird habitat, weed germination, species presence/absence data 
comparisons, etc,  that could be developed to see if it really works?  Jeff 
Short   


From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List [mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] 
On Behalf Of Jim and Karen Rowe 

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 3:14 PM
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Mud Drive - can we have your support?  Hello:  Several wildlife 
biologists (myself included)  from a variety of state and federal agencies 
have been working on a new project to improve water quality (prevent soil loss 
and nutrient and pesticide runoff) and provide needed late summer and early 
fall shorebird habitat on agricultural lands.  We want farmers to close their 
field structures as soon as possible after harvesting crops.  By closing the 
structures on their fields as soon as possible after harvest, the 
fields would capture summer rains and create mudflat habitat for shorebirds, 
improve water quality and reduce the fields' weed seeds (which is of benefit to 
the farmer).  While there are several federal farm programs that will pay the 
farmers to close their structures, there isn't enough money and the practices 
aren't a high priority.  What our small band of biologists  decided to do 
was create a new effort on our own, a drive to create shorebird and waterfowl 
habitat and conserve water quality. We believe that the practice of closing 
structures after harvest would be of such benefit to the producer that it 
could be implemented on the farm because it was the right thing to do - smart 
farming.  We wanted the project we were creating to not only bring attention 
to the need to improve water quality and provide shorebird habitat, but also 
educate the next generation of farmers on holistic approaching to crop 
production.   One biologist came up with the clever idea of a Mud Drive ( a 
Blood Drive for mudflat habitat for birds and water quality).    In the Mud 
Drive, we will be taking voluntary pledges from producers/farmers/landowners 
who sign a pledge to close their structures on their fields .  A draft pledge 
states "I, __________________, pledge to donate “MUD” on my property which 
is located in ______________ County by closing my risers or adding boards to my 
water control structures within 14 days after harvest. I am doing this because 
it; 1)is economical, 2) will reduce the amount of sediments and nutrients that 
leave my field during the fall and winter, 3) will provide critical habitat for 
shorebirds and waterfowl, 4) will reduce the abundance of spring weeds, and 5) 
further documents that agricultural producers are concerned about water 
quality, the environment, and wildlife habitat. I will leave the riser(s) 
closed, or not remove the boards from the water control structure(s) until 
January 15th at the earliest. Overall, I plan to flood approximately _____ 
acres.  Our next hurdle was how to use the Mud Drive to educate the next 
generation so that closing structures and creating shorebird habitat and 
improving water quality would be something they would automatically implement 
when they ran the farm.  Realizing that money is a big incentive, we decided 
to create a Mud Drive competition in 4H and agricultural students.  Each 
biologist donated $50 of our personal money and are we are now asking other 
people interested in shorebird conservation do so the same.  The donations 
will be used to award cash prizes to the top 3 agricultural students that sign 
up the most Mud Drive habitat and best demonstrate that their habitat has 
improved water quality and attracted shorebirds and waterfowl.  Students will 
have to write an essay demonstrating what they have learned and observed and 
provide photo documentation of bird use and water quality differences at the 
outfall of closed vs. open structures.  Since the Mud Drive is still in the 
development phase, we could include the opportunity for students to contact 
their closest Audubon Chapters for help on identifying birds utilizing Mud 
Drive habitat.    Lastly, we had to figure out how to get the donations to 
the winning students and  realized we were in no position to collect and 
distribute money.  We contacted several non-profit organizations, however they 
needed some of the funds collected to pay for overhead.  Fortunately, the 
Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts has agreed to take the monetary 
donations and turn all of the funds for the Mud Drive into a cash prizes 
for students.   The Arkansas Extension Service has offered to help with the 
Mud Drive and do field checks of 4H students.    Farmers do not need to sign 
up for the Mud Drive through a student, they can also complete a pledge form at 
their county Conservation District office. However, we biologists believes 
that engaging future farmers in wildlife and water quality conservation will 
make the Mud Drive far more effective.  For this reason, we have created a 
monetary prize for students and 4H chapters.  Thus far, our group of 
biologists have raised $200 in prize money.    If you believe in the Mud 
Drive effort and would like to make a contribution to the cash prizes for 
students, please make your check out to Arkansas Association of Conservation 
Districts and write MUD DRIVE in the bottom left line on your check.  Funds 
don't just have to come from individuals; , businesses, clubs and organizations 
can contribute.  Please mail checks to    The Arkansas Association of 
Conservation DistrictsAttn: Debbie Moreland101 East Capitol, Suite 350 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  I know this was a very long email, but rather 
than just tell you about the project, I thought it was important to explain 
how this project came to be.  I am very interested in your thoughts and 
comments on this project and its draft design and draft method of 
implementation. Do you think this is a worthwhile project?  Are you willing 
to donate to it?  Why or why not?     Thank you ,Karen RoweWildlife 
BiologistArkansas Game and Fish Commission    


  
Subject: FW: On Mowing...
From: Butch Tetzlaff <butchchq8 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 08:40:01 -0500
Diane, yes, thank you for reading between the lines in my post. I did not mean 
“do not mow – ever” just that there is probably a more ideal time to 
mow/burn than during the breeding season. But it is likely that many land 
owners may ignore or just overlook the fact that they can often use their land 
both in an economically productive way while simultaneously managing for birds 
and wildlife. 


 

The question becomes, how can we get AGFC (and others) to realize the benefits 
as well? Do we have a birding trail in Arkansas? Some states do as they have 
realized the economic benefits that birders and eco-tourism brings. 


 

Sorry, for my ignorance, but I just moved here 8 months ago. It sure is a 
beautiful state and the birds have been great! J 


 

Anyway, thanks for the clarification!

 

Butch Tetzlaff

Bentonville, AR

 

From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List [mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] 
On Behalf Of diane yates 

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:09 AM
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: On Mowing...

 

I’m not sure the term “no-mow” isn’t a bit misleading, Butch. Because 
we know that if we never mow a field it becomes the victim of succession. And 
by your post you didn’t mean that. But we need to somehow get it through to 
our various Game and Fish coordinators that mowing in late winter--BEFORE 
nesting season--is vital. Here on the Gulf Mtn. WMA they’ve been held up a 
number of seasons by rains. This year of course is no exception. But they need 
to then wait until nesting season is over for the very turkeys and bobwhites 
they are trying to perpetuate, as well as for other ground- and low-level 
nesters. 


Because both mowing and much of the burning had to be delayed, we have a 
healthy crop of both of these game birds this year--more than I’ve seen in a 
long time. I recently met Karen Rowe and have learned she is one biologist who 
is not caving to the game-priority management practices. I only pray the 
decision-makers will listen to her and our reasoning in the near future. It is 
more hazardous to burn in the summer but it isn’t impossible, given the right 
window. And our songbirds as well as upland game birds will be grateful. 
--Dianemarie 


 

 

 
Subject: On Mowing...
From: diane yates <maribird AT OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:09:09 +0000
I’m not sure the term “no-mow” isn’t a bit misleading, Butch. Because 
we know that if we never mow a field it becomes the victim of succession. And 
by your post you didn’t mean that. But we need to somehow get it through to 
our various Game and Fish coordinators that mowing in late winter--BEFORE 
nesting season--is vital. Here on the Gulf Mtn. WMA they’ve been held up a 
number of seasons by rains. This year of course is no exception. But they need 
to then wait until nesting season is over for the very turkeys and bobwhites 
they are trying to perpetuate, as well as for other ground- and low-level 
nesters. 


Because both mowing and much of the burning had to be delayed, we have a 
healthy crop of both of these game birds this year--more than I’ve seen in a 
long time. I recently met Karen Rowe and have learned she is one biologist who 
is not caving to the game-priority management practices. I only pray the 
decision-makers will listen to her and our reasoning in the near future. It is 
more hazardous to burn in the summer but it isn’t impossible, given the right 
window. And our songbirds as well as upland game birds will be grateful. 
--Dianemarie 
Subject: Re: Mud Drive
From: Butch Tetzlaff <butchchq8 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 08:06:07 -0500
I’m rather new around here, but Jeffry, it sounds like you have some 
knowledge about environmental economics and measuring outcomes! It is good to 
see both passion and the desire for data in this realm. As we know, both are 
needed in the modern world if we are to succeed in making change. 


 

The Mud Proposal is an exciting one. Along those lines, does anyone know if 
there is No-Mow initiative out there as well? That is, an encouragement for 
field owners to delay mowing grassy fields until after the breeding season, if 
possible? I drove by a field the other day that was had been housing 
Meadowlarks, Dickcissels, Bobolinks, and Grasshopper Sparrows that was now 
silent, presumably because it had been mowed off. I don’t know when (or even 
if) people commonly mow around here, so I don’t know if this is an ordinary 
or unusual event. 


 

Anyway, Dana Ripper, the Executive Director at Missouri River Bird Observatory 
has been working with farmers and in the Missouri area along the topic of this 
discussion thread. She is very approachable and it might be worth talking to 
her to see what they have been doing in terms of programs and measurement. 


 

www.mrbo.org

 

Butch Tetzlaff

Bentonville, AR

 

From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List [mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] 
On Behalf Of Jeffrey Short 

Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 5:54 PM
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Mud Drive

 

At the risk of opening a “can of worms” (after the robins have mostly moved 
along)… 


 

Assigning value to environmental externalities has always been a problem with 
competing projects. Non-game biology plays the most significant part in the 
environment but always gets the least money. (“Trash fish” are killed with 
abandon and wasted, yet they perform an important ecological function—same 
with turtles.) 


 

I would like to see related economic data collected on the advantages to the 
farmers for the Mud Pledge. After the water recedes, did the reduced weeds 
equate to less herbicide or pesticide use by the farmer? And, how much? If not, 
why? 


 

Does the extra water in the fields delay getting the crops in—especially when 
there seems to be weather patterns over the last several years that delay 
planting anyway. If there are benefits they need to be quantified—and 
marketed—to the agriculture folks to support additional funding for projects, 
education/training and number-crunching. 


 

What are the actual benefits to shorebirds that translate to waterfowl and 
other hunted/trapped species (including mammals)? 


 

If there are ecological benefits along with the economic benefits associated 
with the increased “take” (if any), then the AGFC, DU, et al, could justify 
spending some additional funds to support the mud pledge concept, conservation 
set-asides, etc. Same with the non-consumptive users (birders, hikers, 
cyclists, campers). 


 

We have incredible, new technologies, that can help establish a case for more 
funding of the Mud Drive project as well as others. Bring in the researchers as 
well as the citizen scientists. When we schedule our weekend birding 
excursions, maybe some data could be collected as well as a species list. 


 

Jeff Short

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List [mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] 
On Behalf Of Janine Perlman 

Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 2:41 PM
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Mud Drive

 

 

		
		
		
		


I support this initiative, and will vote with my checkbook.

Arkansas is behind the rest of the country in many respects, and one of the 
most important (of many most-important ones!) is protection of non-game wild 
species. The AGFC Board of Commissioners appears to be callously uninterested 
in conserving populations of everything from turtles to songbirds. 


In my opinion, Karen and the other non-game biologists in AGFC are arguably 
doing the most valuable work in the agency. Yet the last I knew, Karen was the 
only non-game avian biologist. I hope that's changed, but if it has, it hasn't 
changed enough. The non-game biologists are shamefully under-appreciated and 
underfunded. 


Karen's proposal is one way we might inject some different and more positive 
developments into the currently dismal scene, and send both the AGFC Board and 
farmers a message that not only do birders enjoy watching birds, but we're 
willing to pay to help educate and incentivize farmers and future farmers to 
help assure that shorebirds have a future, too. 


The powers that be in AGFC are likely to view financial support as real 
support. A program like this might get the attention of such people, whose 
priorities need some major adjustment. 


The program may turn out to be tiny and mainly symbolic---I hope not, and time 
will tell. But symbolism can be useful and even powerful, in itself. And no 
matter the size of the project, good things never happen unless individuals 
make them happen. 


If we birders don't support the State non-game avian biologist(s) and their 
initiatives when we can, we lose a real opportunity....and, I think, ought to 
examine our own priorities. 


Janine

 
Subject: Re: Mud Drive
From: Carol Joan Patterson <0000003a0ccbe138-dmarc-request AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 03:37:17 +0000
I'm with you on this Janine!Joanie

      From: Janine Perlman 
 To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 2:41 PM
 Subject: Mud Drive
   
  
  
| 
  | 
  |
| 
  | 
  |
| 
  | 
  |
| 
  | 
  |

 
 I support this initiative, and will vote with my checkbook.
 
 Arkansas is behind the rest of the country in many respects, and one of the 
most important (of many most-important ones!) is protection of non-game wild 
species.  The AGFC Board of Commissioners appears to be callously uninterested 
in conserving populations of everything from turtles to songbirds.  

 
 In my opinion, Karen and the other non-game biologists in AGFC are arguably 
doing the most valuable work in the agency.  Yet the last I knew, Karen was 
the only non-game avian biologist.  I hope that's changed, but if it has, it 
hasn't changed enough.  The non-game biologists are shamefully 
under-appreciated and underfunded.  

 
 Karen's proposal is one way we might inject some different and more positive 
developments into the currently dismal scene, and send both the AGFC Board and 
farmers a message that not only do birders enjoy watching birds, but we're 
willing to pay to help educate and incentivize farmers and future farmers to 
help assure that shorebirds have a future, too.   

 
 The powers that be in AGFC are likely to view financial support as real 
support.  A program like this might get the attention of such people, whose 
priorities need some major adjustment.  

 
 The program may turn out to be tiny and mainly symbolic---I hope not, and time 
will tell.  But symbolism can be useful and even powerful, in itself.  And no 
matter the size of the project, good things never happen unless individuals 
make them happen.    

 
 If we birders don't support the State non-game avian biologist(s) and their 
initiatives when we can, we lose a real opportunity....and, I think, ought to 
examine our own priorities. 

 
 Janine
 
  
 

  
Subject: Hawks ID'd
From: Alyson Hoge <alycat14 AT ME.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 22:11:00 -0500
All --

The juveniles at the Blue Cross building are red-tailed hawks. 

The photo will be in Thursday's paper.

Thanks to all who replied. You are a great resource.

Alyson Hoge
Subject: Red Slough Bird Survey - May 19
From: David Arbour <arbour AT WINDSTREAM.NET>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 21:50:53 -0500
It was overcast and foggy turning partly cloudy and windy on the survey
today.  64 species were found.  Looks like migration is about over.  I
pulled up to the SE corner of Otter Lake where there is a duck nest box and
noticed a female Wood Duck with a bunch of newly hatched young in the water
below the box.  She went quickly swimming off into some emergent vegetation
calling alarmingly with her young following behind her.  I studied her young
and noticed there were 10 Wood Duck ducklings and 6 Hooded Merganser
ducklings.  This is the first time I have observed a mixed brood even though
we have seen mixed clutches of eggs in the nest boxes.  The Hooded Merganser
eggs and their young are a little larger than the Wood Duck's and the young
are very different looking.  It suddenly dawn on me that I had interrupted
her and there may still be young in the box.  I quickly checked and sure
enough there were two Wood Duck ducklings still in the box.  I scooped them
up and placed them in the water where they took off after the mother into
the vegetation as she was still close and calling.  Here is my list for
today:

 

Black-bellied Whistling Duck - 2 (Terry Stuart saw an additional 4 over on
the west side.)

Wood Duck - 16 

Hooded Merganser - 4

Pied-billed Grebe - 8

Neotropic Cormorant - 5 

Double-crested Cormorant - 2

Anhinga - 34

Least Bittern - 8

Great Blue Heron - 6

Great Egret - 6

Snowy Egret - 1

Cattle Egret - 11

Green Heron - 1

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron - 1

White Ibis - 19

Turkey Vulture - 5

Osprey - 1

Mississippi Kite - 1

Purple Gallinule - 16

Common Gallinule - 19

American Coot - 6

Killdeer - 1

Spotted Sandpiper - 1

Least Tern - 1

Mourning Dove - 15

Yellow-billed Cuckoo - 5

Red-bellied Woodpecker - 2

Pileated Woodpecker - 1

Eastern Wood-Pewee - 1

Acadian Flycatcher - 2

Alder Flycatcher - 1

Willow Flycatcher - 3

Great Crested Flycatcher - 1

Eastern Kingbird - 5

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher - 2

White-eyed Vireo - 3

Bell's Vireo - 2

Red-eyed Vireo - 3

American Crow - 1

Fish Crow - 5

Tree Swallow - 16

Cliff Swallow - 2

Barn Swallow - 2

Carolina Chickadee - 3

Tufted Titmouse - 2

Carolina Wren - 8

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher - 2

Eastern Bluebird - 2

Northern Mockingbird - 2

Yellow-throated Warbler - 1

Pine Warbler - 1

Prothonotary Warbler - 3

Kentucky Warbler - 1

Common Yellowthroat - 8

Yellow-breasted Chat - 6

Northern Cardinal - 13

Blue Grosbeak - 1

Indigo Bunting - 7

Painted Bunting - 2

Dickcissel - 4

Red-winged Blackbird - 19

Common Grackle - 8

Brown-headed Cowbird - 1

Orchard Oriole - 2

 

 

Odonates:

 

Fragile Forktail

Lilypad Forktail

Orange Bluet

Common Green Darner

Baskettail species

Prince Baskettail

Halloween Pennant

Calico Pennant

Stillwater Clubtail

Eastern Pondhawk

Great-blue Skimmer

Eastern Amberwing

Blue Dasher

Variegated Meadowhawk

Spot-winged Glider

Black Saddlebags

 

Herps:

 

American Alligator

Softshell turtle species

Western Chicken Turtle

Southern Black Racer

Watersnake species

Broad-headed skink

Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad

Green Treefrog

Blanchard's Cricket Frog

Southern Leopard Frog

Bronze Frog

Bullfrog

 

 

Good birding!

 

David Arbour

De Queen, AR

 

 
Subject: Re: Mud Drive
From: Jonathan Perry <jonathanperry24 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 18:05:22 -0500
You bet. You folks tell us how to collect those data (I'm a snob, "data" is a 
plural noun), and many, perhaps most, of us will help out. I suspect we share 
the common desire to save as much biological diversity as we can. 


Sent from my iPad

> On May 19, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Jeffrey Short  wrote:
> 
> At the risk of opening a “can of worms” (after the robins have mostly 
moved along)… 

>  
> Assigning value to environmental externalities has always been a problem with 
competing projects. Non-game biology plays the most significant part in the 
environment but always gets the least money. (“Trash fish” are killed with 
abandon and wasted, yet they perform an important ecological function—same 
with turtles.) 

>  
> I would like to see related economic data collected on the advantages to the 
farmers for the Mud Pledge. After the water recedes, did the reduced weeds 
equate to less herbicide or pesticide use by the farmer? And, how much? If not, 
why? 

>  
> Does the extra water in the fields delay getting the crops in—especially 
when there seems to be weather patterns over the last several years that delay 
planting anyway. If there are benefits they need to be quantified—and 
marketed—to the agriculture folks to support additional funding for projects, 
education/training and number-crunching. 

>  
> What are the actual benefits to shorebirds that translate to waterfowl and 
other hunted/trapped species (including mammals)? 

>  
> If there are ecological benefits along with the economic benefits associated 
with the increased “take” (if any), then the AGFC, DU, et al, could justify 
spending some additional funds to support the mud pledge concept, conservation 
set-asides, etc. Same with the non-consumptive users (birders, hikers, 
cyclists, campers). 

>  
> We have incredible, new technologies, that can help establish a case for more 
funding of the Mud Drive project as well as others. Bring in the researchers as 
well as the citizen scientists. When we schedule our weekend birding 
excursions, maybe some data could be collected as well as a species list. 

>  
> Jeff Short
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List 
[mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Janine Perlman 

> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 2:41 PM
> To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Mud Drive
>  
>  
> 
> I support this initiative, and will vote with my checkbook.
> 
> Arkansas is behind the rest of the country in many respects, and one of the 
most important (of many most-important ones!) is protection of non-game wild 
species. The AGFC Board of Commissioners appears to be callously uninterested 
in conserving populations of everything from turtles to songbirds. 

> 
> In my opinion, Karen and the other non-game biologists in AGFC are arguably 
doing the most valuable work in the agency. Yet the last I knew, Karen was the 
only non-game avian biologist. I hope that's changed, but if it has, it hasn't 
changed enough. The non-game biologists are shamefully under-appreciated and 
underfunded. 

> 
> Karen's proposal is one way we might inject some different and more positive 
developments into the currently dismal scene, and send both the AGFC Board and 
farmers a message that not only do birders enjoy watching birds, but we're 
willing to pay to help educate and incentivize farmers and future farmers to 
help assure that shorebirds have a future, too. 

> 
> The powers that be in AGFC are likely to view financial support as real 
support. A program like this might get the attention of such people, whose 
priorities need some major adjustment. 

> 
> The program may turn out to be tiny and mainly symbolic---I hope not, and 
time will tell. But symbolism can be useful and even powerful, in itself. And 
no matter the size of the project, good things never happen unless individuals 
make them happen. 

> 
> If we birders don't support the State non-game avian biologist(s) and their 
initiatives when we can, we lose a real opportunity....and, I think, ought to 
examine our own priorities. 

> 
> Janine
> 
>  
Subject: Re: Mud Drive
From: Jeffrey Short <bashman AT EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 17:54:24 -0500
At the risk of opening a “can of worms” (after the robins have mostly moved 
along)… 


 

Assigning value to environmental externalities has always been a problem with 
competing projects. Non-game biology plays the most significant part in the 
environment but always gets the least money. (“Trash fish” are killed with 
abandon and wasted, yet they perform an important ecological function—same 
with turtles.) 


 

I would like to see related economic data collected on the advantages to the 
farmers for the Mud Pledge. After the water recedes, did the reduced weeds 
equate to less herbicide or pesticide use by the farmer? And, how much? If not, 
why? 


 

Does the extra water in the fields delay getting the crops in—especially when 
there seems to be weather patterns over the last several years that delay 
planting anyway. If there are benefits they need to be quantified—and 
marketed—to the agriculture folks to support additional funding for projects, 
education/training and number-crunching. 


 

What are the actual benefits to shorebirds that translate to waterfowl and 
other hunted/trapped species (including mammals)? 


 

If there are ecological benefits along with the economic benefits associated 
with the increased “take” (if any), then the AGFC, DU, et al, could justify 
spending some additional funds to support the mud pledge concept, conservation 
set-asides, etc. Same with the non-consumptive users (birders, hikers, 
cyclists, campers). 


 

We have incredible, new technologies, that can help establish a case for more 
funding of the Mud Drive project as well as others. Bring in the researchers as 
well as the citizen scientists. When we schedule our weekend birding 
excursions, maybe some data could be collected as well as a species list. 


 

Jeff Short

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List [mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] 
On Behalf Of Janine Perlman 

Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 2:41 PM
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Mud Drive

 

 

		
		
		
		


I support this initiative, and will vote with my checkbook.

Arkansas is behind the rest of the country in many respects, and one of the 
most important (of many most-important ones!) is protection of non-game wild 
species. The AGFC Board of Commissioners appears to be callously uninterested 
in conserving populations of everything from turtles to songbirds. 


In my opinion, Karen and the other non-game biologists in AGFC are arguably 
doing the most valuable work in the agency. Yet the last I knew, Karen was the 
only non-game avian biologist. I hope that's changed, but if it has, it hasn't 
changed enough. The non-game biologists are shamefully under-appreciated and 
underfunded. 


Karen's proposal is one way we might inject some different and more positive 
developments into the currently dismal scene, and send both the AGFC Board and 
farmers a message that not only do birders enjoy watching birds, but we're 
willing to pay to help educate and incentivize farmers and future farmers to 
help assure that shorebirds have a future, too. 


The powers that be in AGFC are likely to view financial support as real 
support. A program like this might get the attention of such people, whose 
priorities need some major adjustment. 


The program may turn out to be tiny and mainly symbolic---I hope not, and time 
will tell. But symbolism can be useful and even powerful, in itself. And no 
matter the size of the project, good things never happen unless individuals 
make them happen. 


If we birders don't support the State non-game avian biologist(s) and their 
initiatives when we can, we lose a real opportunity....and, I think, ought to 
examine our own priorities. 


Janine

 
Subject: Photo ID help needed
From: Alyson Hoge <alycat14 AT ME.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 22:16:34 +0000
All — 

One of our staff photographers took a photo of a nest of immature hawks at the 
Blue Cross building on Seventh Street in Little Rock.  


Someone there told him the birds were red tails. We are trying to confirm that 
before we publish a picture. If no one knows for sure, we'll fudge.  


If you want to try to ID the birds, let me know and I'll send you the photo.

Alyson Hoge (editor at Democrat-Gazette)
Pulaski County 
Subject: Nightjars
From: diane yates <maribird AT OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 20:00:56 +0000
I fear it will be too far (the Greers Ferry end) for those hours. I’m on the 
west end of the county, probably as close to the route mentioned near Hector as 
to Greers Ferry. As I’ve posted in the past, here north of Conway and 
somewhat westward is a vast uncharted electronic wasteland. I’m the only 
regular eBirder, one of the few birders on- or off-line. It’s a dead zone for 
cell phones even. But we have birds! As many species as anywhere not blessed 
with a large body of water. 


Husband will say no. Even I don’t like to travel alone such distancesat 
night. My only birding friends live at least in Clinton so getting together at 
a meeting point isn’t very practical even if I can recruit any. But as I 
mentioned to Bill, maybe we can add a route? I’m fearless here in my own 
stomping grounds!--Dianemarie 
Subject: Mud Drive
From: Janine Perlman <jpandjf AT SWBELL.NET>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 14:41:23 -0500

	

	

	

	


I support this initiative, and will vote with my checkbook.

Arkansas is behind the rest of the country in many respects, and one of 
the most important (of many most-important ones!) is protection of 
non-game wild species.  The AGFC Board of Commissioners appears to be 
callously uninterested in conserving populations of everything from 
turtles to songbirds.

In my opinion, Karen and the other non-game biologists in AGFC are 
arguably doing the most valuable work in the agency.  Yet the last I 
knew, Karen was the only non-game avian biologist.  I hope that's 
changed, but if it has, it hasn't changed enough.  The non-game 
biologists are shamefully under-appreciated and underfunded.

Karen's proposal is one way we might inject some different and more 
positive developments into the currently dismal scene, and send both the 
AGFC Board and farmers a message that not only do birders enjoy watching 
birds, but we're willing to pay to help educate and incentivize farmers 
and future farmers to help assure that shorebirds have a future, too.

The powers that be in AGFC are likely to view financial support as real 
support.  A program like this might get the attention of such people, 
whose priorities need some major adjustment.

The program may turn out to be tiny and mainly symbolic---I hope not, 
and time will tell.  But symbolism can be useful and even powerful, in 
itself.  And no matter the size of the project, good things never happen 
unless individuals make them happen.

If we birders don't support the State non-game avian biologist(s) and 
their initiatives when we can, we lose a real opportunity....and, I 
think, ought to examine our own priorities.

Janine

Subject: Bill and Nightjars
From: diane yates <maribird AT OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 19:17:01 +0000
Where in Arkansas, Bill? My dear computer won’t pull up an email for you 
(though it has a habit of showing it later AFTER I’ve taken up space on the 
listserv.) 


Are you saying I could survey here in VBC County, or that I should get a group 
together to do one of these listed routes? And I’d like to know more about 
your band.--Dianemarie 
Subject: Nightjars
From: diane yates <maribird AT OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 12:17:06 +0000
I’m disappointed to learn there are no routes in the Van Buren County region. 
I’d love to do this but I can’t travel that far at those hours. Consider 
adding a route in future years maybe. We get chucks and whips regularly along 
389 and 95, and the CONI is dependable up Low Gap Road (Scotland to Alread) all 
season.--Dianemarie in Scotland. 
Subject: Re: Mud Drive - can we have your support?
From: Karen And Jim Rowe <rollingrfarm AT ROCKETMAIL.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 04:22:58 -0500
Yes Jeff there has but I didn't get into that in my first email. Will respond 
later, I'm off to do marsh it'd surveys at Choctaw West WMA. . 


Sent from my iPhone

> On May 18, 2015, at 5:52 PM, Jeffrey Short  wrote:
> 
> All sounds good on paper and is an innovative approach to crowdsourcing.
>  
> Has there been any thought about performance measures, both participation, 
bird habitat, weed germination, species presence/absence data comparisons, etc, 
that could be developed to see if it really works? 

>  
> Jeff Short
>  
> From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List 
[mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Jim and Karen Rowe 

> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 3:14 PM
> To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Mud Drive - can we have your support?
>  
> Hello:
>  
> Several wildlife biologists (myself included) from a variety of state and 
federal agencies have been working on a new project to improve water quality 
(prevent soil loss and nutrient and pesticide runoff) and provide needed late 
summer and early fall shorebird habitat on agricultural lands. We want farmers 
to close their field structures as soon as possible after harvesting crops. By 
closing the structures on their fields as soon as possible after harvest, the 
fields would capture summer rains and create mudflat habitat for shorebirds, 
improve water quality and reduce the fields' weed seeds (which is of benefit to 
the farmer). 

>  
> While there are several federal farm programs that will pay the farmers to 
close their structures, there isn't enough money and the practices aren't a 
high priority. What our small band of biologists decided to do was create a new 
effort on our own, a drive to create shorebird and waterfowl habitat and 
conserve water quality. We believe that the practice of closing structures 
after harvest would be of such benefit to the producer that it could be 
implemented on the farm because it was the right thing to do - smart farming. 
We wanted the project we were creating to not only bring attention to the need 
to improve water quality and provide shorebird habitat, but also educate the 
next generation of farmers on holistic approaching to crop production. 

>  
> One biologist came up with the clever idea of a Mud Drive ( a Blood Drive for 
mudflat habitat for birds and water quality). In the Mud Drive, we will be 
taking voluntary pledges from producers/farmers/landowners who sign a pledge to 
close their structures on their fields . A draft pledge states "I, 
__________________, pledge to donate “MUD” on my property which is located 
in ______________ County by closing my risers or adding boards to my water 
control structures within 14 days after harvest. I am doing this because it; 
1)is economical, 2) will reduce the amount of sediments and nutrients that 
leave my field during the fall and winter, 3) will provide critical habitat for 
shorebirds and waterfowl, 4) will reduce the abundance of spring weeds, and 5) 
further documents that agricultural producers are concerned about water 
quality, the environment, and wildlife habitat. I will leave the riser(s) 
closed, or not remove the boards from the water control structure(s) until 
January 15th at the earliest. Overall, I plan to flood approximately _____ 
acres. 

>  
> Our next hurdle was how to use the Mud Drive to educate the next generation 
so that closing structures and creating shorebird habitat and improving water 
quality would be something they would automatically implement when they ran the 
farm. Realizing that money is a big incentive, we decided to create a Mud Drive 
competition in 4H and agricultural students. Each biologist donated $50 of our 
personal money and are we are now asking other people interested in shorebird 
conservation do so the same. The donations will be used to award cash prizes to 
the top 3 agricultural students that sign up the most Mud Drive habitat and 
best demonstrate that their habitat has improved water quality and attracted 
shorebirds and waterfowl. Students will have to write an essay demonstrating 
what they have learned and observed and provide photo documentation of bird use 
and water quality differences at the outfall of closed vs. open structures. 
Since the Mud Drive is still in the development phase, we could include the 
opportunity for students to contact their closest Audubon Chapters for help on 
identifying birds utilizing Mud Drive habitat. 

>  
> Lastly, we had to figure out how to get the donations to the winning students 
and realized we were in no position to collect and distribute money. We 
contacted several non-profit organizations, however they needed some of the 
funds collected to pay for overhead. Fortunately, the Arkansas Association of 
Conservation Districts has agreed to take the monetary donations and turn all 
of the funds for the Mud Drive into a cash prizes for students. The Arkansas 
Extension Service has offered to help with the Mud Drive and do field checks of 
4H students. 

>  
> Farmers do not need to sign up for the Mud Drive through a student, they can 
also complete a pledge form at their county Conservation District office. 
However, we biologists believes that engaging future farmers in wildlife and 
water quality conservation will make the Mud Drive far more effective. For this 
reason, we have created a monetary prize for students and 4H chapters. Thus 
far, our group of biologists have raised $200 in prize money. 

>  
> If you believe in the Mud Drive effort and would like to make a contribution 
to the cash prizes for students, please make your check out to Arkansas 
Association of Conservation Districts and write MUD DRIVE in the bottom left 
line on your check. Funds don't just have to come from individuals; , 
businesses, clubs and organizations can contribute. Please mail checks to 

>   The Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts
> Attn: Debbie Moreland
> 101 East Capitol, Suite 350
> Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
>  
> I know this was a very long email, but rather than just tell you about the 
project, I thought it was important to explain how this project came to be. I 
am very interested in your thoughts and comments on this project and its draft 
design and draft method of implementation. Do you think this is a worthwhile 
project? Are you willing to donate to it? Why or why not? 

>  
> Thank you ,
> Karen Rowe
> Wildlife Biologist
> Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 
>  
Subject: Nightjar Surveys, begging for help, May 25th - June 8th
From: "Anderson, Leif E -FS" <leanderson AT FS.FED.US>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 03:52:58 +0000
Greetings all,
It's time to get out and play in the dark and enjoy one of the most peaceful 
times of a day. 

We've been doing surveys in AR since 2008. AR has ran 10-17 routes per year, 
for a total of 1405 nightjars and several owls as a side benefit. This places 
us 4th place IN THE ENTIRE NATION (behind AZ, NC &FL. We could move to 2nd if 
you'd consider volunteering. 


Since 10 of the routes each year are mine, I sure could use some help! AR is a 
transition state where Chuck-will-widows and Eastern Whip-poor-wills are found 
so you would be greatly increasing the knowledge base of the species ranges. 


The surveys:
Nightjars are underrepresented in the Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS) and most 
point counts, so really need a survey designed just for them. In addition they 
have to be run while the moon is up. They take about 1.5 hours and are 10 
stops, 1 mile apart. You listen for 6 minutes at each stop. You only have to 
know the call of 3 species, so the surveys can be fun and quite peaceful. The 
times range for our surveys start at approx. 8:45pm to 2am early in the count 
period then shift to approx. Midnight to 5:45am, later in the count period. you 
pick the time that best suits you. You can find out more information at 
www.nightjars.org 


The habitat really require a survey designed for Common Nighthawks and another 
for the whip & chucks. Or you could start a route for Nighthawks and then take 
it out of town for whips/chucks. 


How can you help?

Common Nighthawks:
There is only 1 Nighthawk route at Russellville. If you have Nighthawks in a 
town near you, then design a survey just for them. I would be glad to find the 
exact times for your area. I would also be glad to talk over the phone and 
design a Google Earth route, specifically for you. I can also help with the 
data entry. 

So all you have to do is register at the website and then run the route. Let me 
know if you want help. 


Whips & Chucks:
The very best data will be when we compare the nightjar routes to the exact 
spots on the BBS. 

So ideally it would be best for the person that runs the BBS route to also run 
the nightjars. But this is really asking a lot of the BBS volunteers that 
usually have a 1-2 hr drive (and sometimes 4hrs) to get to their routes and the 
routes take 4.5 hours and have to be started at an exact time (around 
5:12-5:38am) These routes can be intense so most of us wouldn't want to do a 
BBS route & a nightjar route on the same day. If you're a BBS volunteer and 
want to do Nightjars too, (especially on a different day) then holler at me and 
I can get you the exact times for your route. 

Of the 50+ BBS routes in AR only 3-4 get run each year for nightjars, so this 
is where EVERYONE could help out. Just pick a BBS route near your house and 
I'll get you the exact times, the starting point and exact directions for the 
route. 

The BBS routes by AR region are:
Northwest:   Rudy,  Boston Mt,  Compton,  Farwell,  Avoca and  Centerton.
Northcentral:  Yellville,  Rupert,  Stark,  Marshall,  Fulton  and Zion.
Northeast: Ravenden Springs, Maynard, Lafe, Saffell, Russell, Augusta2, Hickory 
Ridge, Wilson and Dell. 

Eastcentral:  Hughes,  Crowley's Ridge and Ulm.
Central:   Nance,  Dry Fork,  Poyen2 and England.
Westcentral:   Massard,  Coal Hill,  Havana,  Waldron,  Sims.
Southwest: Hatfield, Lockesburg, Hollywood, Ashdown, Hope, Stamps and 
Springhill. 

Southcentral:    Princeton,  Locust Bayou and Stephens.
Southeast:  Gillett,  Southbend,  Kelso,  Eudora and Old Milo.

A few of these may not have a single bird, but this negative information is 
even more important in establishing the AR range. 


So PLEASE adopt a BBS route for nightjars and be a huge help in establishing 
the range in AR! You can contact me at leanderson at fs.fed.us 479-284-3150 ext 
3151, usually from 7am till 6pm. 

Cheers, Leif  AT  Hector


Subject: Nighthawk
From: Bill Thurman <bill.masterofmusic AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 22:09:37 -0500
I saw a Nighthawk cutting capers and catching insects through my apartment
driveway earlier this evening. Quite a few wood bats around too.
       The frogs of several species and into the hundreds are singing now
with a vengeance after all the rain we've had. And a thousand fireflies.
      Also I had a great fun time playing for The Arts For The Birds
exhibition in Morrilton. Thanks again, George. I met a lot of great people
of all ages and enjoyed meeting Clifton Jackson who gave a great
presentation of Bobwhites and their lives and habitat. The whole thing was
a great success!

                               Bill Thurman
Subject: Re: Mud Drive - can we have your support?
From: Jeffrey Short <bashman AT EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 17:52:17 -0500
All sounds good on paper and is an innovative approach to crowdsourcing.

 

Has there been any thought about performance measures, both participation, bird 
habitat, weed germination, species presence/absence data comparisons, etc, that 
could be developed to see if it really works? 


 

Jeff Short

 

From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List [mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] 
On Behalf Of Jim and Karen Rowe 

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 3:14 PM
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Mud Drive - can we have your support?

 

Hello:

 

Several wildlife biologists (myself included) from a variety of state and 
federal agencies have been working on a new project to improve water quality 
(prevent soil loss and nutrient and pesticide runoff) and provide needed late 
summer and early fall shorebird habitat on agricultural lands. We want farmers 
to close their field structures as soon as possible after harvesting crops. By 
closing the structures on their fields as soon as possible after harvest, the 
fields would capture summer rains and create mudflat habitat for shorebirds, 
improve water quality and reduce the fields' weed seeds (which is of benefit to 
the farmer). 


 

While there are several federal farm programs that will pay the farmers to 
close their structures, there isn't enough money and the practices aren't a 
high priority. What our small band of biologists decided to do was create a new 
effort on our own, a drive to create shorebird and waterfowl habitat and 
conserve water quality. We believe that the practice of closing structures 
after harvest would be of such benefit to the producer that it could be 
implemented on the farm because it was the right thing to do - smart farming. 
We wanted the project we were creating to not only bring attention to the need 
to improve water quality and provide shorebird habitat, but also educate the 
next generation of farmers on holistic approaching to crop production. 


 

One biologist came up with the clever idea of a Mud Drive ( a Blood Drive for 
mudflat habitat for birds and water quality). In the Mud Drive, we will be 
taking voluntary pledges from producers/farmers/landowners who sign a pledge to 
close their structures on their fields . A draft pledge states "I, 
__________________, pledge to donate “MUD” on my property which is located 
in ______________ County by closing my risers or adding boards to my water 
control structures within 14 days after harvest. I am doing this because it; 
1)is economical, 2) will reduce the amount of sediments and nutrients that 
leave my field during the fall and winter, 3) will provide critical habitat for 
shorebirds and waterfowl, 4) will reduce the abundance of spring weeds, and 5) 
further documents that agricultural producers are concerned about water 
quality, the environment, and wildlife habitat. I will leave the riser(s) 
closed, or not remove the boards from the water control structure(s) until 
January 15th at the earliest. Overall, I plan to flood approximately _____ 
acres. 


 

Our next hurdle was how to use the Mud Drive to educate the next generation so 
that closing structures and creating shorebird habitat and improving water 
quality would be something they would automatically implement when they ran the 
farm. Realizing that money is a big incentive, we decided to create a Mud Drive 
competition in 4H and agricultural students. Each biologist donated $50 of our 
personal money and are we are now asking other people interested in shorebird 
conservation do so the same. The donations will be used to award cash prizes to 
the top 3 agricultural students that sign up the most Mud Drive habitat and 
best demonstrate that their habitat has improved water quality and attracted 
shorebirds and waterfowl. Students will have to write an essay demonstrating 
what they have learned and observed and provide photo documentation of bird use 
and water quality differences at the outfall of closed vs. open structures. 
Since the Mud Drive is still in the development phase, we could include the 
opportunity for students to contact their closest Audubon Chapters for help on 
identifying birds utilizing Mud Drive habitat. 


 

Lastly, we had to figure out how to get the donations to the winning students 
and realized we were in no position to collect and distribute money. We 
contacted several non-profit organizations, however they needed some of the 
funds collected to pay for overhead. Fortunately, the Arkansas Association of 
Conservation Districts has agreed to take the monetary donations and turn all 
of the funds for the Mud Drive into a cash prizes for students. The Arkansas 
Extension Service has offered to help with the Mud Drive and do field checks of 
4H students. 


 

Farmers do not need to sign up for the Mud Drive through a student, they can 
also complete a pledge form at their county Conservation District office. 
However, we biologists believes that engaging future farmers in wildlife and 
water quality conservation will make the Mud Drive far more effective. For this 
reason, we have created a monetary prize for students and 4H chapters. Thus 
far, our group of biologists have raised $200 in prize money. 


 

 If you believe in the Mud Drive effort and would like to make a contribution 
to the cash prizes for students, please make your check out to Arkansas 
Association of Conservation Districts and write MUD DRIVE in the bottom left 
line on your check. Funds don't just have to come from individuals; , 
businesses, clubs and organizations can contribute. Please mail checks to 


  The Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts

Attn: Debbie Moreland

101 East Capitol, Suite 350
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

 

I know this was a very long email, but rather than just tell you about the 
project, I thought it was important to explain how this project came to be. I 
am very interested in your thoughts and comments on this project and its draft 
design and draft method of implementation. Do you think this is a worthwhile 
project? Are you willing to donate to it? Why or why not? 


 

Thank you ,

Karen Rowe

Wildlife Biologist

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 

 
Subject: Re: White-winged Dove
From: Jacque Brown <bluebird2 AT COX.NET>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 16:43:48 -0500
I meant to post on Sunday that the White-winged Dove at my house in Centerton 
put in an appearance late Sunday afternoon. It didn’t stay long but could be 
sneaking in while I am otherwise engaged. I think I'm the only person who puts 
food out. Jacque 



> On May 16, 2015, at 5:05 PM, Jacque Brown  wrote:
> 
> I haven’t seen mine since the neighbor scared it off trying to call her dog 
in. I saw it for all of 10 minutes. It could have been out back for several 
hours though. I hope it comes back. Jacque 

> 
> 
>> On May 16, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Terry Butler > wrote: 

>> 
>> After 11 days, the White-winged Dove still comes to ground feed almost each 
day. It could be coming without me seeing it. It must be staying in another 
area and coming to feed here. It never stays more than 10 minutes and then 
gone. 

>>  
>> Here at present,
>>  
>> Terry
> 
Subject: Mud Drive - can we have your support?
From: Jim and Karen Rowe <rollingrfarm AT ROCKETMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 20:13:40 +0000
 Hello:
Several wildlife biologists (myself included)  from a variety of state and 
federal agencies have been working on a new project to improve water quality 
(prevent soil loss and nutrient and pesticide runoff) and provide needed late 
summer and early fall shorebird habitat on agricultural lands.  We want 
farmers to close their field structures as soon as possible after harvesting 
crops.  By closing the structures on their fields as soon as possible after 
harvest, the fields would capture summer rains and create mudflat habitat for 
shorebirds, improve water quality and reduce the fields' weed seeds (which is 
of benefit to the farmer). 

While there are several federal farm programs that will pay the farmers to 
close their structures, there isn't enough money and the practices aren't a 
high priority.  What our small band of biologists  decided to do was create 
a new effort on our own, a drive to create shorebird and waterfowl habitat 
and conserve water quality. We believe that the practice of closing structures 
after harvest would be of such benefit to the producer that it could be 
implemented on the farm because it was the right thing to do - smart farming.  
We wanted the project we were creating to not only bring attention to the 
need to improve water quality and provide shorebird habitat, but also educate 
the next generation of farmers on holistic approaching to crop production.  

One biologist came up with the clever idea of a Mud Drive ( a Blood Drive for 
mudflat habitat for birds and water quality).    In the Mud Drive, we will 
be taking voluntary pledges from producers/farmers/landowners who sign a 
pledge to close their structures on their fields .  A draft pledge states "I, 
__________________, pledge to donate “MUD” on my property which is located 
in ______________ County by closing my risers oradding boards to my water 
control structures within 14 days after harvest. I amdoing this because it; 
1)is economical, 2) will reduce the amount of sediments andnutrients that leave 
my field during the fall and winter, 3) will provide criticalhabitat for 
shorebirds and waterfowl, 4) will reduce the abundance of spring weeds, and5) 
further documents that agricultural producers are concerned aboutwater quality, 
the environment, and wildlife habitat. I will leave the riser(s) closed, or not 
remove the boardsfrom the water control structure(s) until January 15th at 
theearliest. Overall, I plan to flood approximately _____ acres. 

Our next hurdle was how to use the Mud Drive to educate the next generation so 
that closing structures and creating shorebird habitat and improving water 
quality would be something they would automatically implement when they ran 
the farm.  Realizing that money is a big incentive, we decided to create a Mud 
Drive competition in 4H and agricultural students.  Each biologist donated $50 
of our personal money and are we are now asking other people interested in 
shorebird conservation do so the same.  The donations will be used to award 
cash prizes to the top 3 agricultural students that sign up the most Mud Drive 
habitat and best demonstrate that their habitat has improved water quality and 
attracted shorebirds and waterfowl.  Students will have to write an essay 
demonstrating what they have learned and observed and provide photo 
documentation of bird use and water quality differences at the outfall of 
closed vs. open structures.  Since the Mud Drive is still in the development 
phase, we could include the opportunity for students to contact their closest 
Audubon Chapters for help on identifying birds utilizing Mud Drive habitat.   

Lastly, we had to figure out how to get the donations to the winning students 
and  realized we were in no position to collect and distribute money.  We 
contacted several non-profit organizations, however they needed some of 
the funds collected to pay for overhead.  Fortunately, the Arkansas 
Association of Conservation Districts has agreed to take the monetary donations 
and turn all of the funds for the Mud Drive into a cash prizes 
for students.   The Arkansas Extension Service has offered to help with the 
Mud Drive and do field checks of 4H students.   

Farmers do not need to sign up for the Mud Drive through a student, they can 
also complete a pledge form at their county Conservation District 
office. However, we biologists believes that engaging future farmers in 
wildlife and water quality conservation will make the Mud Drive far more 
effective.  For this reason, we have created a monetary prize for students and 
4H chapters.  Thus far, our group of biologists have raised $200 in prize 
money.  

 If you believe in the Mud Drive effort and would like to make a contribution 
to the cash prizes for students, please make your check out to Arkansas 
Association of Conservation Districts and write MUD DRIVE in the bottom left 
line on your check.  Funds don't just have to come from individuals; , 
businesses, clubs and organizations can contribute.  Please mail checks 
to    The Arkansas Association of Conservation DistrictsAttn: Debbie 
Moreland101 East Capitol, Suite 350 

 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
I know this was a very long email, but rather than just tell you about the 
project, I thought it was important to explain how this project came to be.  
I am very interested in your thoughts and comments on this project and its 
draft design and draft method of implementation. Do you think this is a 
worthwhile project?  Are you willing to donate to it?  Why or why not?    

Thank you ,Karen RoweWildlife BiologistArkansas Game and Fish Commission 
Subject: Re: THE SHRIKES OF CENTERTON
From: Bill Thurman <bill.masterofmusic AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 13:36:34 -0500
Hey Joe!

Three cheers for the loggerhead shrikes of Centerton! I'll take their
predatory type of behavior over the predatory TPP any day of the week.

                                Bill Thurman
On May 18, 2015 1:27 PM, "Joseph C. Neal"  wrote:

>  Back on May 23, 2004, Mike Mlodinow and I were birding the state fish
> hatchery at Centerton. For shorebirds we had the expected: Semipalmated and
> White-rumped Sandpipers, plus a few others, but upon leaving the hatchery
> we saw two fledgling Loggerhead Shrikes with short tails on a barbed wire
> fence at the corner of what is now Fish Hatchery Road and South Main. Mike
> wasn’t so surprised, since he’d noticed where the adult shrikes had been
> impaling small frogs nearby.
>
>
>  That was 11 years ago. I got to thinking about that today, because even
> with the passage of time and the vast changes that have come to Walmartia,
> the shrikes of Centerton are still at it. Adults were feeding young out of
> a nest today, not too far from the shrikes of 2004. A freshly impaled small
> frog was on the wire near an adult and begging young.
>
>
> Like Yogi Berra supposedly said, “It was like déjà vu all over again.” 
I 

> don’t know that he actually said this, but it makes a good story.
>
>
>  Today’s shorebirds were sparse but interesting: Semipalmated Plover (2),
> Killdeer (a few), Spotted Sandpiper (9), Semipalmated Sandpiper (51), Least
> Sandpiper (4), White-rumped Sandpiper (24). We still have Blue-winged Teal
> (4) and Black Terns (11) perched pretty as can be on a small fence down
> through one of the ponds. We saw a Savannah Sparrow south of the hatchery,
> maybe the last. And not far away, Egyptian Goose (2) with goslings, which
> are about as fetching as anything in creation.
>
>
>  Upon leaving the hatchery, we headed east on Kimmel Road and hadn’t gone
> far when we observed two more adult Loggerhead Shrikes harassing a
> Red-tailed Hawk perched atop a massive powerpole. So it seems likely there
> is at least another nest not far away.
>
>
>  My assumption is that shrike-wise, this can’t go on. However, I already
> felt this way 11 years ago. And, bless their little frog-killing hearts,
> shrikes have continued to perform their god-given duties around Centerton
> in the face of my admittedly Jeremiah-like mindset concerning human-induced
> (I guess that includes me, too) changes in shrike country.
>
>
>  Let’s hear a big cheer for way more than 4 More Years of shrikes around
> Centerton. I’m not optimistic, but I will keep coming back.
>
Subject: THE SHRIKES OF CENTERTON
From: "Joseph C. Neal" <joeneal AT UARK.EDU>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 18:26:43 +0000
Back on May 23, 2004, Mike Mlodinow and I were birding the state fish hatchery 
at Centerton. For shorebirds we had the expected: Semipalmated and White-rumped 
Sandpipers, plus a few others, but upon leaving the hatchery we saw two 
fledgling Loggerhead Shrikes with short tails on a barbed wire fence at the 
corner of what is now Fish Hatchery Road and South Main. Mike wasnt so 
surprised, since hed noticed where the adult shrikes had been impaling small 
frogs nearby. 


That was 11 years ago. I got to thinking about that today, because even with 
the passage of time and the vast changes that have come to Walmartia, the 
shrikes of Centerton are still at it. Adults were feeding young out of a nest 
today, not too far from the shrikes of 2004. A freshly impaled small frog was 
on the wire near an adult and begging young. 


Like Yogi Berra supposedly said, It was like dj vu all over again. I dont 
know that he actually said this, but it makes a good story. 


Todays shorebirds were sparse but interesting: Semipalmated Plover (2), 
Killdeer (a few), Spotted Sandpiper (9), Semipalmated Sandpiper (51), Least 
Sandpiper (4), White-rumped Sandpiper (24). We still have Blue-winged Teal (4) 
and Black Terns (11) perched pretty as can be on a small fence down through one 
of the ponds. We saw a Savannah Sparrow south of the hatchery, maybe the last. 
And not far away, Egyptian Goose (2) with goslings, which are about as fetching 
as anything in creation. 


Upon leaving the hatchery, we headed east on Kimmel Road and hadnt gone far 
when we observed two more adult Loggerhead Shrikes harassing a Red-tailed Hawk 
perched atop a massive powerpole. So it seems likely there is at least another 
nest not far away. 


My assumption is that shrike-wise, this cant go on. However, I already felt 
this way 11 years ago. And, bless their little frog-killing hearts, shrikes 
have continued to perform their god-given duties around Centerton in the face 
of my admittedly Jeremiah-like mindset concerning human-induced (I guess that 
includes me, too) changes in shrike country. 


Lets hear a big cheer for way more than 4 More Years of shrikes around 
Centerton. Im not optimistic, but I will keep coming back. 
Subject: Re: Fallout, or "Thanks to All!
From: "George R. Hoelzeman" <vogel AT GRHSTUDIOS.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 12:22:53 -0500
The gallery is officially open on Friday and Saturdays from 11am to 
2pm.  However, I'm the director so if anyone wants to stop by outside 
those hours and you can give me some advance notice I'll be happy to 
open the place for you.

Thanks and glad you enjoyed yourself!  It was fun indeed!

George

On 5/18/2015 12:13 PM, Jeffrey Short wrote:
> Great bird art by young and old.  Some really innovative pieces.
>
> Please take a few minutes off I-40 to view it. When can it be viewed again, 
George? 

>
> Jeff Short
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List 
[mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of George R. Hoelzeman 

> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 11:57 PM
> To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Fallout, or "Thanks to All!
>
> The "Art for the Birds" open house was a great success today at the Rialto 
Gallery in Morrilton. This group was instrumental in building enthusiasm, 
promoting and participating in the event. The live birds (cockatoos and an 
African Grey Parrot) were a huge hit as was Bill Thurman's music which lent an 
air of class and fun to the activities. 

> He even had my daughter and several others dancing to some of his tunes. 
Thanks, Bill! 

>
> It was also great to get to meet a number of people from this list AND see a 
fair bit of art and photography from list members. Special congratulations to 
Joyce Hartmann who took First Place in the contest. 

> There were 47 diverse and interesting entries, which was twice what we were 
expecting. 

>
> Clifton Jackson of AGFC did a great talk about Quail conservation and 
habitat. I, for one, am planning on following up on the things he discussed. We 
are also hoping to have a 'burn class' at the Gallery in the near future. That 
should be interesting. ;) 

>
> It was a great experience and I hope even more will participate when we do 
this again next year! 

>
> Thanks to all!
>
> George (n. Conway Co. likely going to dream about birds tonight)
>
> --
> George R. Hoelzeman
> North Conway County

-- 
George R. Hoelzeman
North Conway County
Subject: Re: Fallout, or "Thanks to All!
From: Jeffrey Short <bashman AT EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 12:13:02 -0500
Great bird art by young and old.  Some really innovative pieces. 

Please take a few minutes off I-40 to view it. When can it be viewed again, 
George? 


Jeff Short

-----Original Message-----
From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List [mailto:ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] 
On Behalf Of George R. Hoelzeman 

Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 11:57 PM
To: ARBIRD-L AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Fallout, or "Thanks to All!

The "Art for the Birds" open house was a great success today at the Rialto 
Gallery in Morrilton. This group was instrumental in building enthusiasm, 
promoting and participating in the event. The live birds (cockatoos and an 
African Grey Parrot) were a huge hit as was Bill Thurman's music which lent an 
air of class and fun to the activities. 

He even had my daughter and several others dancing to some of his tunes. 
Thanks, Bill! 


It was also great to get to meet a number of people from this list AND see a 
fair bit of art and photography from list members. Special congratulations to 
Joyce Hartmann who took First Place in the contest. 

There were 47 diverse and interesting entries, which was twice what we were 
expecting. 


Clifton Jackson of AGFC did a great talk about Quail conservation and habitat. 
I, for one, am planning on following up on the things he discussed. We are also 
hoping to have a 'burn class' at the Gallery in the near future. That should be 
interesting. ;) 


It was a great experience and I hope even more will participate when we do this 
again next year! 


Thanks to all!

George (n. Conway Co. likely going to dream about birds tonight)

--
George R. Hoelzeman
North Conway County
Subject: starling behavior
From: Robert Wiedenmann <0000002694b336a7-dmarc-request AT LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 05:38:08 -0400
 For the past week or so, I've been watching a starling in our yard snipping 
off the stems of small leaves on hostas, and carrying the leaves away, 
presumably for nesting. Has anyone noticed this behavior? Not that I usually 
spend much time looking at starlings, but this caught my eye. 


Rob Wiedenmann
Fayetteville

 

Subject: Fallout, or "Thanks to All!
From: "George R. Hoelzeman" <vogel AT GRHSTUDIOS.COM>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 23:56:51 -0500
The "Art for the Birds" open house was a great success today at the 
Rialto Gallery in Morrilton.  This group was instrumental in building 
enthusiasm, promoting and participating in the event. The live birds 
(cockatoos and an African Grey Parrot) were a huge hit as was Bill 
Thurman's music which lent an air of class and fun to the activities.  
He even had my daughter and several others dancing to some of his 
tunes.  Thanks, Bill!

It was also great to get to meet a number of people from this list AND 
see a fair bit of art and photography from list members. Special 
congratulations to Joyce Hartmann who took First Place in the contest.  
There were 47 diverse and interesting entries, which was twice what we 
were expecting.

Clifton Jackson of AGFC did a great talk about Quail conservation and 
habitat.  I, for one, am planning on following up on the things he 
discussed.  We are also hoping to have a 'burn class' at the Gallery in 
the near future.  That should be interesting. ;)

It was a great experience and I hope even more will participate when we 
do this again next year!

Thanks to all!

George (n. Conway Co. likely going to dream about birds tonight)

-- 
George R. Hoelzeman
North Conway County
Subject: Weekend trip to Arkansas - Report
From: Aaron Balogh <crotalus269 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 19:56:14 -0400
All,

This afternoon I returned to Manhattan, KS from a <48 hour trip (including
driving) to Arkansas.

I got to my Cherry Bend Recreation Area, my first stop, around 10pm on
Friday evening.  After a long drive and setting up camp in the rain I
quickly went to sleep.

The next morning I was elated to be awoken to the sounds of Wood Thrush and
Acadian Flycatcher, both of which are hard to come by in KS.  Still excited
by those birds I left my tent and headed down the trail to the creek (not
sure its name).  Ovenbirds, Black-and-white Warblers were very abundant and
I was delighted to hear a Kentucky Warbler as I neared the water.  So
awesome to see those rushing rocky streams.  Great site!

After that I hiked back up the hill, across Highway 23 and hiked ~0.75
miles of the Ozark Highlands Trail.  Of note, the trail produced 3
Worm-eating Warblers, 2 Cerulean Warblers (haven't heard or seen that bird
since moving from Michigan in 2013), 2 Hooded Warblers, and a gorgeous male
Scarlet Tanager.  I am still in absolute awe at that forest.  What an
amazing place.
After returning to my car I met Bob Harden who was photographing a
Black-and-white Warbler on a snag on the trail back towards the creek.
Pleasure to meet you, Bob!

From there, I headed south on 23 and stopped at the Turner Bend Store to
buy some touristy knick-knacks and a sandwich.  Pleasant little stop,
indeed.

I made another pit stop at the rest area of the corner of highways 23 and
71.  Definitely a good choice.  4 Brown-headed Nuthatches and 2
Scissor-tailed Flycatchers.  A weird combination of birds to see in the
same spot!

Then I continued south on 23 towards Upper Buffalo Road to bird the
shortleaf pine-bluestem savanna.

By far the most common singing bird on that road were Prairie Warblers.
They were everywhere!

The rest of the road produced a Yellow-breasted Chat, a pair of Blue
Grosbeaks and 4 Red-cockaded Woodpeckers that were flaking away on the
pines.  Love those birds!  Unfortunately, though, after much effort, I did
not detect any Bachman's Sparrows.

Was also great to see all of the wildflowers in the savanna including
bird's foot violet and some coneflower species that I'm not familiar with -
it had long, thin white petals.  Gorgeous flowers.

Then I drove north to Mount Magazine and birded there for a few hours.  Was
great to hear a Black-throated Green Warbler from the lookout.  They breed
on Mount Magazine, correct?

After camping there for the night I headed back around 9am after tearing
down the tent in the rain.



I will be headed back next weekend so I'll have to hit some other spots and
try for Bachman's Sparrows again.  Great trip!



Cheers,
Aaron Balogh
Manhattan, KS
Subject: Lake F'ville warblers from Joanie Patterson
From: "Joseph C. Neal" <joeneal AT UARK.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 22:25:50 +0000
Joanie Patterson called to say that she and Donald birded at Lake Fayetteville 
today after the rain. They saw quite a few migrants, including Blackpoll, 
Mourning, and Bay-breasted, etc. The B-b was in the area of the frisbee golf 
course. 
Subject: Nighthawks
From: d goodpasture <idavidg AT HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 15:26:15 -0500
 50 or more Nighthawks circling above Cracker Barrel in Alma