Ray Korpi wrote:

>2) From what I understand, Lewis' Woodpecker formerly nested on Sauvie
>Island, but most feel starlings forced them out. Same I believe with
>bluebirds. In my consultations with those more knowledgeable than me in
>dealing with my atlas lists, we're not expecting either of these birds to
>be on the island any more (one can hope though).

I hate to keep beating a dead horse (or defending a live starling), but
what Ray wrote is typical of the level of discussion about starlngs: "most
feel starlings forced them out." No offense meant, Ray, against your
repeating the common wisdom. That's exactly what people told me about
bluebirds when I came to Washington. Then I looked at the facts.
Bluebirds disappeared from most of their former haunts in western WA
*before* starlings became common; indeed, even before starlings were
reported from some areas. As bluebirds are mostly migratory in Washington,
there aren't censuses from that far back that will allow us to settle this
argument. However, Westerns are largely resident in the Willamette Valley
of Oregon. Both the 1940 and the 1994 Birds of Oregon list Western
Bluebird as a common resident of the Willamette Valley, the latter stating
"formerly common."

BUT, let's look at the Eugene CBC totals (this is the longest-running count
in the valley; I don't have anything earlier and would love to see earlier
data if they exist):

Year, # bluebirds, # starlings

1948, 0, 0
1951, 19, 102
1952, 0, 6
1953, 9, 100
1954, 38, 11347 ("first big influx" of starlings)
1955, 17, 900
1956, 29, 2800
1957, 27, 1750
1958, 38, 3736
1959, 44, 1994
1960, 16, 1343
1961, ? (don't you hate it when unknown persons raid your easily available
library?)
1962, 8, 102
1963, 0, 842
1964, 12, 363
1965, 12, 764
1966, 37, 7904
1967, 184, 2518
1968, 141, 6098
1969, 4, 16609
1970, 19, 8491
1971, 8, 22519
1972, 20, 9178
1973, 57, 43239
1974, 12, 13236
1975, 4, 13132
1976, 39, 9048
1977, 16, 9069
1978, 8, 44519
1979, 72, 8392+ (also many "starlings/blackbirds")
1980, 6, 11650
1981, 8, 14037
1982, 0, 12605
1983, 6, 7765
1984, 28, 44853
1985, 8, 4955
1986, 20, 11440
1987, 20, 5927
1988, 60, 12434
1989, 25, 6476
1990, 6, 8902
1991, 16, 7292
1992, 29, 22547

I think these counts caught the starling just as it arrived in the
Willamette Valley; it wasn't in the state when Birds of Oregon was
published in 1940, and the 1994 book lists the first for western OR in
1947. Note (1) there were already rather few bluebirds on the Eugene count
in 1948, (2) the numbers have fluctuated up and down since then, with no
obvious trend, and (3) it appears that the influx of starlings had
essentially no effect on the bluebird population. This of course assumes,
I think reasonably, that this is a resident population of bluebirds.
Starling winter numbers may not reflect breeding numbers at all.
Nevertheless, we can see that starlings are now common there, and western
bluebirds are no less common than they were 45 years ago.

Without a statistical analysis it seems clear to me that starling numbers
don't have much to do with bluebird numbers, at least at Eugene (except
both are often high in the same year, perhaps better counting conditions or
more fruit available).

I'm NOT defending starlings, I'm seeking that elusive butterfly *Veritas
indubitalis*. Actually, having gone to the trouble to copy out these
numbers, I'll probably write up a note for Oregon Birds. It would be easy
to do more of these sorts of exercises, rather than a continuous rehash of
"starlings drive out the hole-nesters" (presumably one of the more
"objective" reasons why many people don't like them).

Any more fuel to add to this fire, or light to shed?

Dennis Paulson, Director phone: (206) 756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax: (206) 756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail: dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416