Dennis Paulson writes in response to my post

>I don't see how you can get around calling 4,000', as at Blewett and Swauk
>passes, "high elevation."

perhaps because you're still 2-3,000 feet short of timberline?


>To me, the lowland fauna and flora and habitats
>of WA can be described as extending up to around 3,000', and the areas
> >3,000' (or 1,000 m if one prefers, although that of course is higher)
can
>be called "montane." I have used that elevation as a break point in all
my
>thinking of lowland vs. montane in Washington, perhaps somewhat
>arbitrarily, but it does correspond to some distribution patterns (it
would
>be different at other latitudes, obviously).

But then there is low-montane, mid-montane, and high-montane.

>Indeed Chestnut-backs inhabit the wetter, denser forests, but these
forests
>are the ones at higher elevation in some of the mountain ranges, above the
>ponderosa pine zone.

What's the dominant trees on Swauk Pass just west of the summit?


>It may even be that tree density is the key factor
>rather than precipitation, as higher precip (which is at higher elevation
>in drier mountain ranges) usually supports denser forests, but there may
be
>exceptions to this.

>>The highest populations of C-bCs in Chelan Co. are in the Lake Wenatchee
>>area where many sites are dominated by cedar and hemlock. I never thought
>>of this area as high elevation.

>Indeed not, it is the rather local east-side version of the west-side
>forest that Chestnut-backs inhabit, but it isn't the same as the Engelmann
>spruce/subalpine fir/mt. hemlock forests that Chestnut-backs inhabit at
>higher elevations (it may well be continuous with them in some areas).

But that's my point. They inhabit various east-side forests.

>>Mountains and Black-caps coexist wherever deciduous and riparian
woodlands
>>abut conifer forests in eastern WA. I *am* surprised at Chestnut-backs
in
>>Jerry's apple tree in Wenatchee; I would have thought that was way out of
>>their range, or only a destination of the occasional wandering bird in
>>winter. Is that a regular phenomenon, Jerry?
>
>>Dennis Paulson

>Regular? perhaps a more regular habit. C-bCs apparently wander quite a bit
>more than Mountain when you compare the relative numbers of individuals
>found in atypical habitats (Wenatchee backyards) versus the numbers found
>in the mountains just to the west.

>Are Chestnut-backs in your yard every year? How many? Seasonality?
>Putting some dates on this would be of interest to the people working on
>the new Washington bird book, as I really think it's unusual. I ask for
>details because my feelings have been that Mountain is more likely to
>wander in winter than Chestnut-backed, so I looked in the last 5 years of
>Christmas Bird Counts. Wenatchee and Ellensburg both had small numbers of
>Mountains (I know there are ponderosa pines in Wenatchee, so they are
>probably resident, but I think they occur in Ellensburg only in winter, as
>is the case, occasionally, in the western WA lowlands). Yakima had none,
>so they must not wander that far normally. But nary a Chestnut-backed in
>any of them. Perhaps you live in a wetter area outside the Wenatchee CBC?
>
>Dennis Paulson

You're right about the Wenatchee CBC including pine forest. And of course,
Mountains do wander. I'm really just commenting on the experience of local
birders many of whom have found Chestnut-backs in their yards, but are
still waiting for Mountain Chickadees. Thinking about it, a wandering
Chestnut-backed may find the average backyard more appealing than a
Mountain because the Chestnut-backs are less tied to conifers. A wandering
Mountain will look for backyards with conifers.

--Jerry Tangren