Dennis:

Regarding people not reading signs. reminds me of the times I was stationed on
various national wildlife refuges when we apprehended hunters in the closed
areas, they would say, "Ummm! Where is the closed area? I didn't see a sign."
They climbed through the fence right where we would have a sign saying NO
HUNTING.

Or the time I cited a couple of guys for hunting in a closed area, one being the
son of a preacher. In court the preacher said I must be wrong because his son
would never do this. Yeah, sure.

No wonder we became skeptical. It takes all kinds of people.

Gene Kridler
Netta Smith wrote:

> Hi, tweeters.
>
> This is Dennis Paulson, NOT Netta Smith (it's unnerving that people keep
> responding to my posts with a "Dear Netta")
>
> Here is a bird list from Spencer Island, Sunday, 4 March, 09:15-11:45
>
> SP = sewage ponds
>
> Pied-billed Grebe 3
> Double-crested Cormorant 4 overhead
> Great Blue Heron 2
> Canada Goose 8
> Green-winged Teal 50
> Mallard 100
> Northern Pintail 50
> Northern Shoveler 4 (SP)
> Gadwall 6
> American Wigeon 1
> Ring-necked Duck 2 (SP)
> Lesser Scaup 50 (SP)
> the huge Canvasback flock seems to have left the sewage ponds
> Bufflehead 6
> Common Merganser 1
> Ruddy Duck 40 (SP)
> Bald Eagle 2 overhead
> Northern Harrier 2
> Red-tailed Hawk 5
> we could not stir up any Virginia Rails anywhere by clapping; they either
> have left the area or have finally discovered that hand-claps are not rails!
> Mew Gull hundreds
> Glaucous-winged Gull dozens
> Downy Woodpecker 3
> Hairy Woodpecker 1
> Northern Flicker 1
> Tree Swallow 5 (nice to see HARBINGERS OF SPRING)
> American Crow 6
> Black-capped Chickadee 20
> Bushtit 4
> Bewick's Wren 5
> Marsh Wren 10
> Ruby-crowned Kinglet 3
> Hermit Thrush 1 (migrant or winterer?)
> American Robin 10
> European Starling 8
> Yellow-rumped Warbler 1
> Spotted Towhee 20 (including at least one brightly marked interior bird)
> Fox Sparrow 1
> Song Sparrow 70
> Golden-crowned Sparrow 5
> Red-winged Blackbird 6
> House Finch 1
> Pine Siskin 50
>
> Why "puppy poop paradise," you might ask. Well, we ran into 3 different
> dog/dog owner parties as we were heading north along the east side of the
> island. All of them crossed into or were about to cross into the wildlife
> preserve where, nominally, dogs aren't allowed. One dog was on leash,
> another not, the third magically was leashed as soon as the owners saw us.
> Approaching the wildlife area from the north, there are two small signs that
> say "DOGS NOT ALLOWED" in the wildlife area. In both of them, the word
> "DOGS" had been neatly snipped out of the sign. We only stopped one of the
> people (it's never an enjoyable task) to tell him about the regulations, and
> he was very nice, said he hadn't seen any signs(!), and asked if it was all
> right if his young puppy could continue around, as he was tired and it was a
> long way to go all the way back by the same trail (which the signs, of
> course, stipulate). Two of the people with one of the unleashed dogs were
> running full tilt, using Spencer Island as a jogging trail. Also, I saw no
> sign of puppy poop paraphernalia on the persons of any of the people, and I
> expect that dogs make permanent deposits just about anywhere they wish -
> vibram soles beware!
>
> As you enter the area, just after crossing the bridge, there are a plethora
> of signs that make it clear that there are to be no dogs in the wildlife
> area and that dogs are permitted to the north, but must "return by same
> trail." Well, can you imagine walking 75% or so around a loop and then
> turning around and retracing your steps? It's entirely unrealistic to ask
> this of dog people, so some other solution must be sought, in my opinion.
>
> We saw 3 sets of doggers (including one set of joggers), 3 sets of hikers
> (but no bikers), and 3 sets of birders during our walk, which I think puts
> birders at 33%, not exactly the largest lobbying group. Of course, this
> week there was an article in the Seattle P-I Getaway section in which
> Spencer Island was featured as a hike, so the ratio of nonbirders to birders
> will probably continue to rise there. It could easily and logically be
> argued that dogs should have the run of the place, because there are more
> dog people than naturalists and we live in sort of a democracy, so the fact
> that any areas have been set aside to be dogless is an amazing thing in
> itself.
>
> Perhaps dogs aren't as disturbing to birds as they are to mammals, but I
> suspect that mammals will become conspicuous by their absence as dog use of
> Spencer Island increases. Maybe I should send these comments to a mammal
> listserve ("woofers?").
>
> Given that there has been some success in restricting dog access, I think it
> would be quite appropriate if Spencer Island were made off limits to dogs
> except during the hunting season, when dogs would be allowed on the Fish &
> Wildlife property. But enforcement seems at an absolute minimum on the
> island (I've seen an "official" there only once, and he looked about 16, not
> projecting much authority), so any restrictions may be a joke (but not a
> funny one). Enforcement and presence are surely the keys to a successful
> program, but I suppose all park departments are strapped for funds and thus
> personnel. I do think dog people need open spaces, but the Langus
> Riverfront Park plus the trail on the west side of Union Slough should
> surely be adequate.
>
> If anyone feels strongly about this, the number to call to complain
> specifically about dogs where they're not supposed to be is 206-339-1208
> (Snohomish County Parks & Recreation).
>
> Mostly because of the people who snipped the word DOG out of the signs, we
> made the rest of our trip around in a bummed-out mode, agreeing that the
> quality of life for people like us would be ever diminishing as human
> populations grew inexorably, and that, concomitantly, there really was no
> hope for the environment.
>
> Of course, we do have the interesting situation that many birders are dog
> owners....
>
> Dennis
> --
> Dennis Paulson
> 1724 NE 98 St.
> Seattle, WA 98115