Kelly Cassidy wrote:

> I agree with Dennis that birds are attracted to towns because they provide
> food. Human habitats also provide warmth for wintering birds.
>
> I think there is some location bias, however. Towns are almost always along
> rivers. A comparison of bird density between town and grasslands or town
> and forest isn't valid. A better comparison would be between towns and a
> location next to a river or between a native grassland and a farm without an
> above-ground source of water.

Kelly, I agree with your suggestion for a better comparison, but in the
Okanogan, there were virtually no birds in any of the riparian areas we
checked during our trips last winter. The Sinlahekin Wildlife Area, a
paradise for birds in summer, was disappointingly bird-free. Our sampling
was spotty, but you get discouraged after you stop the car in a half-dozen
places and can see or hear no birds, and nothing comes to your pygmy-owl
toot. The beautiful Sanpoil River corridor, equally full of birds in
summer, was completely birdless at another half-dozen stops, much to my
surprise. I'm sure there were probably a few chickadee flocks, Downy
Woodpeckers, etc., in both areas, but on a nice day when we could find birds
at feeders in any town we visited, there were few or no birds in any of the
natural habitats we visited. "You visited feeders," you ask, "you nature
purists?" Yes, we were desperate to see a tweety-bird or two, after a day
of ravens and magpies!

Here's a research project for someone - compare the birds at feeders in
towns on and away from rivers! We've turned our towns - especially those
out in the Columbia Basin - into optimal habitats for at least some birds,
with adequate shelter and food and a perhaps reduced suite of predators
(although I think Sharp-shinned Hawks have become city birds because of bird
feeders).

Dennis
--
Netta Smith and Dennis Paulson
1724 NE 98 St.
Seattle, WA 98115