Hello Again Tweeters,

After having read the variety of posts, both public and private on the
subject, I thought I would jump back in here. Firstly, I received so many
private emails from Tweeters members which were all extremely thoughtful and
considerate. Because of the large numbers of these messages in my in-box,
I will not have an opportunity to respond to everyone directly as I would
have liked. So, to all those that emailed, thank you for taking the time to
post. Because of your correspondence, the experience has turned into a
completely positive one.

It was as clear as ever from the posts that Tweeters members care deeply
about the welfare of the birds. We also understand what a magical
experience it can be in finding such a special creature as a Boreal Owl.
It is obvious then that balancing these two pursuits is very important to
Tweeters members. The public posts on this from Jamie Acker, Gary Bletsch,
Gene Hunn, Steve Nord, Rob Sandelin, Larry Schwitters and Paul Webster all
attest to this.

An issue that was brought up in several emails is whether or not Boreal Owls
should be considered "rare" in the state. While this question
undoubtedly deserves continued field census work to get a better idea of
what the actual numbers are, it is quite possible that Boreals are more
common than we think. Perhaps a better description might be "locally
uncommon in proper habitat, dominated primarily by Engelmann Spruce and
Subalpine Fir among other conifers." The Sunrise road, as one person
suggested in a private email, is only a small transect through acres of
viable habitat.

The status of the Mount Rainier population within the context of the overall
Washington distribution of the species can be somewhat unclear. On some
range maps (Washington Breeding Bird Atlas), this Mount Rainier population
is depicted as disjunct from the Okanogan/Selkirk birds which inhabit the
higher mountains of the northern tier of the state. Are the Mount Rainier
birds really a disjunct population? Is the actual range of Boreal Owls in
the Washington Cascades north of Mount Rainier more extensive? Other range
maps (Boreal Owl account in Cornell's Birds of North America) show the
distribution as a continuous population running most of the length of the
Washington Cascades. Obviously, there are many questions remaining on the
status and distribution of this enigmatic species.

Although the numbers may be underestimated, an overarching theme of many of
the emails was to adopt a common sense approach to searching for Boreal
Owls. This approach means not using tapes in National Parks where they are
forbidden; and using only sparingly in other more remote areas. Several
messages touched on using lights. If used responsibly, I believe that this
falls under the common sense approach. I wanted to mention that I did use a
500,000 candle power light (I am also looking for a 300,000 candle power
light - Jamie, if you find one, please let me know). I use this more
powerful light for the simple reason that one can shine the beam well away
from the bird and still see the owl. This is in fact, what I did with the
Boreal. At one point, I looked up from my glasses to gauge the light beam
position compared with that of the owl. The light beam was a good 10-12
feet to the right of the owl. The ambient light was more than enough to
study all of the field marks of the owl as it perched, preened and
continued, as is typical of this species, to scan the ground for prey from
the low branch where the bird was perched.

With regards to road closures, I will post to Tweeters shortly what I find
out from the National Park. As Boreal Owl season (roughly early September
to mid-October - the time frame when the birds respond most readily)
approaches next year, I will post again to advise of the road closures.

In any case, I truly appreciated the open discussion that was conducted on
Tweeters on the subject and wanted to give again my heartfelt thanks to all
those that emailed me privately.

Cheers and Good Birding,
Ted Kenefick
Seattle, WA
tgkenefick at MSN.COM