• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Endangered status considered for Bicknell's thrush

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,773
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
If it wasn't the Bicknell's thrush, it would be the yellow-spotted arboreal slug.

I used to be a big supporter of environmental and animal protection, but I'm done with this nonsense.

These environmental groups used to be run by people that genuinely cared about wildlife and nature, but now many (if not most) of them have been overrun with dare I say, overzealous "extremist" ideologues and become almost like a cult-religion. Almost ANY land use for ANY purpose is now "evil", and they'll tirelessly work to stall or kill any project, usually using a scapegoat species for their efforts. This saddens me.
 

AdironRider

Active member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
3,214
Points
36
I think people realized the enviros were spewing bullshit when they started protesting wind and solar developments.
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
17,340
Points
63
Location
Brooklyn, CT
I think people realized the enviros were spewing bullshit when they started protesting wind and solar developments.

I think that some legislation needs to be passed that says if some environmental protester looses a court hearing where they're trying to block development, especially of some type of "green power" generation project, that the project then HAS to be built in THEIR backyard!! That of course makes the big assumption that some of the enviro protesters actually have a backyard! ;)
 

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
If it wasn't the Bicknell's thrush, it would be the yellow-spotted arboreal slug.

I used to be a big supporter of environmental and animal protection, but I'm done with this nonsense.

These environmental groups used to be run by people that genuinely cared about wildlife and nature, but now many (if not most) of them have been overrun with dare I say, overzealous "extremist" ideologues and become almost like a cult-religion. Almost ANY land use for ANY purpose is now "evil", and they'll tirelessly work to stall or kill any project, usually using a scapegoat species for their efforts. This saddens me.

Growing up, my dad was a Fish & Game officer and he was a card carrying conservative for as long as I can remember. He was never opposed to development if the ecological system was not affected or could be moved/replaced relatively easily. In this case, it is not feesable to move the birds because of the population size and their habitats. I mean they nest at 3,000 ft.....that's a very limited area to start with. I'm not a tree hugger by any means but sometimes there are factors that we don't always think about.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,773
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
In this case, it is not feesable to move the birds because of the population size and their habitats. I mean they nest at 3,000 ft.....that's a very limited area to start with.

It's really not THAT limited from a geological historic perspective.

In other words, we're not talking about draining a natural lake or building a dam.

The mountains that are 3,000+ feet now were 3,000+ feet 10 years ago, 100 years ago, and 1000 years ago, so their range was always smallish. Not to mention cut ski trails represent an infinitesimally, ridiculously, small percentage area-wise of said 3000+ foot range. Again, I'm all for protecting wildlife, but this is nothing more than a (very) shallow attempt at environmental extremists being environmental extremists and exerting "FULL STOP" on anything that remotely involves human activity.

I also find it rather ironic that in the article the OP cited, the picture of the guy observing the habitat of the "rare Bicknell's Thrush" is doing so "on the summit of Whiteface Mountain at Lake Placid". Hmmm.... You wanna know why? Because humans built a friggin' road to Whiteface, and more importantly, an easy way to get his azz up the mountain above 3,000+ feet (aka "a ski lift").
 

SIKSKIER

New member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
3,667
Points
0
Location
Bedford and Franconia NH
The mountains that are 3,000+ feet now were 3,000+ feet 10 years ago, 100 years ago, and 1000 years ago, so their range was always smallish. Not to mention cut ski trails represent an infinitesimally, ridiculously, small percentage area-wise of said 3000+ foot range.

Bingo.Dead on.Took the words right out of my mouth.
 

SIKSKIER

New member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
3,667
Points
0
Location
Bedford and Franconia NH
The Bicknell's thrush, a rare songbird that breeds atop mountains in the Adirondacks and northern New England and winters in the Caribbean, is being considered for endangered species status.

Winters in the Caribbean?I wish I had it so bad.

The Bicknell's habitat is also shrinking in the Dominican Republic, where it winters. The Caribbean country has only about 40 percent of its forest cover left because so much has been burned down and converted to pasture.

Sounds more like the problem is in the DR and not here.How much development has taken place in the northeast above 3000 ft?I'll bet its not even close to 1%.
 

kingdom-tele

New member
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
618
Points
0
Location
Newport Center, VT
The Bicknell's thrush, a rare songbird that breeds atop mountains in the Adirondacks and northern New England and winters in the Caribbean, is being considered for endangered species status.

Winters in the Caribbean?I wish I had it so bad.

The Bicknell's habitat is also shrinking in the Dominican Republic, where it winters. The Caribbean country has only about 40 percent of its forest cover left because so much has been burned down and converted to pasture.

Sounds more like the problem is in the DR and not here.How much development has taken place in the northeast above 3000 ft?I'll bet its not even close to 1%.

Its a problem somewhere else, so we should do nothing?

It breeds here, it has a limited size breeding area and unique migratory pattern, yet it is still dying off, maybe taking some time to figure out why or to help a small part of a complex system we know little about might be worth the time and impedance to our "progress"
 

speden

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
895
Points
18
... Not to mention cut ski trails represent an infinitesimally, ridiculously, small percentage area-wise of said 3000+ foot range. ...

Area isn't the only consideration for environmental impact. Some animals will not cross a man made disruption of the environment. I read once that some turtles will not cross a road, even to breed, so all the roads cut the turtle populations into separate islands and they could no longer exchange genetic diversity to keep the species healthy. Probably not the case for a bird species, but I would guess mountain habitats are more sensitive to environmental change and stress than the larger lowland areas. I think it's generally under appreciated how finely tuned many species are to their environment and that even small changes can have a big impact.
 

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
It's really not THAT limited from a geological historic perspective.

In other words, we're not talking about draining a natural lake or building a dam.

The mountains that are 3,000+ feet now were 3,000+ feet 10 years ago, 100 years ago, and 1000 years ago, so their range was always smallish. Not to mention cut ski trails represent an infinitesimally, ridiculously, small percentage area-wise of said 3000+ foot range. Again, I'm all for protecting wildlife, but this is nothing more than a (very) shallow attempt at environmental extremists being environmental extremists and exerting "FULL STOP" on anything that remotely involves human activity.

I also find it rather ironic that in the article the OP cited, the picture of the guy observing the habitat of the "rare Bicknell's Thrush" is doing so "on the summit of Whiteface Mountain at Lake Placid". Hmmm.... You wanna know why? Because humans built a friggin' road to Whiteface, and more importantly, an easy way to get his azz up the mountain above 3,000+ feet (aka "a ski lift").

You are correct in saying that the mountains have been there for thousands of years. The problem is the ski areas have not. Without becoming too much of a "bird-nerd", The Bicknell's prefer to live on the edge of exposed ridgelines, wind swept areas, and on the edge of human created openings (i.e. ski trails). They also stick to mostly balsam trees which is why most of the population is in NH. Unfortunately, Cannon has a good amount of Balsam trees. And lastly, moving a population doesn't seem feasable in this case because groups of these at other locations probably breed between one another.

I don't think this is a lost cause but it will take time to address the issues. Cannon may never be able to cut new ski trails but they could potentially thin out the trees to add some tree skiing since it is a migrating bird (but they will have to spend a lot of time on this).
 

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
Area isn't the only consideration for environmental impact. Some animals will not cross a man made disruption of the environment. I read once that some turtles will not cross a road, even to breed, so all the roads cut the turtle populations into separate islands and they could no longer exchange genetic diversity to keep the species healthy. Probably not the case for a bird species, but I would guess mountain habitats are more sensitive to environmental change and stress than the larger lowland areas. I think it's generally under appreciated how finely tuned many species are to their environment and that even small changes can have a big impact.

100% true statement.
 

SIKSKIER

New member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
3,667
Points
0
Location
Bedford and Franconia NH
The Bicknell's prefer to live on the edge of exposed ridgelines, wind swept areas, and on the edge of human created openings (i.e. ski trails).

Ok then what am I missing here?They are not here in the winter so skiers certainly are not disrupting them.And you just posted that they like to live on the edge of ski trails.Huh?Whats the problem?Sounds like cutting trails is actually good for the thrush.
 

St. Bear

New member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,946
Points
0
Location
Washington, NJ
Website
twitter.com
I think that some legislation needs to be passed that says if some environmental protester looses a court hearing where they're trying to block development, especially of some type of "green power" generation project, that the project then HAS to be built in THEIR backyard!! That of course makes the big assumption that some of the enviro protesters actually have a backyard! ;)

Ugh, they've proposed putting in a solar development in the field across the street from me. I am not happy.
 

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
Ok then what am I missing here?They are not here in the winter so skiers certainly are not disrupting them.And you just posted that they like to live on the edge of ski trails.Huh?Whats the problem?Sounds like cutting trails is actually good for the thrush.

Yes. The problem is not the fact that some idiot skier might not be watching where they're going and run over a nest. The problem is the fact that if you start cutting trees to make new trails, you are destroying their habitat. I don't know enough about environmental stuff but it's possible that they can still use that area for tree skiing.

Like another poster said, we are our own problem. By building a road to the top of Whiteface we theoritically forced the birds to move lower into the ski area. I know it's easy to point the finger at environmental extremists but New England has a history of pushing species onto the endangered species list or extinction. I applaud mountains like Mad River Glen, Magic, and Wildcat that make it a point to repare damage and maintain its animal species on a yearly basis.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,773
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
The Bicknell's habitat is also shrinking in the Dominican Republic, where it winters. The Caribbean country has only about 40 percent of its forest cover left because so much has been burned down and converted to pasture.

Sounds more like the problem is in the DR and not here.How much development has taken place in the northeast above 3000 ft?I'll bet its not even close to 1%
.

Precisely.

I think it should be beyond obvious that the massive deforestation of the DR and Haiti are clearly harming this species far more than the cutting of ski trails which probably represent .00001% of its' available potential habitat in NY, VT, NH, ME and Quebec.

Seriously, can we all mathematically appreciate how SMALL of an area these ski trails, the portions of which are above 3000+ feet, represent? It's SO ridiculously small, that my ".00001%" in the above, is probably grossly too large, despite how miniscule a number it is.

Again, I'm all for helping the Bickell's Thrush (and other species), but I'm also all for common sense, and all against environmental extremism.


Ugh, they've proposed putting in a solar development in the field across the street from me. I am not happy.

Nor should any NJ taxpayer. Solar fields are BOOMING all over America (NJ is a prime culprit) due to government subsidies to build them. A cost/benefit analysis shows what an absolute inefficient waster of money this is (read: Scam). Quite simply put, the technology, as of 2012 is not very good. Twenty years from now, books will be written about what a scandal this is and all the government connections the folks getting these monies have. People should be irate, but most "people" have no idea what's going on.
 

kingdom-tele

New member
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
618
Points
0
Location
Newport Center, VT
Precisely.

I think it should be beyond obvious that the massive deforestation of the DR and Haiti are clearly harming this species far more than the cutting of ski trails which probably represent .00001% of its' available potential habitat in NY, VT, NH, ME and Quebec.

Seriously, can we all mathematically appreciate how SMALL of an area these ski trails, the portions of which are above 3000+ feet, represent? It's SO ridiculously small, that my ".00001%" in the above, is probably grossly too large, despite how miniscule a number it is.

Again, I'm all for helping the Bickell's Thrush (and other species), but I'm also all for common sense, and all against environmental extremism.

how many trails are cut over the winter? While what is happening in the caribbean is a huge factor it doesn't change the fact that the incredibly small piece of land you want to deforest here is important, no matter how miniscule, common sense would also dictate maybe holding off on development in those zones, as they are, as you have pointed out, miniscule, I would imagine if you wanted to really ski the 800-1200' that is being contested you probably can still do it now, making the whole issue moot, who knows, you might even enjoy skiing it "naturally"
 

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
Precisely.

I think it should be beyond obvious that the massive deforestation of the DR and Haiti are clearly harming this species far more than the cutting of ski trails which probably represent .00001% of its' available potential habitat in NY, VT, NH, ME and Quebec.

Seriously, can we all mathematically appreciate how SMALL of an area these ski trails, the portions of which are above 3000+ feet, represent? It's SO ridiculously small, that my ".00001%" in the above, is probably grossly too large, despite how miniscule a number it is.

Again, I'm all for helping the Bickell's Thrush (and other species), but I'm also all for common sense, and all against environmental extremism.




Nor should any NJ taxpayer. Solar fields are BOOMING all over America (NJ is a prime culprit) due to government subsidies to build them. A cost/benefit analysis shows what an absolute inefficient waster of money this is (read: Scam). Quite simply put, the technology, as of 2012 is not very good. Twenty years from now, books will be written about what a scandal this is and all the government connections the folks getting these monies have. People should be irate, but most "people" have no idea what's going on.

Alright this discussion is going in a completely different direction. A little topography lesson, most mountains in New England and New York are traditional peaks (very little ridgeline). If you strictly look at mountain over 3,000 ft with a very high topographic prominence (ridgeline), I count only 7 (8 if you count Jay at 2,975). It's no surprise that 50% of these mountains are ski areas.
 
Last edited:
Top