April 3 is the end (of counting, anyway - the feeders stay up for me). sooey: I always have low numbers of chickadees and titmice; It's rare for me to see three at a time. They're in the woods here, so I don't know if I have 50 birds coming single-file or whether most of them don't bother with the feeders. They almost always swoop in to grab a bite and then eat it in a nearby tree. Sometimes I can tell if there's two by the direction they come in (one from the left, one from the right, one from the left, one from the right....) It's interesting also that all three of us have roughly equal numbers of Pine Siskins and American Goldfinches. During the big siskin invasion the goldfinch numbers went way down, as if they had left the premises. Now that there are fewer siskins the goldfinches have come back. The first few times I got equal numbers I worried that I was miscounting the birds and I obsessed over counting with field glasses and photographing them, but I finally decided the numbers were correct. Maybe this is some sort of a natural balance of what each species will tolerate nearby? and/or the capacity of the sock feeders? There are mixed flocks at the socks, but usually the goldfinches come first and then the siskins later. On another note, I'm wondering about the capitalization of bird names issue. I have no problem with capitalizing American Goldfinches and Pine Siskins as definitive names, but I would prefer to just say goldfinches and siskins as generic terms. Besides, it's a pain to capitalize and type out the full name when there's no confusion as to what I'm talking about. What do you guys think? Claire (who is known as claire on GW where there's only one of me with this particular name. If there were other GWclaires, it would be different....)

pixie_lou: Nice pic of the butterfly on the White Swan! That's my favorite coneflower. Not knowing much about dragonfiies, I turned to google and found this Dragonfly Site. They have a page on What Do Dragonflies Eat? which gets pretty gory, but the gist is: " Adult dragonflies eat just about anything that is edible and can be caught. They are a treasure for humanity because they keep mosquito populations under strict control by feasting on them when they are in abundance. Similarly, they also feed on ants, termites, butterflies, gnats, bees and other insects and tend to hunt in groups when large colonies of ants or termites are spotted. They are considered a pest by apiaries because they can polish off a good chunk of the bee population before one can realize the threat looming large. Writing about what dragonflies eat makes one wonder what would be the case if some of the older dragonfly species that have been found as fossils existed today. These fossil species belonging to the Meganeura genus were carnivorous insects with wings spreading to spans in the range of two and a half feet and made their food out of other insects and even small amphibians. If they were still alive today, weâÂÂd have to constantly watch our small pets to be sure they didnâÂÂt end up a dragonflyâÂÂs lunch!". Nectar is apparently not on the menu. Claire

Sounds like a paradise - for both birds and people! I've noticed many birds that have returned in the past couple weeks. Grackles, cowbirds, Chipping sparrows, Mockingbird, and what I think is a Phoebe have shown up in the yard. Still waiting on the delightful Catbirds and Orioles. The Goldfinches are turning bright yellow. The Bluebirds have been here all winter, eating suet nuggets, but I think they've started a nest. I love Spring too. :)

Maybe it is my technical training but in this topic and so many others what I notice first is a failure to look at the big picture. A few observations: Many posters have said that the cat should have been trapped and turned over to an animal shelter. Lets get one thing straight. This already happens with countless cats, who frequently get euthanized because no one claims or adopts them. Yes there is a system in place to capture and place stray cats but like every other system devised by man it has its limits and unfortunately due to the fecundity of cats and the irresponsibility of many so called pet owners there are more cats than can be dealt with. The existence of shelters does not mean the cats won't die. The only thing that has any realistic hope of ensuring the safety of a domestic cat in the US is a comitted and competent owner who shelters and feeds the cat, provides medical care including spaying or neutering, and doesn't ever let the cat roam outside or reproduce at will. Consistancy is important. Logic doesn't work without it. If animal shelters could handle the feral cat population then there would be no argument for Trap, Neuter, and Release (TNR) programs that maintain feral cat colonies. The hypothesis is that if you removed the existing feral cats they would only be replaced by other feral cats moving in so it is better to maintain sterile cats in these available urban niches. The logic of this is totally lost on me because if there are other feral cats out there in the shadows, then THEY are starving and pushed around by the comparatively well fed and healthy TNR colony cats. If on the other hand there aren't that many feral cats out there on the fringes then it would be better to trap them, find homes for all that you can, and do what needs to be done with the rest. As for the fools who suggest "relocating" cats, you mean dumping them on someone else? Where they have to violently reestablish their place in the pecking order all over again, in an environment that all groups agree is overcrouded? Would any of us like to be "relocated"? Perhaps to some of the more colorful areas of LA, NY City, Detroit? Who thinks it would be any better for a cat? The people on the front lines know there aren't enough beds in the shelters. As much as I think the TNR programs are dodging the issue, I don't think they are making things worse as long as they do what they claim, sterilize the cats and feed them. Feeding them makes them somewhat less likely to hunt and makes them able to out compete the non-sterile cats. Not what cat lovers would like to hear, I'm sure. People should obey gun laws. Did this guy break any gun laws? Probably. It is hard to shoot a gun these days without breaking a law. Was he 500 feet from the nearest road? No. His target was under a road. Prosecute him for that. Did he break any wildlife laws? One post said it was legal to shoot cats at that time. Don't prosecute him for that. The guard claimed ownership of the cat, which was completely outside of his control. The moment the guard claimed ownership he should have been nailed for cruelty to animals, letting his cat live like that, and for property damage done by the feral cats in that area including his cat. I say his cat although that is a joke, but he claims it is true. Personally I don't see any difference between cats and rats. My brother's kids have some pet rats and they are sweet little things, totally unlike wild rats. Same with cats. This unfortunately is almost entirely a battle for hearts and minds without any logic to it. If cat lovers really want to secure the high ground they should be the ones insisting that that guard be prosecuted. People are the greatest invasive species, depending on your point of view. I personally want to have adequate food, water, shelter, safety, etc. If any other organism threatens to interfere with that it is in my opinion a pest. Here's where it gets complicated. According to this definition most of the "pests" in the world are other people. I can not justify defining other people as pests. If you want to be consistant and logical you just can't call people pests, in the grand scheme of things. Sure, it would be a load off of the world if half the population died. Who? Half my family, determined by lottery? Or perhaps we could decide by skin color or religion, like the Nazis did? You see where I am going. Don't waste any time talkng about how people are the problem, even though they are. There is nowhere useful to go with this argument. Now that that is off the table, understand that while habitat preservation is desireable, it is linked to population. Personally I think we ultimately need to talk about population but not in a polite forum like this. That belongs in a knock down drag out forum on doomsday scenarios, which this isn't. If we go there we would be talking about poisoning feral animals wholesale like we do rats. I have read alot about the pressure that feral cats put on bird populations. I think that it may be true that they prey more on rodents than birds because rodents can't fly and are easier prey. I imagine that some birds are much more vulnerable than others. To do this right we would have to evaluate each prey species individually. I'll bet that the seabirds that the ornithologist was allegedly protecting are among the more vulnerable species. My take is that I can see why a sane person would do what this ornithologist did. He had a vested interest in the welfare of these particular birds just as a farmer does in his livestock He would have understood the particular threat that feral cats would pose to a threatened population. He would understand population dynamics. He would have seen that the population of feral cats was doomed to remain at dangerously high levels due to the inability of society to come to grips with the problem, as is shown by how many posters naiively propose ineffective alternatives even as overwhelmed local health authorities throw up their hands and cave in to assorted cat fanatics who were feeding the cats anyway. Prosecute the guy for any gun violations if you must, but to do any more is fiddling while Rome burns.