Oh it doesn't sound good, I think it's unusual for a goose to be by itself. The geese here are just beginning to flock for migration. According to BNA ... "Breeders are monogamous, with life-long pair bonds formed usually during the second year. Offspring remain with their parents throughout the first year of life, traveling together in large flocks of family groups" Their diet ... "Canada Geese depend primarily on grasses, sedges, or other green monocots during periods of increase in lean body mass, primarily the growth period in summer (Sed-inger and Raveling 1984) and spring premigration and migration periods (McLandress and Raveling 1981a, Coleman and Boag 1987a). Postfledging and during fall and winter, most populations rely pri-marily on foods higher in carbohydrate, such as berries (Sedinger and Raveling 1984) or seeds, including agricultural grains (Joyner et al. 1987). Almost all populations of Canada Geese have readily adapted to use of agricultural crops, which predominate in diets of most populations during portions of annual cycle in which they are available. Canada Geese, primarily B. c. maxima and B. c. moffitti, have also become ac-climated to urban environments, in which they graze on domesticated grasses throughout the year (e.g., Conover and Kania 1991)." Also, according to BNA, not all flocks migrate, some stay in the same area as they breed. The map shows all of California as their wintering grounds. Sandy, I'm not sure if the dogwoods here were affected or not. I don't remember hearing about it but it could be. I believe that dogwoods here are not as prolific as the redbuds, nothing like the dogwoods that I remember in Virginia as a kid. I do have elm trees here, although they are young trees - I'm hoping they are related to the elm trees that were found just 40 miles from here that are dutch-elm-disease resistant and have now been cultivated. The birds seem to like the elms, ecspecially the warblers. I am worried about the ash borer getting here, my woods are full of ash with two large ones that shade the house. I will be very unhappy if I lose them!

Oh wow! Well done. Yes that is it. My sense was that the bird was smaller than the 8.75 ins length attributed to it by Sibley's, but then I was looking up at it at a pretty steep angle. Thanks very much. Dave

Sweet! Another one to brag about with a friend. Thanks, Dax

It is really hard to tell form this pic but my first impression i house-finch