The third Birds on Tap – Roadtrip! tour of 2016, with our partner the Maine Brew Bus, ventured south to the unique habitat of the Kennebunk Plains…and a couple of very unique breweries!

A managed blueberry barrens, one of the few habitats for grassland species in the region, the Kennebunk Plains Wildlife Management Area is home to one of the state’s largest (if not the absolute largest) concentrations of Grasshopper Sparrows (a state Endangered Species), Vesper Sparrows, and Upland Sandpipers (a state Threatened species). Additionally, large numbers of Prairie Warblers, Eastern Towhees, Field and Savannah Sparrows, and much more call this special area home.

Unfortunately, due to a likely combination of a light breeze, dense fog, and the mid-morning arrival of our group, overall bird activity was suppressed, and all of the first time visitors were left with only a taste of what the Plains can offer. Our last stop, a pocket of activity that included a couple of Field Sparrows and Prairie Warblers, a confiding Chestnut-sided Warbler and Common Yellowthroat, and singing Gray Catbird and Brown Thrasher hinted at what one could expect here on a future visit.

But we did see just about all of the plains denizens, expect for Upland Sandpiper which just a couple of people were able to glimpse as a displaying bird disappeared into the fog. I warned the women in our group not to immediately slug the guy next to them if they thought they were being wolf-whistled at. Unfortunately, only one or two distant “Uppies” sounded off, limiting the potential for any such confusion. This is what it would have looked like.

On the other hand, Vesper Sparrows were incredibly conspicuous. Many were foraging in the open in the dirt roads, others were singing, and it was the most frequently observed bird on the day…

…and near the end of our birding time, we finally got a good look at a Grasshopper Sparrow. Perched on a rock along Maquire Road, the sparrow was spotted by a member of the group and enjoyed by all. The subtle orange-buff tones in the face contrasted nicely with the gray day.

As usual, Eastern Kingbirds were conspicuous.

And we were treated to some good looks at spiffy Prairie Warblers.

As we walked through the plains, occasionally lamenting about the lack of birdsong and the first light showers of the day…

…a streaking larger animal caught our eye.  And while it’s especially true on a “slow” birding day, as is often the case when you’re out birding, the highlight of the day wasn’t even a bird. We soon realized our speedster was an Eastern Coyote (or CoyWolf) that treed a Gray Squirrel!  We watched the coyote as it tried every angle, leaping a short distance up each small trunk of the young Paper Birch tree. The squirrel, frozen at the very tip of the tallest stem, peered down, no doubt hoping that its chosen stem would not waver. The coyote, focused on the hors d’oeuvre, was oblivious to our presence.

Eventually, we caught its eye, or perhaps its nose, and it turned and sprinted back to the trees. The squirrel remained frozen. We wondered for how long.

Of course, even though I predicted the coyote would cross the two-track ahead of us, I failed to take my eyes off the captivating situation long enough to have my camera ready!

We also had a special guest aboard, Caroline Losneck, who was on assignment to record a story on our unique birding and beer-ing tours for MPBN. I think Caroline had more recordings of me making desperate pishing and squeaking sounds than actual bird sounds today, unfortunately.

As steadier rain arrived, it was time to head back to the bus, and turn things over to Don. The good thing about brewery tours, is you are guaranteed that the beer will be there (unlike, sometimes, the birds)!

And the beer – and fresh brick-oven pizza for lunch – was waiting for us as we arrived at Funky Bow Brewery and Beer Company in Lyman for the first stop in the brewery half of the tour (which we learned was the only place on Trip Advisor in the town of Lyman!)

Co-founder Paul Lorraine greeted us and introduced us to the brewery, their mission, and their history…

…then the pizza oven….

…and last, but most certainly not least, the beer!

As we sampled four of the eight beers on tap, Paul added the color commentary. Don listened intently.

I chose to sip on their Citra IPA, one of my new favorites from Funky Bow, and G-String Pale Ale – still my favorite offering from the brewery. I just find it so refreshing and perfectly balanced, with a nice hop bite for a pale, but smooth and easy-drinking throughout.  I hadn’t had their American Wheat before – which I found pleasantly hop-forward for a wheat, and gave their new Blackberry Wheat a try. I am not usually a fan of fruited beers (which is why I like tasting samplers at breweries to try new and different things out of my usual comfort zone), but I found the tartness of the blackberry just subtle and suggestive enough without being overwhelmingly fruity…and admittedly, the color was very appealing (second from right).

Next up was Banded Horn Brewing Company in Biddeford. The “Eurotrash trifecta” of European Starling, House Sparrow, and Rock Pigeon greeted us, while Chimney Swifts fluttered overhead.

Entering the beautiful restored mill, a much different atmosphere than the rustic setting of Funky Bow, we were greeted by brewer Bob Bartholomew, who just happened to be a wildlife biologist in his former life.

In complete coincidence to the title of our tour “Grassland and Grains,” which was chosen for alliteration more than anything, Bob focused on the grains – malted barley in particular – that go into beer. We sampled several malts from bready pale malt to rich and roasty chocolate malts.

Breaking down beer into components helps you understand the subtle tastes and differences in each brew, not unlike how we use subtle differences in shape and structure to sort sparrows into family groups before we go about specific identification.

We also sampled the edible white spruce tips (Bob informed us they are exquisite deep-fried, something I undoubtedly will be testing in the near future) that go into their Green Warden beer, learned the differences between lagers and ales (it’s like warblers verses sparrows!), and sampled four of their current offerings.

We began with their light-bodied but flavorful Pepperell Pilsner (local pilsners are a rarity in Maine), followed by Wicked Bueno, a Mexican-style lager using corn to bump up the sugar content pre-fermentation without adding too much body. Their flagship IPA, Veridian, was up next, a West Coast style IPA and finished up with their Austry Imperial Lager with Maine-made bitters. This is one of my favorite brews by Banded Horn, as it brings back memories of sitting on the veranda of the Asa Wright Nature Center, watching hummingbirds, honeycreepers, and tanagers at the feeders, shortly after finding a couple of drops of Angostura bitters added complexity and flavor to the otherwise bland and boring (but thirst-quenching) lagers typical of the region. (Yes, it always comes back to birding!)

As we begrudgingly began our return northward, conversations about new birds, new beers, and new adventures continued. And plans were made for the next two Birds on Tap – Roadtrips! in August (a second date was added by popular demand, and this is before Caroline’s story airs with hours of recordings of my pishing!)

(Note: As you may have guessed from the bright sunlight, these bird photographs were not taken during the Roadtrip tour…but all except the Grasshopper Sparrow were photographed in the Kennebunk Plains by Jeannette).

As the readers of this blog have probably picked up on, we love birds…and we love beer! And, it turns out, so do lots of other folks. So, we have worked to incorporate these two elements through events at the store, making birding and learning about birds not only educational, but fun too.

Therefore, we, Freeport Wild Bird Supply (FWBS) are excited to announce the “Birds On Tap – Roadtrip!” series in collaboration with The Maine Brew Bus (MBB). Each tour combines 2-3 hours of birding at one of Maine’s hotspots with a visit to two of our fantastic local breweries. The idea for this series comes on the heels of several very successful programs sponsored by FWBS, working with some of Maine’s finest breweries to combine birding and beer enjoyment. We began with the “Birds, Books, and Beers” author book signings at Maine Beer Company in 2013. The new tradition continues with the “Birds On Tap!” lecture series at Rising Tide Brewing as we host and support scientists conducting research on birds in the Northeast and beyond.

“Birds On Tap – Roadtrip!” seemed like a natural progression – another way to make learning about birds and birding even more fun. Additionally, it is a great way to support several Maine businesses. The trips introduce people to new breweries, new birds, and new places in a casual atmosphere that makes both birding and beer appreciation approachable. “These tours are a perfect way for couples or friends with different interests to spend the day together. We take the pressure off learning about complex topics from identifying shorebirds to hop characteristics.

These trips are truly unique, we know of no other similar tours offered anywhere in the world!

Don Littlefield, General Manager of the Maine Brew Bus, adds “Craft beer drinkers come from all walks of life and have all kinds of other interests. This pairing of bird observation and ​beer education has proven to be a real hit with all kinds of folks. It gives access to diverse areas of Maine and many different bird species, and also great locally produced Maine beer. We are happy to partner with Derek and his team, it’s been fantastic to see this series mature and take flight!”

In 2015, we had two very successful outings. In August “Shorebirds and Beer” visited Scarborough Marsh for migrant shorebirds, Barreled Souls, and Rising Tide. In November, we ventured north for a visit to Sabattus Pond for waterfowl, and then visited Baxter Brewing and Maine Beer Company.

Based on the popularity of these trips, we are excited to offer six different trips in 2016, covering birding and breweries from Kittery to Lewiston. Traveling in the Maine Brew Bus, I’ll be guiding the first half of each, as we learn about the birds and their habitats at seasonal hotspots. This is followed by two brewery tours led by the MBB guides. The locations were chosen to enjoy the peak of birding at a particular locale at certain times of year. One does not need to be a “birder” to enjoy these outings. People of all skill levels are encouraged to join us!

The 2016 schedule is as follows:

Surf and Suds
February 28^th , 8:00am – 2:30pm
York and Ogunquit (wintering waterfowl especially Harlequin Ducks, Purple Sandpipers, and  alcids)
SoMe Brewing & Fore River Brewing

Spring Ducks & Draughts
April 10^th, 10:00am – 4:00pm.
Merrymeeting Bay (migrant waterfowl and Bald Eagles)
Oxbow & Lively Brewing

Grassland and Grains
June 5^th , 8:00am – 2:00pm
Kennebunk Plains(Upland Sandpiper, Grasshopper Sparrow)
Funky Bow & Banded Horn Brewing

Shorebirds and Beer
August 7^th, 9:00am-3:00pm.
Scarborough Marsh (migrant shorebirds)
Barreled Souls & Rising Tide

Migrants and Malts
October 9^th , 8:00am – 2:30pm
Fort Foster and Seapoint Beach, Kittery (songbird, raptor, and shorebird migrants)
Tributary & Hidden Cover Brewery

Fall Ducks and Draughts
November 13^th, 8:30am – 2:30pm
Sabattus Pond and Auburn Riverwalk (migrant waterfowl)
Baxter Brewing & Maine Beer Co.

For more information about each of these tours, see the “Tours, Events, Programs, and Workshops” page our website. And contact us soon (email or call 207-865-6000) as these unique tours fill up fast!

Some bad ideas just never go away. And it seems like the idea of putting industrial wind turbines off of Monhegan Island is one of those.

We have been vehemently opposed to the industrial wind development in the Gulf of Maine off of Monhegan Island from the start, and we have been outspoken in our concern about the impacts of this development. It’s simply the wrong place for such an endeavor. The costs far outweigh the benefits, especially the inordinate risk such structures would pose to migrating birds. And one of the densest concentrations of migratory birds (and birders) is simply not where you put so-called “green” power. There’s nothing “green” about poorly-sited energy development. And this is as poor of a site as you could find in Maine.

After the University of Maine-led consortium, Maine Aqua Ventus, failed to win a bid for Department of Energy funding, it looked like the project was dead. However, the recent announcement that the consortium has received $3.7million in federal funding with the possibility of more to come has us concerned once again.

The wind industry continues to propose locations for new turbines that are poorly sited and do nothing to minimize risks to birds and bats. This is happening across the country from California to Lake Erie to Maine. Monhegan Island is one of the most significant stop-over spots for thousands upon thousands of migrating songbirds in fall and spring – and therefore birders and wildlife tour operators such as ourselves. Most of these birds migrate at night. The size and height of today’s turbines necessitate lighting. Lighted structures disorient birds, especially under cloudy and foggy conditions so common on the Maine coast. Birds are drawn in and then circle the light in an attempt to reorient or simply escape the halo of light. Unfortunately, in the process, many can collide with the structure, each other, or simply drop dead of exhaustion as their flight muscles are metabolized in a last-ditch effort to find safety. New innovations are being developed to harness power from the wind without using massive blades, and this is where government funding and research should be directed – new technologies that maximize efficiency and minimize the risks to birds and bats.

Additionally, the wind industry often uses their own surveys to state that many of their projects pose little threat to wildlife. Such research proves to be woefully incomplete as they are generally based on carcass searches. Scavenging makes this methodology fundamentally flawed and completely irrelevant to offshore development projects. Additionally, much of this information is deemed “proprietary”, so the public rarely knows the full extent of their impacts. In a place as important to birds as Monhegan, a wind farm is not the avenue to pursue for energy generation. While nearshore wind development is much less conspicuous to humans, the risks to Maine’s migrant birds and bats cannot be discounted. The benefits of wind power have been shown to be under-promised again and again and they do not outweigh the potential costs in this case. At the very least, any off-shore turbines should be equipped with lighting that is less hazardous, a simple solution that the industry continues to oppose.

So what’s next for this ill-conceived project? What will throwing more taxpayer money at it prove? We know it won’t go to studying its impacts on migratory birds, and certainly not towards implementing alternative design and lighting. No, instead we’ll simply continue to hear Big Wind deny the problem exists, ignoring facts and reality and having the so-called conservation organizations they sponsor regurgitate the same tired, outdated misinformation.

With another renewal of the Federal subsidies for industrial wind development in the just-passed budget, we must remain vigilant in our fight against dangerously-sited projects. It’s not about being anti-wind power. I am definitely not! But I am most definitely against putting industrial wind development projects smack dab in the middle of some of the densest concentrations of migrant birds in Maine. And Monhegan Island is just one of those places…and there are better, safer, more economical, and more efficient ways of reducing the cost of electricity on Monhegan Island, without putting the birds, and the birder economy that follows them, at risk.

For more information about the threat that poorly-sited wind power development poses to birds, and what can be done to make the industry more ecologically-friendly, please visit the “Wind Energy” page from the American Bird Conservancy.

And you think this Canada Warbler is mad now?

I cannot wait for this tour! In addition to learning about the wide diversity of shorebirds that visit Scarborough Marsh during their southbound migration, we’ll also learn about the beers of two of our favorite local breweries!

A lot of people have been asking me about my opinion on Question 1 on the November ballot: “Do you want to ban the use of bait, dogs or traps in bear hunting except to protect property, public safety, or for research?” It’s complicated, so this is not going to be short. My opinion certainly doesn’t fit neatly into a yard sign or 30-second TV spot.

Not surprisingly, Question 1 has generated quite a bit of heated, passionate, and sometimes woefully misinformed debate. A recent bout of misleading television ads from both sides is not helping people make an educated decision – but more about TV later.

I majored in Environmental Policy at Rutgers University in New Jersey, with a minor in Wildlife Management. In one of my classes for my minor, I attended a public hearing for discussion on whether or not to institute a bear hunt in NJ. Needless to say, few facts were heard from either side of the debate. There was a lot of passion from both sides, but little in the way of actual information.

There are a lot of bears in NJ. In fact, it has the highest density of Black Bears per square mile than any other state. I’ve seen more bears in a single day during the World Series of Birding in NJ than I have seen in 13 years of living in Maine. We can discuss “cultural carrying capacity” (how big of a population we humans are willing to tolerate) versus “biological carrying capacity” (how big of a population the ecosystem can sustain), but it was safe to say that something was going to be done about the large population of bears in NJ, and a bear hunt was instituted in 2003. After 2005, it took another 5 years – and lots of court challenges – to resume the hunt.

A few years after graduating, I moved to Michigan. Working in the Upper Peninsula, especially for a summer of breeding bird atlasing, I encountered a lot of Black Bears. One thing immediately struck me as different from most of my bear encounters in NJ – Michigan bears ran away from you! They feared humans. And for a Black Bear, this is a very good thing. Bears that lose their fear of humans associate humans with food – bird feeders, dog bowls, beehives, and especially garbage, and an association with humans rarely ends well for a bear.

Therefore, even though I do not hunt anything, I fully support the wildlife management practice of hunting Black Bears. What I don’t fully support are some of the techniques used to hunt this intelligent and magnificent creature.

Looking again at Question 1, we see two methods that I, and a lot of people, am wholeheartedly opposed to: dogs and snares. Snares are archaic, cruel, and sometimes catch more than their intended quarry, including Endangered Species such as Canada Lynx. I hate snares, and I have zero respect for their use and those that use them. I want them banned.

In Michigan, and again in Maine, I saw bear dogs treated poorly. Crammed into tight containers and often brutalized, these are not usually the loyal family pets that accompany your average upland game or waterfowl hunter. Once again, it’s archaic, and for me, crosses the line of cruelty – in this case to both the dogs and the bear. I think it’s time for hunting bears with dogs to go.

And that brings us to baiting. And as you may have noticed, that’s where the discourse starts getting ugly. And my goodness, is there a lot of misinformation out there.

I am not as inherently opposed to baiting as I am to the other two tactics. In fact, I recognize the very real fact that a bear sitting still at a bait pile is a lot easier to kill quickly with a clean shot than a bear that is being tracked through the woods, or happens to mosey by a deer stand. Despite what supporters of Question 1 have claimed, it is simply impossible to compare the forests of Maine to the open forests of the west. Our forests are thicker, darker, and bears don’t concentrate as readily in open patches of food. Bears are harder to find in Maine, and harder to see. I ask you, how many bears have YOU ever seen in Maine?
Forget “fair chase.” As long as only one side has a gun, it ain’t “fair.” Therefore, I want a hunter to have the best chance at killing the bear as quickly and efficiently as possible, and in Maine that usually means over a bait pile. I do have concerns about the volume and the quality of human food that is being dumped in our woods, and I have a concern about fostering the association between humans and food. But I find it hard to believe that the amount of bait being dumped in the woods is large enough to make a significant difference to the population of bears as a whole. And yes, we must consider that quite a few good people make a good portion of their living guiding hunters. While economic consequences are not my favorite consideration when discussing wildlife management, the reality is that state agencies and representatives will consider it. I can tell you that, as a birding guide, the clients only come if there’s a reasonable chance at success. Can we meet supposedly-scientifically set management goals without baiting? I don’t really think so, to be honest.

Four years ago, when a very similar Citizen’s Initiative was on the ballot, I voted against it. I don’t like making wildlife management decisions based on public sentiment. It should be based on science, and I had some apparently-senseless optimism that something else could be done about dogs, and especially snares.
Unfortunately, nothing has happened in the past four years to eliminate the draconian practices of using snares or dogs. (In fact, we instituted an even-more-archaic bounty on coyotes, most of which are taken with snares, so we’re going backwards instead of forwards). Maine’s Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife has done little in the meantime to alleviate my concern that their decisions were based more on simply what hunters want, and not what our wildlife needs. In fact, it seems pretty obvious to me (see: Barrow’s Goldeneye ) that anything that might need to be done that could upset any hunter and their effective and all-powerful lobbying organizations was unlikely to gain much traction. As long as revenue for fish and game agencies is almost solely from the tax (Pittman-Robertson Act, one of the most amazing and effective pieces of user-fee legislation every passed) on hunting and fishing goods, their policies will be biased towards their revenue stream and their supporting constituents. This is a topic for another day, but needless to say, hunters have a disproportionate (as compared to non-consumptive wildlife users or the general public as a whole) voice when it comes to wildlife agency decisions around the country.

So just like in 2010, I personally am left with a decision about whether I would vote to eliminate bear baiting (effective and efficient, and providing jobs) in order to eliminate snares and dogs. Once again, this was not going to be an easy decision for me.

And the supporters of Question 1, “Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting” know that. That’s why the ballot question is worded that way. By linking bear baiting with other cruel practices, the intent is clearly to reduce or eliminate the hunting of bears in Maine. If the group (over 90% of their funding come from the Humane Society – but, to be fair, much of the “No” groups’ money comes from out of state organizations as well…more on this later), wanted to ban the worst, undeniably-cruel practices, a ban on the use of dogs and especially snares would pass in a landslide.

But that’s not what the referendum is asking. And as everyone who doesn’t live under a rock (more and more, I wish I sometimes did!) knows, the debate is around baiting. And this is where things are getting ugly.
I really want objective scientists to make the wildlife management decisions for Maine. That’s how it should be. But if the recent television ads sponsored by the misleadingly-named “Maine Wildlife Conservation Council” (who has actually raised more money than the “Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting”, no small portion of which out of state hunting lobbies, I didn’t do the math…but you can.) featuring state biologists and game wardens make these people sound like objective scientists, than I have a bridge to sell you.

(I was unable to find links to these ads online. If anyone knows where they are posted, please let me know and I will edit the post accordingly)

And the most egregious of them all has just hit the airwaves featuring a 911 call of a woman in Florida.

These so-called objective scientists and enforcers of state and federal laws are basically saying, if you ban baiting, you and your kids are going to die. This fear mongering is despicable and disgraceful. Somehow, this has been ruled to be legal, but it is most definitely not ethical, and sets a much scarier precedence for how our government sways us with fear. Those that appear in uniform in these commercials should simply be ashamed of themselves. Whoever OK’d this (I’m looking at you, Chandler Woodcock) should be immediately fired. Their credibility is shot with me.

This isn’t “trusting your wildlife biologists,” like these tidy little yard signs implore us. No, this is good ol’fashioned fear mongering. Nothing more, nothing less. How many Black Bear attacks have occurred in states with and without hunting? How many injuries and deaths have occurred? What’s the data that shows conflicts are definitively going to arise without baiting? Those are the facts and figures that Maine IF&W should be supplying to educate the public. But instead, they show video of kids playing basketball, complete with ominous music and our trusty game warden in a uniform and vehicle paid for by the taxpayer, asking us to let them manage bears.

For whom? For the children? Or for their sponsors?

IF&W has crossed the line here. They are not offering facts for voters to make an educated decision. They are acting as an “issue advocate,” clearly and unequivocally campaigning for one side of the issue. Crossing that line from “science arbiter” or “honest broker” where they simply provide the facts needed for informed decision-making, IF&W loses scientific credibility when they are so obviously taking up a cause. (For a good discussion of concepts, in this case, as they apply to professional ornithological societies, see “A Vision for an expanded role of ornithological societies in conservation” by Jeffrey R. Walters et al in the May 2014 issue of The Condor: Ornithological Applications – Volume 116: pp278-289). At the very least, the degree to which IF&W is so obviously outspoken on an issue is unusual, and clearly political.

Can we trust them now? How objective are they? They’ve dedicated so much time and money into keeping the status quo, how can we possibly believe they are impartial?

I can’t. These ads are despicable and deplorable. As someone who truly understands many sides of wildlife management, I can no longer “trust my wildlife biologists.” I don’t see an organization that would stoop to such lows as equating bear baiting bans with the death of kids as an objective arbiter of good information.

While I mostly disagree with a recent Bill Nemitz article on the use of the bait itself, I wholeheartedly agree with him on his feelings about the role IF&W is playing here.

I don’t want to see bear baiting banned, but I definitely want to see the use of dogs and snares eliminated. If I had any faith whatsoever in IF&W or other state officials in modernizing our outdated hunting concepts and management objectives, than I would confidently and happily vote no on Question 1. But I can’t. I don’t see anything changing without voting “yes.” And honestly, I do that with apologies to people who may lose their guiding revenue because of it.

Should the Black Bear population in Maine begin to climb, or bears begin to lose their fear of people, then we need honest and objective research into how best to deal with it. It will not be easy to reinstitute bear baiting. In fact, it might be next to impossible. And this is why the decision to vote yes is so hard for me. But without faith in our system to make actually scientific decisions and not decisions that reflect anything other than where the money comes from, then I find it impossible not to do my part to vote against the banning of snares and dogs for use in hunting bears, and therefore, I am resigned (yes, resigned is the best word here) to vote YES ON QUESTION 1.