After all, one of the virtues of bird is that they can be used to motivate research into insects. That’s nice. We couldn’t possibly get the general public interested in arthropods when there are charismatic warm-blooded flying things to save.

Juncos are known as seed-eating birds. They spend their days rummaging through the undergrowth searching for fallen seeds. At feeders, they prefer smaller grains, like millet. But seeds don’t provide the protein juncos, or any songbirds, need to grow a new set of feathers while they molt. And the protein this baby junco needs to molt its blotchy juvenile feathers and to grow sleek stone-gray feathers on top and white ones below would come only from bugs. In fact, 90 percent of the more than 10,700 known bird species rely on insects for food during at least part of their life cycle. Even the most dedicated seed-eating songbirds must eat insects and other arthropods, that many-legged group of creatures that includes spiders and millipedes, to produce eggs, to grow new feathers and to feed their young. Without insects, in other words, they wouldn’t survive.

So, yes, we should care about the health of insects because they are bird food, and birds are dependent on insects for protein. That’s why we should care about this next terrifying statistic.

Unfortunately, insects are disappearing at a rate of about 1 to 2 percent a year. And the decline is not limited to just one species nor just one group of insects. The data suggests that the decline is widespread, even global. These findings have been confirmed in hundreds of rigorous, peer-reviewed studies, says David L. Wagner, a University of Connecticut entomologist and the lead scientist of a program known as the Status of Insects, which coordinates pertinent research on insect populations from around the world. “The weight of the evidence is clear,” Wagner says. “I feel like it would stand up in a court of law.”

That 1 to 2 percent is a mean. I think from what I’ve seen here, in this rural agricultural region, is that it is much higher — the population of visible, obvious insects is less than half of what it was when I moved here 25 years ago. Less dense clouds of insects clustered around street lights. Car grills that are no longer choked with splattered bugs. Fewer reports of clouds of mayflies rising off lakes.

I think it’s scary without even considering bird populations. We’re wiping out a key component of the food web here. Do we have to wait for birds to drop out of the sky or bird song to fade from the dawn symphony before we will care?

Besides, as we all know, insects are spider food. Getting the public to care about spiders is probably an even harder sell.

And it tolled for 9 days!

Climate change is increasingly predisposing polar regions to large landslides. Tsunamigenic landslides have occurred recently in Greenland (Kalaallit Nunaat), but none have been reported from the eastern fjords. In September 2023, we detected the start of a 9-day-long, global 10.88-millihertz (92-second) monochromatic very-long-period (VLP) seismic signal, originating from East Greenland. In this study, we demonstrate how this event started with a glacial thinning–induced rock-ice avalanche of 25 × 10⁶ cubic meters plunging into Dickson Fjord, triggering a 200-meter-high tsunami. Simulations show that the tsunami stabilized into a 7-meter-high long-duration seiche with a frequency (11.45 millihertz) and slow amplitude decay that were nearly identical to the seismic signal. An oscillating, fjord-transverse single force with a maximum amplitude of 5 × 10¹¹ newtons reproduced the seismic amplitudes and their radiation pattern relative to the fjord, demonstrating how a seiche directly caused the 9-day-long seismic signal. Our findings highlight how climate change is causing cascading, hazardous feedbacks between the cryosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere.

Shorter summary: a glacier in Greenland collapsed catastrophically in a fjord, setting the water sloshing back and forth with enough force that seismologists all around the world could detect the clock-like movement.

Better summary: Someone who knows the geology explains the event and all the terms on Bluesky.

The thinning ice sheets in Greenland led to oscillating waves, 100 meters tall, bouncing between the rock walls of a fjord. Fortunately, no one was there to witness it. Or if they were, they didn’t survive it.

Recreational boating not recommended here. Surfing is right out.

Isn’t it exciting, just waiting for another unexpected side effect of our slow destruction of the planet? As if the predictable disasters aren’t enough!

Uh-oh. The lawyers have been deployed. They’re trying to parse the wording of the Endangered Species Act to legalize habitat destruction, narrowing its meaning to apply only to the direct killing of organisms, but killing the environment? That does not apply.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits the “take” of endangered species. (1) Under the ESA, “[t]he term `take’ means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”  (2) This makes sense in light of the well-established, centuries-old understanding of “take” as meaning to kill or capture a wild animal. (3) Regulations previously promulgated by FWS expanded the ESA’s reach in ways that do not reflect the best reading of the statute, to prohibit actions that impair the habitat of protected species: “Harm in the definition of `take’ in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.”  (4) NMFS’ definition is materially identical: “Harm in the definition of `take’ in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including, breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding or sheltering.”  (5)

Then follows many paragraphs of Latin and reiteration of case law, but the intent is clear: the law simply says you can’t “take” wildlife, but we have laws that also say you can’t “harm” wildlife. Those all need to be reinterpreted, because “take” means literally kill individual animals, and that’s the only definition they’re going to use.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively referred to as the Services or we) are proposing to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” in our Endangered Species Act (ESA or the Act) regulations. The existing regulatory definition of “harm,” which includes habitat modification, runs contrary to the best meaning of the statutory term “take.” We are undertaking this change to adhere to the single, best meaning of the ESA.

Habitat modification shall not be policed anymore. You want to extract oil from a watershed? Go right ahead, poisoning the communities downstream is fine, since you’re not using a shotgun to kill the ducks and fish. Oops, you ‘accidentally’ dumped phosphates into the streams in Tennessee, and all the snail darters died? As long as you didn’t “take” the fish, you’re cool. Environmental law doesn’t apply to the environment, but only to individual animals that live in that environment you want to wreck.

Don’t worry! Our government is accepting comments on the changes to the interpretation of existing legislation. Go ahead, tell them that this is ridiculous, enabling habitat destruction is far more lethal than literally killing individual animals.

They won’t care. They’ve got lawyers who are willing to warp the law to enable more short-term profiteering and more long-term annihilation of the landscape. It’s America the Beautiful, don’t you know?

I got a new toy! It’s a $30 trail cam that will probably cost $300 once the tariffs take effect, but I got it because I was curious about what has been going on in my back yard. There is a burrow under my deck, and every year we’re surprised by who takes up residence. Groundhogs are common, but one year we had a skunk under there.

I set the camera up to point directly at the hole, but you can’t see the burrow itself because of all the grass in the way. As expected, I knew there’d be squirrels and maybe rabbits hopping around, although the rabbits are currently in their shy phase, hiding with their litters of kits somewhere. We did spot a squirrel in the early evening (time stamp is correct, but I failed to set the date on the camera.)

All was quiet for most of the night, but then around 3AM something was popping it’s head up, multiple times, like they were repeatedly trying to figure out what that thing outside their front door was.

I’m not sure what that is. Maybe a skunk? Maybe an alien. I’d rather it were an alien visitor, because if it is a skunk I’ll need to set up a trap (a humane one, of course!) and relocate it later this summer.

Hmmm, I suppose if it is a small alien, I could also trap it. What kind of bait should I use? I think the last time we had a skunk, they were partial to cantaloupe.

I get excited when I find a couple of delicate strands of silk*, but then Mary has to come along and gloat about all the birds she saw just yesterday:

American Crow, American Goldfinch, American Robin, Black-capped Chickadee, Blue Jay, Brown-headed Cowbird, Canada Goose, Cedar Waxwing, Chipping Sparrow, Collared Dove, Common Grackle, Common Pheasant, Common Starling, Downy Woodpecker, Eastern Phoebe, Great-tailed Grackle, Hairy Woodpecker, Hermit Thrush, House Finch, House Sparrow, Mallard, Mourning Dove, Northern Cardinal, Northern Flicker, Northern House Wren, Purple Finch, Red-bellied Woodpecker, Red-tailed Hawk, Red-winged Blackbird, Rock Dove, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Song Sparrow, White-breasted Nuthatch, White-throated Sparrow, Wood Duck, Yellow-rumped Warbler.

It’s no fair! She has set up this grand array of birdfeeders to draw in the local species.

There is ONE bird in all of that alluring food this morning.

Also unfair: stupid vertebrates. It takes a little longer for invertebrates to warm up. Give ’em time, they’ll outnumber the birds soon enough…probably already. They’re just not a bunch of show-offs.

Happy Earth Day!

* I’m also seeing silk in the compost bin, but the compost hasn’t thawed out yet. Soon!

RFK jr is a distraction. His role is to make a lot of noise, undermine confidence in modern medicine, and pretend to be doing great things for Americans, even as he is promoting placebos and useless treatments. But why, you might ask? Who profits from that, besides the supplement industry? Watch the man capering on the stage with his brain worm, while the oil industry disembowels all environmental protections.

Here’s a short summary of what EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin did just last week, via the New York Times—and it’s really just the tip of the iceberg:

In a barrage of pronouncements on Wednesday, the Trump administration said it would repeal dozens of the nation’s most significant environmental regulations, including limits on pollution from tailpipes and smokestacks, protections for wetlands, and the legal basis that allows it to regulate the greenhouse gases that are heating the planet. …

Mr. Zeldin said the E.P.A. would unwind [31] protections against air and water pollution. It would overturn limits on soot from smokestacks that have been linked to respiratory problems in humans and premature deaths as well as restrictions on emissions of mercury, a neurotoxin. It would get rid of the “good neighbor rule” that requires states to address their own pollution when it’s carried by winds into neighboring states. And it would eliminate enforcement efforts that prioritize the protection of poor and minority communities.

In addition, Zeldin said the mission of the EPA would fundamentally change. No longer would the agency’s purpose be “to protect human health and the environment,” as its been since Richard Nixon established the EPA in 1970. Instead, Zeldin said the EPA’s purpose would be to “lower the cost of buying a car, heating a home, and running a business.”

Where’s the protection in the Environmental Protection Agency’s name going to go? Maybe we should change that word to Profiteering. Zeldin, by the way, is a Republican lawyer and climate change denier with no qualifications in environmental science, whose sole attribute is unflagging loyalty to Donald Jargogle Trump.

Rural America is going to be drowning in floods of swine effluent and rotting poultry, while breathing coal smoke and clouds of pesticides. Hey, nothing megadoses of Vitamin A and lots of ivermectin can’t cure, right?

Many years ago, we took our young daughter to Wolf Haven, a sanctuary near Olympia, Washington. She loved it. She got called up to the stage to do a wolf call, and she nailed it — the entire place was echoing with wolf howls as the animals responded. They are spectacularly beautiful — and fierce — animals.

Bad news today, though: wolves are not thriving in Washington.

Washington’s overall wolf population in 2024 decreased by at least 9.44% and the number of successful breeding pairs declined by 25%, according to figures released today by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Today’s report indicates that at the end of 2024, the state had 230 wolves in 43 packs, 18 of which had successful breeding pairs. This marks a decrease from the end of 2023, when the state had 254 wolves in 42 packs, 24 of which had successful breeding pairs.

In case you’re wondering what is causing the decline…it’s people. You probably already guessed it. People suck.

Today’s report shows that at least 37 wolves died in 2024, 31 of which were human-caused. Of all 37 reported deaths, five were killed for livestock conflicts — four by the department and one by a livestock owner. Nineteen died from Tribal hunting by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville, which retain tribal treaty rights for hunting on their reservation and on ceded lands, and by the Spokane Tribe.

Two died of natural causes (one was killed by a cougar and the other was killed by other wolves), one died from ingesting plastic, which perforated its intestine, two died from capture-related trauma while the department was capturing wolves to collar them, and one was shot in an alleged self-defense and likely died, though its body was never found and no charges were filed.

In addition, there were seven known illegal killings, which remain under investigation. Scientific research has shown that that for every illegally slain wolf that’s found, another one to two wolves have been killed and remain undiscovered.

I think it’s ironic that today, the media are all fired up about three fake “dire wolves” ginned up by pointless and expensive genetic manipulation, when what we ought to be caring about is maintaining a natural population.

I made a small donation to Wolf Haven. I’m not a billionaire, I don’t have a coven of silicon valley tech bros following my every move, but I am a biologist who feels some shame about those capitalist mad scientists at Colossal who need their priorities straightened out.

I wasted more time than you know pursuing that city park proposal which was less a proposal and more a fait accompli. I had prepared a brief statement which I did not present and would have been inappropriate if I had — this city council meeting was more about where they should implement their expanded park proposal, not how. One of the things I wish the many, many people who spoke at that meeting had learned was to be brief and on point, and I wasn’t going to bring up an issue that was not under consideration.

I had my own petty concerns.

I’m going to speak for the bugs, as unpopular as they usually are.

If you get down on your hands and knees with a handlens in the park and look carefully in the grass, you’ll find a flourishing population of springtails and ants and isopods and beetles, all tending to the soil and bothering no humans at all. The soil is alive, and the biological elements are working to maintain it to our benefit — new grass is always pushing up and the detritovores are actively cleaning up any dead material. The natural surface is a familiar and safe substrate for children, too, with dirt and grass providing a comfortable cushion for play.

Landscape Structures Inc. intends to replace that living surface with dead asphalt and dead poured-in-place synthetic rubber sheets. I had to look up this stuff: it’s called EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer), made from processed recycled plastics and rubber. It’s mostly safe — you can read the material safety data sheet . There is a very small cancer hazard which can be regarded as negligible, since the polymer is so stable that the dangerous compounds are unlikely to be released. It is however toxic to aquatic organisms, since water runoff can carry the material into the groundwater. So maybe not as stable as we’d like to imagine?

I don’t think toxicity is a serious concern. I’m more concerned that we’d be replacing a living surface with dead , sterile plastic that will gradually decay, and need regular maintenance and eventual replacement. In the world we’d be making with this playground, falling leaves and twigs are a damaging contaminant rather than an aspect of a healthy environment.

Do we need to pave over more of the park? Don’t we have enough plastic in our environment?

As it turns out, that was all totally irrelevant anyway, since the city had already signed contracts with Landscape Structures, Inc.

The theme of this park is supposed to be a celebration of agriculture. Perhaps our farmers will start raising a rich crop of ethylene propylene diene monomer? It’s the future, you know.