For some of us, “beauty” is a
mirage of powder that conceals darkness. Sometimes one wonders if the right people are
endowed with it, considering the arrogance of the owner. One can admire it, but
then reality puts down its enormous foot and squashes all its pretensions. I’m
not speaking of just the superficial, but the internal. I don’t know what I
might have turned out like had not most of my earliest memories not been “beautiful”;
memories that I still carry to this day include being held to the ground by a
gang of white boys older than I who stuffed grass into my mouth, or being sent
to a hospital for stitches to the bridge of my nose (the scar of which is still
visible after all these years) for the crime of spilling milk from my cereal
bowl, when I was still not four years of age.
Not “life changing” events you
might say, but for someone who was naturally introverted they must have had
profound effects on my dealings with people. I recall one night around that
period that we visited my aunt; I recall how affectionate she was to me. This
must have been a profound shock to me, because the next day we returned to her
house, and upon the sight of her I ran and hid behind our car. Why? Not because
I was afraid of her, but because I did not want to be touched. But I now look
back on it with a certain amount of longing, considering what I was in for in
the future.
Of course, "beauty" can be found in art and music, but that is what the artist wishes the world to be, not what it actually is. I suppose it shouldn’t be
surprising that I always preferred the company of nature and the flora within it
to human company, especially that which is “beautiful” only because it is, and
has no pretentions about it. Even as I get on in age, I am still fascinated by
seeing animals in the wild that tend to congregate in places far from human
contact. Brightly colored birds tend to fascinate me in particular. Recently
late in the afternoon I was walking in along a rural roadside stream created to
transport rain run-off into a watershed, where I saw something dabbling in it
that I had to do a double take to convince me that I was not seeing things. It
was a wood duck, a bird I had only seen once before many years paired with the
equally colorful Mandarin ducks at the Hellabrunn Zoo in Munich, Germany. I had
never seen one in the wild and held out no hope of actually doing so, since
they are relatively uncommon in the Pacific Flyway, and its natural habit deep
in remote wooded areas would prevent it. But here was a male and female pair in
plain view for pedestrians from the adjacent sidewalk.
The female—which was easily
identifiable by its distinctive white eye ring—began swimming to the safety of
a storm drain, while the male swam in the other direction in order to attract
attention away from it. Apparently satisfied that its mission was accomplished,
the male swam back in the direction of the storm drain, emitting a curious
“squeak” rather than the familiar “quack” of Mallards and domestic ducks.
But I had no interest in the
female; it is the male wood duck in its fall and spring plumage that is so
eye-catching. It’s crested head and beak is a display of purple, green, red,
yellow, black and white. Its chest and rear are red, its sides yellow, the
belly white, its back and wings blue and black. Not without reason did famous
wildlife illustrator and author of field guides to North American birds, Roger
Tory Peterson, describe the wood duck as "Highly iridescent, descriptive
words fail.”
Perhaps it should not come as a
surprise the wood duck’s attractiveness to hunters—at one time it was even more
“popular” a target than the Mallard. So “popular” was the wood duck prior to
1918 that conservationist William Temple Hornaday noted in the chapter
“Candidates for oblivion” in his 1913 call for action Our Vanishing Wildlife that while eight states (all but West
Virginia in the Northeast) responded to warnings by the U.S. Biological Survey
that the bird was threatened with extinction by banning hunting of the bird,
And how is with the other states that number the wood-duck in their
avian faunas? I am ashamed to tell; but it is necessary that the truth should
be known. Surely we will find that if the other states have not the grace to
protect this bird on account of its exquisite beauty they will not penalize it
by extra long open seasons. A number of them have taken pains to provide extra
long OPEN seasons on this species, usually of five or six months!! And this for
a bird so exquisitely beautiful that shooting it for the table is like dining
on birds of paradise.
Among the 15 states with
excessively long hunting season on the species, Tennessee had the longest, at
nearly nine months. “Is there in those fifteen states nothing too beautiful or too good to go into the pot?” Hornaday advocated
banning all hunting of the wood duck for five years in those states. He would
be the principle mover in the passage of The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918,
which made it unlawful to hunt or traffic in the “parts” of—meaning feathers,
eggs and such—some 800 migratory bird species unless by waiver, meaning
regulated hunting, capture for scientific purposes, or for Native American
religious customs. It is also legal to kill certain bird species who may pose a
danger to aircraft; I actually observed one plane that had to return to Sea-Tac
Airport shortly after take-off with a peregrine falcon pasted to its windshield.
Not surprisingly there is
frequent opposition from local governments, developers, hunters and the
right-wing dominated U.S. Supreme Court. A 2009 decision excluded “isolated”
wetlands from protection as habitat for migratory birds, although a few states
overrode the decision by passing state laws to that effect.
Today, the act’s has effectively
restored the numbers of many duck species to “safe for hunting” levels. A ban
on wood duck hunting from 1918 to 1941 helped restore its population,
considering its relatively low duckling survival rates—especially by ones bred
in man-made “nest houses,” which because these are usually located out in the
open, ducklings are easier targets for predators. The total number of birds is
impossible to determine because of their habitat preferences, although the
Breeding Bird Survey suggests the wood duck population continues to be stable
or increasing. However, it is suggested that the BBS is more unreliable in wood
duck counts than other species, since they are seen less often than other
species in the migratory routes that the BBS monitors. A more reliable
independent count of wood ducks in the Atlantic Flywaysuggests that in some
areas wood duck populations decreased by as much as 13 percent from 2012 to
2013. Wood ducks are also far less common on the Pacific Coast than west of the
Mississippi, with perhaps 4 percent of the nation’s breeding pairs.
In any case, one might still be
surprised to learn that the once endangered wood duck comprises approximately
10 percent or more of the annual duck harvest in the United States, despite the
fact it is rarely seen—unlike the Mallard—in populated areas. In the 2000-2001
hunting season alone, over one million “woodies” were “harvested” by far the
greater part of them in the South. Given that wood ducks in the wild have a
life-span of four years, one imagines that their population could be easily
wiped out in two seasons unless replenished by reproduction.
If the Bald Eagle is
the United State’s national symbol, the wood duck is certainly claims pride of
place as its most beautiful bird. Given its relative rarity in the state of
Washington, to see one in the wild will be a memory I will cherish—a memory
that won’t make me feel I committed a “crime” by having it. Some things are worth admiring.
No comments:
Post a Comment