September 15, 2019

Maine Audubon Says Fireworks Will Drive Piping Plovers Off Nests

The Maine Audubon is pushing the envelope on this one stating that legal use of fireworks in areas where nesting piping plovers occur, will further threaten the species by forcing the bird from their nests. They have very little credible evidence to suggest this to be true, however Maine only recently legalized fireworks.

The new fireworks law gives allowance to municipalities to ban the use of the fireworks. Kennebunk is one coastal town that Maine Audubon is concerned about and is supporting an upcoming referendum vote to ban use of fireworks in that town.

Manufacturers of the products say that fireworks safety in misrepresented and that claims of threatening migrating and nesting birds is unfounded.

“There’s a lot of misinformation out there about the safety of fireworks,” Wiemer said Thursday, but “this is the first time I’ve heard the argument about migratory birds.”

He said he’s anecdotally aware of places in the country where firecrackers and other related products have been used to scare away pest birds from residences, crops or aquacultures, and he said in those cases the practice is ineffective unless the small explosions happen in “very close proximities to the birds.”

“I just don’t think it’s a valid argument [to outlaw fireworks because they might scare away birds] unless people are firing the fireworks directly at the birds,” Wiemer said. “I don’t think you’re going to scare away birds with fireworks unless you’re intending to scare them away.

States have used fireworks for many years before Maine’s new law and generally speaking there’s not a whole lot of argument that can reasonably be made about public safety, as it pertains to legally purchased fireworks. There also exists no information about threatening birds.

However, being that I live in a state where use of fireworks has been allowed for many years, I can say that public safety and wildlife is of little concern. What is most troubling is the prolonged disturbances lasting 24 hours a day for several days leading up to a major event, i.e. New Years or July Fourth. It doesn’t take long to learn to build up a serious dislike of the nuisance things.

Depending upon the amount of use that Maine residents will see, will depend upon how quickly other towns move to ban or limit the use of them. Fireworks have their purpose and can be fun but I think restricting where they can be used and perhaps when and/or the duration leading up to a holiday or celebration might also be in order if it becomes necessary.

While Maine Audubon is notorious for treading all over people’s rights in attempts to protect birds and other wildlife, it is my opinion they are stretching the envelope on sensible reasoning on this one.

Tom Remington

Share

Wolves in Maine in the 1800s – Part IV (Community Efforts to Exterminate)

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI

“Early Maine Wildlife” – Historical Accounts of Canada lynx, Moose, Mountain Lion, White-Tailed Deer, Wolverine, Wolves, and Woodland Caribou, 1603 – 1930 – by William B. Krohn and Christopher L. Hoving can tell us many things about how wildlife was perceived, treated, abused and misunderstood. From the early 1600s, it should really come as no surprise that settlers and commercial trappers and game harvesters thought of wildlife as an endless resource. We learned that was not true and it resulted in the formulation of a wildlife management scheme that has proven immensely successful over the past century.

Wolves in Maine, much the same as in many spots across the U.S., were seen as a useless animal, one that competed directly with the hunters and gatherers and as we learned in Part III, when available prey for the wolf diminished, attacks on humans and livestock became more common. As a result, demands from people grew to get rid of the wolf.

In most all of the previous parts of this serial examination, seldom was anything good about the wolf reported, other than perhaps their pelts made for good decoration and available cover to go on the back of the seat in a sleigh.

Our repeated history and education in this country has mostly been centered on the notion that it were hunters and trappers that bore the responsibility for the extirpation of the wolf countrywide. History has shown us this is not true. In addition, those whose interests lie in the over-protection of the wolf are unrelenting in their talking points that humans were unjustifiably frightened of the wolf, embellished through made-up scary tales, and that people simply misunderstood the animal.

I don’t believe any of that to be true at all. World history clearly shows that in those regions of the world were wolves were allowed to flourish, hundreds and even thousands of people were killed by wolves. I don’t know about you but if I lost a family member to a large animal predator, it would only seem normal to develop a fear, or at least a healthy level of respect for the beast, and would more than likely promote the idea to get rid of the darn things. This isn’t fairy tale stuff as some might believe.

People saw little or no real value in wolves and why should they have. They competed directly for the very same resources man wanted and needed to survive, they threatened livestock, which for many was their life line, carried and spread disease and became a real threat to the health and safety of humans. As such, efforts to rid the landscape of the varmints became entire community efforts.

In “Early Maine Wildlife”, the authors reference the writings of E.E. Bourne, in 1875. Bourne’s work is the telling of the history of the Wells and Kennebunk area of Maine. Bourne recalls this area as early as the early 1600s, when the people were obviously still under the rule of England. In 1640, wolves appeared to be most everywhere along the seacoast of Maine and settlers were anxious for the King to offer some financial assistance to the communities to rid the countryside of wolves. Here’s what Bourne wrote:

“The new Government, Gorges’ general court, being legislative as well as judicial in its action, did not confine itself to the moral improvement of the people only, but at the same time looked carefully to their physical economy. It may seem a small matter to have made any enactments in regard to wolves. But to settlers it was much more important that they should be extirpated than it has been at any time since that of salmon, shad, and alewives should be preserved from destruction, or that the agriculture of the country should be protected from the ravages of the crow. Wolves then [~1640] abounded along the coast…….Every settler was interested in their extermination, and at this court it was “ordered that every family between Piscataqua and Kennebunk River should pay twelve pence for every wolf that should be killed.” This, it will be seen, was in the whole a large bounty.

“In 1730, five pounds were paid; a few years afterward, eight pounds. In 1747, it was voted that eight pounds should be paid to every person who should kill one; if he killed two, he should have twelve pounds each; if three, sixteen pounds each….. The action of the town for the destruction of wolves continued till about 1770, after which the municipal war against them was abandoned.”

It’s important to note here that it appears from what is written that the people were a bit frustrated because efforts had been made to preserve the salmon, shad and alewives population, along with efforts to protect crops from crows, while nothing was being done to get rid of the wolf, a problem that obviously the communities saw as large enough to demand something be done to help.

So from what appears to be around 1640 until 1770, bounties were put together as an incentive for more people to kill wolves. Those bounties grew to be quite handsome. But mind you this was an entire community that was taxed in order that bounties be paid to rid the area of wolves. It must have been important to them in every way.

During that 130-year period of time, read what happens to the deer population.

Bourne writes: “Until about the commencement of the Revolutionary war, deer were very abundant in Wells. Herds of them, from ten to twenty, were very frequently seen. They were in the habit of visiting the marshes in great numbers……

“As late as the year 1770, a deer was started by a dog, and in chase he ran into the parlor of Joseph Storer in Kennebunk, and went out through the window.”

Does any of this relate to modern times?

But I don’t believe it was simply the efforts of communities and governments to pay bounties and put out poison that led to the extirpation of the wolf. Even utilizing all of those and other tools to achieve that goal, it is still a daunting task to actually completely rid a state or country of a species. I would also suppose that disease, along with changes in the prey base for the wolves and changes in climate, population growth and destruction of habitat all played a factor.

Share