1/1600, f/7.1, ISO 500, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

I knew that my only chance for a few decent images would be at take-off or just after but the angle of light was a problem – the bird was facing almost directly into the sun.  If it veered to its right I’d get butt shots and probably lose the head behind the wings.  If it turned to its left the face would be in shadow and I’d get no catch light.  What can you do but wait, be ready for lift-off and hope for the best from a less than ideal situation?

 1/1250, f/7.1, ISO 500, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

 Thankfully the eagle launched straight ahead which gave me the best light I could hope for under the circumstances. 

 1/1250, f/7.1, ISO 500, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

For the first wing-beat I got light on the head and a catch light in two images - then the bird turned slightly toward me and that light was lost.  I got several more sharp shots with dynamic flight poses but the face was completely shaded.  Curses !!!

I particularly like the good look at the golden crown and nape in this photo. 

If the sun had been more behind me I think I might have nailed quite a few flight shots that would have vanquished my nemesis.  As it turned out I got two fairly good images that are better than anything I have in my files on the species.  So the way I look at it I’m making progress but my nemesis quest continues…

Ron

Share on Facebook

 1/1250, f/5.6, ISO 800, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

The male was a tireless and highly skilled hunter and I never saw him with any prey other than voles.  When successful he would always return to the vicinity of the nest and land momentarily on one of two favorite perches – the dark sagebrush at lower right in the above photo or a metal post a few feet from the sagebrush.  Here he’s coming in for a landing on the sagebrush with vole in talons and glances up at me to make sure all is safe.  I really like the intense direct eye contact in the shot. 

 1/1000, f/5.6, ISO 800, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

 Now he’s focused on the sagebrush in order to make a successful landing.

  1/1250, f/5.6, ISO 800, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

This time he stayed perched for less than five seconds and didn’t even pull his wings in against his body – he just kept them out or up while he seemed to contemplate his next move.  And I knew what that next move would be because he always did the same thing – transfer the vole from talons to beak either just before or during take-off to deliver the vole to his family at the nest.  The nest is at the base of another sagebrush a short distance to the left and out of the frame.   

 1/1000, f/5.6, ISO 800, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

So he checks me out once again…

 1/1250, f/5.6, ISO 800, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

 and in almost a single fluid motion takes off and transfers the vole from talons to beak… 

 1/1600, f/5.6, ISO 800, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

 and glances my way one more time as he approaches the nest site. 

 1/2000, f/6.3, ISO 640, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

This is when things get a little dicey for the male (I’ll try to avoid being anthropomorphic but it won’t be easy) - because delivering the vole to the female is a scary proposition.   Here he’s quite close to the nest entrance and as he approaches she becomes very aggressive and he is obviously quite wary of her.  He’s timid and cautious in his approach – after all, due to sexual dimorphism she’s about 20% larger then he is in body mass. 

 1/1600, f/6.3, ISO 640, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

When he gets close the female aggressively rushes out of the nest at him and he instantly drops the vole.  Usually he would then fly off immediately but this time he timidly stands his ground.  The vole is in the grass directly under  their beaks but the female just glares at him, seeming to dare him to make a move toward the vole.  This time he backed out before flying off and then she grabbed the vole and took it back into the nest and the two chicks. 

 1/2500, f/6.3, ISO 500, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

I only got a good look at one of the youngsters this one time, though it was obvious there were two chicks in the nest.  You’ll notice from the light and my camera settings that this is one of the few times the sun came out while I was photographing these owls so it’s my suspicion that she brought the youngster out into the sun to catch a few warming rays. 

 1/2000, f/6.3, ISO 640, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

This is the other “favorite perch” of the male – an ugly metal post that served no apparent purpose.  I’m glad that he seemed to like the sagebrush as well as he did the post.  Here he’s just landing after returning from one of his rare unsuccessful hunting forays. 

  1/2000, f/6.3, ISO 640, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

But more often than not he had a vole with him when he landed on either perch.  In this shot he’s already transferred the vole to his beak and is about to take off for the nest.   (And yes, that’s a bee on the left flying toward the owl).

Preparing this post has brought back a flood of wonderful memories of my times with these owls.  Hopefully there’ll be more of them in the relatively near future.

Ron

Note*** I’d like to make it clear that I was very careful not to disturb these birds.  I was shooting from a road with a long lens (1120 mm with the tc and crop factor of the 7D) and never once got out of my pickup anywhere near the nest.  The owls were acclimated to vehicles on the road and they never seemed disturbed by my presence.  And as always there was no baiting or setting up involved.   

Share on Facebook

  1/1250, f/7.1, ISO 500, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

One thing that especially appeals to me about Farmington Bay is the opportunity to photograph these eagles in flight with the Wasatch Mountains as a background.  Even though such a background makes it much more difficult for focus to “lock on” the bird I really like the dramatic backdrop the dark, often shaded mountains provide when there’s light on the eagle – much more appealing for me than the typical blue sky background. 

Typically there are hundreds of eagles at the refuge during “prime time”.   I once counted 225 birds and that’s just the ones I could see.  Others have reported from 300-400 birds.  This photo should give you some idea, though it shows just one small portion of Unit One.  The concentration of birds was about the same that day everywhere you looked over the ice. 

This is the famous “eagle tree”.  I’ve seen as many as 20 birds on this one perch alone.  Of course the eagles prefer to look south over the ice and water so it’s difficult to catch multiple birds in the tree looking toward the photographer. 

 1/2000, f/8, ISO 500, 500 f/4

Most of these birds are fairly wary of people, at least at first.  But every year there seems to be one eagle that sort of “adopts” humans and almost seems to enjoy being very close to them.  Two years ago this 4th year bird hung around a pole near the “owl bridge” and didn’t fly off with vehicles going by within a few feet of it.  Notice I didn’t even need my teleconverter for this shot and it’s a small crop.  Last year the “tame” bird was a first year juvenile (I believe) that was even more acclimated to humans and would land on perches within about 15′ of multiple photographers.  Believe me it is very impressive to have this huge wingspan coming at you at such close range.  However, this type of familiarity with humans is the exception rather than the rule. 

  1/1250, f/8, ISO 500, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

Before fish become available in large numbers as a food source (more about that below) the eagles must scrounge for themselves and competition for a meal is fierce.  Here one of the eagles has killed a coot (under the bottom bird) and carried it out into the flats to enjoy its meal in peace but the tranquility was fleeting as three other eagles and two ravens almost immediately came in for their fair share.  The pandemonium easily lasted for ten minutes. 

   1/2500, f/8, ISO 500, 500 f/4

Typically sometime in early February refuge personnel use rotenone (a naturally occurring chemical found in some plants) to kill the invasive carp that cause so much damage to the marsh plants vital for waterfowl – that’s when things get really exciting at Farmington Bay.  Usually the fish float down the stream channels and collect in ponds or in front of bridges which concentrates the eagles.  Eagles are extremely competitive for food and their skirmishes can be very dramatic.   All this tension provides many interesting opportunities for birders and photographers.  

And given an opportunity like this, believe me the bird photographers will come.  Hordes of them.  This was the scene at the “4 way” pond on the early morning of February 12, 2009  before the sun came up over the Wasatch.  Each of the 22 vehicles contained at least one photographer and there were others along the dike road behind me.  Many of those photographers arrived when it was still pitch dark in order to stake out the best spots for photography. 

Which brings me to the point of this post.  This winter at Farmington Bay has been a stark contrast to previous years – there just aren’t any eagles, at least not many.  Every time I’ve been out there this season the eagles have been very scarce.  I was there yesterday morning and counted 4 eagles, all far off or flying high overhead.  Others report similar findings. 

Why the difference this year?  I believe there are two reasons for it.  This winter has been unusually warm with very little snow and I suspect that many of the eagles simply didn’t need to migrate as far south as Utah in order to survive the winter comfortably.  I’ve also heard reports from other areas of the country (particularly the mid-west) of lower than normal numbers of eagles this winter. 

And the bird photography “grapevine” is reporting that, for whatever reason, the carp weren’t killed this winter (at least so far).  With such an easy food source unavailable to the eagles it seems logical that Farmington wouldn’t draw in many of the birds that may be in the area.  This will be deeply disappointing to many photographers, especially those who come in from out-of-state for the eagles.

But such are the vagaries of bird photography…

Ron

PS – If the situation at Farmington should change in the near future I’ll report it here immediately. 

Update on Feb. 17, 2012 – Mike Shaw reports (see his fairly detailed comment in my comment section) that the carp have now been killed at Farmington so there’s plenty of fish for the eagles but their numbers out there are still very low.  Mike knows what he’s talking about when it comes to raptors so you might want to check out what he had to say.

Share on Facebook

1/2000, f/7.1, ISO 500, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

This bird was one of a family of owls on the north end of the island that would occasionally sun themselves in the early morning at the top of a sagebrush perch.  Here the owl had momentarily lost its balance while changing position on the branch and I was able to catch a pose I liked as it recovered.  I love backgrounds like this that the island and the bokeh of my lens often provide. 

Ron

Share on Facebook

This post is a progress report of sorts on how I’ve fared with the goal.  I’ll include some lessons I’ve learned and mistakes I’ve made so I hope you’ll bear with me through a few less than ideal images which help to illustrate some of those lessons.

 1/1250, f/8, ISO 640, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

This was my first image of a shrike ejecting a pellet (3/3/10).  I didn’t anticipate it happening and wasn’t even sure what was going on until I processed the image.  I got two almost identical shots that showed the pellet in the mouth and missed the pellet as it was ejected (I think I remember my buffer filling up just about then).  I was also too far away for good image quality – this is a large crop. 

  1/3200, f/6.3, ISO 500, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

On the next opportunity (8/5/11) I was frustrated by obstructing branches and a poor light angle.  While this young bird was ejecting the pellet it was facing mostly toward me which put its face and the pellet in shadow.  Then the juvenile did something completely unexpected – instead of ejecting the pellet downwards it caught the pellet in its beak and began playing with it, then turned sideways to give me some better light on the action (though I never did get light in the eye). 

  1/3200, f/6.3, ISO 500, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

And then it proceeded to completely mash-up the pellet in its beak and let the debris fall to the ground.  It didn’t swallow any of it as far as I could tell so my suspicion is that this unusual behavior was just an example of a young and inexperienced bird experimenting with its environment, like many young vertebrates do.

Obviously at this point I’m still a long ways from my goal of getting a series of quality images of pellet ejection behavior. 

1/640, f/5.6, ISO 800, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

On 11/25/11 I was stymied by atrocious lighting which gave me a high-key background and little light on the bird.  It is a pretty good angle to see the pellet in the back of the throat though. 

  1/640, f/5.6, ISO 800, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

And 1/640 shutter speed just isn’t enough to get the pellet sharp as it’s ejected. 

Yes, I’m becoming a bit frustrated and discouraged at the prospects of ever meeting my goal.

  1/1000, f/9, ISO 500, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

My next opportunity (12/23/11) gave me some encouragement if not the completion of my goal.  I was close enough to the bird for nice detail and the light was good even though I had distracting out of focus branches in the background.    And I learned another lesson in this encounter – when the pellet was ejected I missed it because I had framed the bird so tightly at bottom.

Through these many months of frustrations I learned a few things. 

a).  time your shots so your buffer doesn’t fill up.  These birds often go through several bouts of “gagging” to get the pellet out.  It’s very easy to fill the buffer on gagging shots and miss the pellet coming out. 

b).  with a prime telephoto it’s very possible to be too close – leave some room at the bottom of the frame to give yourself a better chance at catching the pellet as it drops.  There’s more than gravity involved here – the pellet is forcefully ejected, travels very fast and is easy to miss.  If you’re shooting with a zoom lens, zoom back.  In my case I can take off the tc. 

c).  finding a bird about to eject a pellet isn’t an everyday occurrence and you have to be prepared with enough shutter speed to catch the action so watch the behavior carefully.  If they begin to open their mouths repeatedly (so it’s not a yawn) then get ready with the appropriate settings! 

d).  shrikes are often difficult to approach but if you’re surprised that one is letting you get unusually close be ready for this type of shot.  In my experience they’re much more reluctant to fly if they’re about to hack up a pellet and that “stickiness” can be predictive of this type of behavior.

 e).  BNA Online (from Cornell Labs) says this about Loggerhead Shrikes -  ”Pellet formation, from the time prey is ingested until the compacted pellet is egested, averages 35.5 min”.   Many bird photographers are not aware that shrikes eject pellets in the first place and this timing (35 minutes after prey is eaten) suggests to me that ejection typically occurs often during the  day – something bird photographers interested in bird behaviors might want to be cognizant of.   

  1/1600, f/7.1, ISO 400, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

Finally on 2/2/12  most everything came together  for me.  This adult was sitting on an unobstructed branch in good light and with a clean background.  It let me approach closely so I immediately anticipated the possibility of a pellet ejection and adjusted my settings to give me the shutter speed and depth of field I thought I might need.  It went through several gagging sessions trying to get the pellet out but each time I was judicious with my bursts to try to save my buffer for the ejection.  In this first image you can just barely see the front end of the pellet.

 1/1600, f/7.1, ISO 400, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

The pellet about half way out and into the light.

 1/1600, f/7.1, ISO 400, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

The pellet being forcefully ejected almost straight down.

Do I think I met my goals?  Well, mostly.  There’s not much light in the eye on the last shot but there is some and I think it’s enough to make the image work.  I do wish the pellet were slightly sharper but I think that’s a depth of field issue rather than insufficient shutter speed.  I also wish I had a bit more room on the right for the tip of the tail.   I’m pleased with the light and detail and the setting is clean and unobstructed to show the behavior well.

Generally I’m pleased with this series of three images but there’s always room for improvement and you can bet that I’ll be looking to do just that at my next chance with one of these shrikes. 

I went digging around at the base of the tree after the bird flew off to see if I could find the pellet but wasn’t able to locate it.  The ex-biology teacher in me I guess… 

Ron

Share on Facebook

Just as the sun came over the mountains I pulled into a gravel hunter’s parking lot at the refuge and noticed these two birds going at it.  I assumed they wouldn’t let me get close enough for quality photos but they were so intent on their battle that they mostly ignored me and I was able to get just close enough. 

1/640, f/9, ISO 500, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc

With the low light I was fighting for both shutter speed and depth of field and was pleasantly surprised to get both birds sharp at these settings.  I’m always very happy to get behavioral shots like this, busy background or not.

Ron

Share on Facebook

North end of Antelope Island, 2/5/12

The reason for my concern is a bit complex but I’ll summarize:  For over 100 years smelting operations have been responsible for high levels of elemental mercury in the Great Salt Lake and its sediments.  Microorganisms in the lake convert the mercury to methyl mercury which is the toxic form of the element that can be absorbed by tissues of living things.  Brine fly larvae living in the lake then absorb the methyl mercury and when they hatch the adult flies are consumed by spiders living in the vegetation around the lake.  Finally, those spiders are eaten by the many bird species living and nesting along the shoreline. 

But very little is known about the movement of mercury compounds through Great Salt Lake ecosystems, including the possible effects of toxic methyl mercury on birds so Westminster College’s Great Salt Lake Institute was recently awarded a $250,000 grant from the W.M. Keck Foundation to study its possible effects. 

Antelope Island causeway, 8/29/11

The number and total biomass of brine flies in late summer around the lake literally boggles the mind but this shot should give you some idea.  It was taken in late August of last summer and shows a gull feeding on brine flies so thick that they almost obscure the bird.   Thousands of birds around the lake literally consume tons of these flies each summer as I’ve documented here. 

North end of Antelope Island, 7/27/08

But birds aren’t the only consumers of brine flies.  If you’ve ever spent any time near the lake in August-September you know that the entire area becomes festooned with very impressive spiders and their webs.  These are orb weavers (known locally as Salt Air spiders), a family of arachnids that includes more than 3000 species.  These spiders are so numerous and so large that for several weeks during the late summer it is thoroughly intimidating to walk among the sagebrush and rabbitbrush near the lake.   In this image you see both the large, round spiral-shaped web of the typical orb weaver and three of the spider’s brine fly victims caught in the web. 

North end of Antelope Island, 7/27/08

 A better look at another orb weaver.

Antelope Island campground, 8/31/10

The Tribune article quotes one of the Westminster researchers as saying “”what eats the spiders? No one knows”.  Part of their study will involve finding out which bird species consume the spiders so this spring they will be capturing and banding a variety of songbirds on Antelope Island.   

But as to the question “what eats the spiders?” I do have a potential candidate – the Loggerhead Shrike.  I’ve seen and photographed this species consuming spiders on Antelope Island many times.  From my observations I’d say that in late summer spiders make up a high percentage of the total diet of these birds.  In fact it’s so common for these shrikes to eat spiders that they often impale them on thorns for later use as I’ve documented here. 

 Antelope Island campground, 8/31/10

Another pose with a different view of the spider.

North end of Antelope Island, 7/6/10

Not only do the adult shrikes eat the spiders but they feed them to their young as you see the adult doing here with the juvenile on the left.  Which makes me wonder – could the potential effects of the mercury be even more serious in the young birds than in the adults – just as some other toxic heavy metals (lead) have more devastating results in human children than in adults?  I’d be curious to know if the Westminster study will investigate that possibility. 

 North end of Antelope Island, 5/31/09

Another adult shrike on the left delivering a spider to a juvenile.

If you’re wondering why the Westminster study will concentrate on spider-eating birds instead of focusing on species (like gulls) that eat the flies themselves, well there’s a good reason for that and it’s referred to as biomagnification.  As has been so well documented in marine ecosystems, many heavy metals and pesticides (think DDT) become more concentrated with each step up the food chain so the longer the chain the higher the concentration of the contaminant.  The food chain that includes spiders is a longer one that could show higher mercury concentrations than a shorter food chain would. 

So this spring Westminster researchers will be netting Antelope Island passerines such as Western Meadowlarks, Red-winged Blackbirds, Brown-headed Cowbirds and others (presumably including Loggerhead Shrikes), drawing their blood and placing brightly colored bands on their legs so they can be identified by sight from a distance, their movements tracked and survival rates determined in an effort to get a handle on any effects the mercury may have on the birds.

Previous studies have documented high mercury levels in brine shrimp and brine flies.  Preliminary data from the Westminster study also shows elevated concentrations of mercury in the orb weavers, especially those on Antelope Island.  So the next logical step is to determine the possible effects on the birds who eat those spiders.  The Utah Department of Health has already advised human consumers to limit their consumption of certain species of hunted ducks like Northern Shoveler, Cinnamon Teal and Common Goldeneye.  Since the spider-eating songbirds are at the end of an even longer food chain than the ducks, who knows what the long-term effects of mercury consumption could have on them. 

Antelope Island causeway, 12/22/11

Which brings another thought to mind.  What about the raptors who kill and eat ducks like this Prairie Falcon with a Northern Shoveler in its talons?  Raptors are top predators and are notorious for showing devastating effects from bioaccumulation – again think of DDT and what it did to species like the Peregrine Falcon and Bald Eagle just a few decades ago.  Sure makes me wonder…

As a nature/bird photographer who spends an inordinate amount of time on Antelope Island I’ll admit to having some mixed feelings about the thought of scores of songbirds on the island with brightly colored, unsightly and very unnatural bands on their legs but I suppose it’s a small price to pay to get some answers to this vital question.

I wish the Westminster team luck, success and low levels of those horrendous biting gnats while they’re out banding birds!

Ron

*** For those who may be interested, here’s the link to the Tribune story that inspired this blog post.

Share on Facebook