Human Stewardship of Nature: Urban Deer

A larger group of does and yearlings on North Park Village's grounds

In general, I'm a fairly 'hands off' person when it comes to nature. I don't like human intervention into most ecosystems, since, well, we really tend to screw it up when we try. Ecosystems are delicately balanced and do pretty well at self regulating themselves on their own.

So I guess maybe its a bit surprising how much I'm against the people in my community that are up in arms over deer population control measures proposed for the nature center and surrounding areas. For years now, just about any event you go to will have one "LEAVE OUR DEER ALONE!" person waving a petition and handing out fliers. Being hands off, it seems like a side I'd be on, but frankly there's a problem here.

Hungry Buck foraging off a Yew in winter

Back in the olden days when Illinois was a cross section of the great western forest that pretty much spanned from Appalachia to the Mississippi River, swampland, and prairie. We tend not to really comprehend this, since the landscape has been so fundamentally changed by humans. Terraforming might sound like some futuristic, science fiction term, but in reality the human race has been practicing it for a very long time. We drained and filled in the swamps, cut down the forests, burned and plowed the prairie, introduced new plants, eradicated plants we didn't like, hunted some animals to extinction (or nearly so), and replaced them with new domesticated ones. And most importantly, we mass slaughtered the predators, who unfortunately weren't aware of the differences between domesticated animals and wild animals... they just saw potential prey.

At one time, Illinois had large predators, lots of them. We had bears, wolves, and cougars, all of which predated larger herbivores, like say, deer. After wiping them out, we're left with coyotes and bobcats, both of which are a too small to be a predator of deer on a regular basis. Here in the city, we don't have any bobcats, and coyotes, while rising in population are still very rare. Add that to the fact that in urban areas, we don't have wide expanses for wildlife to travel. What we have are small islands of woodlands or prairie amid a sea of concrete, glass, and asphalt. This both makes it difficult for wildlife to migrate to new areas in search of food, and gives them very small areas expanses to forage that are easily depleted. In the end, there is no balance in this ecosystem, because WE created it. Since we've created it, we have to maintain it, or it will go to ruin, along with all the small amounts of wildlife we have in it.

Unfortunately part of that maintenance is population control of large herbivores, since we have no mechanism in this manufactured ecosystem to keep those populations in check.

A doe and her yearling walk by the large deer fence
surrounding the community gardens at North Park Village

Yes, this likely means a cull. There are other options, like darting birth control, or tranquilizing and relocating. But the quickest and easiest method is the cull. I don't like killing deer, especially when some of said deer I recognize and have names for. But the reality is that the damage caused both to the tiny natural areas that they're grazing on and to the deer themselves is far worse than a cull.

As of now, there are somewhere around two dozen deer living in North Park Village-Peterson Park grounds. That's the grounds outside the nature center. Within the nature center, add about 10-12 more. Each doe adds another one-three fawns every year. The numbers are somewhat staggering when you look at the limited number of space.

The 'Save Our Deer' people will argue that we are exaggerating the limited number of space these deer have to roam. Across the street from North Park Village you have several large cemeteries, and these cemeteries back up against the stretch of forest preserves that run along the north branch of the Chicago River. So the deer, they claim, have a much larger expanse to roam.

An injured and bloody yearling,
likely having had a bad run in with a car

This is true, but ignores two key points-- one, that the forest preserves in question are overgrazed, poorly maintained, and dealing with over population of deer themselves. And two, there are large fences blocking the deer off of the cemeteries and busy streets between them and North Park Village. Unfortunately, deer vs car is a very bad fight that especially doesn't end well for the deer.

I've seen several injured deer over the last year, including a yearling covered in blood and a crippled doe that was hobbling around on three legs. The poor doe was doing so while trying to rear her fawn. Unfortunately, due to our lack of predators, she'll probably live for quite awhile, getting just enough food to scrape by and survive.

A yearling standing among plant stems, most already
striped clean of their dead leaves by other foraging deer

Most people don't pay enough attention or just don't see the carnage caused by the lack of any sort of policy to control the deer population. They don't notice the starving deer, the injured deer, the dead deer, all of which either are living in pain, slowly dying in pain, or having died in pain. You don't want to see deer get killed? Too bad, they're dying anyway, and destroying what little bit of natural environment we have.

Winter is a time of starvation for deer even when there's not competition over food resources. Deer scrape by the winter on their fat reserves, eating minimal amounts of calories from dead leaves and twigs.

A lean and tired buck in early spring

If they can't put enough weight on in the summer and fall, they starve before spring comes and there's finally new growth to eat. There's very little as pathetic looking as a deer in early spring. They're tired, lean, and hungry, with next to no meat left on them. Thankfully if they've made it this far, with less energy needed now due to warming temperatures, they probably will make it for another year.




But there are casualties every year. Deer are starving to death every year. Last year I spotted a dead yearling by the Rock Garden. A few weeks ago I came across a partially scavenged dead buck dead not far from the nature center's gate. I'm sure there are quite a few others that either die in areas I don't go to or don't have access to. The next few shots are depressing and a bit graphic, but in the end, this is what 'leaving the deer alone' results in...

 

A dead yearling in the Rock Garden, Winter 2009

A dead buck, partially scavenged by raccoons or possoms

I understand the affection many people have for these deer. We're city folk and in a lot of ways, and these animals are really a connection to a natural world we don't come into contact with on a day to day basis. But that separation also means many people are detached from consequences that occur when a population exceeds its limited space and food sources. We look at natural spaces and think that somehow they're separate from the city, that they're islands that we've built around, that are self sustaining. They're not. We've created them through manipulation and isolation, and they're as much a part of the city as the asphalt and concrete of the streets and sidewalks.

We long ago broke these ecosystems. There are three mechanisms for overpopulation control in nature, migration, predation, and starvation. We've broken the first by isolating natural areas into small pockets that do not allow free movement of animals into areas for better foraging and grazing. The populations grow but can't move. Removal of large predators broke the second for large herbivores. There are no predators to keep the population in check.

So if we leave these broken ecosystems to themselves, the only population control left is starvation. Starvation is both the least kind to the animals and the most destructive, damaging the area not only for the deer themselves but for all other animals making use of it. When you overpopulate to the point that animals starve, you're going to do lots of irreparable harm to the environment and ecosystem.

 Ask yourself, do you want lots of miserable deer or a few healthy and happy ones? That's the choice that we're faced with.

Trip Report: Ryerson Woods, 12/23/2010

Try as I might, I always am behind on my post processing. On the plus side, I have less than a months worth in the backlog finally. Yesterday I finally went through my shots from a outing to Ryerson Woods the afternoon of December 23.


Ryerson is one of my favorite haunts, and one I regularly go to after work during the part of the year when there's actual still daylight when I get out of work. Unfortunately this means I really don't have much chance to get there in the winter. I always toy with going on the weekend and then Saturday comes and I'm lazy and don't want to drive all the way out and instead go to Labagh Woods or North Park Nature Center, both of which are five minutes from my house.

But December 23 was a half day at work, so I made a point to stop and spend a little time taking some winter shots at Ryerson. It's a beautiful and interesting preserve, and like most Lake County Forest Preserves, it makes me very sad that Cook County can't take care of their preserves half as well. The woods cover a large swatch of land along the Des Plaines River, and contains a mix of several kinds of wet and dry forests, along with a few restored grassland areas.

Brushwood Meadow in Winter

I started from the Brushwood parking lot. Brushwood was the home of Edward L. Ryerson, who owned the land and left it to Lake County on his death. There are multiple directions of trails that start in this area, and I like to take the one that goes through the large meadow and over the small seasonal creek. In the summer this area is a gorgeous grassland, and a great area for wildflowers and insects.

Small Bridge

After trail crosses over the small creek on a wooden bridge, and from their you can chose either of two trails into the woodlands.  The area straight is very marshy in the spring and even most of the summer. If you can tolerate the mosquitoes it's a really nice swampy area and a good spot for a lot of different birds and deer.

The area to the right leads into the main trail that runs east-west through the woods.

Trail to the River

There are multiple trails that  intersect north/south with this trail that leads down to the river. Most of these are short connecting trails that are perhaps a 1/4 - 1/2 mile long. There are several cabins in the woods, these were summer cabins of Ryerson and his friends built.




The Albright Cabin is fairly close to Brushwood, and can easily be seen from the trails.In the summer it's hard to get any shot worth keeping, since the trees obscure it from view.


From this trail I finally emerge by the Des Plaines River. It was still open despite the cold but had some nice ice build up and ice floes in places.

Des Plaines River Looking West

Trees Reflecting in the River

I followed the river trail west, which runs along the banks, over a few boardwalks in places, and over a few bridges that cross seasonal overflow creeks. In the spring those creeks are running like crazy and theirs tons of water everywhere.

Not too far along the trail I came across a large flock of robins that was gathering along the banks to drink from the river. Most flew away when I approached, but I spotted a few on ice floes near the opposite bank. Didn't get any great shots, they were too far away. But snapped a few I liked with the bird and the ice and the water.



For some reason I always have a delayed reaction in recognizing a Kingfisher vocalizing. I don't know why... they have very recognizable calls. But in any case, despite having been hearing him for a bit, I didn't spot the Kingfisher till he flew across the river and landed in another tree. They're very reclusive and hard to spot not matter what. I've had a lot of luck at Ryerson with them. In the summer there was one that was often hanging out around the dam.


Unfortunately, 300mm was not nearly long enough to get a good shot of him. But let's play a "Can You Find the Kingfisher in this shot??" game.

There's a kingfisher in there, trust me!

Did you find him? A little off center to the left. Here's a deep crop of the shot to show him.

Belted Kingfisher

Much to my surprise, he took off and dove while I was watching. Too far away and not nearly fast enough reflexes later, I had a series of lovely blurs that with some imagination other people may be able to tell it was a kingfisher diving into the river and snagging a fish...  The shots are god-awful, but it was cool enough that I feel like I might as well share.

 

 

 

 

Diving

 

 

Splash

Coming up with the fish

Flying Away

National Geographic they're not, but hope you liked them anyway.

I lost the Kingfisher after he grabbed his lunch. After about 10 minutes of looking to see if I could find him again, I gave up and continued on towards Ryerson Cabin and the dam.

There were a few woodpeckers making noise high up in the trees, but they stayed well out of sight. A little up stream I spotted some mallards sleeping on an ice floe.

I passed a cross country skier, but other than that it was very quiet and serene.





When I got to the dam I found it partially frozen upstream of the dam, but flowing pretty good right at the dam base. There's a little overflow sluice by the dam that was pretty, but I couldn't find an angle I liked without getting wet, and it was a bit too cold for that!

The top of the dam had a lot of ice build up, and the water was flowing under it, like a little ice cavern. It was very pretty.

After I packed up my tripod and headed down the loop back to the parking lot. I was getting cold at that point. There were several cross-country skiers out enjoying the woods, and I'd had quite an enjoyable outing.

Tools of the Trade : The Camera

So, you want to get into nature photography. What equipment, you ask, do I need to get started?

This isn't the easiest question to answer... mainly because there are so many elements to nature photography and most are specialized in terms of the equipment you need. Landscape photographers want wide angle, macro photographers need a close focusing distance, and wildlife photography always needs a longer lens than you currently own. But there are certain tools that bridge all the gaps... like, say, a camera, so let's start there.

Camera

The most essential tool, of course, is the camera. There are good cameras and there are bad cameras, but a good photographer will usually be able to take good pictures with a bad camera, just not as good as they'd have taken with better cameras. A bad photographer, on the other hand, will still be a bad photographer even with the best camera on the market. It's like any sort of art, really. Bad equipment limits you if your good. Good equipment doesn't help you if you're bad.

So, what cameras are good and what are bad? That's not an easy question either. Let's talk about the different types of cameras out there. I'm sticking with digital here, since that's probably what most folks will use. There's a good debate to be had in film vs digital, but I think I'll save that for another post.


Point and Shoot: It's becoming harder and harder for a DSLR shooter to scoff at little point and shoots. The point and shoot is becoming more and more powerful, with better lenses, better controls, and better quality. They're not as good as an DSLR, don't pretend that they are. But some are pretty damn close. In the end, there are lens limitations, sensor limitations, and control limitations that will prevent you from having fine tuned control over your shots. This isn't a problem when you're getting started and still learning how to compose a good shot, but if you're serious, you're eventually want more control over the details.

To me the weakest point now for P&S's is the lack of the viewfinder on most. Having to compose through the LCD means that not only are you removing a third point of contact with the camera (having it against your eye makes it more stable with less shake), but actually requires you hold the camera out away from your body with your arms outstretched in order to see the LCD. This means your in about the worst possible position for holding a camera steady.


SLR-Like Point and Shoots:  These are really a sub-category of P&S, but I think they deserve their own category. In some cases I've heard of people calling them fixed-lens SLRs. Generally they offer a great deal of flexibility and options you get with a DSLR, but still have a fixed lens on the camera. Typically you'll get cameras that offer manual controls of aperture and shutter speed. Most have viewfinders but also offer the option to use the LCD.

EVIL Cameras: No, I did not make up that acronym. EVIL stands for Electronic Viewfinders Interchangable Lens. No idea who thought that one up. Some people call them SLR-like cameras. Some people call them Mirrorless SLRs. Up to the introduction of the Sony NEX cameras which used an APS sized sensor, we generally refered to them as a Micro 4/3 cameras, since they were marketed by Panosonic and Olympus with the micro-4/3 lenses. With the newer models using different sensors and different lens mounts, the need for a new name arose. It's still working itself out, but so far EVIL seems to be winning.

The first EVIL cameras started with the micro-4/3 mount. They used the existing 4/3 sensor, but the mirror and pentaprism were removed, allowing the lenses and camera to be designed much smaller. The lack of a pentaprism and mirror mean that there is no through the lens view via the viewfinder, and the information from the lens is transmitted electronically, either to the rear LCD or through an electronic viewfinder (typically an attachment). The newcomer in this field is Sony, which boasts a larger APS sized sensor instead of 4/3. Sony, however, does NOT have any electronic viewfinder attachment. It has a 16mm optical viewfinder attachment, that is only compatible with the 16mm lens. If you want to see what your sensor is seeing, you need to use the LCD. As you might guess from comments I said earlier, I consider this a very bad handicap.

For the most part cameras offer nearly all the features of a full size DSLR in a compact package.

DSLR:  Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras are by far the king of cameras, and should be. In general, they offer better image quality, better controls, better auto focus, than any compact cameras. If you really want to learn photography, and not just take pictures, I'd say get a DSLR. If you want me to recommend a type of camera for you, this is it. If you're serious you'll either end up here or with the EVIL cameras mentioned above. Because honestly, your camera isn't half as important as your glass, and without the ability to switch lenses, your camera IS your glass and that's its own handicap.


There's a lot of different brands, lots of different sensors. Don't let anyone tell you one brand is better than the others. If someone tells you Nikon is the best and you only should shoot Nikon, ask them to tell you why. And if they can't give you physical specs of why Nikons are better than Canons or Sonys or Olympus, ignore them. If you want to argue about the value of a APS-C size sensor over a 4/3 sensor (or the reverse), that's a valid argument. If you want to argue about how one brands in camera processing does something you like or don't like that another brand doesn't do, that's valid too. Nikon vs Canon noise control is a BIG valid argument. But Canons are great because lots of people use them is a stupid argument and should really be ignored.

Nearly every brand offers something different. Nearly any of them will be acceptable after you learn to use it. But remember this is probably a long term investment. Once you buy Canon, and start buying lenses and accessories compatible with Canon, you're sort of locked in unless you really want to make a big investment.

If you buy one brand because its cheaper, there's nothing wrong with that (I started shooting Canon because I wanted to move from film to digital and Minolta's DSLRs were well out of my price range, so I bought a D-Rebel instead and made the switch to Canon). Just remember that this is your new long term brand.

Perhaps the most important thing to consider is sensors size, IMHO, so here's a quick run down...

4/3: The Four/Thirds sensor is the smallest sensor you'll find in a DSLR. It's used by brands like Panasonic, Sigma, and Olympus. One of the biggest advantages of 4/3 systems is that the lenses that 4/3 lenses (not micro 4/3 though) fit all 4/3 cameras, regardless of brand. The other advantages of the small sensor is the 2x crop factor (for an overly simplified explanation of crop factor, a lens that gives you 50mm field of view on a 35mm camera will give you a 100mm field of view on a 4/3 sensor), and the fact that the cameras tend to be lighter weight and smaller. Disadvantages are smaller picture resolution and quality, and smaller pixels on the sensor. Oh, and you have a 2x crop factor. I know, this was also an advantage... which it is if you're shooting long and want longer lenses. If you'd rather get some really wide angle shots, you're generally fairly limited.


APS: There are actually two sizes of APS sensors. Well, actually more since there's a difference in size between Canon APS-C and Pentax/Nikon/Sony APS-C. It's slight but the Canon APS-C is a bit smaller. The crop factor on an Canon with a APS-C sensor is 1.6. For the other brands, its 1.5. APS-H is larger and has a 1.3x crop factor. Basically same advantages and disadvantages apply. They have better resolution and larger pixels as the sensor gets larger. Crop factor goes down as the the sensor gets bigger.

Full Frame: A full frame sensor gives the same coverage as 35mm film. It's much larger and thus often has a lot more pixels and a lot more resolution. New full frame cameras have a ridiculous 22mp sensors. You can crop shots 50% without losing quality. There's no crop factor, so if you want to shoot wider these are better cameras. They're also the most expensive, so be prepared to surrender your wallet.

I can't really tell you what to get or whats a great nature photography camera. If you can, I recommend a DSLR or an EVIL over a P&S. You'll get more mileage out of one if you really want to be serious about shooting. If you're curious about sensor sizes, a crop sensor is probably going to work for you for wildlife, but if you can afford it, a full frame will serve you better for landscape.

Favorite Haunts: North Park Village Nature Center

North Park Village Nature Center's wetlands area on a foggy spring day

North Park Village Nature Center is a little gem within the city. It's a tiny preserve of 40 acres, run by the Chicago Park District, located in North Park Village, a senior living community. It's bordered by busy streets on three sides (Peterson, Pulaski, and Bryn Mawr) and Peterson Park on the other, so you never are in deep woods. But its a pocket of nature amid asphalt and concrete, and that pocket acts as an island for all sorts of wildlife.

North Park Village itself is a nice area with lots of green space and small stands of trees dotting throughout. North Park is also home to the Jens Jensons Rock Garden, a lovely fountain and pool that mimics a forested stream and series of waterfalls. The fountain is a good place to see waterfowl, especially geese and ducks. Seniors living in the village have a tendency to throw old bread to the geese and ducks, so they aren't exactly people shy.

Jens Jensen Rock Garden

Rock Garden Waterfall

The Nature Center grounds is divided up into different areas, a woodlands, a wetlands, a savanna. The wetlands consists of a large pond with a large shallows on one end. This is a great environment amphibians and turtles. If you're lucky in the spring you might happened to visit on a day when the toads have descended into the shallows from the woodlands to breed. This is an amazing spectacle, with the sound of vocalizing toads filling your ears and splashing toads everywhere you look.

A vocalizing toad

A male Wood Duck in the wetlands pond

The wetlands also draws a good amount of waterfowl. Canada Geese and Mallards are especially common, but more rare visitors like Pie-billed Grebes, Blue-winged Teals, or Wood Ducks also visit. Last spring I even saw a pair of Buffleheads taking a respite from their migration in the wetlands pond. I've never personally seen Herons there, but I know people who have. Much to my surprise, I ever spotted a Kingfisher moving in the trees around the pond on one occassion. Ducks and Geese both nest along this pond, so in spring it's a good spot to look for momma ducks with their ducklings and geese guarding their goslings.

Cooper's Hawk Feeding Chick

The woodlands are mainly comprised of mixed deciduous trees, with a few conifers mixed in here and there. It's an excellent habitat for all sorts of animals and birds: Raccoons, Possums, Deer, Squirrels, Hawks, and Owls all make use of this woodlands for food and shelter. Red-tailed Hawks are somewhat common in the winter and early spring, hunting mice and squirrels. In late spring a pair of Cooper's Hawks arrive to their nest at the top of a tall tree in the woodlands. The two return every year to raise a brood in the same nest.

Cooper's Hawk Chicks

Deer are everywhere in both the nature center and the grounds of North Park Village. There's a good mix of does, bucks, and yearlings. In the spring there are often several fawns. The deer can be seen at any part of the preserve, and pretty much any part of the grounds any time of the year.





All and all, its a beautiful place and one of my favorite places. It would be nice if it was a little larger and more secluded, without the hum of the traffic on the streets beyond the fences, but really that might fundamentally change what makes it such a good place to shoot wildlife. The small size increases your chance encounter with some sort of critter, and many animals are fairly used to people. You can get much closer to deer here than in some of the forest preserves I like to haunt.

Some parting shots to leave you with...

Crawdad

Sunning Painted Turtle

Fawn

Squirrel and Red-tailed Hawk

First post introduction

Cooper's Hawk eating a Mouse

I figure its best to get a few introductions done and out of the way. I'm a hobbyist photographer, into nature photography especially. Primarily, I shoot where I live, which is Chicago, the Chicago area, and Northern Illinois.

This blog is going to be a place for me to talk about nature photography, nature in general, wildlife, photography techniques, various natural spaces I like to visit, and pretty much anything slightly related to this topic that comes to mind.

So, why photography? Well, its fun, interesting both technically and creatively, and lets me capture what I see that most people seem to miss. In the city especially, we don't tend to see the wildlife that surrounds us, either because its so common that no one notices it anymore, or because to notice requires you to look a little bit deeper.

Take hawks and falcons. These are more common city residents that most would think, but rarely seen. Peregrins were introduced to the city as a form of pigeon population control and they've taken to city life quite well. Cooper's Hawks are another pigeon hawk. They've been moving in more and more to the city, finding a nitch eating robins and pigeons, and the occassional rodent. Less common, but still present, are the big Red-tailed Hawks.  They eat rodents, squirrels, rats, mice, as well as other small mammals like rabbits.

Ecosystems in general I find fascinating.  They're a giant puzzle that requires every piece to hold its shape. Remove the prey animals, and the predators starve, plants that were normally kept in check by the grazers grow out of control and crowd out other species of plants. Take away the predators and the prey animals reproduce uncontrolled, overpopulate, and overgraze the landscape till most of the plant life is unsustainable. Everything is needed for things to remain in place.

Enough rambling, for now, anyway.