One of the challenges of studying loons is that they are so well-loved. Many people have observed them, written down notes about them, and — here’s the problem — shared their speculations about all aspects of loon biology with others. Those of us who study loons are in a position of power, because the public looks to us for information. It takes some humility, when a journalist asks us a question about loons, to admit that we do not know the answer. Admitting ignorance is embarrassing. It disappoints the questioner. It makes us feel inadequate and uninformed. Yet admitting ignorance is vital. Our willingness to say we understand fully some aspect of loon biology that we do not — on websites, at conferences and in print — poses great problems for loon science and conservation.

Wait. Published material on loons should help move our understanding forward, right? Yes and no. Well-researched, robust science on loons improves our understanding; anecdotal, speculative work based on small samples of loons, inexpertly analyzed, and passed off as fact does not. In the field of loon behavior and ecology, a huge “grey literature” exists, which consists of popular loon articles, books, websites, unpublished Master’s theses, and low-brow pseudo-science that eked its way into the lower echelons of science journals. When such sketchy information makes up the majority of the material publicly available about loons, there is a real danger that speculation and pseudo-science might drown out real science.

There is good news, however. Our understanding of loon biology is better now than ever before. Across the continent, loon researchers have started to mark individual loons, examine many aspects of their ecology and behavior, use powerful statistical tests, and publish their findings regarding loons in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This last step is critical, because peer review means that three or more scientists are criticizing a paper submitted for publication anonymously and candidly before publication. In most cases, scientists who review loon research do not themselves study loons, so they can bring an important bit of objectivity to the process and read what a loon scientist writes without preconceived notions about the species. Reviewers who are not loon researchers, in effect, are helping pull the study of loons into the mainstream of scientific research. If scientific studies on loons are treated with the same level of rigor as those on fruit flies, downy woodpeckers, wolves, elephant seals, and angelfish, loon science will eventually become as robust and reliable as science carried out on other species.

Such rigor in loon study is long overdue. Now that we see multiple populations of loons declining in number or reproductively, we must do better. We need to advance from “there are still loons on my lake, so the population is stable” to careful, longitudinal quantification of adult survival, juvenile survival, breeding success, and other demographic parameters that can contribute to a valid statistical population model.

Why does it matter? Because when we fall into that very human trap of expounding upon a topic without a foundation of scientific fact, people sometimes listen and use our pronouncements in ways that we did not foresee. Case in point: the Minnesota loon population. Any population ecologist who looks at the data — well, lack of data, in this case — will tell you the following. We truly have no idea whether the population of loons in Minnesota is rising, falling, or remaining steady. We simply have not marked adults, carefully recorded their rate of return to their territories, measured the number of chicks they have produced, marked those chicks, measured the rate at which those chicks return, and plugged all of these data into a statistical model. Without such a thoughtful, complete analysis of survival and reproductive success, any statements about the Minnesota loon population are simply speculation — speculation that could be seized by others to undermine conservation efforts. Indeed, one difficulty faced by the “Get the Lead Out Minnesota” campaign (which anyone who loves loons and wildlife should support strongly) is that there are many baseless statements to the effect that the Minnesota loon population is stable in the media and the grey literature.

So, a plea. Let’s emulate population ecologists in describing our knowledge of loon populations in Minnesota and elsewhere. Let’s apply rigorous techniques and wait until the research has run its course to reach any conclusions. In the meantime, let’s have the courage to utter those most honest but difficult few words: “We don’t know”.

I am fearful of new challenges. In 1993, when I began to study the behavioral ecology of loons on a cluster of 12 Wisconsin lakes, doubt gnawed at me. How can one carry out meaningful, publishable, scientific research, if one’s study animals are large, aquatic, diving birds that range over huge territories, dive constantly, and must be followed in boats? Would my work be severely limited in scope, like that of researchers on porpoises, whales, and sea turtles? I had no training in field techniques for study of aquatic animals, only my childhood experiences paddling canoes over vast stretches of Lake Temagami in central Ontario. But my fascination with loons — which also grew during summers on Temagami — and my sense that canoes could be an effective means of tracking them without altering their behavior pushed me forward. And so, for reasons that I do not understand, I began to treat seemingly insurmountable problems with funding, logistics, and personnel as mere nuisances. And I ignored warning signals that any reasonable young scientist would have heeded. I began to study loons.

So it was in Minnesota. Although one might surmise that beginning a field project on loons in one state would be much like doing so in another, this is not so. True: loons are loons. We see many of the same behaviors, hear the same basic calls, and witness the same sorts of human-loon interactions in Minnesota that we have seen over the past 29 years in Wisconsin. But all else is new. Starting a major field study in the Crosslake area has reminded us that we have an army of friends, lake residents, and supporters in Wisconsin. These folks have housed us, fed us, carried us around in their boats at times, and — most important — provided us with a trove of information on our study animals to supplement our field data.

And our Minnesota study lakes are far larger than those in Wisconsin. Only a masochist would attempt to study loons on the massive Whitefish Chain — where about half of our Minnesota study animals reside — by canoe. So a growing list of Minnesota friends and supporters have provided us with boats — thanks, John, Mike, Mary, Keith, and Dawn! — that permit us to cover the big water. (By the way, several others have made our work possible by providing housing — thanks, Melanie, Charlie, Mary, Jim and Jon!) In fact, we have learned that we can move about far more easily on huge lakes than on the tiny lakes where most of our Wisconsin loons live. Moreover, we can hold our position in the water more effectively and work in greater comfort on the Chain, providing winds are calm.

However, loon capture is another matter. Having caught rather few loons on huge lakes in Wisconsin, I was concerned that my team would waste many hours each night scanning the dark water before our spotlight came to rest upon a tiny light smudge that would become, on approach, a loon parent and a chick that we could capture. In truth, we do spend somewhat more time searching for Minnesota loon pairs that we are accustomed to. Furthermore, locating loon families acoustically is more difficult in Minnesota, because Minnesota loons seem less vocal at night than their small-lake brethren in Wisconsin. But once located, loons in Crow Wing County have proved easier to capture. So my irrational fear that loon capture would be slower and more difficult in our new western study area was unfounded.

What progress have we made in Minnesota so far? Despite the ill-timed failure of an outboard motor that forced us to cut short our night and limp back to our boat landing using only a single canoe paddle and three tote box lids, we have marked 37

adults and chicks in four nights. We banded sixteen loons on Ossawinamakee alone last night. In a few hours’ time, five anonymous territorial loon pairs on Ossie have become a valuable set of individuals whose behaviors, life histories, and survival rates we can track to enrich our understanding of loon breeding behavior and population dynamics. Moreover, our experience in Wisconsin tells us that the brief capture and marking process leaves little or no imprint on loon behavior. Loons caught and marked one night act the next day as if the event never happened. They display the same casual indifference towards us and other humans that they showed on the day before.

On the other hand, we ourselves are greatly changed after we capture and mark loons. Marked loons are individuals to whom we are committed forever afterwards. Yes, we get scientific data from them. But marking creates a lifetime bond between observer and loon. We know these birds. We cheer as chicks we marked return as adults to the study area and claim territories. We mourn when marked parents lose a chick or abandon a nest. And we move heaven and earth to guard these individuals and come to their rescue, if they need it. It has proved impossible to maintain pure scientific indifference to our study animals.

In short, Minnesota loons are excellent study subjects. They ignore our visits to their territories and forgive us immediately after capture and marking. My initial fears and doubts about marking and observing Minnesota loons have subsided. We can now see that we will learn an immense amount about territorial behavior, breeding ecology, and population dynamics of Minnesota loons — if we are willing to shoulder the burden of an intensive field project in a new state on these most engaging birds.

Our work in Minnesota is just beginning. Although we have great support from the National Loon Center and seem to be getting lots of folks from across the state interested in our work, there is much left to do. At present, we are scouting lakes in the Crosslake area and hoping to find chicks so that we can band the chicks and their parents. Only through this arduous process can we establish a large study population, measure survival rates, and construct a population model for Minnesota loons. So far we have only fifteen banded birds in our entire Minnesota study area.

Make that sixteen. On Wednesday, Katy and Jordana found a new nesting pair on Lower Whitefish. This duo — the nesting loons, not Jordana and Katy — has the distinction of using the oldest, most sunken, washed-out nesting platform that we have yet seen in Minnesota. (Most nesting platforms that we have found in our new study area are quite bouyant and well maintained.) The platform location is also exposed to a substantial wind fetch, not to mention endless wakes from passing boats. And yet, drawn to this location by the predator-resistant nesting opportunity, a pair of loons has made this site their home.

Jordana shared the news of this new nesting pair with me in the most thrilling possible way. She told me there was a nest and sent me a video of one of the pair members swimming underwater and behaving protectively towards it. I immediately ran the video and caught an unmistakable sparkle on the bird’s left leg. (Note the bright white spot on the left leg of the loon in the featured photo and the video below.) The sparkle told me that the bird had a silver band on its leg that was catching the sunlight; the fact that the left leg was banded told me that this loon was an “ABJ” (adult banded as a juvenile) and not an “ABA” (adult banded as an adult). Hence, this loon, when we capture it and confirm its age and natal origin from the number on its USGS metal band, will be the first known-age individual in our Minnesota study area.

So this is not just any pair of loons. No, this Minnesota loon pair represents a first for the new Minnesota study area, because one of the two pair members is an individual whose age can be known precisely. Kevin Kenow of the USGS captured and marked this silver-banded loon as a chick four to six years ago on a different part of the Whitefish Chain. At present we must say “four to six years ago” because Kevin placed only a single band on the left leg of this bird, and he banded six other loon chicks similarly. Until we capture it, we will not know which of those seven chicks grew into this breeder. However, we can be virtually certain that the banded loon is a male, because most females settle to breed many miles from their natal lake.

Why am I so excited to see this young adult settle in our study area? Because one very important demographic parameter we seek to measure in Minnesota loons is the survival rate of juveniles and young adults. This, you may recall, is the cohort of the Wisconsin loon population that has suffered a high rate of mortality in recent years and thrown that population into decline. While we will be able to estimate the survival rate of breeding Minnesota loons — a crucial parameter in its own right — after another year or two of work, it will take five years or so before we have seen enough settlements of ABJs like this male to produce a good estimate of young adult survival in Minnesota. But the sight of this first young settler shows that we are on the road.

2016-08-01 02.16.10

In many recent posts, I have emphasized a certain theme: male loons begin to die off at a rapid rate after age twenty, while females linger on. Part of the reason for this contrast is the nature of territorial contests in each sex. Territorial males fight hard in attempting to hold their breeding position on a lake and commonly die in territorial battles. With rare exceptions, territorial females survive eviction from a territory, move to an unoccupied lake nearby, and resettle on a new territory when opportunity permits.

While the escalation of male territorial battles is interesting in itself, it also impacts the composition of the breeding population. Specifically, adult male loons’ propensity to die frequently in battle skews the sex ratio towards females in the breeding population.

These excess females are “floaters” — adults capable of breeding but prevented from so doing by the lack of a mate and/or a territory. Floaters are the loons that one sees living alone on small lakes, drifting about aimlessly on large lakes, and intruding into territories from time to time to confront breeders. A large proportion of the loons that gather in flotillas of five adults or more during July and August are floaters. Floaters can be thought of as “hopeful breeders”; that is, they are always ready to settle and breed with a mate and territory, if they can find one. The excess of female floaters means that there are always far more of them looking to settle and breed than there are male floaters able to pair with them. In effect, males are snapped up by females as soon as they become available for breeding.

In May of this year, we re-encountered one of our veteran breeders, “Silver over Blue, Green over Orange” (or “S/B,G/O”), whose breeding history illustrates the striking contrast between males and females brought about by male-biased mortality. S/B,G/O was first captured and marked as an adult in 1997 on Dorothy Lake, where she raised two chicks with her mate. Her mate was evicted in 2001 and died either during eviction or shortly afterwards. But she lingered on. When an opening became available in 2002, she settled and nested with a different male on Hasbrook Lake, just a few miles to the northwest. Having failed to raise chicks on Hasbrook, S/B,G/O (now at least 14 years old) evicted the female breeder on Hodstradt in 2004, paired with a third male, a six year-old, and reared four chicks there during the next three years. She followed this young male to Horsehead Lake in 2008, when he was driven off of Hodstradt, and the pair fledged 3 more chicks over the next four years on their new lake. When the male was evicted yet again in 2013, S/B,G/O traded experience for youth and found a new six year-old male as a breeding partner. We breathed a sigh of relief when she broke up with this youngster after a year together, as he was unfortunately her son from Hodstradt! Then 23+ years old, S/B,G/O again became a floater, forced to return to the breeding grounds in 2014 and 2015 with no clear prospects for breeding.

I have become attached to the birds in the study area, so I was delighted to find S/B,G/O back at Hodstradt in May of this year with her fifth recorded mate. At 26+ years of age, she is perhaps fortunate to be paired again. Her mate this time: a four year-old hatched on Clear Lake. We observed no breeding attempt by this new pair – only a small percentage of four- year-old males that settle on territories actually nest – but it is likely they will nest in 2017.

As a human, I like to think of S/B,G/O’s life as a lesson in resilience – the dogged refusal of an animal to forsake breeding despite repeated setbacks and advancing age. But, as a behavioral ecologist, I think of this female more as a striking example of how animals adapt to maximize their breeding capacity regardless of the breeding environment they face. By the way, S/B,G/O is not the only female in our study area who has continued to breed despite frequent changes of partner. S/R,O/O, another 26+ year-old from Swamp Lake that we recaptured a few nights ago (see photo with Eric), has gone through at least 5 younger mates during her 20 years of breeding there. Clearly the pairing of tough, old females with much younger males is – as my daughter says – a thing.

2016-07-31 01.32.29

Loon capture is a blur. We set out from our house at 8:45 pm, launch our small motorboat on the first lake, wait for nearly complete darkness, and catch any loon chicks and parents that we can net easily. By the time we have repeated the process four more times, we are rubbing our eyes, our weariness justified somehow by the presence of the sun lurking just below the horizon.

As an essentially negative person, what I often recall after a night of capture and banding are the physical demands of the process and my complete exhaustion. But there are dimensions of the work that are exciting and rewarding. Each loon is unique, and one never knows whether an individual will permit itself to be approached closely and netted or will be wary and elude us. So we experience many disappointments, but they are tempered by the occasional thrill of capturing an individual that, at first glance, appeared too skittish to catch.

The fruits of loon capture are obvious. By marking individuals and resighting them year after year, we learn about survival rates of adults and juveniles, territory fidelity, natal dispersal, and habitat preference. We glean a good deal of important information from these data. For example, survival rates of young and adults allow us to learn whether the  local population is increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable. And tracking of young loons from egg to first territory has revealed that loons develop strong preferences for breeding lakes that closely resemble their natal lake. Finally, capture is essential as a means to disentangle loons that have been run afoul of angler’s lines or lures.

This year’s capture exposed another distinctive pattern in loon ecology: the presence of ecological traps. An ecological trap is a breeding habitat that appears at first glance to be a good one but ends up being poor for reproduction. For example, a field might experience a burst of insect activity during early spring, enticing songbirds to settle there for breeding, but a crash in insect levels after eggs hatch might occur that suppresses the number of young birds produced. Two nights ago, we captured two chicks from two different lakes back to back. The first territory was a shallow 11-hectare portion of Wind Pudding Lake (my favorite lake name). The chick captured there was a five-week-old that weighed a scant 0.92 kg — less than half what we would expect from a chick of that age. Our daytime observations show that the chick’s parents are no slouches; they respond to its constant begging by making frequent dives and retrieving what food they can to feed it. Moreover, the chick itself dives often to forage. But this shallow lake, covered almost entirely by lily pads (which impair loon foraging), offers scant sustenance. I am afraid that the emaciated Wind Pudding chick will ultimately starve to death, as did the chick on nearby Liege Lake, another shallow lake choked by vegetation. Loon parents on small, acidic lakes struggle to rear even a single chick, whereas those on large lakes of neutral pH often raise two. This stark contrast was highlighted for us, as the lake we visited following Wind Pudding was 1373-hectare Lake Tomahawk. To be sure, loon parents on Tomahawk must steer their chicks through countless jet skis, water-skiers, anglers, and speed boats at all times of day. But vigilant parents are rewarded with abundant food for themselves and their chicks. The Tomahawk-Sunflower Bay chick held by Mina in the photo weighed 3.02 kg, yet it was only a few days older than the chick on Wind Pudding. Clearly the strapping youngster in the photo is heading for a healthy future and likely fledging.

Why on Earth would loons settle to breed on lakes that often provide too little food for their chicks? The answer might relate to the disconnect between nesting and foraging requirements. Alas, large lakes that contain many fish for loons often lack the islands, emergent marshy bays, and bogs that allow loons to avoid egg predators like raccoons. So loons looking to breed seem to be lured onto small, marshy lakes that yield successful hatches but doom their offspring to starvation.

LMG_7851 Walter n Sammy

The season began inauspiciously at Crystal Lake in Lincoln County, which is along the southwestern fringe of our study area. Though it is a pleasant, rather clear lake, Crystal offers no nesting habitat for loons. Loons love most of all to place their nests on islands but also make use of boggy or marshy areas, which seem to provide safe havens from egg predators like raccoons and skunks. Crystal offers none of these options, as its shoreline comprises upland habitat and is thus easy for a hungry mammal to patrol. In fact, Crystal is such an inhospitable place for loons to breed that loon eggs vanish from its shoreline almost as soon as they are laid.

So I had mixed feelings to see a six year-old male hatched on nearby Muskellunge Lake settle to breed on Crystal in 2012. On the one hand, I was pleased that the young bird had found a territory after wandering around the local neighborhood of lakes for the three previous years. On the other hand, a settler on Crystal seemed doomed to reproductive failure. But the male and his parade of mates (three females in five years) persisted in their breeding efforts. As I reported earlier this summer, the male and his new mate in 2015 (she still licking her wounds from a recent eviction from neighboring Deer Lake) took a new approach to nesting in 2015 by choosing to place a nest on a swim raft off of a resident’s dock.

LMG_6672 dad n chick on raft

Once the egg had been protected from rolling off of the raft with a ring of rubber cut from an old tire and some natural nesting vegetation (thanks to quick thinking and skillful craftsmanship from Linda and Kevin Grenzer), things began looking up for the breeding pair. Although it was a bear for the male and female to clamber up onto the swim raft to incubate the egg, the setup seemed little different from the artificial nesting platforms that many lake residents place on the lake each year for their nesting pair to use. Given the virtually impregnable location, the probability of hatching a chick had gone from almost zero to near one.

As expected, the chick hatched successfully, and though it had trouble maneuvering around the rubber-reinforced nest (as Linda’s photo shows, above), it left the nest with its parents within a few days. Only when Linda reported that Crystal was experiencing a burst of territorial intruders — one of whom, by chance, was the mother of the Crystal male and hence the grandmother of the chick — did she and I become panicked. Intruders pose a grave hazard to small chicks. Would the pair that had so miraculously pulled off a hatch turn around and lose the chick to an infanticidal visitor? The threat was not trivial. As Linda’s remarkable and chilling photo shows, the Crystal parents broke a very basic rule of loon parenting: never permit intruders near your chick when it is less than 2 weeks old.

LMG_6709 Two intruders approach parent n chick2

Yet the chick survived this brush with death. Nourished by a healthy supply of fish from the lake, the chick grew so rapidly that we were able to band it at three weeks of age, much younger than is usually possible for loon chicks. It has continued to flourish since capture. Now, at roughly 8 weeks of age, it looks like a 10-week-old, as the opening photo attests.

I have a tendency to dwell on disasters. Confronted with a large set of events — some positive, some negative — the latter seem to stick with me longer, leaving me with a sense that things are not going well at present and might not go well in the future. Yet at the end of a season when many breeding loons flirted with disaster — and one died — the story of the plucky Crystal chick stands as an odd and memorable exception.

Screen Shot 2015-08-20 at 1.20.25 PM

Recently, Eric, a second-year team member who is experienced at reading colored leg bands, ran across our oldest loon. This male, evicted in 2007 from Little Bearskin Lake, has been cooling his heels in Bearskin Lake since his displacement and shows no indication of regaining a territory. “Blue over Silver, Yellow only” produced 14 fledglings during his breeding career, 7 of which also bred in the study area. That level of chick production places him among an elite few in our study population.

Blue over Silver, Yellow only’s age sets him apart from all others. He is at least 28 years old, because he was banded as an adult breeder, which means he was at least 4 in 1991. He may be in his 30s. But a number of other loons that we have marked during the study approach this male in age — and three exceed him in productivity. The female on Upper Kaubashine (“Silver over Yellow, Red over Green”), for example, is 27 years old at a minimum. (Females first breed at no younger than 5 years of age, so her estimated minimum age is one year older than if she were a male.) She can boast having bred with four different partners on four different lakes, spanning two counties. The 25+ year-old Townline male, “Silver over Red, Orange over Green”, is unrivaled in terms of stick-to-itiveness, as he has held the Townline territory since at least 1994 — and still owns it. He has reared 16 chicks to fledging during his tenure, if we throw in the two from this year. Only two loons have raised more young: the current Oneida-West female (19 fledglings and counting on Oneida-East and Oneida-West) and the former Hancock male (17 fledglings from 1993 to 2009).

Although it is fun to gawk at the age and breeding success of certain star individuals, my quick analysis of the study’s oldest loons reinforces another point that I have made before — and one with substantial scientific importance: females are the ones that generally live to a ripe old age in loons. The reason(s) for this gender disparity are becoming clear. Males seem doomed to die young because of their participation in dangerous battles, and perhaps also their unfortunate proclivity for attacking fishing lures and baits. Inspection of the table above certainly makes one wonder whether males should rethink their high-risk approach to both territory acquisition and foraging. Then again, maybe there are compensating benefits that offset the costs.

image1Chris checked in on the Flannery-Velvet chick today. The chick, whom lake residents call “Houdini” because of his ability to escape certain death, continues to inhabit this odd world where it is necessary to hide under piers and avoid adults — rather than fraternize with two parents who feed him to satiation. When his mom is not bonding with a new male up on Flannery so that she can prepare herself for future breeding attempts, she spends time with him down on Velvet. Today Houdini begged from his mom repeatedly, but he also foraged for himself during a considerable period.

The photo above, generously supplied by Hugh Jones who lives on Velvet, is notable for two features. First, it shows a chick that is in full adult-like feather. That is, it has outgrown its chicklike, downy plumage and assumed adult attire. This fact, of course, is comforting, as it shows that the chick is getting the nutrients it requires to mature and prep itself for independence and migration to the wintering ground. Second, however, the chick continues its retiring ways. It has learned to avoid adults, because of the occasional beatings it had received from its stepdad. So it seeks protection, using whatever piers and pontoon boats will give it cover.

We have never witnessed a situation like this one. In all other cases, chicks that lost their fathers were either: 1) several weeks old and recipients of abundant feedings from their mothers, or 2) summarily ignored by their stepfathers and permitted to grow and mature without interference. Since we are in uncharted waters, we can only be cautiously optimistic. All we can say is that Houdini — whom LP personnel know attactionately as “white over white, pink over silver”, from his leg bands — continues to pass developmental milestones despite daunting obstacles.

IMG_4317

“Wow”, Lainey said, “that band number is right next to the female we caught last night on Sherry”. She was right; the adult male from Skunk, which we had just netted and whose band number I was reading aloud to Lainey for data entry during banding, had a number imprinted on his aluminum USGS band that followed immediately after that of the Sherry female from the previous night. The reason for consecutive bands is that the Sherry female is the mother of the Skunk male and was caught and banded with him a decade ago (less two days) on Sherry Lake. I remember July 31st, 2005 on Sherry vividly, because I was equipped with a video recorder on top of a helmet with which we recorded the capture process for research presentations. But the recapture of mother and son on back to back nights ten years after we had first marked them has also caused me to reflect upon several key features of loon biology that have become familiar to me through my work.

First, loons live a long time. In this twenty-third year of my work, I still encounter birds in the study area that were on territory, as adults, when I first started covering them. Females, in particular, are survivors. While males have rather high mortality –partly owing to their proclivity for battling dangerously — females linger. When their mate dies, females find another; when a female is evicted unceremoniously from her territory, she stoically moves to a new lake nearby and awaits a chance to re-insert herself back into the breeding population. So it goes with the Sherry female whose worn-out band from 2005 is pictured on the bottom in the photo. She was “widowed” suddenly in 2009 (a possible eagle kill) but hung onto her territory and was joined by a new male in short order, who has been her mate since.

Second, young males do not disperse far from their natal lakes to breed. The Skunk male, from whom we removed the top band in the photo last night, moved about 15 miles from his natal haunt, Sherry. That dispersal is, actually, a bit longer than average for males, many of whom settle to breed on a lake adjacent to where they hatched years earlier. Short-distance male dispersal is essential to my work; without it, I would not have a large marked cohort of 2 to 5 year-olds of known age and natal origin in the study area at all times whose territory settlement strategies could be investigated. (At last count, we had seen 295 adult loons in the study area that were marked originally as chicks.)

Third, loons vary tremendously in their behavior towards humans. My assistants and I dread the Sherry female, because she is the most skittish individual we know. She cannot be approached easily within 100 meters on the water; she tremolos (i.e. alarm calls) incessantly when a chick is present and a canoe appears on the water. In fact, my assistants tell me that she begins to tremolo in anticipation of a canoe being placed on the water and that they have begun a strategy of hiding behind bushes and trees along the shoreline in order to make observations of her when she is with the chick. (Fortunately, Sherry Lake is tiny, so this observation strategy is workable.) I joked that we should wear camouflaged clothing when visiting Sherry; my assistants did not find this funny. Oddly, the Sherry female’s mate is among the tamest loons we study and never tremolos at us when we collect data there.

The great variety in loon tameness is a topic of great interest to us, as I have mentioned. It amazes me that an adult such as the Sherry female could react so strongly (and, it would seem, maladaptively) to humans, which she encounters constantly. Doesn’t she waste energy with her fruitless calls? Shouldn’t skittish birds like her leave fewer offspring and live shorter lives than other adults who tolerate humans without constant complaint? If so, she is not a good example of the pattern, as she has behaved this way for the ten years we have known her while cranking out chicks. Indeed, the Sherry female and the Oneida-East male, another vociferous but fecund individual with whom my staff has to cope, make me wonder if I have got it backwards. Maybe loud-mouthed loons warn humans away, lessening the likelihood of injury to themselves and their brood, and are rewarded with high evolutionary fitness.