Bird Friendly Forestry on Private Lands in Pennsylvania

Why Are Birds Important to People?

Northeastern forests are home to some of the greatest diversity of wild birds in the United States. Pennsylvania, in particular, supports a significant proportion of global bird populations, including popular songbirds such as Wood Thrushes and Scarlet Tanagers. People appreciate birds for many reasons. Bird songs help enhance our outdoor experiences in nature. Many birds are pleasing to look at, which makes them a desirable feature around backyard feeders. Pennsylvanians also appreciate the recreational hunting opportunities that game birds provide, including the American Woodcock, Wild Turkey, and Ruffed Grouse. However, when thinking about the importance of birds, there is an even bigger picture to consider. Birds help support ecosystem health, which can have a direct impact on our own health and well-being. For example, just by being part of the food web, birds provide pest control, help pollinate plants, and assist with seed disbursal (learn more about how birds support ecosystem health). Birds also help enrich human culture by being a source of inspiration in art and serving as important symbols in religion and some sports (e.g., peace dove, Cardinals baseball). People's attitudes and relationships with birds are not always positive. Birds can sometimes also be a nuisance by creating noise pollution and damaging private property (e.g., eating crops). Some birds engage in what humans think are disgusting behaviors, such as eating dead animals, but these behaviors are often important to ecosystem health and bird population fitness. While conservationists tend to focus on bird health and habitat management, understanding the complex relationships humans have with birds is also important for designing strategies that help sustain both birds and humans. 

Perceptions about Birds in Pennsylvania

The way people think about birds is often different depending on the species and where you live. For example, attitudes toward the common black bird are generally more positive in Russia compared to the United States. This means that the way people value birds is often based on their perceptions and beliefs. According to a study by the Pennsylvania Game Commission, people in Pennsylvania often place a higher importance on birds compared to other types of non-game wildlife including small mammals, reptiles/amphibians, and fish. From an ecological perspective, however, birds as a category are not necessarily more important than any other species. Another statewide survey study conducted by Penn State (664 responses) explores this question further by examining people's attitudes and perceptions of birds. Findings indicate that most people in Pennsylvania are overall positive or have a neutral position when it comes to birds and bird conservation (less than 1% are negative). These attitudes are supported by a common belief that humans should reduce excess pollution to help improve the survival of birds and that bird populations should be protected for future generations. Many also agree that the pleasing aesthetic qualities of birds made them feel more positive about birds, but strongly disagree that the purpose of protecting birds is only to please and entertain people. In short, birds have a right to live and prosper.

Many people in Pennsylvania believe that birds and their habitats are currently in good condition. Unfortunately, up to 29% of birds have already been lost over the last 50 years, primarily due to habitat loss. You may remember your grandparents mentioning that it has been a long time since they heard a Whippoorwill call or had a good season of Ruffed Grouse hunting. It is not uncommon for our perceptions of the environment to be different from the true condition of that resource. When a species declines over a long time period, it often goes undetected by the average person. Humans are also subject to certain biases in our thinking, such as status quo bias, which can lead us to be overly satisfied with current conditions. Recognizing that sometimes our perceptions can be misleading, it is important to have a science-based understanding of the condition of birds and their habitats when making decisions that affect bird habitat at the local level. This said, most Pennsylvanians are also concerned that birds will be worse off in 10 years, suggesting that many see current trends in habitat loss as unsustainable.

Private Forests and Bird Conservation

The success of any species is dependent on the habitat made available. In Pennsylvania, most wildlife habitat occurs on private forest lands, and other natural areas. Every part of a forest is used by birds, but the presence of forest land doesn’t necessarily mean that all or most bird species will be supported. Different types of habitats occur over time within a stand through a phenomena called forest succession, or the transformation of old forest back into young forests and then back into old forests (Figure 1). Bird-friendly forestry  supports specific types of habitats by focusing on ground cover plants and shrubs and managing for specific tree species and age groups. Owners can imitate natural forest succession by strategically harvesting trees, as recommended in bird-friendly forest management plan. The survey study by Penn State found most people in Pennsylvania were either positive or neutral towards timber harvesting on private lands, however some were concerned that bird conservation could sometimes interfere with timber harvesting objectives. Learn more about forest management, timber harvesting and bird habitat.

Most forest owners in Pennsylvania are considered family forest owners, and many (70%) own less than 10 acres of forest. However, private forest lands of all sizes can help birds when they contain natural areas that birds can take refuge in. This includes residential yards to large, forested landscapes. Most birds travel long distances and need forests and habitats at large and small scales. Forests located in rural areas are especially important for supporting migrating birds, who can become confused by light pollution and need refuge when traveling long distances.

The existence of private forest lands also contributes to cultural perspectives about the type of relationships humans can have with wildlife. Forest owners in Pennsylvania often express their connection to nature as a "way of life," which includes the actions they take (e.g., timber harvesting) and the relationships they form by working and living on the land. The cultural values of many forest owners are the desire to do right by the land and the desire for autonomy in land management decisions. These values can be complementary since interest in environmental quality often increases when people are given the right to protect, manage, and utilize (e.g., revenue) the land resource. The survey study by Penn State found those who support autonomy in private forest ownership tended to have a greater appreciation of birds. This greater appreciation was expressed by having multiple perspectives about the value of birds, including naturalistic, ecological, and scientific perspectives. People who are willing to coexist with birds in private spaces, such as private forest lands, are often strongly motivated to support birds for multiple reasons.

Support for Bird Populations on Private Lands

In most cases, it is up to the forest owner to decide how much support (e.g., habitat) they can give to wildlife occurring on their land. Forest owners face many of the same challenges as the public when looking to take action, including limited resources and knowledge and competing priorities. For example, timber harvesting can be an important habitat management tool, but the type of knowledge needed to direct these types of harvesting activities is often limited. Many owners also need financial assistance to help manage habitat and offset potential negative impacts of having the wildlife on their land (e.g., crop damage).

Most people in Pennsylvania recognize that private forest owners cannot take full financial responsibility to protect bird populations, especially since many birds are migratory and all wildlife are held in trust by the state for public benefit. The survey study conducted in Pennsylvania found that households were willing to pay an average of $11.83 per year (95% CI $10.65 - $13.01) for programs that help protect bird habitats on private forest lands. Households were even willing to pay an additional $1.70 per year when the conservation program offered incentives to forest owners to help offset management costs. When aggregated, the total value of bird conservation on private forest lands to the people of Pennsylvania ranged from $47 million to $132 million per year, depending on community values about timber production, if the program protected rare birds, if it offered owners incentives, and if it requires owners to have a management plan. At the acre level, the value of maintaining bird habitat ranged from $8.14 to $22.77 per acre, which in many cases can be enough to support the cost of habitat management.

Public preferences for the allocation of public dollars for bird conservation were found to be split, with 26% going to programs that help people have better access to bird-related benefits (use value) and 72% going to programs that protect bird populations into the future (option or nonuse value). Respondents recommended, on average, that 30% of conservation funds should come from current excise taxes on firearms, 30% from private donations, and 30% from a new environmental tax. New funding is often needed to ensure that conservation programs continue to occur at scales that are sustainable and effective for bird populations. 

State and Federal Programs

There are a number of resources available in Pennsylvania to help support bird conservation on private forest lands. The primary role of the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) is to advance the conservation and management of wildlife. This is most often done by regulating hunting throughout the state and by managing habitat on state game lands. The PGC also has several Landowner Assistance Programs that help owners who want to create, preserve, or enhance wildlife habitat. The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) Bureau of Forestry is the state agency responsible for promoting sustainable forestry on private lands and administering related laws and regulations (USFS,2006). The Bureau has a service forester available in each county who can offer information and advice to private forest owners and forest managers about bird habitats. The DCNR Wild Resources Conservation Program gathers public support for the conservation of non-game wildlife by collecting funds through tax check-offs and license plate programs.

At the federal level, the US Fish and Wildlife Service offers the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, a technical and financial assistance program for landowners interested in restoring and enhancing wildlife habitat on their land. Projects are designed to benefit federal trust species, including migratory birds, endangered, threatened and at-risk species at private forests, farms, and ranches. The USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), which is a voluntary program for people who want to develop and improve wildlife habitat on private agricultural land and non-industrial private forestland. The NRCS also offers the Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP), which is a voluntary program to assist landowners in restoring, enhancing, and protecting forestland resources on private lands through permanent easements, 30-year easements, and 10-year cost-share agreements.

State and Federal agencies also enforce laws that protect wildlife that are endangered or at risk of extinction. For example, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), established in 1973, works to conserve and protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats. The Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) was established in 1992 and is used to ensure that exotic bird species are not harmed by international trade. It also encourages wild bird conservation programs in countries of origin. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 was implemented to protect bald and golden eagles and has been successful in recovering the bald eagle from near extinction. The provisions made in these acts, however, do not always ensure constant or sufficient protection from year to year. Changes in the political administration often influence how some acts are implemented. For example, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 prohibits the harming of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. However, a policy enacted by the Trump administration limited the enforcement of the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Under the new Biden administration, the US Fish and Wildlife Service announced a proposed rule to restore criminal penalties for accidental killing of migratory birds (This was after a study found between 365 million and 988 million birds are killed in the United States every year as a result of building collisions). These kinds of changes in protection can be expected to occur in the future, so it is important to also consider supporting private sector efforts to protect bird populations.  

Private Conservation Programs

Private non-profit organizations often work in partnership with state and federal agencies to ensure that bird conservation activities are additive and support broader sustainability goals. For example, the Audubon Pennsylvania  Forestry for the Birds Program supports collaborations with foresters and other land managers to incorporate consideration for forest bird habitat into forest and natural resource planning. The Bird Habitat Recognition Program encourages landowners to initiate planting native plants to provide food (insects and plants), cover, and nesting sites and adding some other key elements like water on the property to foster habitat components for birds. Pennsylvania's Important Bird Area (IBA) Program helps to promote proactive habitat conservation by identifying which areas are likely hotspots for conservation. Likewise, the Pennsylvania Chapter of The Nature Conservancy has a Birding Blitz program, which enlists the public to help count as many species of birds as possible in one day on lands and waters protected by The Nature Conservancy.

Local land trusts in Pennsylvania offer another useful way of protecting birds by setting aside high-quality habitat for protection into the future. For example, the Brandywine Conservancy has two preserves, the Laurels and Waterloo Mills, located within regions designated by Audubon Pennsylvania as Important Bird Areas. French Creek Valley Conservancy also received a property easement donation that helped secure 340 acres of land in Rockdale Township, a region important to birds. Land trusts do more than conserve land; for example, the Willistown Conservation Trust, in partnership with several state agencies and nonprofits, received a $500,000 grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to dramatically expand a new bird migration tracking system across a five-state area. The Western Pennsylvania Conservancy has also joined other leading conservation organizations to form the Allegheny Bird Conservation Alliance (ABCA), which is a strategic partnership focusing efforts on bird conservation and collaboration. Other types of private organizations important for sustaining bird populations, but not described here, include hunt clubs and associations.

Sources

Belaire, J. A., Westphal, L. M., Whelan, C. J., & Minor, E. S. (2015). Urban residents' perceptions of birds in the neighborhood: Biodiversity, cultural ecosystem services, and disservices. The Condor: Ornithological Applications, 117(2), 192-202.

Clucas, B., Rabotyagov, S., & Marzluff, J. M. (2015). How much is that birdie in my backyard? A cross-continental economic valuation of native urban songbirds. Urban Ecosystems, 18(1), 251-266

Responsive Management. 2014. "Pennsylvania Residents' Opinions on and Attitudes Toward Nongame Wildlife." A report to the Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, PA. 125 pp.

Rosenberg, K. V., Dokter, A. M., Blancher, P. J., Sauer, J. R., Smith, A. C., Smith, P. A., ... & Marra, P. P. (2019). Decline of the North American avifauna. Science, 366(6461), 120-124.

Sharma, S.; Kreye, M.M. (2021) Attitudes towards Birds and Private Forest Land conservation. Forests (in review).

Sharma, S.; Kreye, M.M. (2021) Demand for Bird Conservation on Private Forestlands in Pennsylvania. Ecological Economics (in review).

Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of risk and uncertainty, 1(1), 7-59.

Tahvanainen, L., Tyrväinen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorela, N., & Kolehmainen, O. (2001). Forest management and public perceptions—visual versus verbal information. Landscape and urban planning, 53(1-4), 53-70.

Wicker, G. (2002). Motivation for private forest landowners. Southern forest resource assessment, 225-237.