Bat murderer

I love bats. I love their stealthy flight at dusk, their wings that look like thin wet silk,their little sonar noises.


Many times I have been amazed at them, flying overhead like magic, in the golden hours. My first encounter with them was in Waukesha, some 20 years ago; I marvelled as they flew back and forth above me. Again, up north, on a wooded ithsmus between two lakes in the woods, they were thick in the trees as the stars came out; and again, one memorable time coming home late in my kayak as bats accompanied me, a thick low cloud. Last week, walking the dog through Glen Oaks Cemetary, we ducked, unnerved, as bats were low, flying, seemingly almost in our hair.


Once, someone who had two little brown bats hanging from the curtain on his back door called me, and I went; an expectant crowd gathered outside with the door open, and suddenly they both headed toward the sunset as we marvelled.


I have never once been afraid. The hair stood up on my arms, but I was not afraid.






Then last week Brain and I came home to find a bat inside a window, trapped by the braver of my two cats. I opened the screen. The bat flew outside into the night, unharmed. When I realized that the cat was overdue on her rabies shot, I made a vet appointment that turned into a report to the State Veterinarian, a lecture about why I should have killed the bat, and somehow involves a lot of hassle, including several home visits, the first of which is scheduled for tomorrow. That's fine, except that this morning there was another (different, larger) bat in the house.


It was flying in my bedroom when I was trying to get ready, and I shreiked a couple times (it really startled me!) and then closed the doors to the bedroom; I do have to say, it was very convenient that I found it in the only room in the house that I could close off. Sure that I was doing the right thing, I got the tennis racket, waited until it hung quietly on the wall above the door, and had Brain do the deed; I was saddened that I had to facilitate bat murder, but adrenaline and instruction-following won. It died quickly. I had been told that I was supposed to kill a bat in the house. So I did, again, what I thought was the right thing to do.


I called the DNR, certain that they would want me to deliver it anon for necropsy, and instead got a lecture about why bats are beneficial and that I should seal the hole through which they were entering. Duh. I do not need the DNR to tell me that. I do not need the DNR to tell me that I killed a bat for nothing. (Brain was just the hit man, having superior hand-eye coordination and strength; also, he is taller. I masterminded it, which is worse.) I do not need the DNR, either, to tell me that the State Vet was wrong, and that the DNR is superior; both are government entities that deal with such things.

"Fish or cut bait" editorial

I know there are certain people who visit this blog, hoping that "Estabrook Dam" is just a tiny bit bigger in the tag cloud in the sidebar, waiting stealthily to pounce with a comment. Not wanting to disappoint anyone, I'll throw out some bait today.
In a recent editorial, Fish or Cut Bait, the Milwaukee J-S had this to say (and you can click the link for the full editorial; it's not that long)

"But in a recent letter to the county, the DNR said the county cannot close the dam and allow the river to refill the impoundment area upstream unless all outstanding repair work is completed. The DNR is concerned about public safety. So are we.
The county's move skirts the real issue of whether to take on the more extensive repair job, estimated to cost $12 million, or to remove the dam for about $2 million. Environmental groups and others favor dam removal, while nearby residents and others who use the upstream portion of the Milwaukee River for recreation prefer a fix-up of the 1938 dam.
Removing the dam won't restore the river to its "natural" state; work done on the river channel in the 1930s made sure of that. But it would be a cheaper option at a time when the county already faces severe financial difficulties. County supervisors need to consider those finances when they consider the future of the dam - and they need to do that soon to comply with the DNR requirements."

Once again, the $12 million figure thrown out there. My arguments tend toward the philosophical and aesthetic. For awesome, cold hard facts, I turn to Vicky Ross, who wrote this rebuttal (it's long, but whatever. This is the infinite internet). Take it away, Vicky:

Dear Editorial Page Editors:
I was outraged by your editorial yesterday, “Fish or cut bait”!
I first must point out that your opening sentence contains an obvious error. The county board needs to either ‘repair or find funds to repair’? I gather from the context in the rest of the editorial that you intended to say: ‘remove or find funds to repair’.

Sloppy, very sloppy.
If your preference would truly normally be for full repair, as you state, what have you done to follow through on your inclination and fully explore the repair option?

-Did you happen to notice, or bother to report, that the county workgroup’s report was so rife with misleading information that the typically routine process of accepting the report and placing it on file passed by only the narrowest of margins on March 19th with 10 supervisors voting to accept the report and 9 voting no.?

-Did you think it to be at all odd that the Dam Removal scenario included no cost estimates for obvious related work that would stretch on for years: like cutting a channel to restore navigability, encapsulating contaminated sediments, replanting mudflats and modifying storm sewer outflows? [Details from the North Avenue dam removal process and problems experienced there shouldn’t be that hard to recall or locate.]

-Did you think it would be worth investigating how a repair estimate of $756,000 in 2006 could possibly balloon to the oft quoted $12 million in 2009?

I think not.

-Did your reporters find any of the county taxpayer comments made at the Public Hearing on March 24th interesting or compelling enough that they asked citizens follow up questions or for copies of their documents in order to learn more than their two minute time limit may have allowed?

-Did your reporters request and review any of the written comments that were submitted to the Parks, Energy and Environment Committee following the Public Hearing which provided a way for citizens to offer positions and supporting documents without being subject to a terribly limiting constraint?

-Did you give any thought to how Lincoln Park would be impacted by dam removal and advise your readers that they would no longer have water and islands as its focal point feature but instead would be greeted with unsightly mudflats riddled with invader species (weeds) and mosquito farms of stranded, stagnant water?

I think not.

-Did you consider that there might be a creative solution available given more time? Did you find it at all interesting that there are several entities actively exploring the prospect of a hydroelectric purpose for the dam?

-Did Lee Bergquist, Steve Schultze or anyone else on your staff research other Wisconsin DNR dam removal efforts and detect that their approach here is S.O.P. regardless of the specific dam, impoundment, parks, community, unique adverse impacts or the will of the people or institutions involved? [The DNR has a rich and well documented history of applying pressure on dam owners to remove them by exerting undue influence on the process – ensuring that repair cost estimates are trumped up exponentially and that removal estimates are grossly understated.]

-Did your research uncover the documents that reveal the DNR’s true agenda for the Milwaukee River and advise your readers that if the DNR is successful in having the Estabrook Dam removed that the upstream dams will quickly become their next targets: Kletzsch Park Falls, Thiensville Dam, likely even Cedarburg’s historic falls?

I think not.

-Did you question the motives that might lie behind a DNR letter delivered to the County Board of Supervisors the very morning of their April 23rd meeting as did Supervisor Rice? Didn’t you find that timing to be even a little suspicious?

-Did you question why the DNR would issue a letter saying they could issue a second Order for Dam Repair instead of just issuing another order?

-Did you find it at all compelling in the face of such opposition, that the county board of supervisors voted overwhelmingly in favor (16 to 3) of the $5,000 repair which will correct the problems cited in the DNR Order issued on September 26, 2008?

I think not.

Did you find value in the fact that the County is finally taking action to respond to the September, 2008 DNR order? Or even more significant, did you find it odd that the DNR would issue a threatening letter to the county because it was contemplating complying with the demands of an order they issued?

-Did your reporters happen to hear Supervisor Lipscomb explain that the resolution that was just passed was deliberately designed to begin the process of completing work that is necessary whether the dam is removed OR repaired and that more time is needed for study in order to responsibly decide the fate of the dam?

-Did you think it might be important to include in your editorial that the reason Supervisor Lipscomb is “rightfully” concerned about health risks associated with leaving the river low is because there are PCB hotspots in Lincoln Park that will be even more exposed to animals and people, especially children, over the summer months if the impoundment is not filled this season?

I think not.

I should tell you that I am apparently one of the few remaining daily subscribers to your paper. Needless to say I am sorely disappointed with your superficial coverage on this issue. You have failed to recognize it for the rich investigative story opportunity that it is.

With two editorials in as many weeks supporting the removal of dams (referring also to “Let the river run” - 4/22/09), it is clear to me that you have swallowed the bait whole. I congratulate you for your aplomb in falling for the DNR’s carefully crafted positions – hook, line and sinker.
Fortunately, you are not the only media outlet in this city, or this state for that matter. Perhaps I can find one who is willing to dig a little deeper and be just a touch more objective.

Yours very truly,
Vicky Ross

Increased fish diversity-- good news

Will Wawrzyn of the DNR spoke at length yesterday at the PEE Committee meeting. I was particularly interested in what he had to say about fish diversity. He had a powerpoint slide showing that there was a jump in total number of species and total number of native species in the North Avenue Dam site in 1997 (the year of partial removal, though it had been open since late 1990.) I tried to find this specific slide online, but I found better: this 2005 DNR report that discusses the subject at length. In particular, I wondered if the increase in fish diversity and number was as much or more due to the abatement, removal, and washing out to the lake (since the dam was open for sediments to wash though) of PCB's, heavy metals, and whatever other contaminants had settled there.

Changing Habitat and Biodiversity of the
Lower Milwaukee River and Estuary
"The Kletzsch Park station is an upstream site, [upstream from the Estabrook Dam also] which was not influenced by the NorthAvenue Dam impoundment. The upstream end of the station is fast flowing riffle, immediately downstream of the Kletzsch Park Dam (see Figure 5). The downstream section has some deep holes, and glides with overhanging tree branches, large boulders, and undercut banks providing fish cover. We recorded a total of 29 native species in five years of sampling, ranging from 11 species in 1996 to 23 species in 2001(Table 7). We could not sample this section in 1997 due to logistical reasons. Common carp was the only exotic species captured. The few walleye that were captured belonged to the recent stocking effort, demonstrating that the stocked walleye swim past the Estabrook Falls and Dam. Almost all the species captured at this station were also found in the Capitol Drive station except an occasional brassy minnow and fantail darter. At least seven species occurred consistently in all samples – spotfin shiner, common shiner, sand shiner, bluntnose minnow, rock bass, smallmouth bass, and logperch – although the numbers differed from year to year."

Keep in mind that the Estabrook Dam is located between the Capitol Drive sampling site and the Kletzch Park site.

"Other dams on theMilwaukee River including Estabrook, Kletzsch and Thiensville should be studied to see if removal or fish passage can be accomplished with minimal impact to the environment and conflicts with different user groups in those areas."

Photo taken by me in October, 2007. I photographed what I thought was a random fisherman, and when I asked him a question about the area, I realized he is a man I work with. What a small world we live in.

Our post-industrial legacy

From an outdoor.com article dated August 29th, 2008, http://www.outdoorcentral.com/fishing/freshwater-fishing/cleanup-finished-on-popular-blatz-pavilion-lagoon-in-milwaukee:

“ 'We’re very pleased to complete this important first step in restoring recreational opportunities in Lincoln Park,' says DNR Secretary Matt Frank. 'The park has long been an important recreational spot for the local community, and this work allows people to enjoy it again.'
"Contact with Milwaukee River water is no longer a problem for people boating in the lagoon as a result of the project. People fishing from 1-acre lagoon who want to eat their catch should follow the fish consumption advice for that stretch of the Milwaukee River."