Free the Wisconsin Mango!

I learned rather late that it’s NaBloPoMo, and that I should be posting daily. Problem is there’s just too much to blog about: my trip to Cape May (spending time with friends, meeting fellow bloggers, drinking $9 ice cream cocktails, singing birding filk songs), an update on the Extreme Hummingbird Makeover (we caught the Rufous again on Halloween and saw him briefly yesterday), recent visitors to our yard (Violet-crowned Hummingbird and Green-tailed Towhee!), our environmental barbarian neighbors (who appear to be moving a %*&#$@ trailer onto their oversized city lot under cover of darkness even as I write this), broader political and environmental issues (SoCal fires, the San Francisco Bay oil spill, landslides in storm-soaked Chiapas, the damned border fence).

What finally broke me out of blogger’s paralysis is something I should have blogged on before now: The Green-breasted Mango (GBMA) in Beloit Wisconsin. Well, it was in Beloit. Now it’s at the Wisconsin Humane Society’s Wildlife Rehabilitation Center in Milwaukee. Yes, it’s been “rescued” from an almost certain death by hypothermia while still hale and hearty, unlike Wisconsin’s first Green Violet-ear. Unfortunately, WHS has decided against sending the bird to the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas for release into the wild. Instead, against the virtually unanimous advice of hummingbird experts, it plans to send it to the Brookfield Zoo on the flawed assumption that its “navigational capabilities are obviously quite deficient.”

Oddly enough, the bird’s capture while still healthy ignited more violent emotions in certain corners of the hummingbird community than the decision to incarcerate it permanently. In the pre-capture debates over intervention in the bird’s fate, those who maintained that it should be allowed to live or die on its own warned against interfering with natural events about which we are fundamentally ignorant, squandering an opportunity for scientific study, muddying the gene pool by promoting the survival of an unfit individual, pandering to the “Bambi syndrome,” and setting a dangerous precedent for vagrant birds in general. In the wake of the capture there was much passionate rhetoric about prosecuting its rescuers for violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, despite the species being in regulatory limbo, proposed but not yet approved for protection.

As a conservation professional, I’m well aware of the risks of meddling in processes we don’t completely understand, but if substantial knowledge and understanding were prerequisites for action most of us would be crawling around on our bellies because we haven’t a clue how gravity works. We’re not alone in our ignorance, and sometimes what you don’t know can kill you. The brutality of a Wisconsin winter is a concept beyond anything encoded in the mango’s DNA or stored away in its brain from prior experience. Unlike a true long-distance migrant, he didn’t “know” that the weather was going to get lethally cold, and that the time for hummingbirds to leave Wisconsin was about the time that he arrived.

Ignorance, legalities, and scientific objectivity notwithstanding, we interfere in the lives of wild birds in countless ways every single day. We feed them. We band and color-mark them. We flock by the dozens, hundreds, and even thousands to see ones we deem special. We hurt and kill them with cars, windows, power lines, transmission towers, and free-roaming cats. We breed them in captivity and release their progeny into the wild. We shoot, trap, and poison them. We introduce exotic species into their ecosystems. We flood their environment with pesticides, sewage, endocrine-disrupting chemical waste, heavy metals, and other contaminants. We destroy and degrade their habitats. And sometimes, for a vanishingly small minority of those that are hurt, sick, or in harm’s way, we try to help them survive and carry on. Of all the interfering we do, I’m not sure why that last one should incite such passionate denunciation, especially when its impact is infinitesimal compared to any of the others.

I generally come down on the side of letting nature take its course, but this isn’t a Fork-tailed Flycatcher in New England or a Crescent-chested Warbler in Arizona. The mango has been depending on the kindness of humans who have obviously grown fond of him. That personal connection with individual birds is one reason hummingbirds make such a great “gateway drug” to get people hooked on nature. He’s also captured the imagination of millions of people via the media, thrusting birds and birding into the international spotlight. Saving the life of one non-endangered bird will make very little difference to the future of his species, but it will make a very big difference to that bird and the people who care about him.

This is the former wildlife rehabilitator in me talking, but how can we expect to convince the general public of the importance of protecting birds as species if we appear indifferent to the suffering and death of birds as individuals? If such an avian ambassador was in harm’s way, and you could prevent its death and give it a second chance at life with relatively minor risks to its safety, wouldn’t you have to do that? Or could you just stand by and let nature take its course, knowing that your scientific detachment may be interpreted by a lay person as callous disregard for an animal in danger or distress?

I just sent the letter below via e-mail to WHS Director Victoria Wellens. The Brookfield Zoo withholds most e-mail contacts from its Web site, preventing me from cc’ing this message to its President and CEO Dr. Stuart Strahl, and a call to the zoo’s toll-free number (800-201-0784) was directed to the library’s voice mail by an operator who refused to connect me with anyone in a position of authority. If I don’t receive a favorable response from WHS tomorrow, I’ll follow up with another call to the zoo, this time asking for Dr. Strahl by name.

Dear Director Wellens:

As a hummingbird researcher, environmental educator, and former zookeeper, I am writing to ask that you give serious reconsideration to whether permanent captivity is the most humane and ethical alternative for the Green-breasted Mango compared to sending it to Texas for release in an area its species is known to inhabit. This decision was based on misperceptions about the species’ behavior and can only damage our hard-won gains in promoting respect for nature and the autonomy of wild animals.

Confusion over its status under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act notwithstanding, the Green-breasted Mango has occurred naturally in the United States since at least 1988 and has established a tentative foothold in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Careful examination of the specifics of this species’ occurrences in the U.S. clearly indicate that the likelihood of the Wisconsin bird repeating this movement and finding itself in trouble again is far less than the staff of WHS believes.

The demography of Green-breasted Mangoes in the U.S. is significantly age- and gender-skewed. Most of the well-documented Texas visitors as well as the Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina birds have been young males. At least one male was seen in the same Texas neighborhood over a period of several years. This pattern is inconsistent with disoriented migrants but an excellent fit for dispersal (emigration). This one-way and often gender-biased movement of young birds helps their species maintain genetic diversity within widely separated populations and expand their ranges with changes in habitat and climate (a particularly important adaptation in these days of global warming). The birding and conservation communities would have been justifiably outraged had well-meaning people decided that the original pioneering mangoes in Texas should be relegated to permanent captivity on the basis that their navigational sense was “deficient.”

The Wisconsin’s mango’s “mistake” was not in traveling north from Mexico but in overshooting the hospitable gardens and feeders in subtropical Texas. Similar dispersal urges often lead young Brown Pelicans to ride the winds inland from the Pacific Coast to the Sonoran Desert of Arizona. Are these stranded pelicans permanently incarcerated to “save” them from repeating their youthful mistakes? No, the humane and wildlife rehabilitation organizations that rescue these birds transport them to sister institutions in California for release and a second chance at life in the wild. As far as I know, the recidivism rate is zero.

I have been following the mango’s saga since its presence was first announced. When the bird’s failure to depart in the face of increasingly cold weather sparked the usual debates on what, if anything, should be done for it, I reluctantly broke ranks with a majority of my colleagues by endorsing the bird’s capture before it became too debilitated, emphasizing that this was a humane and public relations decision with little or no conservation value beyond sending the message that people should care about wildlife, whether as species or as individuals. However, I never endorsed captivity as a post-rescue option.

Sending the mango to a zoo, while arguably less cruel than leaving it to die in the cold (as it almost certainly would have) will deny the bird any further opportunity to contribute to its species or to any ecosystem. The anachronistic paternalism inherent in the decision will undermine whatever positive lessons about our relationship with nature might have been gained from this incident. I understand that humane societies are accustomed to making such decisions for domestic animals and unreleasable wildlife, but the mango is a healthy wild bird. Is setting the precedent of permanent captivity for wayward wild birds really a desirable “legacy” for the mango and for the people and organizations involved in deciding its fate?

This is not a slam against zoos in general or the Brookfield Zoo in particular, which I’m sure has preserved and enhanced the sterling reputation it had 30 years ago when I was a bird keeper at the Fort Worth Zoo. My objections are based on the anachronism of taking a healthy wild bird into captivity for exhibit purposes. Zoos have spent decades trying to become conservers rather than consumers of wildlife. To that end, the American Zoo and Aquarium Association developed its Acquisition/Disposition Policy, which states that animal acquisitions “must be consistent with the mission of the institution, as reflected in its Institutional Collection Plan, by addressing its exhibition/education, conservation, and/or scientific goals.” Removal of animals from the wild is strongly discouraged. The acquisition of this bird by the Brookfield Zoo is obviously inconsistent with this policy.

The only alternative that makes sense from humane, ethical, and public relations standpoints is to send the bird to Texas for release in an area where members of its species have been observed before. A reversal of the decision to make this bird a permanent captive would do much to repair the reputation of WHS and the Brookfield Zoo in the eyes of bird lovers everywhere. I encourage you in the the strongest possible terms to embrace this option while it is still a viable one.


Sheri L. Williamson
Author, A Field Guide to Hummingbirds (Peterson Field Guide Series)


23 thoughts on “Free the Wisconsin Mango!

  1. Thank you for the very reasoned letter regarding the Mango. I greatly respect your perspective and happen to agree with you. I will be watching for the final outcome in this matter, and I hope your efforts are successful.
    David Jensen
    President of Mendocino Coast Audubon Society
    (northern California)

  2. Sheri.
    Your letter to Victoria Wellen is excellent! I wish mine had been as well written. I did receive a very short reply from Angela Speed: “Unfortunately, if the bird was released back to its native habitat, it is likely that it would have wandered off course again.” I was Also directed to check out the Brookfield Zoo’s excellent Avian resources. There should be an agency that can intervene on behalf of this beautiful bird. I really hate the thought of it being kept in captivity just because it flew too far north.


  3. Very well said, I wish I could write as well as you. It would seem that the jailers of the Mango are not very interested in what is probably best for the bird.

  4. I will be driving to San Antonio non-stop on the second of January from Auburn, Al. If someone wants to birdnap the Mango and drive it to my house the night before, I can get it the rest of the way to it’s natural range. Any takers?

  5. Thanks so much for your support, everyone, but mango-napping is absolutely out of the question! All joking aside, I just had a very cordial conversation with Dr. Strahl, a fellow ornithologist with Arizona connections, who promised to get back in touch tomorrow after consulting with other Chicago Zoological Society staff. Check back for an update tomorrow afternoon or evening.

  6. I am currently one of the Georgia “hosts” for our Green-breasted Mango. In fact, I just saw him at my kitchen window feeder (11:05 am). He is such a lovely bird and we have grown quite fond of him. If he decides to stay I hope he will survive our Georgia winter. Our temperatures here do dip down into the teens sometimes. We will do our best to keep him fed and happy. He has made quite an impact on our Dublin community. Everywhere I go I hear comments on the “cute little bird”. If you were to ask our ordinary citizens here about the fate of the bird, I think they would agree with you that it would be the humane thing to do to return it to its natural habitat.

    Rose Rhodes
    Dublin, Georgia

  7. Hey Sheri,
    Just checking in to see if there is any change of heart or updates yet. I will have to wait a while as it is still early out in AZ.

  8. Rose, it’s a pleasure to hear from one of the Georgia mango’s benefactors! I also hope that he can tough out whatever a Georgia winter throws his way, but if not and his life is clearly in danger, I would certainly support a carefully considered effort to give him a second chance.

    It’s easy to say “let nature take its course” when it’s some faceless, anonymous bird, like the millions that die every year from myriad natural and artificial causes. When you’re lucky enough to make a personal connection with a wild creature, it gives you a personal stake in the human choices that affect their lives.

    Ken and Penny, there’s no news today. I’m still waiting to hear from Dr. Strahl. Think liberating thoughts!

  9. Sheri
    I forgot to mention that I also wrote to the head of the Fish and Wildlife Service and Mr. Bob Blohm did write back and stated that my letter had been forwarded to their regional office in Minneapolis. I can’t say that it will help but hopefully it won’t hurt. At least I received a reply.

  10. Since the Zoo captivity commenced I’ve leaned toward the hope that the Mango could be released on its own come spring (I believe it would find its way south on its own) assuming it remains healthy.
    I don’t mind the idea of sending it on to Texas much faster than that, but am curious Sheri, what, if any significant risks (in terms of injury or death in transit) there might be in ‘shipping’ a small bird like this to a locale involving yet further human handling and adaptation prior to release? I suspect it gets done more often than I’m aware of and perhaps any risks are negligible, but just wondering if you can put me at ease with that.

  11. cyberthrush,
    Unless things have changed overnight, the zoo has no intention of releasing the bird in the spring. It will remain in captivity with their other hummer (species not specified in the emails I have received from the zoo) as well as other birds from what I was told.

  12. Penny, thanks for doing that. IMO one of the most chilling things about this debacle is the realization that any vagrant bird *not* covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act could become a victim of misguided “rescue” or be taken into captivity or killed for non-altruistic reasons with no legal recourse. Imagine the Red-footed Falcon that appeared in Martha’s Vineyard in 2004 being legally taken for falconry or, far worse, by someone who just wanted an exotic pet or a stuffed trophy.

    Cyberthrush, I share your concerns because there’s always a risk in capture, handling, and transport of wild animals. Having survived his original capture plus handling and transport a couple of times already, this bird has shown that he’s got what it takes to make it to Texas, barring accidents and human error.

    The same extreme energy requirements and specialized feeding behavior that make stowing away in a plant truck a highly unlikely scenario require that hummingbirds travel between zoos with a human escort checking their condition and attending to their needs every few minutes. I’m sure that this would be the protocol in this case.

    I disagree with releasing him in the upper Midwest in the spring, even if he spent the winter in quarantine, simply because his chances of survival would be vastly reduced. Unlike the highly migratory temperate-zone hummingbirds we’re most familiar with, this truly tropical species hasn’t had its sense of timing and direction honed by untold millennia of merciless natural selection. If this was one-time, one-way dispersal behavior, as the evidence suggests, he might not travel very far (if at all) after release and end up in the same predicament next fall. If he did hit the road again, he could end up in the boreal forest or tundra (I doubt that hummingbird feeders are big sellers in the “no hummer’s lands” of northeastern Canada). At least there no one would have to watch him die, but…

    The lower Rio Grande Valley has plenty of gardens and feeders, and, thanks to its natural and political geography, two compass headings out of three would lead him back into Mexico (assuming he didn’t head out over the Gulf). There’s a remote possibility that he could leave there and end up in trouble again, but at least he would have had the best second chance we could reasonably give him.

  13. We contacted the Brookfield Zoo, and received this response regarding the release of the mango in the spring:

    “We actually have looked into re-release arrangements for this bird. However, the combination of limited legal release sites and the
    hummingbird’s history lead us (and those we have consulted with) to believe that a release is not in the animal’s best interest. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is aware of the decision.”

    What is a “legal release site”? And I’m sure the USFWS does know about this mess — and is pretty unhappy about it. It’s my understanding from two sources that they simply do not have the time and resources to pursue any type of action.

  14. Pingback: Rods and mango redux « Life, Birds, and Everything

  15. Pingback: Golf as a blood sport? « Life, Birds, and Everything

  16. Pingback: Ohio Birds and Biodiversity » Blog Archive » Green-breasted Mango captured!

  17. Pingback: “Rescuing” baby hummingbirds « Life, Birds, and Everything

  18. Pingback: More species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act « Life, Birds, and Everything

  19. Sheri,

    I’ve been hit by a Green-breasted Mango explosion here in Puerto Escondido, Oaxaca. The first one I noticed showed up on July 31st and there are easily over a dozen of them at my feeders now. I am smitten with their maneuverability, beauty and poise (compared to the open-mouthed Cinnamons screaming and chasing each other, that is). They are easily the most impressive animals I’ve ever had the chance to ‘get to know’.

    And of course I’m constantly reminded of the sad life that this hapless wander is living out in a cage in Illinois. Any news on the little guy? Brookfield Zoo’s website says nothing about him.


Add your comment or question

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s