Standing at the Edge

(“Standing at the Edge” appeared in November, 2021 on my old blog; it has been further edited and expanded.)

The series of aerial photos was of a property all too familiar. Seen “bird’s eye”, one might feel compelled to view the images dispassionately, but my emotions played some tricks on me. Nostalgia made me smile; regret made me sigh. 

In the mid 1980’s, Mom, Uncle Bob, and Aunt Marie bought a small house on a small lot high on Manomet Bluffs on the southeast coast of Massachusetts, technically not quite a part of Cape Cod, but close enough to feel a sturdy kinship. When you have expansive, breathtaking views of all of Cape Cod Bay, you shrug at the smallness of your staging ground. In any season, on any day — or night — a seascape can be called forth just by wishing it, just by facing east. 

While I can’t be 100% sure about Uncle Bob and Aunt Marie, I have no doubts that this little house was the one that Mom loved best. Inasmuch as every memory I have of Mom from that brief period in time presents someone who had found her deserved happiness, the photos I held in my hand were disturbing reminders — the tangible evidence — that their little house on the bluff (affectionately — and always with droll effect — called “Blind Man’s Bluff” because Uncle Bob was blind) was at great risk of tumbling into the sea. I shuffled the glossy photos one final time, lined them up neatly by smacking their lower edges on the table a couple times. I intended to put them away once more, but the decision to save them, I realized, was no decision at all, just kickin’ the can down the road. I instead went over to the trash barrel and tossed them all in, taking a moment to absorb what I was doing. Everyone knows how I hold onto the past. However, because I knew precisely why the aerial set of photos had been ordered in the first place, keeping them was a form of punishment.

The three siblings kept up the gambit for seven years, preferring to count their blessings. One of the first things they had done upon arrival was plant a tripod — with great ceremony — in the middle of the second floor living room; upon the stand they secured a telescope that faced the wall of windows, drawing toward their eye all the activity taking place directly east of them in Cape Cod Bay. One could not climb the open spiral staircase and enter the living room without responding to the beckoning telescope’s eyepiece. On more days than not, they had a clear view straight across to Provincetown, at the very tip of Cape Cod. 

Each season offered a bounty of stimulating activities. Even when winter’s furious gales pinned the crag clingers inside their home, their curiosity about life on the Bay continued unabated. And each time air temperatures and weather patterns signaled seasonal change, the activity in, on, and around the water adjusted accordingly. 

With an abiding love of learning, the two sisters and one brother quickly taught themselves the habits of various marine birds, but they were especially interested in the great variety of fish species with which the Bay teemed — striped bass, bluefish (who always put on a spectacular display for those who closely monitored fishing activity,) mackerel, pollock, and — of course — cod. (The namesake species, however, was already in decline by then due to decades of over-fishing.) Whales, too, would occasionally wander into the Bay, getting slightly mixed up on their seasonal migration. Sometimes, they were simply in hot pursuit of prey further down the food chain who had lost their own way.

“Aha! You were right, Bob,” one or the other of the sisters would narrate as she leaned into the eyepiece, “Lucky Striker’s back. . . with his arm in a sling. Looks like he might have a deckhand today. Son, maybe?” Each chapter built on the one before, and it wasn’t long before they had fully imagined characters, backstories, and conflicts. By making it a daily habit, they came to know — in their own way — the regulars who plied the waters. Never knowing their real names, they nevertheless could identify them by their boats, and their habits. They could tell you, for example, exactly which lobster pot would be pulled next, and the next one after that. They knew which lobstermen took their time and which ones worked in a hurry, who was absent. . . and for how long. Because sound traveled whole and unimpeded up the face of the bluff, they could, as well, categorize the fishermen by their musical preferences. By and large solitary figures absorbed in their own endeavors, on occasion one captain might motor over to another to engage briefly in conversation. It wasn’t social; topics appeared serious. New industry regulations, perhaps?

The three cliff-dwellers followed with even greater interest the illegal drug smuggling operations, which were often interrupted by U.S. Customs or Coast Guard busts. On occasion, the aerial surveillance by helicopter and high-speed pursuits over water provided exciting entertainment. (Law enforcement was very busy in the waters of Cape Cod all through the 1980’s, first with their efforts to stanch the flow of Mexican marijuana into our country, and later with the Colombian cocaine trade.)  

I was recently told that the little house on Manomet Bluffs sits at the highest elevation in Plymouth County. It feels as if it could be true when you arrive there by automobile — steadily ascending the narrow shore road to its highest point. And it looks like it could be true if you’re out in the bay and you scan the coastline. Low growing trees — scrub pine, mainly — and lots of laurel line the undulating horizon. It’s not that high, for the record. (The highest elevation in the county is a short 4 miles inland.) “Indian Hill”, the particular summit on Manomet Bluffs to which the house is moored, shows on topographical maps as being 161’ above sea level; it is still impressively high up there, and gives you a heady experience when you stand at the edge and allow your eyes to abruptly travel down the sheer, mostly sandy face of the bluff. 

Follow the shoreline road directly south, and you descend toward sea level and the entry point to the beach. If it can be said that the dramatic, panoramic views from above encouraged big picture thinking, the beach below, in the lee of the bluff, offered an essential counterpoint; it allowed for close scrutiny. All activity at that level was hands-on; it was important to be able to hold things, turn them this way and that, feel all the contours and textures. And wonder about it, talk about it. Any visitor to Blind Man’s Bluff was entertained by a new story about a recently discovered treasure — what it was, where it was found, how they’d determined its keepsake value. The home thus became a vibrant museum with an ever-changing gallery of found marine treasures.   

As much as they loved that perch with its stunning views of the bay; where the ocean air was never still; where their daily ministrations were accompanied by the syncopated strains of sea gull squawks, fog horns, and the low vibrations of boat motors; and where they could cheerfully practice their “5:00 somewhere” (or was it 4:00?) outlook on life; they knew it was only a matter of time before their back yard collapsed into the Atlantic. In the back of their minds, they must have known that their small-scale measures — ecologically sound as they might have been — were inadequate; the salubrious, composted slurry that they mixed up daily in their kitchen and cast over the edge of the bluff was no doubt seasoned with a fervent sense of wishful thinking, maybe even swathed in a wry prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It’s not hard to imagine them examining closely, but with diminishing hope, for signs that their vegetable concoction had taken literal hold of the unstable bluff. After exhausting the ordinary slate of homeowner remedies designed to arrest the advance of the ocean (in your desperation irrationality can be forgiven), with hearts heavy but minds clear, they sold their little piece of heaven. 

~

I live ninety miles north of Manomet Bluffs, also on the coast, but, because I’m an especially cautious person — and a worrier — not right on the water. Several times a week (particularly in the off-season) I take my dogs to Salisbury Beach State Reservation, two miles away. When the cold weather creeps into our region, usually by the end of October, I have a selfish expectation that “The Rez” will — as ever — revert to the quiet sanctuary that encourages private thought and a solitary appreciation of its natural gifts. One lap around the empty campground with a slight detour out to the boat launch where Black Rock Creek meets the Merrimack River gives me just enough time to rearrange my scattered thoughts, and, of course, set my world to rights once more. My two dogs, likewise, lean into the activity, responding to the invigorating qualities of The Rez. They’re eager (more so than I) to sprint along the seawall and cavort at river’s edge, maybe even lap at the briny water (which, of course, they’ll promptly throw up). The further away from the parking lot we move, the more immersed we become in our own pursuits. 

So, on one particular morning, I almost don’t notice the low grumbling sound from across the river. Looking over to Plum Island on the opposite bank of the Merrimack, I can just make out the bobbing motion of a large piece of machinery as it excavates sand. Large excavators on a barrier beach attract a fair amount of attention, attention that often billows in clouds of controversy. Right now, a handful of dark figures stands motionless at the edge of the dune; no doubt, islanders filled with equal measures of curiosity and apprehension, apprehension being a sentiment they find impossible to shake these days. For people with homes either directly on the ocean or at the mouth of the Merrimack River (Plum Island, like Salisbury Beach, sits at the very confluence of the Atlantic Ocean and the Merrimack River), weather forecasts are tidings to be followed closely and parsed, their sources carefully vetted.


The Merrimack River is always spoken of in terms of its ability to bounce back from adversity, the “Resilient Merrimack”, it’s often called. Surging, cascading, and gliding along its 117-mile course, it supplies over half a million people with drinking water, all the way up into central New Hampshire.  Many of the cities throughout the Merrimack Valley, in fact, owe their very existence to this river. Follow the river inland and you pass through Haverhill, Lawrence, Lowell, on into New Hampshire and cities such as Nashua, Manchester, Hooksett, Concord, Franklin. None of these cities would have endured without the empowering waters of the Merrimack.

As I’m squinting to see what’s happening on Plum Island, I remember that the meteorologists warned of a one-two punch with astronomically high tides and a storm well out to sea, but still near enough to menace the coast. Curious, I steer the dogs back the other way toward the beach on the ocean side, but before I’ve rounded the first dune, I already notice how the familiar contours of the sand near the tall north jetty have been altered. This happens regularly, however; aggressive tidal action shifts the sand wildly, sometimes completely covering the jetty, only to move it back to its original place after a few more tides. When I pass the dune with my two dogs, I’m brought up short by the scene before me — lobster traps and buoys, giant mounds of rockweed, random lumps of wood, and even an orange traffic cone and a 5-gallon plastic bucket litter the sand. Looking north along the length of the beach, I consider that all the debris ranging out in front of me is an amalgamation of things that were ripped from the shore and others that were hurled at it, all comingling and implying a savagery that unnerves. And this one wasn’t even a direct hit. Deep gouges have been carved by the punishing waves. In both the near distance and far, I see stairways — the fragile threads that connect homes with their coveted spots on the beach — dangling well above the sand. And along that same ribbon of churned sand, a different set of dark figures surveys the damage.

None of this suggests a new pattern, it should be noted. Almost forty years ago, and ninety miles south of here, my mom and her two siblings were watching with a similar sense of foreboding as each storm pummeled their segment of the coast. And just like then, it serves to underscore that Mother Nature enjoys a lopsided advantage in her enduring battle with mankind. 

When you fall in love with the place you adopt as your home, whether that be on the ocean or a river or nestled deep in a glacial valley surrounded by gentle hills, you pay attention to physical changes. . . and you worry, or at least you should worry. Inasmuch as we’d like to rely on our planet’s adaptability, by continuing to invoke divine intervention (and if not that, then the ministrations of local, state, and even federal government), we fail to perceive the “use by” date; in other words, we risk everything by failing to heed environmental warnings. As that series of aerial photos of Manomet Bluffs made so clear, it’s sometimes too painful, too upsetting, too real to pull back and see the big picture. Just one more roll of the die, you say as you blow on the pair and then uncurl your fingers, almost too afraid to watch as the cubes rock on their edges and settle into place. 

In October of 2020, Plum Island homeowners on the north end of the island coordinated an effort to establish a barricade using one-ton “Super Sacks”, enormous plastic bags filled with sand. It ended badly for them. If you’ve never before seen one of these Super Sacks, up close it is reassuringly enormous, and that’s just one. Imagine hundreds stacked shoulder to shoulder, an entrenched defensive army bracing against a formidable adversary, one whose tactics are not easily discerned. Less than a year later, the bags had been shredded, and the ocean — as if exacting bounty — reclaimed its sand. It was hard for Plum Islanders not to notice Poseidon’s hand in all of it; he has a way of making his point about man’s puniness.

Plum Island homeowners, I learned, in yet another effort to disrupt the sustained assault by the ocean, obtained a consequential legal dispensation that they hope, once again, will buy time until a more permanent solution rescues them from this never-ending crisis. Maybe those dark figures separated from me by a narrow band of water are bowing their heads in silent supplication as the big equipment erects a new barrier. The current scheme utilizes giant rocks and stitched-together coir bags, immobilized by wood pilings driven deep into the sand. The wood pilings, in particular, get me to thinking. After seeing past efforts fail, is there greater confidence that by digging deeper into the ground, the ocean will be vanquished? And, how deep is deep enough to be able to get a firm grip on what each is hoping to hold onto?

As someone who has lived on the Atlantic coast for nearly five decades, it is impossible to ignore the effects of global warming and consequent sea level rise, and with that, soil erosion. I started to pay closer attention, in particular, as more and more investigative reports focused on Greenland’s dramatic ice sheet melt. I was puzzled, initially. In what way does the accelerated melt have to do with the Gulf of Maine’s waters or the shift in the Gulf Stream? Why was — and is — that so important to all of us who live on the coast of Massachusetts? It seems important to make the complex connection between that ongoing event and the changes that I’ve been noting on my dog walks. 

One can easily get lost in the seemingly endless chain of cause and effect. Did it all start with the industrial era? Or even earlier? If later, the weight of our own behaviors, and the decisions and choices that we have made could drag us under as we shift the narrative to one of culpability. Ah, if only we could continue to shrug it off as a temporary (but entirely fixable) ecosystem imbalance. It’s inevitable, we might even say; it will right itself over time.  My restive spirit strains to see the ultimate good that can be achieved through either complacency or — worse — makeshift (and myopic) remedies that at best provide transitory relief. 

I perceive the escalation of despair among those most directly affected by coastal erosion, and am sympathetic to their urgent pleas for deliverance. With each storm that sweeps through, the force that the homeowners use to press their palms together in impassioned appeal increases; their anguish spreads deeper. A good many of them are third and fourth generation homeowners of cottages that have long ceased to be merely seasonal. How hard it must be for them to imagine forfeiture, both of a lifestyle and a family’s legacy. It is not for me to pass judgment on beach homeowners’ determination to save their property. If I lived eye-to-eye with the ocean, I would want to do the same. 

To everyone’s surprise, Manomet Bluffs and the little house that roosts at its edge, keeping a wary eye on storms that swoop across Cape Cod Bay, continue to stand sentinel at the retreating margin of our east coast. While stoically resisting the relentless pounding of the Atlantic Ocean, the escarpment is ever so gradually surrendering its tenuous grasp. . . one delicate clump of soil at a time. There is no denying, however that vegetation still stubbornly clings to the unstable surface. It makes one wonder if that composted admixture being poured from above decades earlier did work some magic after all. It’s very mystifying; we can’t make sense of it. With no promising sign that the current trend of coastal erosion will reverse itself (in fact, the data make abundantly clear that ocean storms are becoming more intense and more frequent, and that sea levels are steadily rising at an ever-increasing rate); we nevertheless see it as a reminder of nature’s fighting spirit, its persistent quest to self-heal. It gives us hope. 

There’s no easy answer, no easy fix, and it’s quite possible that at some point in our lives, we will all find ourselves standing at the edge of a cliff. Teetering thus, we might — even unwittingly — concede the pragmatic value of the long view. Maybe it’ll be the only one that helps make sense of it all, given that “it” varies from one person to the next. By making periodic small adjustments to the telescope’s lens, we keep the horizon always in focus, accordingly opening ourselves to more promising prospects and ultimately a deeper understanding of nature’s plan and where we stand — and where we hope to stand — in relationship to it. 

EPILOGUE

My late husband always traveled with a pair of binoculars in his car. Even without them, he was a keen observer of the landscape. After he passed away, I made a new carrying case for the binoculars, and placed them within easy reach in my own car. What I soon discovered was that I was viewing my surroundings differently. Instead of being drawn to disparate elements, my eyes began to seek the horizon and the defining margins of the diverse landscapes. Open fields; gently rising hills; wide meadows; long, flat stretches of marshland; and, of course, every body of water — their vast size and beauty held a jumble of earnest flora and fauna and all the sacred secrets of life, detectable only by raising the binoculars to my eyes. It affirmed for me the mysterious and magnificent design of the natural world, with all its harmonious parts. 

My best and humble advice, therefore, is to invest in a decent pair of binoculars and keep them near you wherever you travel. It is always in an unexpected and thrilling instant that they come in handy, as happened to me only yesterday when I spied a bald eagle traveling south above the saltmarsh. En route to its deep winter fishing ground close to the mouth of the Merrimack, it flew right above me. Although it seemed not to have noticed my presence, nor — more importantly — potential quarry in the form of two small dogs, I was confident that long before I had caught sight of him, he had already sized up the situation. For me, the sight was reassuring, as it always is, for it reminded me that there are still parts of nature that perform in the expected ways. Tracing the path of the majestic bird with my binoculars as it veered west to head upriver, I was filled with gratitude, my mind at peace. 

And I get it now, why people cling fiercely and stubbornly, even desperately to a piece of unstable earth. It may be an epic provocation of Poseidon or other gods and goddesses of nature, and/or a wild and audacious calculation of risk and reward, but when I reflect back on my mom’s seven-year experience living on a high bluff at the fragile edge of our continent, I realize that each of us defines our own life expectations — our aspirations and our personal limits. We make our own calculations of risk and reward, and live according to those terms. For seven very full years, my mom and her siblings wove together a tapestry of rich experiences, ones that could fuel vivid, life-affirming memories. Who can say why some of us feel more strongly the siren call to the sea? There’s a clear difference between someone who lives right there — and craves an intimate connection — and someone like me, who can breathe in the sweet/salty, intoxicating sea air, but then walk away. . . my needs thus slaked.

So, why only seven years? It can be imagined that every beachfront property owner whose home and acreage are threatened by erosion worries about the next big storm. When you reach a tipping point, when your anxiety becomes unendurable and clarity of mind brings acceptance that no amount of composted slurry will cement that dissolving bluff, it’s time to draw the curtain. The house on Manomet Bluff was never intended to be the “forever” home anyway, at least for my mom. It was more a very long-term vacation home or an experiment in risky real estate. What the three siblings agreed on was that they never wanted to be in a position of coerced surrender, whether through managed retreat regulations or — God forbid — a massive collapse of their section of the bluff. 

In the end, they walked away with an overflowing chest of exciting memories. There was no regret, even though the next home that Mom and Aunt Marie bought together was an unfussy, modest cottage in Yarmouth. Midway between Sagamore Bridge and the Cape’s “elbow”, their new home stood in a tidy, safe neighborhood where there was predictability and a tranquil sameness to their days. As Mom explained it to me in an end-of-summer card, back in 1993; “we certainly love living here. It’s a world of different considerations — all of them better except that view.” For the rest of their lives, one or the other sister would on occasion abruptly pause in whatever activity she was engaged in. The sewing machine would cease its rhythmic hum, the paintbrush would hover short of the canvas, the scrit-scrit of the trowel would become silenced in the soil as one sister would be conveyed by remembrance to Manomet Bluffs. With a far-away look on her face, she’d muse, “Oh, but that view!” And the other sister, with that same far-away look, would respond, “Mmm, that view!” In the comfortable silence that ensued, they were each turning over a remembered moment from that earlier time.

Nature’s “Mucklers” Extraordinaire

I begin the day with a glance out my bedroom window to take measure of the present degree of voraciousness of “my” wild birds and small rodents. When I note that all four of the bird feeders are empty after a mere day and a half, I slump in defeat.

If heavier animals climb on this type of feeder, their weight causes the dispenser to be closed off; squirrels defy by hanging by the tail above.

I don’t even know why I should have been hopeful; yesterday, too, began with distressing evidence of looting à la Peter Rabbit. I now have good reason to suspect either rabbits or voles (yes, that’s right — voles, mutualistic brethren of the mole) as the perpetrators who decimated in one day all the early spring growth of my newest perennials. Either way — rabbit or vole — my joyful anticipation of pinks, purples, and yellows has been scotched by an as-yet unidentified marauding vegetarian under the cover of darkness.

It had such promise.

While I bemoaned my loss, muttering personally satisfying things like little fuckers, Bowie exploited my inattention by hopping up onto one of my raised beds and digging up a corner’s worth of fall-planted garlic. Fortunately for him, he knew to spit it out; unfortunately for me, the garlic he got was in minced form.)

With regard to the bird feeders, I lack the energy to single out any one culprit — like a mother with too many children or a teacher on a Friday afternoon, it’s much simpler to hold the entire brood responsible. I rap on the window and issue an appropriately captious barb. A handful of foraging juncos takes immediate flight, as does a cardinal. Following their lead is a chickadee; zipping in a tight arc to land higher up in the spruce tree, the stalwart little warrior no doubt is countering with his own retort. He always has the last word. It takes me opening the window and smacking the siding with my open palm to get a response from the faction of squawky redwing blackbirds. They’re slow to clear out, and their abrasive utterances fade even more gradually.

It all has me remembering conversations I used to have when my father-in-law was alive. Knowing how much of a rule follower I was, he took pleasure in scandalizing me with stories of his youth in which he flouted authority. No doubt his tenth grade teachers broke into jubilant jitterbug gyrations the day he announced — for real this time — I’m never coming back. And he didn’t. Long before he made his consequential declaration, however, “Big George” was abrading what he deemed society’s suffocating strictures. He was forever “muckling” things, like cigarettes and “adult” magazines from various of the City of Lynn’s corner stores, unsupervised wine at St. Mary’s where he was an altar boy, occasional slugs from his father’s bottles of scotch.

“Muckle” was one of his favorite things to do. Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve never been able to assay the veracity of this word that was so important to my father-in-law, even though its meaning was clear to me from its earliest usage. Big George always said it with such gusto — the word would nigh detonate from the side of his mouth, riding across a loose bed of gravel. His eyes bespoke the remembered pleasure of the act.

I lean back inside, muttering my unoriginal little fuckers. Right now, they’re all little fuckers — the rabbits, the deer (don’t even get me started!), the voles, the moles, the squirrels and chipmunks, the blackbirds. I like the juncos and chickadees and cardinals. They play by the rules, so I don’t assign them to the depraved Pack of Pilferers and Irritants.

In appearance, this space looks like the outcome of an air-to-surface strafing. (I’m confident that all fall-planted bulbs have been extricated with clinical precision.)

At day’s end, as I coax my brain to float drowsily upon pre-slumber thoughts, I ponder the possible exploits of tonight’s creatures. Will the skunks be competing with the moles, raking the ground for grubs (they’re more plentiful this year now that I suspended my lawn service)? Will the rabbits shift their frisking about and foraging to another part of the yard, freezing — as ever — at the first sign of nocturnal predation?

Does everyone yearn for a personal oasis, I wonder. Even city dwellers with room enough only for a pot or two. . . of geraniums? Fountain grass? I’m daunted by the challenges that landscape and vegetable gardening brings. Truth be told, homeownership in general. Despite (by and large) a lifetime of rural living, it doesn’t come naturally to me. Most days I feel as if I’m engaged in a nonstop game of Whac-a-mole (befittingly), one in which I’m perpetually losing. There’s something reassuring about the madness, however. If I woke up tomorrow and failed to discern signs of plunder or strained my ears, hearing nothing but silence suggestive of abandonment by the opposition; the kinetic deprivation could be read as a chilling omen. . . existentially.

Before I spiral too deeply into apocalyptic thought, I’ll pull back in order to reflect on the upside of all this earnest pursuit to have our needs met. You know, the whole food chain thing. The circle of life. Granted, when my remedies result in me spending gobs of money on things like neem oil (to keep insects from destroying my cabbage and lettuce plants), chicken wire (to block rabbit devastation of just about every plant. . . except garlic), high fencing (to keep deer out), compost, fertilizer, trichlorfon (to kill grubs), etc., not only does it make me much poorer in the wallet, but it has a way of forcing me to cast a sobering look at what all I’m doing. Is that sweet, delicious tomato really worth the small fortune of investment? (Last September I would have answered with a resounding, yes!) And, aren’t I just tipping my hand and showing my arrogance when I say, You, cutie pie chickadee, and you, junco, are okay; you can occupy “my space”. But you, chonky squirrel, and you, clacky blackbird, are not welcome?

Besides which, rivalry is good. It keeps us on our toes. Bring it! I say.

These Are the Times That Try Homeowners’ Souls

Right before I canceled my contract with my pest service, the technician — a very friendly and helpful sort — gave me his earnest thoughts about how to resolve my problem with moles.

“You near any fresh water here?”

“Ah-huh. Right at the back edge of the property there’s a stream.”

Rudy (as I’ll call the technician, having forgotten his real name and having deleted his equally earnest report, a report that used phrases such as “moderate activity at bait station” and “no signs of entry into home”) wagged his head in a slow figure eight, tsk-tsking and clucking. He didn’t seem happy to hear about my proximity to water. “Moles are tricky. They don’t like our bait.” Pausing, he offered, “A pellet gun should take care of the problem.”

Subsequent online searches seemed to echo Rudy’s comments. Don’t waste your money on deterrents, I heard over and over by YouTube homeowners with this same problem. With growing alarm, I started to see that the favored means of eradication — the most effective — fell into two camps: either I was going to have to shoot the varmints or invest in spring-loaded, scissor-jawed traps that you set along their tunnels. I’ll spare you the technicalities of how they work, but knowing that the primary feature is a scissor action, any further elaboration is overkill. (Get it?)

It all presents me with a real quandary, and I don’t know how I will proceed. Selling my home is not a viable solution to my mole problem. Nor is any concession of defeat. I hear that one effective way to invite moles to leave your property is by encouraging hawks and owls to visit more regularly, something that I am loathe to do because I fear they might ignore any loudly issued injunction against harassing my small bird friends.

To my great surprise (and internal disgust), I’ve found myself wondering, how realistic is it to shoot a mole in the dark? (I texted my brother Bob with the question, also asking, do I need a gun license to own/operate a pellet gun? Bob became alarmed.)

Verging on desperation, I find a middle ground solution the most acceptable*. I’ll buy the trap, set the trap, and if it becomes triggered, I’ll call over my neighbor Charlie. With appropriate theatrical flourishes, I’ll suggest that we have encountered the times that try homeowners’ souls, and that tyranny of lawn is not easily conquered. Charlie is a good patriot. . . er, neighbor, and will take up the cause, I’m sure.

*(I can’t see myself even going the “death trap” route. I get as far as imagining pushing the “scissors” through to the tunnel, and I’m overcome with a sense of betrayal.)

I’m Giving Yellowstone Another Chance

It isn’t the first time I’ve come across this term — flyover country — but I have to pause and really think about its meaning. When I do that, I realize that it’s not a very flattering descriptor; in fact, it can be seen as dismissive, even disrespectful, as if the spaces labeled as such are somehow insignificant, not worthy of visiting.

And that’s what its meaning suggests. Here’s the surprising thing, though — when the term was first used, in 1980 (according to the Oxford Dictionary), it was in the context of self-identification. The writer Thomas McGuane, a native Michigander, portrayed his adopted state of Montana as “flyover country” in an Esquire article about landscape artist Russell Chatham, fellow Montanan.

It is unlikely that McGuane foresaw how durable his expression would become, but he was earnest in his desire to convey a particular sentiment representative of people living in the heartland. And he should know. He grew up in Michigan, was educated there, and despite regular sojourns to each coast’s urban centers, has made Montana his home for several decades. He has spent a lifetime observing not just people, but nature. I’m not prepared to say that McGuane’s cynicism developed after he turned from writing novels to writing screenplays for Hollywood, but it can be said that his reverence for nature’s gifts has been a constant. That it would be McGuane whose name will be forever tethered to a pejorative seems unfortunate.

Approaching the Cascades (I think)

For ten years I’ve regularly done the loooong coast-to-coast flight in order to visit my younger daughter, who lives in Portland, Oregon. On most occasions I take the window seat; it allows me to periodically break up the monotony by studying the landscape below. The middle areas of the country that seem particularly devoid of concentrated activity always excite a sense of wonder — what would it be like to live in this part of the country? When I observe a land surface that has the appearance of an enormous, fleecy blanket draped over a mysterious jumble of objects of varying sizes, I’m curious, how close is the nearest home? The nearest farmers’ market? When I finally do catch movement — a car or truck, likely, traveling along a slim thread of lonely road — it reinforces that initial wonder.

I’m not what you would call well-traveled. I’ve been to Europe, Central America, a couple of places in the eastern provinces of Canada, several places up and down the East Coast, and — of course — the Pacific Northwest. It would seem that I’ve only ever picked away at the edges, never experienced the wide open spaces of our country’s interior. Part of it has to do with my supposed need to be within striking distance of an ocean. When you fly from the east coast to the west, it takes a while before the distances between urban areas grow so great that you sense a real shift, as if you should fully expect to have your passport handy were you to land somewhere below. As the plane passes over North Dakota, then Montana, it’s impossible to ignore the physical contrast between what is rolling out beneath you and the tightly arranged communities on either coast. I find it humbling. It’s also a reminder of the foreignness — to me — of so much of our country.

All of this current reflection would not have come to pass if not for a decision I made a couple weeks ago. I’m going to give Yellowstone another chance, I vowed. I watched Season 1 a year ago, and then promptly pitched the remote across the room and thought, what a horrible bunch of creatures. Even the ones who seem decent or innocent become poisoned by their association with the Duttons. There may be one exception — Walker, who, soon after being condemned to servitude at the Yellowstone, remarks about the aura of evil that pervades the ranch. (As I begin Season 2, I hold out the slimmest of hopes that he’s incorruptible.)

I plowed through Season 1 again, and felt that same urge to sling the remote across the room. I want to understand, however, why Yellowstone persists as one of TV’s most popular drama series. I’m filled with questions: Do viewers hang on the desperate hope that, sooner or later, these vile characters will reveal traces of humanity? Is it instead our need for validation that there are depraved people out there (maybe even entire communities), but we are not like that? Does it instead have something to do — at least marginally — with the derisive attitude that people in the heartland have toward the “coastal elites”? (The unfavorable portrayal of them is unmistakable.) Or is it the yearning to experience — even if indirectly — the majesty and breathtaking beauty of Big Sky country? Maybe it’s the wish to make sense of the cowboy lifestyle, unveil the mystique? (I do love the idea that the show employs authentic cowboy actors.)

Because I want to be proven wrong — I want Walker to resist the evil that he knows surrounds the ranch, and I want Jimmy not to be so needy (to the point that he loses all remaining vestiges of innocence) — I’m giving Yellowstone this second chance. . . even if it means subjecting myself to Beth Dutton, a specimen of pure evil if ever there was one.

Am I wrong?

Sources (for background on origin of “flyover country”, and Thomas McGuane):

One Less Bird Outside My Window

As a homeowner who maintains several bird feeders, I have to be okay with the divine concept that we call the circle of life. It doesn’t mean that I don’t ascribe my own pecking order based on my own preferences. Regardless of nature’s order of assignments on the food chain, if one animal depends for survival on another animal as food source, it doesn’t engender my sense of fondness for the predator. More than once on a walk around my neighborhood, I’ve spotted a Cooper’s hawk ambush one of the more popular feeding stations. I automatically “feel bad” for the small birds and deem the hawk a “bully”. I know it’s illogical, and frequent reminders to myself that it’s all the natural order of things makes no bit of difference.

All of the turbulence in my life these days seems to erupt when I step outside my front door. The other night, just as dusk was settling in, I opened my front door to take Mona and Bowie out for a potty break. I’m overly twitchy, I admit, since Mona’s escape earlier in the week. I had both on a taut leash and was looking down at them and the three stairs that we were to descend somehow as a body of one and in one fluid motion. It was in that paused interval that a little bird swooped around us and aimed for the barberry bush two feet away. Literally hot on its tail was a hawk. Before the small bird was able to reach safety deep in the barberry, the hawk plunged into the bush, and grabbed him with his lethal talons. Within the bush, a ferocious flapping of wings (both birds?) ensued for a brief five seconds or so, and the hawk flew off with his prize.

The disturbing melee rendered the three of us immobile as we tried to make sense of it. Mona and Bowie, of course, were then ready to explore the barberry bush. In fact, their curiosity was so great that I failed to redirect them for our particular visit outside. While I tugged on their leashes and issued pathetic verbal pleas, my own anguish only increased. I convinced myself that had I not stepped outside at the very moment the little bird was hoping to fly a direct path to the barberry, he would have managed to elude the hawk. In flight, generally speaking, the little bird has the advantage over the hawk, who cannot pivot mid-air quite as well. I had sent him into the direct flight path of the hawk. Such was my reasoning.

I cannot swear that the hawk was a Cooper’s hawk — perhaps it was a sharp-shinned hawk or a northern goshawk — but judging by his reckless diving into a barberry bush, it’s evident that it was some type of accipiter.* These are not the hawks that you see gliding in lazy circular trajectories high above. Instead, their stealth involves well-camouflaged perches and lightning quick ambush. In our case, the direction of flight for both prey and predator suggested that the small bird — likely a sparrow — was startled at our feeder station, and attempted to reach the safety of the spiny network of branches that the barberry provided.

I consider one final note of irony in this circle of life story. One day, just a couple months ago, I got out my pruners and determined to scale back the overgrown and unruly barberry. I can only describe my relationship with it as one of deep animosity. If you’ve ever gotten one of its barbs as a splinter, you’ll understand. As I raised my arms to part the branches and assess which ones should be culled, I surprised three or four birds who had been sitting quietly deep inside it. I instantly withdrew, but they flew off, anyway. From that time, I’ve found it impossible to clip any of those branches despite my displeasure over a landscape element that is too prickly for my liking. I’ve been much more conscious of its tenants these days; depending on the time of day, if you stand quietly and peer through it, you can see — and occasionally hear — the birds hopping around within. It’s a sight that makes me happy. At the same time, it does present me with a quandary, one that I’ll have to sort out, probably in a couple months.

You have 5 seconds to spot two little birds in the barberry bush.

It’s difficult to accept that hawks are not the villains in this story. I make the mistake, however, of equating it with something that resembles a David and Goliath clash, where the bigger adversary is naturally corrupt or bad, and the innate goodness of the small contestant evokes sympathy. We therefore pull for the lil’ guy. Whether my timing was simply unfortunate — one second earlier or later making all the difference — in the end, it’s all part of the natural order of that thing we call Life. I have no choice but to accept it.

~

*It was a remarkable spectacle. The (presumed) sparrow dove into the barberry with practiced skill — he, no doubt, had done that many times before. The hawk pitched into it with complete abandon. It occurred to me that a split-second calculation of risk had taken place. Later investigation online brought me to an oft-quoted 2002 study conducted by the Raptor Research Foundation: “Incidence of Naturally Healed Fractures in the Pectoral Bones of North American Accipiters“. A couple of interesting take-aways for me were that (1) woodland hawks — such as the Cooper’s Hawk, the Sharp-shinned Hawk, and the Northern Goshawk — are famously impervious to risk, and (2) just under 70% die not from natural causes, but from encounters with man-made objects. In that same 2002 study (cited also here), scientific examination of Cooper’s Hawk skeletons indicated that 23% of them had evidence of healed-over fractures of the pectoral bones. I’d say they’re some kind of crazy.

Sources:

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Coopers_Hawk/overview