If you spend time around marshes during the summer months, you are likely to become familiar with the yellow-headed blackbird. The name of this bird is quite descriptive, but it is occasionally referred to (with tongue firmly in cheek) as a “black-bodied yellow bird.”

Yellow-headed blackbirds are a species closely associated with prairie wetlands where they nest in wetlands that are deep enough to support bulrushes or cattails. They may be observed across the state, but more so in the prairie potholes north and east of the Missouri River. Their diet largely consists of insects, grain, and a variety of seeds. As a result, in addition to being observed in wetlands, they are also observed in grain fields, farmyards, and other places where spilled grain and weed seeds are available.

Like the more abundant red-wing blackbirds, yellow-headed blackbirds nest amongst wetland vegetation. Both species are territorial, and one would expect some competition for nesting sites. But the competition is reduced in that the yellow-headed blackbirds prefer to nest amongst bulrushes or cattails in a little deeper water than what red-wing blackbirds prefer.

Yellow-headed blackbirds are polygamous, with a male accumulating a harem of a dozen or so females that will nest within his territory. Nests are constructed of vegetation weaved around the stems of cattails, bulrushes, or other emergent vegetation. If all goes well, each female will produce one brood from 2-5 eggs.

Descriptions of the vocalizations of the yellow-headed blackbird are often rather disparaging, referred to as a call, not a song. Charles Flugum wrote an interesting description of the call of the yellow-headed blackbird in his Birding from a Tractor Seat (1975). He noted that it “begins with a few harsh, distinct notes, then becomes jumbled with hoarse croaks and ends with a prolonged, low, rasping sound, which some say resembles the squeaking of rusty hinges…it is produced with a great deal of effort and fluffing of feathers, similar to that of a young rooster just learning to crow.”

JAMESTOWN, N.D. (KFYR) – If you are driving through downtown Jamestown you might come across some new pops of color.

On the east side of Hugo’s Family Marketplace on First Avenue, there is a new ‘Food is Fun’ interactive mural.

The North Dakota-themed mural is 250 feet long and 25 feet tall. It took around 40 gallons of paint and about 42 hours of work by artist Max Patzner and his wife, Bethany.

“To put all of these things into one mural is pretty easy for me actually, and then throughout the mural there is you know a big giant bison and there is a sunflowers and all these elements from North Dakota,” said Max Patzner, artist.

The mural was a collaboration between Hugo’s, Jamestown Tourism and the Jamestown Downtown Association.

Max Patzner also illustrates kids’ books which helped to inspire this mural.

Copyright 2024 KVLY. All rights reserved.

GRAND FORKS — At the conclusion of a Friday morning, June 21, preliminary hearing in Nelson County court, Judge Kristi Venhuizen dismissed the case against a former Dakota Prairie School counselor alleging that he solicited, lured and sexually assaulted students.

Brendon Thomas Parsley, 48,

was charged with three Class C felonies in February

for crimes he allegedly committed against two students to whom he provided counseling services.

The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine if there’s probable cause to support criminal charges being filed. Preliminary hearings can be waived by the defense. If the hearing is held, the state must provide evidence that probable cause exists to continue prosecuting the defendant.

The defense can question any of the state’s witnesses and also may, but is not required to, bring in its own.

North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigations Special Agent Derek Madson testified for the state. He testified about interviews with the two alleged victims in the case, during which they spoke about Parsley’s alleged inappropriate conduct.

The crime of solicitation of a minor was filed due to allegations that, when one of the alleged victims was in Parsley’s house, he asked her if she was going to get on the bed and instructed her to leave after she hesitated.

The crime of luring a minor by electronic means was filed due to allegations that Parsley sent Facebook messages that were sexual in nature to the aforementioned minor.

The crime of sexual assault was filed due to allegations that Parsley made sexual contact with a minor as she was leaving a counseling session.

The charge of solicitation was dismissed without prejudice during the hearing, because it had incorrectly been filed as taking place when the alleged victim was under 15 years old. Madson, and the alleged victim herself, testified she was 17 at the time of the offense.

Jayme Tenneson, representing the state, requested that the charge be amended to solicitation of a minor older than 15, which would be a misdemeanor rather than a felony, according to his court statement.

However, the defense argued, and the judge agreed, that it was inappropriate to amend a charge during a preliminary hearing — it should have been done beforehand, when there was time for both parties to present arguments of probable cause for that charge.

It would have to be recharged accurately later.

Mark Friese, representing Parsley, called a private investigator to testify, as well as both the alleged victims.

Tenneson argued that calling the alleged victims to testify was undue harassment. However, by the end of the hearing, Venhuizen said if anyone was at fault for harassing the women, it was the state.

Tenneson failed to amend the information document prior to the hearing after Friese contacted him about the following errors: the luring charge was documented as occurring in 2014, however, the alleged victim testified it happened between 2015 and 2016; the sexual assault charge was documented as occurring in 2008, however, the alleged victim said it happened in 2009.

Amendments can be made to information documents as long as it doesn’t materially affect the criminal allegations, however, failing to do so before the preliminary hearing resulted in an inability to establish probable cause for any of the charges as they were presented.

The case was dismissed entirely, though charges may be refiled.