To the first part of this, I would like to point out that it's not such a
black-and-white issue as this. Why not both? Mike Patterson is correct
that from a human point of view (at this point in time), these
flycatchers are only 'Western' unless they sing. So when designing
studies, we will have to keep that in mind. Studies of breeding biology
comparisons between the two will certainly need to distinguish who is who
in the field. Alternatively, migratory patterns based on banding returns
will be limited to 'Western' status until greater knowledge of field
characteristics allow us to quanitfy differences (I'm not a flycatcher
expert, maybe this already exists for these two, but you get the point).
Not all studies will need to distinguish the two, and a study should not
be designed to try to do so when they're not singing. Finally, in terms
of life lists, that is such a personal thing, it shouldn't matter what
anyone else does or thinks. Life lists don't change the world, or the
way we protect species, so there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to do it.

To the second part, continuing to split species and list them
will probably weaken the ESA and its support as we bicker amongst
ourselves about how many flycatchers there are (how can we list species
when we don't even know if they exist? That's what the Rush Limbaugh
types want to know). The point here is that we are now exposing to the
public what many biologists have known for some time, that the ESA is
ecologically flawed in design. Functionally, it has served well, but we
will need to think in terms of preserving systems, managing landscapes,
etc. Of course, this is another debate entirely, which I will not pursue
because I have to get back to work.


****************
Michael R. Smith
Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit
University of Washington, Seattle
whimbrel at u.washington.edu
****************



On Fri, 15 Apr 1994, Mike Patterson wrote:

> There are (at least) two logistical problems that I see arising out of
> this new concept, however. As a bird bander, I cannot identify a Western
> Flycatcher in hand, because they rarely sing under those conditions. The
> current definition does not take into account ecological frameworks beyond the
> breeding range. Technically speaking, Pacific-slope Flycatcher is only that
> while breeding. It becomes Western Flycatcher in the off-season which
> constitutes 3/4 of its life. We need to give field researchers and ecologists
> a tool for making that distinction. It is conceivable, after all, that there
> may not be ecological distinctions between some species when thay are not
> breeding.
>
> The second logistical problem is political. It will become increasingly
> difficult to convince the public at large to protect species that appear to us
> to be identical and can only be identified at certain time of the year. There
> are certain factions with late night TV talk shows who don't take us very
> seriously now. When does splitting hares (I spelled it that way one purpose)
> become a liability?
>
>
> --
> **************************************************************
> Mike Patterson, Astoria, OR
> mpatters at ednet1.osl.or.gov
> **************************************************************
>