On Tue, 27 Feb 1996, M. Smith wrote:
>
> OK tweets, it's been a few days now since the Great Gray was
> radio-tagged. Those of you who threw up such a commotion about the
> suggestion of catching and banding the CC Longspur, why aren't you
> yelling and screaming about this act?

Not my style. Besides, I've been too busy! ;-) Until now ;-);-)

> Personally, I have no problem with
> the radio-tagging of this owl, but I want to know why some people
> consider this as OK, while banding the longspur was not.

I think you're reading an awful lot into a two day lack of posts on the
subject, Mike. Silence, especially in such an open-minded group as
Tweeters (no irony intended - this is a truly diverse and open minded
bunch!) may indicate tolerance or a wait-and-see attitude more than
approval.

> What's the difference [between the longspur and the owl cases] ?

Well, more than just banding was discussed for the Longspur. In
particular, there was a lot of talk about performing a laparotomy, which
most people saw (rightly) as invasive, and likely to harm the bird.
Perhaps putting a radio-collar on a large owl, rightly or wrongly, is seen
as more benign.

[Now, to the rant:]

Personally, I think that putting a radio-collar on a spectacular, very
public, bird, is bad policy. Even if the scientific goals were clear and
well thought out (I don't see how they could be in this case, since there
was no way to anticipate a Great Gray Owl appearing), it is in some sense
not the researchers' owl. My emotional reaction to this kind of action is
"go and find your own owl!" There is a good chance that catching and
handling the owl could affect its behavior, and prevent other people from
observing it. I think that possibility, and the chance of attendant ill
feeling, should make any researcher pause and reconsider the idea.

Incidentally, I say this as a birder, but I spend most of my time these
days not as a birder, but as a researcher. In fact, I have radio-tagged
owls (Northern Saw-whets and Eastern Screeches), so I know the value of
radio-tracking data. I just draw the line at such a "public" bird.

[rant off]

> Do some people think that
> radio-tagging an animal is 'real' research, while determining the sex and
> age of one isn't? If so, I hate to break it to you, but radio-tagging is
> just a tool (as is banding, sexing, etc.), and has little bearing on how
> 'good' the research is.

Wait a minute! I thought it wasn't "real" research unless the perpetrators
wore white lab coats! Now I'm all confused.

Chris Hill
Everett, WA
cehill at u.washington.edu