Subject: Re: Tweeters caught in apparent double-standard
Date: Feb 27 15:13:17 1996
From: PAGODROMA at aol.com - PAGODROMA at aol.com


I absolutely agree with everything Chris Hill writes here. Interestingly,
this very subject was heavy on my mind at 0230 this morning while roaming
around in the dark looking and listening for owls in Lake Sammamish State
Park. I just knew this was a powder keg lit to blow up.

The thing that troubles me, and I'm not taking sides one way or the other
(yet) on the issue of radio-tagging this particular bird, is that often when
a rare or out-of-range individual shows up somewhere, there seems to be this
impulse to band or mark or tag it, or maybe just handle it. Maybe it goes
back to early days of collecting to document for posterity the occurrence of
a species, stray or otherwise. I know of someone, even to this very day, and
I won't reveal his name or the highly esteemed institution from which he
comes, still says: "The only good bird is a dead bird". Sheeesch!!! No, no
one local. I didn't come in to tweeters until the very end of the CCLO
episode, but should probably go back and access the index on the matter and
review the controversary.

I do believe that radio tagging an individual is far far more likely to
provide positive information about that (GGOW) or any individual bird, rather
than just banding and releasing some vagrant stray like the CCLO, with only
the faintest hope or likelihood of it ever being seen or heard from again.
But why does it always have to be the 'rare' ones? There is still a lot that
could be learned by radio tagging common stuff, like flickers, nuthatches,
chickadees, golden-crowned sparrows, and such. I know, some has been done in
various places, but are such things just too mundane? But, I guess a GGOW is
just too irresistable, and yes, it will be very interesting to learn where it
goes once it's had enough of all the notoriety and fondling on the Skagit.

I *DO* most certainly agree with this well articulated statement from Chris:
>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.

So there! I've said my piece for now. --Richard


96-02-27: Chris Hill writes:

>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.
>
>

Richard Rowlett <pagodroma at aol.com>
Bellevue, WA, USA