On Wed, 28 Feb 1996, Kathleen Hunt wrote:

> I think it is ridiculous that someone would go out and band the CCLO and
> then NOT TELL ANYONE what they had found out about its sex and plumage.
> Isn't the entire point of banding a bird to gather useful information for
> the interested public to share? Especially a bird like the CCLO that had
> instigated a long discussion about sexing winter longspurs by plumage?

I agree. One of the best reasons for banding is for its educational
benefits. The sharing knowledge is of course the "motto" of science.

However, if I may take the opposing side here, I don't think that it
would be "rediculous" to not tell anyone.

Often times birders with hold information about birds that are of
interest to the entire birding community. A recent example was the Brown
Thrasher over near Spokane. That bird was present for quite awhile before
the local birders let the rest of the world know about it. Why? Because
they were scared that other birders would come screaming over and drive
the poor lady, who's feeder it was coming to, out of her home. Even
though the report never made it to the RBA, I got calls from people
asking if there was anyway that I could take it off of tweeters. Rediculous?

As the RBA compiler, I get request to withold information all the time.
This was the case with the Banding party. If you are going to share
information you need a receptive audiance, just like a picther needs a
catcher. In this case, the party pitching felt that there was no one
behind the plate. End of the game.

> A rare bird that is attracting birders from all over really is a "public
> property" and I think banding such a bird secretly and keeping the
> information to oneself is a very selfish act. Not to mention hazardous
> to the public image of ornithologists (this IS an important
> consideration. Laypeople who get annoyed at banders have on occasion
> raised a huge stink, i.e. complaining noisily to FWS, instigating review
> of the permit, etc.)

Banders are not required to give anyone information about what they do.
They are required to submitt a banding schedule every year to the banding
lab, which then becomes avalible to the public.

Again I can think of many birders and professional ornithologist that
never share any thing with anyone, until they are ready to do so. I wish
more of the birders that spend countless hours out in the field would
report the thing they see. This includes many of those considered top
birders in the state. I can make a long list of people that I know go out
birding all the time, but I have never heard from in the four years I have
been compiling records.

I would also ask, what are the standards and guide lines for "sharing
information." The banders are not required to post their findings to
tweeters. In fact, they may not even be on tweeters. By all accounts, the
people that banded the bird did share the information in a perfectly
acceptable way. I was given all the details for this bird for my field
notes column in WOSNews. I can assure everone that those details will be
published in the proper reporting period for this bird.

I am sure that there have been no violations here that would require a
review of anyones permit. I'm sure it is talk like that, that keeps
banders pushed to edges of our community.

The irony that I see in all of this is an unjustified distrust that
birders have of banders, as well as other people that handle wild birds. I
think it is not unlike the distrust that locals on the Skagit Flats have
of birders.


As far as the age and sex of the CCLO

It was a adult male based on the plumage, as the chestnut-collar was
visible in the hand. It was reported as being in good health, i.e. plenty
of fat deposits. Banded and released unharmed.

--------------------------------------------------------
Russell Rogers
4510 Glenn Way SW
Seattle, WA 98116
(206) 935-6280
rrogers at halcyon.com
--------------------------------------------------------