> 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?
>

Russell Rogers:
> 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.

I think the appropriate metaphor here would be that the bander(s) took their
ball and went home. Except I'm not sure it was ever their ball in the
first place.

I agree with Kathleen that it was appalling behavior (OK, I'm going beyond
what Kathleen said) to band the bird, after lengthy discussion of why
banding is a good idea and how great it is to generate new information,
and then CONCEAL THAT INFORMATION! In fact, the bander(s) apparently
tried to conceal that the capture had even taken place. Chickenscratch is
about what I think of that, to use language seldom uttered on Tweeters.

As for the argument that it is right to conceal information from people,
just because they might not agree with you - I'll have to calm down
before I address that concept. Note that the people kept in the dark by
the bander(s) (i.e., Tweeters) were likely to be directly affected by the
bander's behavior. What's more, the chance is pretty good that the
bander(s) only knew about the Longspur because of those same Tweeters who
were unworthy to hear what was learned from the banding.

RR:
> 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.

Yes, that is the letter of the law. Nobody has accused the bander of
operating illegally.

RR:
> 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.

Well, as long as all those in the know are sworn to silence, we'll never
know, will we? I certainly don't blame keepers of rare bird records for
keeping secrets - discretion and diplomacy are a big part of doing that
job.

So I will put it as a direct question to the bander. Are you on
tweeters, or not?

RR:
> By all accounts, the
> people that banded the bird did share the information in a perfectly
> acceptable way.

I guess the opinions of those who disagree don't count here, either, as a
reputable ornithologist has weighed in saying the exact opposite. Add
my opinion to hers.


RR:
> 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.

Excuse me, but as a bander myself, I am not afraid of openly discussing
what I do with birds and why. These anonymous banders caught a bird
that's an international celebrity for crissakes, concealed the facts of
the capture, and hid information learned from the capture from all but a
few observers. This is not typical behavior for any bander I have worked
with, and personally, I find it bizarre that anyone would expect to be
welcomed into a community if they behave like that.


RR:
> 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.

Thank you Russell, for passing this on.

Does anyone want to comment now on the theory that it was an approaching
windstorm that caused the Longspur to leave the Montlake Fill?

As an appendix, I'll say that my reaction to capture of the bird would
have been far different if the whole operation had been upfront. Maybe I
would agree that it was right to catch the bird, maybe I would disagree.
If you remember, I was one of the people discussing the various ways to
sex birds in the hand when the topic of catching Phil came up. But if I
have not made myself clear yet, what bugs me is the "conspiracy of
silence" that surrounds the event like a bad smell. As a bird bander
myself, I feel tainted by the whole thing.


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