Russell wrote:
> 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.

I don't think this applies to the CCLO because the CCLO was already
well-known and well-publicized. In fact, all you had to do to find it
was look for the circle of birders standing around it.

[..]
> 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.

I know that. Perhaps I should clarify: I am an ornithologist and a
licensed bander. I agree that a bander with the appropriate permit was
legally allowed to band the CCLO, and then only must notify FWS with the
required quarterly and annual reports, and that no violation of rules and
regulations occurred. (I also suspect the CCLO was fine, since I know
that banding is a fairly innocuous event, assuming the bander is competent
and attentive.)

My comments were more directed at the ineffable, non-legal, ETHICAL nature
of banding. I like to think that all scientists have a strong
responsibility to communicate their findings to the interested public
(that is, those members of the public that are curious or interested) and
to behave with some sensitivity for the feelings and reactions of the
local public, particularly when working in populated areas and/or with
high-profile species or well-known individuals (such as this CCLO). There
isn't (or usually isn't) a law about this, but I feel it is very important
to do this (communicate + sensitivity to locals) just the same. For many
of us, the public funds our work; many ornithologists such as myself also
work on wild animals that are "owned" by the U.S. people as a whole, as a
public resource; and finally I believe the long-term health of science in
general can only be improved by more open and clear communication. I know
plenty of scientists, and birders, who don't communicate their results to
anybody, and I think it's a crying shame.

With the CCLO, I now realize I just assumed that whoever banded the CCLO
had found out about it via tweeters, and thus must have been aware of the
intense curiosity about this bird. Lord, if there ever was a receptive
audience, this was it! But perhaps the bander never knew about the
tweeters discussion.

I mentioned the specter of "laypeople complaining to FWS and instigating
permit review" only as an example of the unpleasant things that can happen
if laypeople feel they have been misled by banders. In the three cases I
know of where this sort of thing has happened, the banders were all
behaving very responsibly and had every right to be banding those birds
(legally, scientifically, and ethically, in my view). But still, it was a
very unpleasant situation for those banders, and I like to try to behave
in such a way that this sort of situation never arises in the first place.

> 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.

Glad to hear this.

> 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.

I assume the bander was aware that females also have chestnut collars?
(less bright, and starting out in fall with a longer buffy tip)
Actually, I am not surprised it was a male; it looked like one to me;
but I find that people are sometimes not aware of the plumage variation
in longspurs, which can in some cases blur the male/female line.

and speaking of longspurs I've got to go feed some now.

ciao,
Kathleen Hunt
U.W. Zoology