On Thu, 29 Feb 1996, Christopher Hill wrote:

> 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.

Okay, so the ball analogy did not work the way I wanted. But, the point
that I trying to make is this, if the banders had informed tweeters
within the hour of banding the bird. The same responses would have been
made.

I am still baffled as to why it was not alright to band the Longspur and
apparently alright to band the Owl.

As far as I know, The only person that Bud told about this was Dennis.
Dennis just happens to be on Tweeters. He posted the word on the banding
5 days after the banding took place. Therefore I can assume that at least
a five day delay is okay and a 10 week delay is not. Up to what date would
it have been acceptible inform tweeters about the banding?

> 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.

to which Chirs says later,

> 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.

Here, I think Chris jumps to some pretty major conclusions. No one has
lied about banding the bird. There was never a "conspiracy" to keep it a
secret. I spoke freely about the banding to many people on and off the
net, I just never did so on tweeters. It is also a pretty major assumption
that the bander is on tweeters, and that they got the information about
the bird from the list. The bird was first reported to the BirdBox. And
then it was reported to tweeters from there. It was also on the RBA. I am
not certain, but I don't think the bander is on tweeters.

The only difference between the banding if the Longspur and the banding of
the Owl that I can see, is that Dennis told tweeters about the owl about 9
weeks before I to told tweeters about the Longspur. When I found out
about the banding, I was litterally jumping on a plane heading back east.
I would not have been able to tell anyone on tweeters about it for
atleast 3 weeks. Would that have been okay?

> > 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.

I'm not sure what you mean here?

> 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.

Well, I could put this question back at tweeters. Why can't tweeters
accept a differing oppinion. Kathleen's opinion means alot. However, there
were other reputable ornithologist that knew about the banding at some
point along the way as well. Why can't tweeters accept a differing
oppinion.

The bird was banded legally. It was released unharmed. You may not like
it, I may not like it, and tweeters may not like it, but it was done. As
far as I know, no birder was effected by the banding. It was done in broad
daylight at 1:00 PM December 12, 1995, 9 days after the bird was first
noted. Also, after checking the records, this was right before the massive
cold front hit Washington. Which is probably why the bird dissappeared. I
would say that the most opportune time to band the bird without effecting
birders enjoyment of it, would have been that day at that time. I dont
know if the bird was seen after the banding. There is no reports of the
bird (seen or not seen) by birders after the 9th of December.

> 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.

Again the the tone here is that a crime has been committed. It is
unfortunate that the details of the banding were not put on to Tweeters.
However, that to is not a crime. To the bird or to tweeters.

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