Wes ask several questions here which I will address.

On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Wes Jansen wrote:

> You were wondering why there was no fuss about banding the owl compared
> to the big controversy about the CCLO (I still fondly think of "him" as
> Phil). Perhaps because after Phil was taken, nobody ever mentioned
> seeing him again; while the owl is still, apparently, being seen.

I am sincerely sorry that you fell that not only "Phil," but you feel
personally violated. I can assure you that Phil was not taken. He was
banded. You are right, nobody did ever mention that seeing Phil after he
was banded, or two days before hand as far as that goes. Perhaps we
should have put a tranmitter on Phil, then we would know for sure, as
with the owl, exactly where he is.

If you are asking for speculation about what happend to it. I can think
of three likely things.

1. It is still there.

2. It left and found better grass seeds to eat else where.

3. It was eaten by one of the many cats or other preditors at the
Montlake Fill.

It is ture that Phil is nolonger a virgin to human hands, but so what. I
am quite certain that handling the bird or banding it did nothing to harm
the bird. If it left, it left because it wanted to.

> It disturbs me that information about Phil still is being slowly parceled
> out on Tweeters.

Personally, the information about Phil is not mine to give. I did check
with the person that gave it to me and will post it now.

The Chestnut-collared Longspur today at 1:00, December 12th. It is an
after-hatch-year male. The sex is based on plumage, which was obviously
male under the winter feathers. Age was based on skull ossification and
rectrix shapes (as shown in Pyle, fig. 182). It had quite a bit of fat,
a good sign that it's healthy.

Plumage characters: very wide chestnut 'collar' below the winter plumage
feathers. The coloration was very bright once the featers were lifted or
blown. Breast and belly very dark, mostly black below the winter plumage
feathers. The black is the result of black feather showing through the
winter plumage, not the result of being wet (as suggested earlier on
tweeters).

wing chord 82 mm (right in the overlap zone between sexes)

weight 22 g

AHY male Chestnut-collared Longspur # 8090721


> I suppose when the powers that be decide, the whole
> story may be told. Until then, those of us not in the inner circle will
> just have to wait.
> wjansen

Again, you are implying that there is some grand conspiracy to keep all of
you who are not worthy of knowledge away from knowledge. If you really
want to belive that, go right ahead. I can not think of anything else to
say that could possibly change your mind. I have said all that I can.

I think that the outcry would have been worse if this was post the day
after the banding. If I had it all to do over again, I would just stay
quite and let the entire birding community know it the same time, instead
of us privileged few that are lucky enough to have internet access *and* be
able to spend vast amounts of time in front of our computers.

I would say that we all are the inter circle in the know!

Just to remind everyone that was under the impression that there was a
loving receptive audiance out there from the begining but was was turned
sour because the person that banded the bird (who I am sure will burn in
hell) but did not, I am taking the liberty to repost a reply that estemed
professional ornithologist, Dennis Paulson, posted to some irrational
responses.

Russell



Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 11:14:06 -0800
From: dpaulson at ups.edu (Dennis Paulson)
Subject: Re: Chestnut-collared Longspur

>> On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Stuart MacKay wrote:
>> > You don't need potter traps - a mist net and 20 seconds is more
>> > than enough. However catching it for purely recreational purposes is
>> > certainly bad for the bird, bad for banding and who really cares
>> > what sex it is anyway ???????
>
>> On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Michael R. Smith wrote:
>> I would think that after all this debate regarding its sex, and no clear
>> answers, it actually makes a lot of sense to catch it. Why? Because if
>> the collective tweeters can't figure it out, that probably means there's
>> not enough info regarding visual sexing of this particular species in the
>> field
>
>On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Sherrie Hockett wrote:
>
>You can't possibly be serious. You would actually consider capturing
>this bird just for your own amusement and edification? I don't
>understand what purpose is served in a definitive ID. I like birding
>because it's a game. But I don't play the game so that I win at all
>costs.

Even though Stuart already replied, I feel the need to carry it a bit
further.

Sherrie, if you read what Stuart said, he made it clear he didn't think
catching it for "amusement" was worthwhile, and I don't think Michael was
writing about "amusement" either. If we look at your word "edification,"
I'm not sure what you mean by it. If you mean edified by personal gain,
you are of course correct. But I can't believe anyone would want to
capture that longspur just so they could be shown to be correct in their
assessment of its sex. If you mean edified by an advance in knowledge,
and you are against this, I hope your comments are not supported by a
majority of tweeters. I suspect many would disagree with your statement
about the definitive ID.

Why is *your* edification ("I like birding because it's a game") more
important than the edification of those of us who are truly interested in
learning something more about this bird and from this bird? I guess the
use of the word "game" in a posting decrying someone else's attitudes
really pressed my button. I think what we are seeing here (again) is the
ongoing tension between birding and ornithology, and I'm sorry for this.
I think there are many people who would be surprised at being accused of
"anti-science" or "anti-knowledge" sentiments, and from your academic
address, I would have thought you would be one. Yet I think if we were
to adhere to your wishes, we would stop a lot of important research that
is being carried out on birds. Please correct me if I've misconstrued.

Sorry I'm a bit late with this; a couple days of flu separated me from my
e-mail. I'm putting this on tweeters because it deserves more than a
personal response.

Dennis Paulson, Director phone: (206) 756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax: (206) 756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail: dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416