On Wed, 31 May 2000, Mike Patterson wrote:

> Banding data tell us that many of these are birds that
> have been displaced from elsewhere along the Pacific Coast,
> including former sites at Grays Harbor and Puget Sound.

Is "displaced" the right word for it? Caspian Terns show a lot less site fidelity than
many other species. They like early successional states, "scorched earth", bare ground,
and the like. So, a little vegetative succession can "displace" them. In the case of
Sand and Goose islands in Grays Harbor, what was the cause of their "displacement"?
Vegetation succession? Bald Eagle depredation? My guess is one of these two factors
were involved, maybe both.

A bird at Asarco in Tacoma this year wore a band put on it at Salton Sea in 1995. They
move a long ways. I presume it was banded as a chick. I guess it didn't like its
homeland much. I hear Salton Sea is contaminant soup. So, the bird leaves there and
settles in at Asarco. Good taste? A love of arsenic? Can't get enough heavy metals?

> Hatchery fish are more likely to be captured than wild fish
> and by this I mean at a higher percentage for available
> hatchery fish than the percentage for available wild fish.
> This has been determined by PIT and Radio tags attached
> the Columbia River Salmon recovered on Rice Island.

I am not well versed in this research. So, I am really curious how we have gathered comparable
data for wild and hatchery fish. Hatchery fish are under our control and we can pit tag every
last one or pit tag a known percentage or do whatever we want to produce statistically sound
information. But, with wild fish, we have little to no control. I can't believe that we have
anything close to an accurate estimate of the number that begin the journey down the Columbia
River let alone how many or what percentage fall prey to Caspian Terns. Is there some magical
method for gathering this data that I am not aware of?

Kelly McAllister
Olympia, Washington