I was on vacation in San Diego last week (great birding by the way) and couldn't help but chime in on the benefits of banding. Many of you know that I am a wildlife biologist who for the last 9 years has been studying White-headed Woodpecker (WHWO) nesting ecology in eastern Washington. Many of the territories I have been monitoring each year have always had a WHWO pair occupying the territory. However, I am unable to determine if these are the same birds from year to year or how often individuals are "replaced". Although I have good estimates of reproductive success, I am unable to determine if the heavily managed habitats I am working in are sinks or sources for the population. To estimate source or sink accurately, you need to have estimates of adult and juvenile survival. The only way to get that information is to follow marked birds over time. When marked individuals (adults) disappear, they are assumed to have died because they are permanent residents on their territories year round. If a habitat is a sink, birds could be successfully breeding their but not contributing to population growth or stability because adults and young die to quickly. If the habitat is a source it is contributing to population growth (what you want to see). Thus, this information is vitally important to know for management of a species whose habitat is routinely impacted by timber harvest. Last year we started a color-banding study to address this information gap by marking adults with individual color combinations and also color-banding some nestlings. In addition to banding, by having WHWO in the hand, we can age them at least 4 years of age and then can investigate whether female age contributes to nest success (older females being more successful versus younger more inexperienced birds).

As part of our Federal banding permit application, we had to submit a complete study design description to the bird banding lab as well as to WDFW to obtain our state scientific collection permit. They review those proposals to make sure they are scientifically sound before approving the applications. So, it is an involved process. I think banding is justified, especially when used to address specific questions that can only be accurately investigated by using bands.

Jeff Kozma

Yakima
----- Original Message -----
From: Hal Michael
To: Dennis Paulson
Cc: TWEETERS tweeters ; Don Wallace
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Tweeters] Bird Banding - debate continues


I would like to add that there are many questions in biology that can only be answered by having marked individuals. There is quite a bit of debate among seabird researchers about the attachment of satellite tags. Do they compromise survival? But, without those tags much of what we know about seabird, and other bird, migrations has come from them. The same can be said for the application of tags and marks to other taxa. I know from my professional work that without marking fish we would know a lot less.



So, if banding is a problem what specifically does one propose to provide that sort of information: migration routes, site fidelity, wintering area, summering area, survival to adulthood, total age, and probably much more. What is the option? Part of identifying a problem is proposing a workable solution.



Hal Michael
Olympia WA
360-459-4005 (H)
ucd880 at comcast.net



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dennis Paulson" <dennispaulson at comcast.net>
To: "Don Wallace" <don at picturebookpublishing.com>
Cc: "TWEETERS tweeters" <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2012 6:28:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Tweeters] Bird Banding - debate continues

Don,


You obviously have an agenda here, as you have received a load of negative feedback and still persist. it's probable that not many minds will be changed in one direction or another, as I wrote earlier, but I do find fault with the "facts" you toss around loosely. As a museum person, I felt obligated to respond to this one quote, as I know few people on tweeters will be able to assess it. Your statements are as extreme as any I have read on tweeters, and I feel the need to respond for the many people (bird banders and all biologists, as nearly as I can tell) who your statements defame.


I spent time with John Williams in Kenya, also years ago when he was the ornithologist at the Coryndon Museum in Nairobi, and I find it hard to believe he would have said that, as it is not true. I have not skinned thousands of birds caught in mist nets but certainly many dozens, and I have never seen such a net-pattern bruise. Small passerines are very light in weight, and there is no way they would have the momentum to do that to themselves by flying into a mist net at their normal speed. And the bigger the bird, the tougher it is.


If birds were subject to injuries in that way, baby Wood Ducks wouldn't have evolved to jump out of trees and baby murres to jump off cliffs. They would surely be bruising their little bodies for life if the quote were true. Very rarely a bird will fly into a mist net in a way that injures it, and responsible netters, the vast majority, are very upset by this. Avian mortality from netting and banding is entirely inconsequential in comparison with the ways we as a species kill birds, and I'm sure you know them as well as I do. Driving, having windows on our houses, stringing up utility wires, letting our cats roam outside, producing plastic garbage that is ingested by seabirds when it goes to sea. Why aren't you railing against the really significant sources of bird mortality? If you do any of the things in the previous sentence, I would guess your actions have killed more birds than is done by the average bander in his or her lifetime.


Anyone else on tweeters who has prepared bird specimens might respond here as well. I would be interested in knowing the identity of the website from which you got this quote, just to see who else is out there trying to discredit one of our more valuable methods of learning about birds.


Dennis Paulson
Seattle




On Apr 6, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Don Wallace wrote:


Here is a quote from a website.


I have always thought is odd that biologists have been and are given a free pass. Years ago I met--at Jamaica Bay WR, Queens, NY-- John G. Williams, curator or ornithology at the British Museum in Nairobi, and author or co-author of "The Birds of East Africa." Anyway, he shared the following with me: "I have skinned thousands of birds caught in mist nets. Every single one of them, from tiny passerines to large raptors, had bruises on their breasts that matched the pattern of the net that they struck at high speed." A small percentage of birds caught in mist nets die upon impact and still others perish or are injured while being removed or afterwards.
_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters






_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters