Jump to content
Ornithology Exchange (brought to you by the Ornithological Council)

Fern Davies

General Members
  • Posts

    2,066
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fern Davies

  1. 2014 AOU SENIOR AWARDS 2014 RALPH W. SCHREIBER CONSERVATION AWARD STEPHEN KRESS The RW Schreiber Conservation Award honors extraordinary scientific contributions to the conservation, restoration, or preservation of birds and/or their habitats by an individual or small team. This year’s recipient is a conservation legend. Dr. Stephen Kress from the National Audubon Society is internationally known as the founder of “Project Puffin”, his decades long effort to restore Atlantic Puffins to their original breeding islands in the Gulf of Maine. The story of Project Puffin and the resulting success is unprecedented. The project required extensive knowledge of the breeding biology and natural history of puffins. The Project crew prepared Eastern Egg Rock by creating burrows de novo and removing predators, then transporting the chicks and establishing them in their new burrows, and then raising the birds entirely by hand to independence. Because puffins take 4-5 years before they return to the colony to breed for the first time and the Project personnel worked to create an environment, that would “welcome” the puffins back and encourage them to stay without any reassurance if or when the birds would return. Incredibly enough, all of the work paid off, and a successfully self-sustaining breeding colony of Atlantic Puffins was reestablished at Eastern Egg Rock. In 1981, there were four nesting pairs at Eastern Egg Rock, and now over 120 pairs nest on the island. While waiting for the Egg Rock puffins to return and for the colony to grow, Steve and Project Puffin staff worked to restore seabirds on other islands. They transplanted puffins to Seal Island in Penobscot Bay and created a second self-sustaining colony that grew to 546 pairs in 2011. In addition to puffins, Steve and his staff began working to restore populations of other seabirds, specially terns and storm-petrels, to Maine. According to USFWS: –96% of the Arctic Terns breeding in the lower 48 states do so on Gulf of Maine islands -- 85% of all Razorbills -- 90% of all Atlantic puffins breeding in the US do so o n Gulf of Maine islands. The techniques developed through Project Puffin have been used on at least 40 seabird species in 12 countries including the Dark-rumped Petrels (Ecuador), Short-tailed Albatross (Japan), Gould’s Petrel (Australia), and Common Murre (California). Steve is currently the Vice President for Bird Conservation for the National Audubon Society as well as Director of the Society’s Maine Coast Seabird Sanctuaries. He has had immeasurable impact on the conservation of numerous seabird species across the globe. His work has greatly supported development of conservation policy, as well as public education, engagement and outreach. It is for these reasons and more that the AOU proudly awards Dr. Stephen Kress the 2014 Ralph W. Schreiber Conservation Award. 2014 Marion Jenkinson AOU Service Award Sara R. Morris The Marion Jenkinson Service Award is given to an individual who has performed continued extensive service to the AOU, including holding elected offices but emphasizing volunteered contributions and committee participation. Recipients are selected by the AOU Executive Committee. The award consists of a framed certificate and honors Marion Jenkinson Mengel, who served the AOU as Treasurer and in other capacities for many years. This year’s award is presented to outgoing AOU Secretary Sara Morris for her significant contribution of service to the AOU. Sara became a member of AOU as a graduate student in 1990, was voted an Elective Member in 2004, and a Fellow in 2010. She has served on numerous AOU committees including the Web Committee (2006-present), Finance Committee (2005-2006), Student Awards Committee (2002-2003). We are particularly grateful to Dr. Morris for these past 8 years as Secretary of the AOU. In this role, she has served as the instant calendar, planner, by-laws expert, organizational fiend, true thinker and voice of reason on all issues facing the AOU Executive Committee and the Council. She is truly remarkable. Sara is also currently first vice-president of the Wilson Ornithological Society and will be its next president. Thus, she will be missed on the AOU Council and Executive Committee. We owe Sara a tremendous debt of gratitude for her dedication to the AOU. We believe Marion Jenkinson would be proud as well. NED K. JOHNSON YOUNG INVESTIGATOR AWARD ALEX JAHN This award recognizes work by an ornithologist early in his/her career who shows distinct promise for future leadership in the profession. The award honors Ned K. Johnson, a lifelong supporter and former President (1996-1998) of the AOU. We are pleased to present Dr. Alex Jahn with the 2014 Ned K. Johnson Young Investigator Award. Alex’s passion is austral migration -- a stunningly neglected topic. More than 98% of papers published on bird migration focus on migrants that breed in North America and Eurasia, despite the incredible diversity of migrants in South America. Alex charged into this void. For his Master’s work at the University of Arkansas, he chose to study migration in the Chaco region of Bolivia. His Ph.D. at the University of Florida focused on partial migration of Tropical Kingbirds that breed in Bolivia. During this time, he discovered that well-supported hypotheses to explain partial migration in North America do not apply in South America; his results firmly rejected hypotheses that are taken for granted by practically all ornithologists. In short, he argues that seasonality of temperature drives migration in the Northern Hemisphere, whereas seasonality of rainfall drives migration in the Southern Hemisphere. Alex’s unusually broad perspective on migration is widely sought out. He has written two reviews on austral migration: one in Ecological Monographs, one in Ecological Applications In 2013, Dr. Jahn was the first author on two groundbreaking papers in The Auk that used geolocators to provide the first documentation of a migratory passerine’s annual movements in South America. He is a also co-author of Guide to Birds of Bolivia, which will be published this year. The National Geographic Society has recognized the unusual scope of his work with two Research Grants. In summary, we believe that Alex has truly been a leader in the study of bird migration in Latin America and certainly has a bright future ahead of him. The AOU is so pleased and proud to name him as our Young Investigator of 2014. 2014 ELLIOTT COUES AWARD Staffan Bensch The Elliott Coues Award recognizes outstanding and innovative contributions to ornithological research regardless of the geographic location of the work. The award is named in honor of Elliott Coues, a pioneering ornithologist of the western United States and a founding member of the AOU. This year, the AOU presents the Elliott Coues Award to Dr. Staffan Bensch, Professor of Animal Ecology at Lund University. Professor Bensch is an accomplished and highly productive avian ecologist and evolutionary biologist, who has produced a significant body of work across several important areas of avian research, including: genetics of migration in warblers population genetics of migratory songbirds the characterization, impact and evolution of avian malaria; the evolution of avian sex chromosomes; and the genetics of speciation in birds. His work in all of these areas has been ground-­‐breaking and he has produced more than 170 contributions to the scientific literature, much of it in ornithological journals. Professor Bensch received his doctoral degree from Lund University in 1993, conducted postdoctoral work at the University of California, San Diego in 1994-­‐1995, and has been in research and faculty appointments at Lund University since that time. He has had continuous funding from Swedish and EU funding agencies. He is known among biologists for showing considerable depth of knowledge in spite of the extensive breadth of his research interests and experience, and for being equally at home in the field and lab, and at the computer. Dr. Bensch began his career conducting analyses of the behavioral and population ecology of Swedish Great Reed Warblers, much in collaboration with Denis Hasselquist and others in this group. Staffan developed and applied powerful molecular markers and methods that proved extremely useful in assessing the mating patterns, sexual selection, population genetics and phylogeographic structure of this species. Staffan also developed a major program assessing the patterns of migration in Eurasian warblers, in particular assessing the origins and effects of migratory divides in differentiation and speciation. He has applied classical, isotope, and molecular marker methods to characterize these divides in the Willow Warbler, and has made great strides toward determining the genetic basis of migratory orientation and behavior with recent transcriptome sequencing and other genomic approaches. Recently, Staffan has had major interests and success in studying the evolution of sex chromosomes and sex-­‐limited gene expression. He and colleagues made a fascinating discovery of a novel neo-­‐sex chromosome in passerine birds, in particular in Old World warblers. A portion of chromosome 4, autosomal in other birds, is now showing sex specific patterns of gene expression, and sex-­‐linked inheritance. In short, Professor Staffan Bensch is a highly regarded ornithologist who has greatly enhanced our understanding of the ecology and evolution of birds and their blood parasites, and for these reasons the AOU proudly presents the Elliott Coues Award to Staffan Bensch. 2014 WILLIAM BREWSTER AWARD Geoffrey Hill The William Brewster Award is given annually to the author or co-authors of an exceptional body of work on birds of the Western Hemisphere. The award consists of a medal and an honorarium provided through the endowed William Brewster Memorial Fund of the American Ornithologists' Union. The award is in honor of William Brewster, one of the founding members of the AOU. This year’s recipient of the Brewster Medal is Professor Geoffrey Hill from Auburn University. Professor Hill is without question one of the most prolific, influential, and successful scientists who has ever worked on bird plumage coloration and the evolution of animal signals. Geoff has authored 225 papers, theoretical papers and book chapters in first-rate journals, (11,000 total citations) and edited a two-volume book with Kevin McGraw on bird coloration that is already a landmark publication in behavioral and evolutionary ecology. His books on House Finches (A Red Bird in a Brown Bag), bird colors (Bird Coloration) and Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Ivorybill Hunters) are very popular far beyond our small scientific community. Geoff’s pioneering work on mate choice in House Finches is among the best studies ever done in this area and, consequently, his study organism is now widely viewed as one of the model systems for the study of female mate choice and sexual selection, among other things. Geoff is a brilliant experimentalist, with a knack for conducting elegant studies that cut to the heart of a question: his designer-finches produced by diet variation provide a good example of this. Professor Hill’s work on the carotenoid-based pigmentation of plumage coloration is now widely viewed as a classic study (his Nature paper on this has 570 citations) that helped spawn an entire area of research that continues to expand into new and interesting dimensions (e.g., the role of carotenoids in immune function). Geoff has also contributed in important ways to training the next generation of ornithologists and several rising stars have come through his lab as graduate students or postdocs (e.g., Kevin McGraw, Renee Duckworth, Alex Badyaev, Matt Shawkey and Stephanie Doucet, to name few). Therefore, with his international reputation for excellence in avian research, his outstanding record of publications, and his commitment to teaching and outreach in ornithology, the AOU proudly awards Geoff Hill the 2014 William Brewster Medal.
  2. A new meeting has been added to the =1']Ornithology Meetings database. Meeting Description: FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT: Waterbirds 2015: Challenges and Responses Bar Harbor, ME Aug 11-15 2015. While many of you are looking forward to the 2014 Joint Waterbird Society/CIPAMEX meeting in Baja California, scheduled for this upcoming November, we also would like to call your attention to the first stages of organization of the 2015 Waterbird Society meeting to be held in Bar Harbor, Maine, U.S.A. and in particular to the call for expressions of interest in organizing possible symposia. The theme for the 2015 Meeting will be: Waterbirds 2015: Challenges and Responses. The meeting will be held 11-15 August 2015. The following symposia are being proposed to acknowledge the meeting location, on the northeastern coast of the United States. Off-shore wind energy and breeding/dispersing waterbirds Waterbirds and the recovery of raptor populations Warming sea-surface and Northwest Passage/High Arctic Development and waterbird conservation Sea-surface rise, loss of wetlands and waterbirds Costs and benefits of eco-tourism for waterbird populations Meeting Website: Click here to view the meeting
  3. The following article has been published on the Ornithology Exchange. This and other articles can be found under the Articles tab in the navigation menu or by clicking here. Migration route and stopovers: Do we really know the patterns? Stephanie L. Jones, Editor Migration route and stopovers: Do we really know the patterns? A recent paper in Waterbirds details information on migration, and maybe it is more idiosyncratic than we thought. Click here to view the article
  4. Waterbirds Editor’s Choice: Loon Research and Conservation in North America Waterbirds 37 (Special Publication I) The song of the Common Loon (Gavia immer) is evocative of many areas of North America: spring would not be the same without this amazing song carrying over northern lakes. Using a custom-designed microphone array to collect landscape-scale recordings, Dan Mennill's bioacoustic analyses focused on understanding how their vocal output varied with time of day, time of year, and in response to variation in weather. Common Loons showed significant diel variation in vocal output, producing more wail, yodel, and tremolo calls at night than during the day; the wail, yodel, and tremolo calls transmit significantly farther at night than during the day. These results provide quantitative details of Common Loon vocal signaling strategies, revealing that this species calls when abiotic conditions are ideal for long-range signaling. Mennill, D. 2014. Variation in the Vocal Behavior of Common Loons (Gavia immer): Insights from Landscape-level Recordings. Waterbirds 37 (Special Publication I): 26-36. This open access article can be viewed at: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1675/063.037.sp105 Why do birds nest where they do? A new paper using Common Loons (Gavia immer) explored aspects of this question. Common Loons nest throughout the northern reaches of North America. Paul Radomsky and co-authors investigated shoreline attributes and nesting segments of lake shores on 35 lakes in north- central Minnesota. The resulting nesting habitat models were used to predict nesting sites for a small set of independent lakes. The ability to predict suitable Common Loon nesting sites should lead to the greater protection or restoration of these valuable areas and enhance conservation efforts across the state. Radomsky, P. J., K. Carlson and K. Woizeschke. 2014. Common Loon (Gavia immer) Nesting Habitat Models for North-central Minnesota Lakes. Waterbirds 37 (Special Publication I): 102-117. This open access article can be viewed at: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1675/063.037.sp113
  5. Indeed, it was a fantastic talk! The entire meeting was wonderful and I can't wait for next year's joint meeting of the AFO-WOS-SCO in Nova Scotia.
  6. The Margaret Morse Nice Medal Lecture is awarded annually to an individual who exemplifies her scientific curiosity, creativity and insight, her concern for the education of young and amateur ornithologists, and her leadership as an innovator and mentor. This year’s recipient of the Margaret Morse Nice Medal - Don Kroodsma - personifies these characteristics … The Wilson Ornithological Society recognizes Don for his lifetime of outstanding work on bird song. As Don has written on his blog, “It was the spring of 1968, my last semester in [Hope] College, when I became hooked on birds in general [i think a singing Marsh Wren], and a few months later on birdsong in particular.” After earning his Ph.D. at Oregon State University, Don was a Postdoctoral Fellow and then an Assistant Professor at Rockefeller University. In 1980, he moved to University of Massachusetts at Amherst (a mile from where MMN had grown up), where he remained until he retired (early) in 2003. During his academic career, Don says, “I asked question after question, about wrens and chickadees and warblers and sparrows and flycatchers and almost any bird who sang.” And he published: 75 academic articles, more than 25 popular articles, several books … Don chose to retire early so that he could celebrate birdsong full-time. In her speech presenting the medal, WOS past-president E. Dale Kennedy said, "I want to get back to two topics that connect Don and Margaret Morse Nice (apart from the Amherst connection). In 1915, Margaret Morse Nice published a paper, “The development of a child’s vocabulary in relation to environment,” based on her observations of her daughter Constance at ages 18 months, 3 years, and 4 years. Don Kroodsma’s dissertation was, “Singing behavior of the Bewick’s Wren: development, dialects, population structure, and geographical variation.” He studied the development of language in his daughter and compared it with development of song in songbirds (“Cousin Songbird” in Birder’s World in 1993). On March 15, 1928, Margaret wrote in her journal, “The chorus of song is bewildering in its beauty and its sense of joy… What a blessing it is to be alive this bright morning of early spring…” That same sense of joy is expressed by Don in his Preface to The Singing Life of Birds (2005): “Somewhere, always, the sun is rising, and somewhere, always, the birds are singing.” About the Margaret Nice Morse Medal In 1888 the Wilson Ornithological Club was founded, and Margaret Morse turned five years old in Amherst, Massachusetts, where her father taught history at Amherst College. In 1891 she received her first real bird book, Our Common Birds and How to Know Them, and in 1896 she wrote and published “Fates and fortunes of Fruit-acre birds.” She graduated from Mount Holyoke College in 1906 and, a year later, entered Clark University as one of only two women graduate students. She earned a Master of Science degree in 1910 for the first comprehensive study of diet in the Northern Bobwhite. In 1908 she married Blaine Nice, a graduate student in physiology also at Clark University. In 1913 they moved to Norman, Oklahoma, where she wrote “The Birds of Oklahoma,” published in 1931. In 1927 the family moved to Columbus, Ohio, where Margaret studied Song Sparrows in her yard and neighboring vacant lots along the Olentangy River. Margaret Morse Nice joined the American Ornithologists’ Union in 1907 and attended her first meeting in 1908. In 1920 she was the only woman to present a paper. In 1921 she joined the Wilson Ornithological Club and attended her first Wilson meeting in 1927 at which time she reported on the nesting of the Myrtle Warbler. In 1933 she founded the Recent Literature section of Bird-Banding, now the Journal of Field Ornithology and wrote 1800 reviews over the next nine years, many of these commenting on articles written in foreign languages of which she spoke five fluently. In 1935 she was elected Second Vice-President of the Wilson Ornithological Society and succeeded to its Presidency in 1937, the same year in which she was elected a Fellow of the American Ornithologists’ Union, only the second woman so honored. 1937 was also the year in which the first volume of her Studies in the life history of the Song Sparrow appeared. In 1939 she published her popular account “The watcher at the nest.” In 1943, she published the second volume of “Studies in the life history of the Song Sparrow” and was awarded the Brewster Medal for her landmark life history studies. She wrote several important reviews of territoriality in 1941, of incubation periods in 1954, and of behavioral development in precocial birds in 1962. She was awarded honorary doctorates by Mount Holyoke College in 1954 and Elmira College in 1962. One of her close friends and colleagues, Nobel-laureate Konrad Lorenz offers the following personal reminiscence: “Margaret Morse Nice was a naturalist in the truest sense of the word. She combined a poet’s appreciation of nature’s beauty with a scientist’s analytical mind. Her simple and artless description of natural things often achieved an effect reminiscent of Thoreau’s writing. Her greatest gift was an infinite joy in observation for its own sake which, unbiased and free from any hypotheses or prejudice, is the very best basis for the understanding of animal behaviour. Another outstanding trait of her character was her engaging simplicity … a property which is rarely found in combination with an intelligence such as hers. Her attitude towards nature remained … that of a child’s wide-eyed wonder, combined with a childlike curiosity, which is exactly what a scientist’s attitude ought to be, but so very seldom is.”
  7. The Association of Field Ornithologists Alexander F. Skutch Award for Excellence in Neotropical Ornithology is awarded periodically to a deserving ornithologist nominated by peers and selected by the Skutch Medal committee of the AFO. This year an award is presented to James W. Wiley [currently affiliated with University of Maryland Eastern Shore and the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology in recognition of his exemplary research contributions to Neotropical ornithology, mentoring students and professionals, and his commitment to the conservation of birds and their habitats in the in the Latin American – Caribbean region. As a bit of background information, In 1997, in celebration of our 75th anniversary, the AFO created the Alexander F. Skutch Award for Excellence in Neotropical Ornithology. The award recognizes career accomplishments, particularly, although not limited to, research relating to life history studies of Neotropical birds. Criteria may include encouragement and mentoring of students, particularly Latin Americans, making research accessible to the public through popular publications as well as publishing work in scientific journals. A goal of the award is to recognize individuals whose careers will stand as models for excellence in Neotropical ornithology. The first award was presented by Dr. Skutch in San José, Costa Rica to Dr. F. Gary Stiles (1997); subsequent winners include Herbert A. Raffaele (1999), Mercedes Foster (2006) and John O'Neill (2010). Dr. Wiley has made exemplary research contributions to Neotropical ornithology, mentoring students and professionals in the Latin American-Caribbean (LAC) region, and commitment to the conservation of birds and their habitats in the LAC region. In his nomination credentials, it was noted that much of his research, while valued for its scientific merit, has contributed greatly to management efforts for the recovery of endangered species and their habitats in the Caribbean that benefits the public as well. He also was one of the co-authors of the seminal field guides to the birds of the West Indies and the birds of Hispaniola. These field guides have significantly contributed to the understanding the ornithology of the region. Dr. Wiley was also a founding member of the Society for the Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds (SCSCB), and served as the first editor of their scientific journal. He established a legacy of training and mentoring students and young professionals in ornithology and conservation. Jim did this both formally through his supervision of the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit at both Grambling University and the University of Maryland at Eastern Shore and informally through field work, communications, and scientific societies. Jim's generosity and dedication to his students is legendary. In summary, Dr. Wiley was nominated and chosen as the 2014 recipient of the Alexander F. Skutch Award for Excellence in Neotropical Ornithology award because he best exemplifies the qualities this award seeks to recognize and Jim is the kind of professional who Alexander Skutch would want to thank for his efforts.
  8. This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 12 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including Ornithology Exchange and the Ornithological Council! USDA APHIS, WILDLIFE SERVICES HONORED WITH PRESIDENTIAL AWARD FOR MIGRATORY BIRD STEWARDSHIP The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is this year's recipient of the Presidential Migratory Bird Federal Stewardship Award, in recognition of the Wildlife Services' management of raptor-human conflicts to promote safety and migratory bird conservation. The Council for the Conservation of Migratory Birds, led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and composed of many federal agencies with migratory bird responsibilities, chose the 2014 winner of the Presidential award. USDA's Wildlife Services has conducted a national effort with the goal of reducing human-wildlife conflicts associated with raptors, or birds of prey, over the past 10 years. These include many species of conservation concern including bald eagles, Peregrine falcons, and ferruginous hawks. Conducted across the country, this large, complex program included both operational activities carried out by Wildlife Services state offices and a research component undertaken by its National Wildlife Research Center. Led by Travis DeVault out of Sandusky, Ohio, the aviation strike hazard research group is one of the several high-quality research programs based at National Wildlife Research Center in Ft. Collins, Colorado. Many of the raptor-human conflict management issues involved the high profile human health and safety issue of collisions between birds and aircraft. During 2004-2013, more than 13,700 individual raptors, representing at least 32 different species, were successfully live-trapped and relocated away from the environment where the conflict was occurring and where the birds themselves and other resources were at risk, such as an airport. About 5 percent (more than 650 individual birds), were species of concern such as short-eared owls, golden eagles, and Mississippi kites. "It is gratifying that this Council of concerned federal agencies has recognized Wildlife Services' efforts and commitment to safeguarding migratory bird conservation while conducting its assigned mission to safeguard resources," said William Clay, Deputy Administrator of Wildlife Services. "This important program exemplifies the Agency's efforts to resolve human health and safety issues and further the conservation of our nation's natural resources, especially migratory birds, through science-based management efforts and cutting edge research in the Wildlife Services program." Research was an essential component of the effort that contributed to migratory bird conservation. Although study findings have been used predominantly to reduce bird-aircraft strikes at civil and military airfields, the information and innovative methods are being used to evaluate and manage other human-raptor conflict situations, such as wind energy facility development. Numerous research projects were conducted throughout the country using both traditional bird-banding and cutting-edge satellite telemetry technologies. These provided critical information needed: to increase the effectiveness of the raptor relocation used to resolve conflict situations; to identify patterns on how some raptors use airports, allowing better risk analysis; and to quantify the risk that migrating raptors pose to military training flights. This research also provided new and important ecological information on the breeding, migration, and wintering ecology of various raptors. The Council for the Conservation of Migratory Birds, which is supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, includes representation from the Departments of the Interior, State, Commerce, Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, Defense, and the Environmental Protection Agency and is open to all Federal agencies whose activities may directly or indirectly affect migratory bird populations. (For Council and award information see http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CCMBA.html [3] ). The award was created to recognize significant contributions to the implementation of Presidential Executive Order 13186, which created the Council for the Conservation of Migratory Birds. For more information about raptor research and other NWRC aviation project, see the NWRC Aviation Projects page.
  9. This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 12 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including Ornithology Exchange and the Ornithological Council! Since 2008, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service first implemented the "validation" requirement for shipments of wildlife and wildlife-related material imported under CITES permits, scientists have had difficulty importing research materials. Though the USFWS had made extensive efforts to reach out to the other nearly 180 CITES countries to explain the validation requirement, it proved that many countries seemingly lacked the will or ability to comply. As a result, shipments into the U.S. often lacked validation entirely or the validation was somehow deficient. The shipments were rejected and either destroyed or returned to the country of origin. In some cases, material deteriorated or was lost when returned. Beginning in 2009, the Ornithological Council began to contact the USFWS Divisions of Law Enforcement and International Affairs. The USFWS was at that point disinclined to take action, but suggested that the OC continue to track problems and bring them to the attention of the USFWS. In addition, the OC began to advise ornithologists to take extreme care to assure that validation be obtained and done correctly. These measures included determining the name and location of the officials at the airport who could validate shipments and making appointments to meet with those officials. Nonetheless, problems continued. Ornithologists who followed this advice would arrive at the airports in some countries only to be told that validation was not necessary. At other airports, only one individual was authorized to validate shipments and that individual would not be present, notwithstanding the fact that an appointment had been made. More frequently, the validation was not done correctly. In January 2013, the OC asked Dan Ashe, the Director of the USFWS, to look into the problem. He referred the matter to his Assistant Director for International Affairs and the USFWS Chief of Law Enforcement. After a meeting in February 2013, the OC continued to bring validation problems to the attention of the USFWS. Unfortunately, this meeting and follow-up communications brought about no resolution. As a result, the OC, together with the American Society of Mammalogists and the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections on 8 April 2014 filed a petition to the Secretary of the Interior, formally asking that the validation requirement as to scientific shipments be suspended or revoked. The petition (attached) explains that "... we understand the need for effective enforcement and we would not seek an exception to this important rule without a good reason. The fact is that, at least with scientific research material, the validation procedure has not proved effective...Scientists are keenly aware of the need to protect wildlife and make every effort possible to avoid having an impact on populations of wildlife. Much, if not most, taxonomic study and other research involving wildlife can be undertaken with museum specimens or blood or tissue samples, which may also be taken from natural history collections rather than collected from wild animals. In many cases, there is no need to sacrifice additional live animals. Moreover, it is exceptionally difficult to obtain permits to collect from the wild in the case of rare or declining species. For these reasons, most of the material that is imported and exported for scientific research has no impact whatsoever on the wild populations of the protected species. Scientific research is an activity that serves conservation by generating the scientific knowledge upon which effective conservation and management rest. Indeed, CITES listings and findings on permit applications could not be made without this knowledge." Validation petition.pdf
  10. This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 12 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including Ornithology Exchange and the Ornithological Council! The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service divisions that issue permits are in the process of determining a new fee schedule. Under federal law, “A user charge, as described below, will be assessed against each identifiable recipient for special benefits derived from Federal activities beyond those received by the general public.” The White House Office of Management and Budget advises federal agencies that, "user charges will be sufficient to recover the full cost to the Federal Government." The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last raised permit fees in 2005. Prior to that time, fees had not been increased since 1982. If the previous increase is any indicator, it will likely be late 2014 by the time the proposed fee schedule is published for public comment; the final rule would be issued some time in 2015. Under 16 USC §718k, Congress authorized the USFWS to retain all fees collected for federal migratory bird permits to be used for the expenses of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in administering such Federal migratory bird permits. However, these fees are not sufficient to fully fund administration of the program because the permit-issuing offices also handle many permits for which fees are not charged, such as the permits issues to federal, state, and tribal agencies. Therefore, the overall workload exceeds the staffing level that is achievable with permit fees. Thus, even though the USFWS, with Congressional authority, retains the fees for use in issuing and administering permits (at least the Migratory Bird Treaty Act permits), the agency is in need of Congressionally appropriated funds as well. Unfortunately, Congressional appropriations have been flat at best for several years. Overall, funding is insufficient and if the number of applications increases or if staff are on leave, the agency has no budget to add personnel, even on a temporary basis. As a result, backlogs develop. In Region 8, for instance, it can take as long as sixteen months to obtain a scientific collecting permit. The Ornithological Council, as the "policy winglet" of the ornithological community, will track developments and keep ornithologists up-to-date via Ornithology Exchange. If you have questions, please contact the Ornithological Council. Please report any undue delay (exceeding 90 days for MBTA; 180 days for ESA and CITES) experienced with permit applications to the Ornithological Council.
  11. “Marbled Murrelets forage off the Pacific coast of the U.S. and Canada, but they usually build their nests in the tops of towering moss-covered trees in coastal forest. Is this coastal habitat critical for this endangered seabird species? Blake Barbaree and coauthors followed radio-tagged murrelets in southeastern Alaska to their nests. As expected, many birds nested in trees, but about half of the birds nested on the ground on remote rocky slopes, up to 52km from the coast, and up to 5 km from the nearest tree. These nests were not more successful, so it is unclear why the birds choose two such different strategies for nesting, especially when ample coastal forests are available.” Nesting ecology of Marbled Murrelets at a remote mainland fjord in southeast Alaska by Blake A. Barbaree, S. Kim Nelson, Bruce D. Dugger, Daniel D. Roby, Harry R. Carter, Darrell L. Whitworth, and Scott H. Newman, The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:173–184. Published online February 19, 2014. This open access article can be viewed at: http://www.aoucospubs.org/doi/full/10.1650/CONDOR-13-116.1 More information about the Cooper Ornithological Society To join...
  12. Highlighted by Mark E. Hauber, Editor-in-Chief of The Auk: Ornithological Advances In many areas of North America, spring would not be the same without the well-known song of the Common Yellowthroat, broadcast by the male from near a wet ditch or a bog. New bioacoustic analyses by Rachel Bolus reveal that even the song of this ubiquitous warbler shows distinctive and predictable variations across geographic regions and among genetically recognized subspecies. Morphology also matters, with the pitch of the song decreasing with longer bills. This research highlights the potential for new discoveries using publicly available databases, including the Macaulay Library at Cornell University and the Borror Laboratory of Bioacoustics at The Ohio State University. Geographic variation in songs of the Common Yellowthroat by Rachel T. Bolus, The Auk: Ornithological Advances 131:175–185. Published online March 12, 2014. This is an open access article that can be viewed at: http://aoucospubs.org/doi/full/10.1642/AUK-12-187.1 Learn more about the American Ornithologists' Union, publisher of the Auk: Ornithological Advances Become a member!
  13. The NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare is offering this webinar that will address the model protocol that has been compiled by the Ornithological Council and the American Society of Mammalogists and that will also address the appropriate guidance for the oversight of research involving animals. This is the first time OLAW (which funded the most recent revision of Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research) has afforded the wildlife community this platform, which could reach thousands of IACUC chairs, members, and Institutional Officials. Please be sure to urge your institution's research oversight people to sign up, listen in, and ask questions! OLAW Webinar, March 20: Oversight of Research Involving Wildlife Join OLAW for a webinar, Oversight of Research Involving Wildlife, on March 20 from 1:00 to 2:00 pm ET. Wildlife Biologist Robert Sikes, PhD, presents suggestions and a sample IACUC protocol form to facilitate IACUC review of research involving wildlife. About OLAW Webinars The OLAW Online Seminars program is a free webinar series to help IACUCs and IOs explore their responsibilities in the oversight of PHS-funded research that involves the use of live vertebrate animals. A one-time enrollment is required to participate in the program. Find out more at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/e-seminars.htm. For past webinars, visit the archive on the Education Resources webpage.
  14. Update 31 March 2014: Due to a technical problem, the original posting of this article disappeared on 30 March 2014 and we have been unable to restore it or the two comments that had been posted. Before the article disappeared, it had been viewed approximately 637 times. However, we encourage you to share the link with your friends and colleagues who may not have seen it yet. The Ornithological Council (OC) has for many years tracked a variety of issues and trends relating to the USGS Bird Banding Lab (BBL). Working with the North American Banding Council and other organizations, the OC has worked diligently to assure that ornithologists can obtain the permits and bands that are central to much ornithological research. Perhaps most notably, the OC served on the Federal Advisory Committee for the BBL. This committee was convened by the USGS leadership to determine how the community served by the BBL envisioned the future for the BBL. The 2007 report of the committee identified six major goals along with 58 specific management recommendations consisted with those goals. In September 2013, the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, which houses the BBL, issued a report entitled “The U.S. Geological Survey Bird Banding Laboratory: An Integrated Scientific Program Supporting Research and Conservation of North American Birds.” The report details the response by the BBL to 47 of the recommendations made by the Federal Advisory Committee. The BBL has only partially addressed the remaining 11 recommendations, “for practical reasons or because the requested information or activity is being provided by other organizations. Also, flat funding for the BBL in recent years has prevented initiation of some recommended projects, such as an online permit application system. Flat funding has also led to a situation of great concern for ornithologists. Several ornithologists have contacted the OC and/or the NABC to report that their applications for banding permits had been denied. As early as January 2012, the OC received reports that the BBL had stated that it was going to have to make some hard decisions about funding, including restrictions on permit issuance. Several ornithologists were told by the BBL that it is committed to continuing support for currently approved projects, but is refusing permits to some new projects, particularly multi-species projects that might entail high-volume banding, because doing so would strain or perhaps exceed the resources of the BBL. Some time later, an ornithologist was told by the BBL that “if things don’t improve soon, bands are likely to be next on the chopping block.” After confirming this information with the BBL, the OC and NABC sought a meeting with the USGS Associate Director for Ecosystems. As a result of this meeting and subsequent communications, and concerned by the impact that permit and band restrictions would have on ornithological research, the OC devised a strategy to assure that resource limitations at the BBL would not hinder ornithological research. That strategy recommends that banders pay for permits and/or bands and identifies other potential sources of funding and cost savings in some BBL operations. Before proposing these options to the USGS, the OC reached out to its member societies and a number of ornithologists and banding stations, as well as the NABC, requesting comment on the proposed strategy. Most stated that payments for permits and/or bands was preferable to not bing able to get permits or bands. None objected to the proposed strategy. With that feedback, the OC asked the USGS to consider implementing these options along with other suggestions for increasing revenue and reducing expenses. We are awaiting a response. Meanwhile, some notes of interest for those who are discomfited by the idea of paying for permits: - Federal law actually requires that “A user charge, as described below, will be assessed against each identifiable recipient for special benefits derived from Federal activities beyond those received by the general public.” This law has been in effect since 1952 but has not always been enforced. An agency must obtain permission to make an exemption. Even if the BBL requests this exemption, in this fiscal climate it is highly unlikely that an exemption would be granted. - Publicly available documents from the BBL reveal that the cost of issuing the three-year permit is $90. Therefore, if a permit fee is imposed, it is likely to be approximately $90 ($30/yr), which is about the cost of other Migratory Bird Treaty Act permits (e.g., for scientific collecting, falconry, raptor propagation, depredation control). Presumably, renewals and amendments would carry lower fees because, as the BBL documents suggest, far less staff time is needed to process these permits. It is unclear what fee, if any, would be assessed for subpermits. - Bands are generally inexpensive, especially when ordered in bulk as shown on the attached table. Presumably, the BBL buys in bulk to achieve the lowest cost. - The elimination of actual or perceived band shortages should eliminate the practice of over-ordering that can actually lead to shortages. - Federal law provides that fees go to general treasury unless the Congress has authorized the direction of fees to a particular agency or function (as is the case with the USFWS permit fees). Some additional work will be needed to assure that these fees are directed back to the BBL; some have called for the Department of the Interior to return the BBL to the USFWS in which case this additional effort will not be needed. The financial constraints that are the stated reason for recent permit denials are only one cause for concern. In allocating scare resources, the BBL has apparently had to make value judgments to decide which projects to permit and which to deny. Though the experience and wisdom of the BBL is impressive, it is worrisome that the BBL would evaluate the merits of individual banding projects. The Advisory Committee recommended that the BBL “base the decision on whether or not to issue master or subpermits on evidence that the applicant has the skills and knowledge to capture and handle birds of the requested species safely, to collect appropriate data (including age and sex) for those species, and to submit data timely and accurately to the BBL.” There are no criteria for the evaluation of the merits of proposed projects for which banding permits are required and the BBL should not be substituting its judgment – even on the basis of objective, transparent criteria – for that of the ornithologist, the funders, and the scientific institutions that oversee the research. Therefore, the practice of choosing among projects on the basis of perceived relative merit should cease once the resource limitations that led to this practice have been alleviated. If you have questions or concerns, please feel free to contact the Ornithological Council or share your thoughts in the comments section.
  15. UPDATE 13 Feb 2014: Slightly modified document; changes made in response to comments from the staff of the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Note that OLAW will hold a webinar about this model protocol on 20 March 2014 at 12:30 Eastern. Be sure to notify your IACUC members! The Ornithological Council and the American Society of Mammalogists have developed a protocol form designed specifically for wildlife research conducted either in the field or in captivity. We recognized a need for this form as a result of feedback from the many researchers, institutional officials, animal care and use committee members, and attending veterinarians who comply with or implement the Animal Welfare Act compliance for studies of wildlife. Most institutions use a single form with few, if any, questions relevant to wildlife research, including the key question: "Is this project even covered under the Animal Welfare Act or the Public Health Service Policy?" Critical review of protocols involving wildlife research requires the use of appropriate standards. Standards and protocol forms not developed for wild animals cover many topics not pertinent to wildlife studies and omit topics central to such work. In order to conduct a more biologically appropriate review and achieve a greater level of meaningful welfare for the study animals IACUCs should ensure that protocol forms, standards, and reference materials are appropriate for the type of study under consideration. Given that there are two overlapping laws, administered by two different agencies, one (APHIS) with a set of implementing regulations and the other (PHS) with a non-regulatory but mandatory policy, we took care to construct this form in a manner that will guide the IACUC and the researcher to the pertinent laws and standards. A number of participants who attended the October 2011 conference in Albuquerque organized by the OC and the ASM volunteered to help create this form and suggested key topics and specific questions as well as overall approach. After reviewing numerous forms that were already in use, we were fortunate to be given a template created by John Martin of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, later modified by John Bryan, DVM, a wildlife veterinarian with the National Park Service. After considerable review and revision, we are making this form available to IACUCs and researchers in a beta version, though it is fully useable as is. It is our hope that institutions and researchers will use this form, and that as they do so, they will take the time to suggest changes to us so that we can refine it to better meet the needs of both the researchers and the IACUCs. With this additional feedback from the field-testing, we hope to have a final version completed by the end of 2014. For institutions without a protocol designed specifically for studies involving wildlife, this document can serve as a stand-alone form. Institutions that already have a protocol form designed for wildlife may incorporate any portions of the form to complement their existing document. Institutions may also modify the form as you see fit, but we encourage them to let us know what changes they have made and why, as this will help us to improve the final product. We suggest that it would be most efficient to use SmartForms or other electronic options that automatically bypass questions that do not require additional input when the initial question was answered with a “no” or “not applicable.” Doing so will enable the researcher to move efficiently through the form. We also encourage institutions to take full advantage of the additional resources available to them when assessing wildlife protocols. These peer-reviewed documents include the taxon specific guidelines published by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, the American Society of Mammalogists, and the Ornithological Council. These documents were formally recognized by NSF in December 2012 as appropriate standards for NSF funded research conducted on wild vertebrates and were also recognized by AAALAC International as Reference Resources. Development of this model protocol was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. IOS 113273. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
  16. John Wingfield, who has served as NSF Assistant Director for Biology, addresses the basic differences between wildlife biology and biomedical research in this address given at a celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Wingfield, who is an ornithologist, has stepped down from his NSF post. During his tenure, he led the effort by NSF’s BIO division to recognize Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research and the animal welfare guidelines published by other taxonomic societies. The video of the talk is here: and the slide presentation can be downloaded here: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/resources/static-assets/ilar/miscellaneous/wingfield.pdf
  17. Congratulations to the AOU on this step forward and best wishes to Melinda Pruett-Jones for a very successful tenure! Ellen Paul
  18. News Release For Release Monday 23 December 2013 Dec. 23, 2013 Contact: Scott Gillihan (AOUBusinessmanager@gmail.com; 505-326-1579) American Ornithologists’ Union Hires First Executive Director Melinda Pruett-Jones to provide leadership in organization’s new direction Chicago – (Dec. 20, 2013) – The American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) announces the appointment of Melinda Pruett-Jones as its first executive director. The move signals its important progression from an all-volunteer-based society to one guided by a executive leader. Pruett-Jones comes to the AOU from Chicago Wilderness, where she served as the regional alliance’s first executive director. Chicago Wilderness is a cross-sector alliance of organizations, which formed in 1996 to restore and protect nature, and to connect people to it across the greater Chicago region. Melinda also established the Metropolitan Greenspace Alliance, a network of regional conservation coalitions leading the national dialogue on urban conservation. “The AOU is delighted to welcome Melinda Pruett-Jones as our new Executive Director, ” said Susan Haig, President. “ Melinda brings an effective combination of executive expertise in the nonprofit world, a solid grounding in avian behavioral ecology, and a large network of relationships across North America. She has a wealth of experience and success in building programs for prestigious organizations and leading engagement with diverse members. We look forward to her leadership”, she said. Pruett-Jones has served in senior positions at the Field Museum, the Chicago Zoological Society/ Brookfield Zoo, and other mission-based organizations. Her ornithological research ranges from the ecology of birds of paradise and bowerbirds in Papua New Guinea to population biology and conservation of urban birds. She sits on several regional and national advisory boards. “Melinda will bring her considerable organizational expertise to the AOU at a time when we are undergoing change in every aspect of the society. I am confident that she will facilitate implementation of the extensive new conservation and education programs we are planning throughout North America,” said John Fitzpatrick, former AOU president and executive director of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Pruett-Jones will operate the AOU organization from Chicago when she joins the organization in March. Her first task will be to guide the AOU Council of elected members and formers presidents in strategic planning to advance the society’s bold vision for the field of ornithology. ABOUT THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION The AOU is the oldest and largest professional ornithological society in the western hemisphere. The mission of the American Ornithologists' Union is to advance the scientific understanding of birds, to enrich ornithology as a profession, and to promote a rigorous scientific basis for the conservation of birds. Although primarily an organization for professional ornithologists, it welcomes to its ranks many students, conservationists, birders and others who cherish the birds of the world. Visit AOU at www.aou.org. For additional information, contact Scott Gillihan, AOUbusinessmanager@gmail.com (505-326-1579).
  19. Many OE members join OE because they are job-hunting or looking for graduate fellowships. We may be living in an electronic age, but the old rules still apply – it isn’t what you know, it’s who you know! That’s the premise behind LinkedIn, but let’s be real. A mere “accept” click doesn’t mean someone knows you. So how do people who want jobs or graduate fellowships really get to know ornithologists? Join one or more of the ornithological societies. Attend meetings. Communicate via Ornithology Exchange. But the key here is SOCIETY. The ornithological societies are your best linkages. Low-tech? Sure. But far more direct connections to the people you actually want to know, not just “anyone who happens to have some interest in birds.” Join a society. Today. And, as it happens, a bargain. Seriously. Just do it. Today. Now, in fact. Click any of the links below... Student rates: American Ornithologists' Union - $28 Association of Field Ornithologists - $15 BirdsCaribbean - $25 CIPAMEX - $15 Cooper Ornithological Society - $25 North American Crane Working Group - $10 Neotropical Ornithological Society - $30 ($35 outside Latin America) Pacific Seabird Group - $24 Raptor Research Foundation - $20 Society of Canadian Ornithologists: $10.00 Waterbird Society - $25 Wilson Ornithological Society - $18 Regular rates: American Ornithologists' Union - $75 ($28 for certain countries) Association of Field Ornithologists - $25 ($15 for certain countries) BirdsCaribbean – $25 Cooper Ornithological Society - $$45 ($25 for certain countries) CIPAMEX - $25 ($27 outside Latin America) North American Crane Working Group - $10 Neotropical Ornithological Society - $42 ($55 outside Latin America) Pacific Seabird Group - $30 Raptor Research Foundation - $40 ($20 for certain countries) Society of Canadian Ornithologists: $25 Waterbird Society - $45 Wilson Ornithological Society - $38
  20. The Loro Parque Fundación supports projects which have parrot species as their focus of attention. Its main interest is to utilise these projects to improve the conservation prospects of threatened parrots and to promote biodiversity conservation. The Loro Parque Fundación supports projects in two categories: A “Principal Projects”: these tend to be long-term and have a significant proactive input by the Loro Parque Fundación; budgets are usually above US$ 20,000 per annum. B ”Small-scale grants”: created to address short-term parrot conservation research priorities, with a relatively small input by the Loro Parque Fundación. Individual project budgets in this category average US$ 5,000 per annum. Requests for proposals are made each year. Contact the Loro Parque Fundación via their website for more details. Loro Parque Fundación financia proyectos que tienen en su foco de atención los psitácidos. Nuestro principal objetivo es que estos proyectos sirvan para mejorar el estado de conservación de las especies amenazadas de loros, así como para promover la conservación de la biodiversidad terrestre. Loro Parque Fundación financia proyectos en dos categorías: A "Proyectos Principales": Estos proyectos tienen objetivos a largo plazo y una implicación activa y significativa por parte de la Fundación. La financiación concedida suele estar por encima de los 20.000 dólares US al año. B "Becas a pequeña escala": Creadas para atender demandas de conservación de loros a corto plazo, con una implicación menor por parte de Loro Parque Fundación. Las cantidades financiadas por proyecto en esta categoría son en promedio de unos 5.000 dólares US. Las solicitudes de propuestas se hacen cada año. La información de contacto se puede encontrar en el sitio web de la organización.
  21. Both the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy that implements the AWA as to research conducted under grants from PHS agencies (such as the National Institutes of Health) require “the research facility to ensure that all scientists, research technicians, animal technicians, and other personnel involved in animal care, treatment, and use are qualified to perform their duties. This responsibility shall be fulfilled in part through the provision of training and instruction to those personnel.” In practice, most institutions fulfill this requirement by requiring that every researcher, faculty member, and students who will handle live vertebrates take a training program, sometimes annually. Over 1,130 universities and research institutions now provide this mandatory training through an suite of online courses offered by CITI (Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative; https://www.citiprogram.org/). Founded in March 2000 as a collaboration between the University of Miami and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to develop a web based training program in human research subjects protections, CITI soon developed a number of training modules for non-human animal research subject protections. In late 2011, CITI asked the Ornithological Council and the American Society of Mammalogists to review a draft module on wildlife research. That review led to a full re-write of the draft by OC Executive Director Ellen Paul and ASM IACUC Chair Robert Sikes, joined by Steven Beaupre, President of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists and John Bryan, a wildlife veterinarian who chairs the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the National Park Service. After informal review by and feedback from numerous wildlife biologists, we submitted the draft to CITI. After conducting its own review, CITI decided in July 2013 to accept this module. It will soon be available on the CITI website for researchers and for the IACUC members who review wildlife protocols. We hope that having animal welfare information appropriate to wildlife research will help ornithologists to better understand the concerns of the IACUCs and help IACUCs to review protocols with a better understanding of the purposes for wildlife research and the vastly different conditions in which this research is usually conducted.
  22. ORNITHOLOGICAL COUNCIL SMALL GRANTS PROGRAM FOR ORNITHOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN CALL FOR PROPOSALS The Ornithological Council (OC), a consortium of twelve scientific societies of ornithologists in the Western Hemisphere, has initiated a small grants program for projects that integrate ornithological research and conservation. Research projects that improve the likelihood of success of a specific conservation project in the region from Mexico in North America, through Central America and the Caribbean to South America are eligible to compete for funding. Preference will be given to projects focusing on resident species but benefits to migratory birds will also be considered. This three-year pilot program will provide funds up to US$7,500 per year for one or more projects. Grants will be made to members of any of the OC member societies. An applicant must be willing to join an OC member society if he or she receives an award and is not already a member. Grant application deadline: 31 July 2014 Announcement of awards: after 30 September 2014 Download the full Call for Proposals: http://ornithologyexchange.org/forums/files/file/31-oc-small-grants-program-call-for-proposals-2014/ Application submission form: http://ornithologyexchange.org/oc_small_grants/awards.html All grant application materials are to be submitted through the Ornithology Exchange website. If you are not already registered for OE, you must first register. However, you need not wait for membership validation in order to apply. You may apply as soon as you have submitted your registration. Note: we regret that we have not been able to find a way to fund research in Cuba. For assistance with grant proposal submittal, please contact Ellen Paul (ellen.paul@verizon.net). For additional information on the grant program, please contact Dr. Gwen Brewer (glbrewer@comcast.net). ORNITHOLOGICAL COUNCIL PROGRAMA DE PEQUEÑAS SUBVENCIONES PARA INVESTIGACIÓN ORNITOLÓGICA EN AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE SOLICITUD DE PROPUESTAS El Consejo Ornitologico (OC), un consorcio de doce sociedades científicas de ornitología en el Hemisferio Occidental, ha iniciado un programa de pequeñas subvenciones que integren investigaciones ornitológicas y conservación. Las investigaciones que contribuirán a mejorar las posibilidades de éxito de proyectos de conservacion reales en la región de México en América del Norte, así como a América Central, el Caribe y América del Sur son eligibles para competir. Se dará preferencia a los proyectos que traten de especies residentes, pero los beneficios para las aves migratorias también se tendrán en cuenta. En este programa piloto de tres años, se concederán una o más subvenciones, sin exceder un total de US$ 7,500. Podrán recibir subvenciones aquellas personas que sean socios de cualquiera de las organizaciones miembros de la OC. Un solicitante debe estar dispuesto a ser socio si recibe el apoyo del programa de pequeñas subvenciones y ya no es un miembro. Fecha límite para aplicar: 31 de julio 2014 Anuncio de propuestas ganadoras: despues 30 de septiembre 2014 Descarga la plena solicitud de propuestas: http://ornithologyexchange.org/forums/files/file/32-oc-small-grants-program-call-for-proposals-2014-espanol/ Formulario de presentación de la aplicación: http://ornithologyexchange.org/oc_small_grants/awards.html Todos los materiales de la solicitud de subvención se han de presentar a través de la página web de Ornithology Exchange (OE). Si usted no está registrado para OE, primero debe registrar. Sin embargo, no es necesario esperar a la validación de miembros para aplicar. Usted puede aplicar tan pronto como se haya registrado. Nota: lamentamos que no hemos sido capaces de encontrar una manera de financiar la investigación en Cuba. Para obtener ayuda con subvención propuesta presentación, por favor póngase en contacto con Ellen Paul (ellen.paul @ verizon.net). Para más información sobre el programa de subvenciones, por favor póngase en contacto con el Dr. Gwen Brewer (glbrewer@comcast.net).
  23. Dear Members of the AOU-- I would like to update you on progress being made by the various task forces we initiated with the Cooper Society and provide an updated perspective on where I believe the AOU is headed with respect to the various merging/federating/SFO models we have recently been considering. I am happy to report that, in collaboration with the Cooper Ornithological Society and along with advice and observers from the Wilson Ornithological Society, Association of Field Ornithologists and Society of Canadian Ornithologists, we have completed reports from the three major task forces we formed at the NAOC in August 2012. And we added a fourth—the Website Task Force. Below is a brief summary of each Task Force’s efforts. Publication Task Force and Efficiency Task Force, lead by Tom Martin and Bonnie Bowen, respectively, addressed the design and administration of the new online publication plan for the Auk and Condor. Thankfully, Bonnie Bowen has taken on the task of implementing the first phases of the plans and will be working on setting up publication contracts, editorial contracts, etc over the next 6 months. · Starting in January 2014, the Auk and the Condor will have more clearly defined niches, the Auk will focus on more basic and theoretical papers whereas the Condor will become a journal of applied ornithology. · The new publication model will focus on online delivery of journals with an option to pay extra for paper copies. Life Members will continue to have the option of online or online and print. The online publication model will allow us to make a substantial annual profit as we cut out costs associated with printing and mailing. Thus, we hope most members will opt for the online delivery. · AOU and COS are currently searching for a full-time Managing Editor. That person will oversee operations for publication of the Auk and Condor. Auk and Condor will each have a new editor and staff. Contact Bonnie Bowen for details (bsbowen@iastate.edu). · Current Editor Michael Murphy will finish the 2013 Auk. He will be replaced by a new editor who will start work on the 2014 volume as soon as the new editor is selected. Please continue to send manuscripts via the usual Auk and Condorsubmission process. · Irby Lovette heads the AOU Publication Committee and would love to hear suggestions you might have as to a potential new editor of the Auk. We need to make a decision in the next 6 weeks, so please do not hesitate to send names to Irby (ijl2@cornell.edu) or nominate yourself! These are exciting times for publications and it would be a great opportunity to get in on the ground floor of the new publication operations for the Auk and Condor. COS is working through their search for a new editor of the Condor as well. · We will discontinue publication of Ornithological Monographs in 2014. Instead, longer papers can be published in the Auk or Condor. Studies in Avian Biology will continue to be published so series of papers can be sent to SAB editor Brett Sandercock. A Website Task Force emerged from the Efficiency Task Force and is now working on a detailed plan for a joint AOU and COS website. The website will follow much of what was outlined in the SFO website plan but each society will have a society-specific portion of the website in order to carry out society business. The committee is also drafting an RFP for design of the website. Meetings Task Force, led by Abby Powell, is revising their report and working with local committees of past and future meetings to hone their recommendations. Future Directions Over the past several years, we have undergone significant soul searching to identify the most productive path for the future of AOU and the field of Ornithology. It has been painfully complex and has involved, at this point, well over 100 ornithologists from six societies working on various aspects of plans and task forces. Arguably, the most important exercise carried out was an effort to design the most functional and forward thinking ornithological society we could imagine. The resulting SFO plan described the activities that could be considered as well as a framework to consider them — that is, merging North America ornithological societies in into one society. As we have worked through the various task forces since the NAOC, a more nuanced approach has evolved that the AOU Council recently voted to follow. While it is clear that each society has their own name, traditions and histories that they would like to continue, there are many activities that each society carries out that would be more efficiently and inexpensively run by joining efforts with other societies. Publications and the website are the most obvious examples. Thus, in collaboration with COS, we have invited each society to take part in any aspect of the joint work AOU and COS are carrying out, provided they have adequate resources to pay their fair share of whatever activity is being developed. Thus, a society could join the AOU/COS publication effort or add their society to the website without losing the society name or the ability to function as they see fit. This is neither a merger nor a federation model. Rather it allows societies the flexibility to share in chosen efficiencies without losing their identity. The Council also feels we need to strengthen and build the AOU. The issues addressed in SFO documents (e.g., declining membership, financial resources, etc.) are real concerns and we need to vigorously confront them in order to remain viable and at the cutting edge of avian science. To that end, we are developing a more professional framework for running the business of the AOU. This model provides us with the personnel and time to launch some much-needed fund-raising efforts. AOU has never raised a significant amount of money aside from unsolicited gifts we have been fortunate to receive. We cannot continue to live in this vicarious fashion if we are to thrive as a society and as a profession. Therefore, we are exploring the costs and benefits of hiring an executive director who would serve as a prime fund-raiser for the AOU. A final resolution of this issue will not be possible until we work out the administrative costs of the new publication model. However, this professional model for AOU will be a major topic of conversation in August. In conclusion, I hope it is abundantly clear that we (AOU Executive Officers, Council, Task Forces, and Committees) are working to find the most appropriate way to a productive future for AOU and the field of Ornithology. We welcome your comments and ask for your patience as we feel our way along this path. See you in Chicago! Sue Susan M. Haig, President American Ornithologists' Union
  24. This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 12 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including Ornithology Exchange and the Ornithological Council! Artwork credit: Thanks to Uber5000 for allowing us to use this great artwork! See more uber5000 here. The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) today (7 March 2013) published a notice in the Federal Register announcing a major change in the implementation of a federal criminal statute that prohibits federal employees from serving on the boards of outside organizations. That statute was interpreted in 1996 by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prohibit an employee from serving, in an official capacity, as an officer, director or trustee of a private nonprofit organization, even in the absence of an actual conflict of interest. Following the issuance of that statement by DOJ, federal agencies instituted a variety of practices. Some, such as the National Institutes of Health, recognized that the agency benefitted from the active participation of its researchers in the larger scientific community and the recognition of those scientists by their scientific societies. These agencies freely issued waivers. Other agencies – perhaps wanting to avoid having to determine if and when waivers would be appropriate – refused to issue waivers. Some agencies provided no guidance to employees and so many federally employed scientists were unaware of the prohibition and the potential for prosecution. Even in agencies that eventually made efforts to inform employees and then established a waiver process were slow to process waiver requests. By 1998, the Ornithological Council (OC) and The Wildlife Society (TWS) began to hear from scientists employed by federal agencies that they had been told that they could not serve on the boards of their scientific societies and that they were being discouraged from applying for waivers. Joined by the Society of American Foresters and later by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Statistical Association, the Society for Conservation Biology, and dozens of other scientific societies, OC and TWS met numerous times with the Office of Government Ethics and later the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Both OSTP and OPM recognized that these restrictions could make it more difficult to attract and retain the best scientists to federal service. During this time, OGE, having recognized the problems and concerns that arose from this policy, recommended to the President and Congress that the statute be amended ``to specify that the financial interests of an organization are not imputed to an employee who serves as an officer or director of such organization in his or her official capacity.'' In a 2006 Report, OGE recognized that it had ``regulatory authority to exempt financial interests arising from official service on boards of directors,'' but OGE chose at that time to place the issue before Congress first. No legislative changes to the statute were enacted in response to the report. The OGE continued to receive expressions of concern about this matter, both from agencies and from nonprofit organizations. A 2009 memorandum from President Obama to the heads of executive departments and agencies on the topic of scientific integrity spurred a resolution. The President specifically requested that OSTP provide recommendations to address, among other things, the retention of staff in scientific and technical positions within the executive branch. In response, the Director of OSTP issued a memorandum urging all agencies to establish policies that promote and facilitate the professional development of Government scientists and engineers. The resulting OSTP memorandum specifically called for policies to ``allow full participation in professional or scholarly societies, committees, task forces and other specialized bodies of professional societies, including removing barriers for serving as officers or on governing boards of such societies.'' The new policy announced today reflects OGE’s determination that it was appropriate to exercise its authority exempt the imputed financial interests of nonprofit organizations in which employees serve as officers, directors or trustees in their official capacity. Specifically, OGE found that such financial interests are too remote or inconsequential to affect the integrity of employees' services, for several reasons. As explained in OGE's 2006 Report: ``OGE believes that the conflict identified by OLC [between the employee's duty of loyalty to the Government and the employee's fiduciary duties to the outside organization] may be more theoretical than real, particularly because employees assigned to serve on outside boards remain subject to important Federal controls, such as the authority to review and approve (or deny) the official activity in the first place, and the authority to order the individual to limit the activity, or even resign the position, in the event of a true conflict with Federal interests. In addition, an agency generally approves such activities only where the organization's interests are in consonance with the agency's own interests. In an era when `public/private partnerships' are promoted as a positive way for Government to achieve its objectives more efficiently, ethics officials find it difficult to explain and justify to agency employees why a waiver is required for official board services that have been determined by the agency to be proper.'' In short, the potential for a real conflict of interest is too remote or inconsequential to affect the integrity of an employee's services under these circumstances. Agencies will, of course, have valid management reasons to restrict the extent of an employee’s participation on the boards of outside organizations. This is particularly true in an era of declining federal budgets and reduced staffing levels. Further, as OGE notes, employees must still adhere to the agency conflict-of-interest policies. Further, there will likely be limits on participation in lobbying, fundraising, regulatory, investigational, or representational activities, as determined by the agency. The Ornithological Council strongly urges all ornithologists who wish to serve on the boards of ornithological or other scientific societies to contact their agency ethics officers and to submit a written statement that they have reviewed the agency ethics policies and will abide by those policies. The full Federal Register notice can be found here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-06/html/2013-05243.htm or here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-06/pdf/2013-05243.pdf
  25. Your advisor has signed off on your research proposal. You’ve got your funding. Your IACUC has approved your protocols. What stands between you and your field work is a permit. Is there anything you can do to expedite the issuance of that permit? Yes, in fact, there are a number of things that you can do to make sure you get your Migratory Bird Treaty Act permit in time to get your field work underway. Yes! You do need a scientific collecting permit for every activity that involves capture or handling of a bird protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act other than capture and marking with bands, radio-transmitters, geolocators, patagial tags, neck rings, or other auxiliary markers that are approved by the USGS Bird Banding Lab. If you intend to implant a transmitter (other than subcutaneously), you will need a scientific collecting permit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and most state agencies use the term "scientific collecting" to encompass all research activities, unlike scientists, for whom that term connotes permanent removal of an animal from the wild. You can collect blood and feather samples under your banding permit IF you are also marking the bird. Otherwise, you must have a scientific collecting permit to collect blood, feathers, or anything else including crop samples, stomach contents, tracheal or cloacal swabs, and so on. Apply early! No later than mid-March for a summer field season, and earlier if possible. The permit offices are short-staffed and facing an ever-increasing workload. Remember, yours is not the only permit application they will handle. Besides all the other ornithologists who are submitting applications, they also have to handle applications for rehabilitation, falconry, raptor propagation, taxidermy, and a number of special purpose permits. In 2002, the USFWS conducted a workload analysis. The regional staff (at that time, Region 8 did not exist) were processing about 12,000 permits per year. In the subsequent 10 years, the level of staffing has not increased but the workload has. Although the permit application states that you should allow 60 – 90 days for processing, it might take more time if the permit examiner has questions or if you have to submit additional information. This is particularly true if you are planning to work in more than one region. You will apply in the region that includes the state where you reside or attend school, but that regional office will consult with the regional offices that cover the other places where you plan to work, and that consultation will take time. And, of course, because workflow varies, your permit application might be one of an unusually large number of applications that arrive over a short period of time. The absence of an examiner, planned or otherwise, can cause a back-up. If your permit is delayed for any reason, you and the permit examiner will both be in the frustrating position of having to rush to get the permit in time. If you apply early, these problems are less likely to result in your not having your permit when you need it. If you are planning to start your work in mid-May, for instance, try to apply by mid-January. Make your requests clear and simple. State exactly what you are seeking permission to do before you go into more detail about the project. Example: I plan to conduct a study of the impact of rodenticides on Barn Owl reproduction. To do this, I will: locate the nest holes of up to 100 Barn Owls and place cameras inside the nest holes; use the camera to monitor the number of eggs laid and the number hatched; take blood samples from not more than 150 hatchlings until the last bird fledges or dies; use the camera to determine the number and frequency of feedings; periodically check the nest hole to obtain pellets I will compare the results from 50 nests in an area known to be free of rodenticides to those of 50 nests in an area where rodenticide use is known and documented. If you have more than one project planned, it will help to include a table that lists the species, number of birds, type of activity, and location. If your permit will cover more than one project, describe the projects in a numbered list and key each line in the table to the project description. Example: We seek authority for the following activities: Species Number Activity Location Project description Common Loon (Gavia immer) up to 250 Collect nonviable eggs and broken shells Maine, Vermont, New York 1 All passerines unlimited Collect (salvage) birds found dead All states 2 Barn Owl (Tyto alba), Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus), Barred Owl (Strix varia) up to 50 of each Obtain crop samples Pennsylvania 3 Clark’s Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana up to 35 per year Collect live birds Arizona 4 Make sure the numbers in the table match the number of birds in the project description. Remember that for MBTA permits, you are allowed by law to continue the permitted activities if you have applied for renewal at least 30 days prior to the expiration date (and the permit has not been revoked or suspended). You can avoid worrying about receiving your renewed permit if you remember to apply at least 30 days before the current permit expires. So do not worry that if you apply early, your permit will expire before you can complete your work. Just be sure to get your renewal application at least 30 days before the current permit expires and you can continue your work. However, please note that the expired permit does not authorize any new projects that might be included in your renewal application. You must have the renewed permit in hand before you can begin any new projects that were not listed on the expired permit. Do all you can to be sure your permit covers all the activities that your research project will entail. Having to apply for amendments just increases the workload - including your workload, and your expenses - and slows things down for everyone. For instance, do you anticipate bringing birds into captivity to study in the lab? Be sure you state what you plan to do with the birds when the research is completed. If you don’t plan to release them (or your IACUC won’t approve a protocol that entails release) make sure the permit application asks for authority to keep the birds after the research is completed, or give the birds to a zoo, other researcher, or euthanize the birds and give the carcasses to a museum or teaching collection. Don’t forget your state permit(s). If anything, the state wildlife offices are even more short-staffed than are the federal offices. Be sure you check to determine if you need a state permit. The Ornithological Council maintains a website that gives the permit requirements for each state http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET/permit/stateindex.html. If you plan to work on federal land (such as National Wildlife Refuges, national parks, Forest Service or BLM property), check these guides: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET/permit/index.html Historical perspective on the views of ornithologists to the "A.O.U. Model Law" that was the forerunner of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act: "DEAR SIRS:-Under the head of Editorial ‘ Notes’ in the September-October issue of THE CONDOR is a most surprising outburst of criticism and abuse of the A. 0. U. model ‘ law’ and, incidentally, of the A. 0. U. Committee on Bird Protection, so evidently prompted by selfishness and so pervaded with ignorance and misconception of the real facts of the case that a ,word in reply seems desirable. The outcry 1 is against the clause granting permits to properly accredited persons for the collection of birds and their nests and eggs for strictly scientific purposes, which was inserted especially to allow “Ornithology to come in.” “Take this feature away, says the writer, 2 “and it is a good law.” He glories in the fact that his own State of California “is still free,” and adds that “it is largely to this fact that its exceptional ornithological activity is due. We need a good bird law here, but we of the Cooper Club are not criminals and do not require to be bonded when we seek the festive song sparrow or chickadee.” The fact is overlooked that without this provision the ornithologists who merely collect birds, for scientific study, the pot bunter and the commercial bird trapper would all be in the same criminal category of law breakers, subject to arrest and punishment whenever detected." J.A. Allen, writing in The Condor, Vol.5, Issue 6 (1903) Read the full letter: Condor debate on permits 1903-Part2.pdf and the response: Condor debate on permits 1903-Part3.pdf. (The original "editorial note" to which Allen was responding is missing ... a search is on!)
×
×
  • Create New...