Fern Davies

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.

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

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.

“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...

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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).

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

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

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!)

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! On Friday, 22 February 2013, the White House issued a memorandum that sets out the federal government’s requirement for public access to data generated by federally funded scientific research. This policy is the outcome of years of discussion among federal agencies, scientific societies and publishers, various representatives of the public such as patients’ advocacy groups, and others. Originally called "open access" the basic concept is that all scientific literature should be freely available to anyone who wants to read it. The call for a government policy is based on the notion that taxpayer funded research should be available to the taxpayers. The discussion bounced between the Administration and the Congress as the public access advocates pushed for legislative mandates and the scientific community urged the development of a balanced policy that would take into account the intellectual property rights of researchers, the financial realities of scientific publishing, especially by nonprofit scientific societies, and the interests of the public. In September 2004, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) enthusiastically took the lead as the first federal agency to develop a public access policy. At the time, the Ornithological Council and other scientific societies pointed out the probable impact on scientific publishing and the nonprofit societies and encouraged the NIH to avoid a “one-size-fits-all” policy, but to instead create a more flexible policy that would mitigate the negative consequences of mandated public access. The D.C. Principles for Open Access – a consortium of nonprofit scientific societies – has continued to support the concept of public access but in a way that does not jeopardize the revenues of scientific societies that rely on those funds to publish their journals. Meanwhile, the NIH policy found its way into a legislative mandate in 2008 by virtue of language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, which provided that, “all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.” In reauthorizing the America COMPETES Act in 2011, Congress directed the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a working group under the National Science and Technology Council with the responsibility to coordinate Federal science agency research and policies related to the dissemination and long-term stewardship of the results of unclassified research, including digital data and peer-reviewed scholarly publications, supported wholly, or in part, by funding from the Federal science agencies. The memorandum issued on 22 February 2013 resulted from this Congressional directive. It declares that the “Administration is committed to ensuring that, to the greatest extent and with the fewest constraints possible and consistent with law and the objectives set out below, the direct results of federally funded scientific research are made available to and useful for the public, industry, and the scientific community. Such results include peer-reviewed publications and digital data.” This commitment is reflected in a mandate to the federal agencies to submit its draft plan to OSTP within six months. The guidance for these plans make clear that, “To the extent feasible and consistent with law; agency mission; resource constraints; U.S. national, homeland, and economic security; and the objectives listed below, the results of unclassified research that are published in peer-reviewed publications directly arising from Federal funding should be stored for long-term preservation and publicly accessible to search, retrieve, and analyze in ways that maximize the impact and accountability of the Federal research investment.” However, agencies must also describe the measures they will take to prevent the unauthorized mass redistribution of scholarly publications, after ensuring that ensuring that the public can read, download, and analyze in digital form final peer-reviewed manuscripts or final published documents within a time-frame that is appropriate. Where appropriate is defined as a 12-month post-publication embargo. Moreover, the plans are to provide for the sharing of digitally formatted scientific data generated by research funded by the federal government, NOT to include laboratory notebooks, preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer review reports, communications with colleagues, or physical objects, such as laboratory specimens. The plans must protecting confidentiality and personal privacy; recognizing proprietary interests, business confidential information, and intellectual property rights and avoiding significant negative impact on intellectual property rights, innovation, and U.S. competitiveness; and preserving the balance between the relative value of long-term preservation and access and the associated cost and administrative burden.

North American Ornithological Societies Join Publication Efforts Historic Vote Re-defines Roles of The Auk and The Condor CORVALLIS, Ore. – An unprecedented vote by the American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) Council and Cooper Ornithological Society (COS) board of directors signaled the approval to form a common publications office and cooperate in the production of their longstanding journals to further strengthen and define the role of The Auk in basic research and The Condor in applied research. An announcement to members explained that "One journal will focus on basic research and the other will focus on applied research. On the advice of publishers, we will retain the names The Auk and The Condor but add a more descriptive name after a colon. Both journals will contain relatively short letters, regular length articles, occasional longer articles and perspectives. Our plan is to provide authors with decisions in one week for letters and within six weeks for longer articles. Our goal is to publish papers online within six months of submission. Although the focus of the two journals will differ, we will be looking for innovative, high quality papers for both journals and expect the journals to have similar impact factors following the example of Ecology and Ecological Applications. The votes took place December 12 and 13, 2012 after the societies independently debated a report by the Joint AOU/COS Publication Task Force led by Thomas E. Martin, Ph.D., U. S. Geological Survey and University of Montana. The Auk was formed in 1884 and focuses on systematics, evolution, and behavior of birds. The Condor was formed in 1899 and focuses on ecology and conservation of birds. Although the focus of the two journals will differ, each will be looking for innovative, high quality papers. The new format will start with the 2014 volume. The decision means AOU and COS will cooperate in establishing, overseeing and funding a central publication office. The office will have a managing editor, copy editor and editorial assistants to handle manuscript submissions, processing and copy editing; and coordinate composition, hosting, subscription management and printing services. “The publication landscape is rapidly changing and the two societies are being proactive and forward-looking to further strengthen these historically important journals for the long-term future. By cooperating on this joint venture, the societies will have greater control over the quality and timeliness of publications, reduce duplication of efforts and time demands on the scientific community, take advantage of emerging technologies, and reduce publication costs”, Martin said. “ Cooperatively producing our journals will improve efficiency, better define the organizations’ roles so each journal can thrive rather than compete with the other,” said AOU president Susan Haig, Ph.D. (U.S. Geological Survey). Each journal will have an independent editor-in-chief, two associate editors and an editorial board. Both journals will contain relatively short letters, regular length articles, occasional longer articles and topical perspectives. The plan is to provide authors with submission decisions within one week for letters and six weeks for longer articles. Published papers will appear online within six months of submission. “We believe that this new publication model is the best option for strengthening our journals and our societies,” said COS President Kim Sullivan, Ph.D., Utah State University. “Ultimately, it will result in more current and even better information on avian research to the public at large.” The two societies invite everyone to submit their high quality avian research to these two journals, which will be primarily online publications. Papers will be published as soon as the composed version is available. Electronic and print subscriptions will be available to institutions and both journals will continue to be available through JSTOR and BioOne. Quarterly issues very similar to those currently produced will be available for purchase by members for approximately $50/year/journal. One difference is that the print version will be produced in black and white while the online version will have color images. Questions or comments about the new publication model will be discussed on the Ornithology Exchange (http://ornithologyexchange.org/) or can be directed to Susan Haig (susan_haig@usgs.gov), Kim Sullivan (kim.sullivan@usu.edu) or Thomas Martin (tom.martin@umontana.edu). Founded in 1883, the American Ornithologists' Union is one of the oldest organizations in the world devoted to the scientific study of birds. Over its history, AOU and its members have created the scientific foundation for ornithology and bird conservation that we enjoy today. The AOU is the largest and most diverse ornithological society in the Western Hemisphere. 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. http://www.aou.org The Cooper Ornithological Society, a non-profit 501©(3) organization of over 2,000 professional and amateur ornithologists, is one of the largest ornithological societies in the world. The society was organized in 1893 by a small group of individuals in California who were interested in the study of birds. The name of the society commemorates an early California naturalist, Dr. James G. Cooper. http://www.cooper.org Kim Sullivan President Cooper Ornithological Society Susan Haig President American Ornithologists’ Union

This news is 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 National Science Foundation has revised its Grant Proposal Guide to recognize Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research as an official reference document for Animal Welfare Act compliance. This publication, along with similar guides for mammals, fishes, and herpetofauna, was first created – at the prompting of and with funding from NSF but it was not accepted by any federal agency as an official standard until now. On page 13-1, the text now reads: 6. Proposals Involving Vertebrate Animals a. Any project proposing use of vertebrate animals for research or education shall comply with the Animal Welfare Act [7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.] and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of Agriculture [9 CFR 1.1-4.11] pertaining to the humane care, handling, and treatment of vertebrate animals held or used for research, teaching or other activities supported by Federal awards. In accordance with these requirements, proposed projects involving use of any vertebrate animal for research or education must be approved by the submitting organization's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before an award can be made. For this approval to be accepted by NSF, the organization must have a current Public Health Service (PHS) Approved Assurance. In the case of research involving the study of wildlife in the field or in the lab, for the provision in the PHS Assurance for Institutional Commitment (Section II) that requires the organization to establish and maintain a program for activities involving animals in accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Guide), the organization has established and will maintain a program for activities involving animals according to the Guide. The organization will follow recommendations specified in the Guide for details involving laboratory animals, and taxon-specific guidelines approved by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, the American Society of Mammalogists, and the Ornithological Council, as is appropriate for the taxon to be studied. 38 38 Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research: http://www.nmnh.si.e...uide/index.html Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the Use of Wild Mammals in Research: http://www.mammalsoc...mals-research-0 Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research: http://fisheries.org...s/policy_16.pdf Guidelines for the Use of Live Amphibians and Reptiles in Field and Laboratory Research: http://www.asih.org/.../hacc-final.pdf For years, federal agencies have premised Animal Welfare Act compliance on conformance with The Guide to the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, published by the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, a section of the Board of Earth and Life Sciences of the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science. Only a half-page of this publication, which is more commonly known as “The Guide,” addresses “field investigations.” Thus, beyond general principles of animal welfare such as the “alternatives” concept, The Guide is not informative for investigators or animal care and use committees attempting to design and evaluate research protocols for Animal Welfare Act compliance. This situation is not surprising given that The Guide is a product developed from decades of animal welfare oversight that originated from and focused entirely on the use of animals in biomedical research (Sikes et al. 2012). The publication was written by and for the biomedical community, even as more recent revisions added brief discussions of wildlife biology. The National Science Foundation, which funds the most substantial part of wildlife research, has also required adherence to the PHS policy. The lack of guidance relevant to wildlife biology prompted NSF to reach out to the presidents of the appropriate scientific societies in 1986, including the American Ornithologists’ Union, to urge them to develop guidelines for the appropriate handling of their taxa. Funding from the NSF facilitated these efforts and 1988 saw the publication of taxon-based guidelines for mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, and fishes (Orlans, 1988). Most of these society guidelines are already recognized as reference resources by the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) International, a private, nonprofit organization that promotes the humane treatment of animals in science through voluntary accreditation and assessment programs. The Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research built on an earlier publication by the the American Ornithologists’ Union, which in 1975 first published the Report of the American Ornithologists' Union ad hoc Committee on the Scientific and Educational Use of Wild Birds. With the encouragement of and funding from NSF, the AOU joined with the Cooper Ornithological Society, and the Wilson Ornithological Society to publish the first edition of Guidelines for the Use of Wild Birds in Research. When the Ornithological Council was formed by these societies, together with the Waterbird Society, the Raptor Research Foundation, and the Association of Field Ornithologists, responsibility for periodic revision of Guidelines was assigned to the Ornithological Council. A major revision was published in 1997, followed by a minor revision in 1999. Each iteration has been peer-reviewed, as was the most recent major revision published in 2010. [Read more about the history and most recent revision of Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research]. The Ornithological Council thanks the National Science Foundation and, in particular, BIO Director John Wingfield and BIO Assistant Deputy Director Joann Roskoski, along with Diane Witt, the program director in Integrative Organismal Systems/BIO who also manages NSF’s Animal Welfare Act compliance oversight, for taking this important measure. We also thank the American Society of Mammalogists and Robert S. Sikes, who chairs ASM Animal Care and Use Committee, for their invaluable partnership. Literature cited Sikes, R.S., E. Paul, and S.J. Beaupre. 2012. Standards for wildlife research: taxon-specific guidelines versus U.S. Public Health Service Policy. BioScience 62:830-834. DOI: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.9

Speak out on the new NSF BIO proposal submission and review policy: How has it affected you? Give us your suggestions for improvements that would help NSF to address your concerns. The American Ornithologists’ Union is convening a virtual town hall on Ornithology Exchange to hear the views and concerns of ornithologists on the “proposal processing changes” implemented as of 1 January 2012 by The NSF Divisions of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences, Environmental Biology, and Integrative Organismal Systems. We invite all ornithologists to participate. This new policy, announced in a Dear Colleague letter on 15 August 2011 made significant changes to the grant submission and review processes for grants submitted to the core programs within those divisions: limiting frequency of submission to once per year requirement that a pre-proposal be submitted limiting individual participation in grant proposals to two per year The Division did not request input from the scientific community before announcing and implementing these changes. Now that these changes have been implemented, several unintended consequences have became apparent. Among them: long lag between preproposal and receipt of funding; it now takes over a year instead of the 6-9 months that was the case prior to the implementation of the new policy if the preproposal is unsuccessful and either resubmitted or replaced by another proposal in the subsequent year, the lag time grows to two years the limit of two proposals per year hinders collaboration feedback from the panels to the preproposal applicants is limited (there are no ad hoc reviews), making it more difficult to develop a successful proposal These lags make it difficult to sustain research programs and bring new students into those programs. The hindrance on collaborative proposals may make it more difficult for young researchers to establish themselves. University of Minnesota professor Sarah Hobbie, an active member of the Ecological Society of America, initiated a grassroots effort to assess the level of concern among scientists. In August 2012, she circulated a survey and communicated the results to BIO Director John Wingfield. This was followed by an open letter, signed by 555 scientists, including a number of ornithologists. Scott Collins, President of the Ecological Society of America, followed with a request for a meeting with BIO directorate leadership. A number of ornithologists are interested in this issue and, with the assistance of the Ornithological Council, are exploring ways to help assure that the efforts of their colleagues succeed. For this reason, we are holding a virtual town meeting and hope you will join us to share your experiences with and concerns about the NSF proposal submission and review process. We are especially eager to hear your ideas about measures that might be taken to ameliorate the impacts while addressing the very real problems that BIO intended to address by instituting the new policy. The town hall will be held on Ornithology Exchange on a subforum called NSF Funding Policies. Click here to go directly to the Town Hall. The forum will be limited to full members of the Ornithology Exchange and full membership is limited to members of the OE supporting societies. Every registration is checked for society membership status. The forums are password-protected; be sure to sign in before clicking on the forum. Please be assured that no one else will have access to this forum and that information aggregated from this discussion will include no personal information, including names or other identifying information.

The ornithological societies that: publish your research organize your scientific meetings defray student travel costs offer research grants support the Ornithological Council support Ornithology Exchange provide you with a community of scientists with like interests are an invaluable resource that are worthy of your support. ​In recent years, as literature has become available online, some people have opted to drop their society memberships, overlooking all the other valuable resources that the societies provide. If enough people leave the societies, the short-term gain of a few dollars unspent on membership (some society memberships are as low as $15/year for students and early career professionals!) could eventually lead to the demise of the societies and all the services and resources they provide. Think about it: no more professional - student mentorships no more research grants no more journals devoted to ornithology no more terrific meetings where you see the friends of decades and find research collaborators no more assistance with permit and animal welfare problems no more Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research no more advocacy for scientific ornithology - you will be at the complete mercy of the regulatory agencies with no one to speak for you! Most of all - no more community. Please support your scientific societies by renewing your memberships today. Ornithology Exchange is a benefit of membership in the scientific societies that support OE in that full access to the site is limited to members of the supporting societies, but we couldn't exist without their support. If you value OE, please help your scientific societies to support OE by renewing your membership today. Click HERE. And for those of you who are not society members but would like to be (and gain full access to OE), click HERE.

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$7,500 per year for one or more projects. Grants will be made to members of any of the OC member societies. An applicant must be willing to join an OC member society if he or she receives an award and is not already a member. Grant application deadline: 1 August 2012 (e-mail receipt) Announcement of awards: 15 September 2012 Proposal requirements and other information can be found at http://ornithologyex...-for-proposals/ For additional information, contact Dr. Gwen Brewer at glbrewer@comcast.net. --- El Ornithological Council (OC), un consorcio de doce sociedades científicas de ornitología en el Hemisferio Occidental, ha iniciado un programa de pequeñas subvenciones para proyectos que integren la investigación ornitológica y la conservación. Se podrán presentar investigaciones que contribuyan a mejorar las posibilidades de éxito de proyectos de conservación en México, América Central, el Caribe y América del Sur. Se dará preferencia a los proyectos que traten de especies residentes, pero también se tendrá en cuenta sus beneficios para las aves migratorias. En la fase piloto de tres años, se concederán una o más subvenciones por un total de US$ 7,500 cada año. Podrán recibir subvenciones sólo aquellas personas que sean socios de alguna de las organizaciones miembros de la OC. De no ser socios los solicitantes deberán estar dispuestos a asociarse a alguna de las organizaciones de la OC si sus proyectos ganaran el apoyo del programa de pequeñas subvenciones. Ultimo dia para envío de propuestas: 1 de agosto de 2012 (por correo electrónico) Anuncio de propuestas ganadoras: 15 de septiembre de 2012 Encontrarán las condiciones e información adicional para la presentación de propuestas en la página web http://ornithologyex...-for-proposals/ Para mayor información por favor contacten a la Dra. Gwen Brewer (glbrewer@comcast.net).