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

Fern Davies

General Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,066

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Fern Davies

  1. Fern Davies
    More information about "New California permitting regulations issued"
    This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 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! Synopsis: The issuance of this new regulation concludes a process of regulatory change that spanned two years. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife offered several opportunities for public comment. After canvassing California ornithologists and banders, the Ornithological Council submitted comments prior to the drafting of the proposed regulation and again once the draft regulation was published for comment, Further analysis of the specifics of this final regulation will be provided in the next day or two. New Scientific Collecting Permit Regulations Effective October 1, 2018 Title 14, Sections 650 and 703, California Code of Regulations Information for existing and prospective permitholders On May 1, 2018, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the regulatory changes to Sections 650 and 703, Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR) (OAL regulatory file 2018-0320-05S) for Scientific Collecting Permits (SCPs). The new SCP regulations (including the new application structure and online submission format) will be effective on October 1, 2018. To help inform existing and prospective permitholders and other affected stakeholders, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) is addressing the following information on the new SCP regulations and transition to the new SCP online application portal: · How existing permits will be honored after the October 1, 2018 effective date of the new regulations; · How the new permit structure and other changes in new regulations compare to the existing regulations; and · General information about the new SCP online application portal. The Department’s SCP home page will serve as the primary online resource for information about implementation and, starting on October 1, 2018, will also provide access to the online application portal. Department staff will inform and educate affected stakeholders by posting outreach materials, guidance, and tools to this webpage throughout the summer of 2018. The Department has prepared a FAQ document (attached PDF, and will be posted to the SCP home page) to address common concerns that existing and prospective permitholders may have about the new regulations and online application portal. The Department highlights two immediate considerations for existing and prospective permitholders: 1. Phasing out of existing application forms. Any permit issued prior to October 1, 2018, or any issued permit that was applied for by September 30, 2018 using the existing hard copy forms will be valid until the expiration date listed on that permit. However, all new applications, amendments to existing permits and permit renewals requested on or after October 1, 2018 will require submission in the new SCP online application portal, and adherence to the new SCP regulations (refer to Title 14, Subsection 650(a)(7), CCR for more information). In an effort to promote a smooth transition into the new regulations, the Department will accept and process applications under the existing regulations and hard-copy forms through September 30, 2018. This will allow affected permitholders to continue their permitted activities without interruption in their scheduled field and/or laboratory activities, after the new regulations become effective October 1, 2018. Applications submitted via the new online application portal starting October 1, 2018 will be processed concurrently with applications on the existing hard copy forms submitted by September 30, 2018. If a permitholder anticipates needing to amend or renew their existing permit in the next three or so months, or throughout that permit’s term, it is in the permitholder’s best interest to wait, if practicable, until October 1, 2018 or later, to apply under the online application portal, for the following reasons: § Applications to amend or renew existing permits will not be accepted after September 30, 2018 in the existing hard copy process, under current regulations. An amendment to, or renewal of, an existing permit on and after October 1, 2018 will require the permitholder to apply (as a new applicant in accordance to the new permit and fee structure) in the online application portal. This way the permitholder pays just the new permit fees (Question 8 in the FAQs), rather than paying existing fees to amend or renew before September 30, 2018, in addition to paying new permit fees when coming in to use the new online application portal after October 1, 2018. § Once active, early use of the online application portal will also assist: · Department’s IT staff to identify and then work out any issues not identified during beta-testing. · Department review staff to process the queue of existing applications under the existing hard copy process. The Department highly recommends that a permitholder whose existing SCP does not expire until January 1, 2019 or later, wait to amend or renew an existing SCP under the new online application portal. This will help the Department process applications in the order received, and work with applicants to help maintain permit coverage for necessary periods of work (see also Question 6 of the FAQs). 2. Permit Fees. Currently, the non-refundable application fee is required when an application is submitted, and then the permit fee is requested separately when the permit is approved. Effective July 15, 2018, new applicants or renewing permitholders under the existing hard copy process will be required to submit at the same time both the application fee ($108.92, or $27.04 for students) and the permit fee ($324.75, or $54.59 for students) to the Department’s License and Revenue Branch (LRB) at the time of application submission. This will help the Department: o Finalize permits issued under the existing system sooner, to better facilitate a smooth transition to the new online application portal. o Phase out these older license items earlier; Department staff will not have to delay issuance while requesting permit fees upon permit approval (from applicants applying under the existing system between July 15 and September 30, 2018). o Encourage applicants to save a few dollars by avoiding the annual fee adjustments for any permits issued after December 31, 2018. Department license items are adjusted annually in January pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 713. Therefore, if the application is approved in early 2019, then the applicant would have to pay the higher, adjusted fee (up to a 3% increase). ************************************ Scientific Collecting Permits *** New Scientific Collecting Permit regulations (Title 14, Section 650) go into effect on Oct. 1, 2018. Please visit https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Scientific-Collecting for more information, and contact SCPermits@wildlife.ca.gov with any questions you might have.*** *************************************
  2. Fern Davies
    More information about "USDA to move forward with bird regulations and reporting requirements for field studies"
    This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 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! A new report from the Government Accountability Office examines animal use in federal research and, in particular, reporting and data sharing about animal use. The report points out, among other things, that APHIS’s instructions have not ensured consistent and complete reporting in three areas: research with birds, activities outside the United States, and field studies outside a typical laboratory. The GAO recommended that APHIS clarify its reporting instructions and fully describe the potential limitations of the animal use data it makes available to the public. USDA stated that APHIS will take steps to implement GAO’s recommendations, with the exception of clarifying reporting instructions for activities outside the United States. GAO continues to believe that APHIS needs to ensure complete reporting of such activities by federal facilities. The GAO also recommended that APHIS (1) develop a timeline for defining birds that are not bred for research and that are thus covered under the Animal Welfare Act and (2) requiring that research facilities report to APHIS their use of birds covered by the Act. In response, the APHIS Animal Care program committed to submitting a recommendation and timeline for defining birds subject to the Animal Welfare Act by 30 September 2018. Presumably, this would lead to a formal regulatory process and the opportunity for public comment. In addition, the GAO recommended that APHIS should provide research facilities with clear examples of studies that are excluded from the definition of "field study" and are thus covered by the Animal Welfare Act and that should therefore be reported to APHIS, as well as examples of studies that meet the definition of "field study" and thus should not be reported. This comes against the background of the 21st Century Cures Act which mandates the federal agencies such as APHIS and the National Institutes of Health to reduce the burden of animal welfare regulations, as well as the anti-regulatory stance of the current Administration. Background on the inclusion of birds Amajor change in policy took place in 2004 when the agency decided, as a result of litigation, that it would begin to regulate rats, mice, and birds used in research (the law exempted "purpose-bred rats, mice, and birds so the agency rule would have affected other birds bred in captivity but not for the purpose of research, wild birds brought into captivity, and wild birds studied in the field). The agency began the process of developing regulatory standards by way of an advanced notice of public rulemaking, asking the stakeholders and the public for input as to what and how to regulate. Nothing more was heard until December 2011, when the agency announced that the proposed regulation was on hold pending an assessment of the agency's resources for implementing the rule. Nothing more has been heard since then. For all practical purposes, this regulation would have had little impact on those studying wild birds because it was unlikely that the agency would have attempted to oversee such research. However, it would have impacted those studying wild birds in captivity. The new, extreme anti-regulatory stance of the current Administration led the OC to surmise that this regulation was in permanent repose. In fact, the listing for this pending regulation had been dropped from the semi-annual unified regulatory agenda of all pending regulatory processes. Now, it seems to have come back to life. Background on field studies The Animal Welfare Act regulations exempt field studies, defined as those that do not involve invasive procedures, harm to the animal, or material alteration of behavior. No further definitions have been provided. Recently, APHIS Animal Care attempted to develop guidance without any input from wildlife biologists. After strenuous objections from the Ornithological Council that process was put on hold. The Ornithological Council developed a survey to determine how IACUCs were interpreting those criteria; as of now, we have not received a sufficient number of responses. The few we received suggest that IACUCs are actually overly inclusive and requiring reviews (and reporting) for methods that do not involve any of those three conditions.
  3. Fern Davies
    Please visit the new and improved BIRDNET. We continue to add new resources and update information. Added today: an important animal welfare document for wildlife biologists and their IACUCS And a downloadable Pennsyvlania permit application.
  4. Fern Davies
    More information about "BIRDNET- new, improved...and essential for ornithologists"
    the website of the Ornithological Council - has been providing information to ornithologists for the past 20 years with the generous hosting of the National Museum of Natural History. It's finally time to leave that nest and strike out on our own, so you can now find us right here: https://birdnet.org/ We have transferred all the content but we are still working on updating some content. The new site already features: Updates for all 50 state permitting pages The new literature review on the impacts of small unmanned aircraft on birds Of course, you will also find: Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research The Model Wildlife Protocol And much more, including the OC newsBRIEF, outlining all the work that OC does by and for ornithologists! BIRDNET is provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 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!
  5. Fern Davies
    More information about "Thinking of using SUA to study birds in the U.S.? Read this first!"
    This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 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 24 January 2018, the Ornithological Council (OC) submitted a petition for rulemaking to the U.S. Department of the Interior, asking that the USFWS re-write its regulations pertaining to the Airborne Hunting Act. Earlier in the month, OC asked the Office of the Solicitor to advise the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), other federal agencies, and the state agencies that this activity is not subject to the Airborne Hunting Act. OC also asked that if the Solicitor determines that the use of drones to study wildlife is subject to the AHA, that the Solicitor address the need for permits, and specifically federal permits, given the lack of state laws pertaining to drone use for wildlife research and monitoring. In support of that request, OC submitted the entire legislative history of the AHA, a comprehensive review of the state laws pertaining to drones, and a critical literature review. The requested rulemaking is needed because under current regulations, the USFWS actually prohibits itself from issuing permits under the AHA, except in very limited circumstances. It was thought in 1972 (when the AHA was enacted) that the states would develop their own airborne hunting regulations. Most have done so but those laws pertain only to actual hunting and only to game species;. Some states reiterate the exemption language of the AHA regulations but, as explained below, that exemption is unclear at best as to scientific research and monitoring generally. More specifically, it is not clear if the exemption is limited to state and federal agencies and their contractors. Only a few states allow use of drones for research and monitoring to some extent. Therefore, if the Solicitor determines that the use of drones for wildlife research is covered by the AHA, permits would be needed and a single federal permit would be far more efficient and practical than waiting for dozens of states to promulgate their own statutes and regulations, particularly in the case of states that already have statutory restrictions on drone use that would have to be amended. It would also allow researchers to obtain a single permit for research and monitoring to take place in more than one state. The petition asked that the USFWS issue permits for SUA use for ornithological study under existing MBTA regulations rather than establishing a new permit, which would be time-consuming. Obviously, such a permit would be needed for other taxa but allowing the use of MBTA permits for ornithological research would avert that delay. NOTE: The critical literature review has been published as an addendum to Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research and is now available on the new OC website. If you are writing your animal care protocol, it should be very helpful to you and your IACUC. More background, for those who want to know... The AHA originated with a 1969 television documentary about airborne hunting of wolves in Alaska. In response to the ensuing public outcry, two congressmen sponsored legislation to ban the practice of hunting from aircraft. The legislation was intended to address hunting and nothing other than hunting. As is the ordinary practice in the legislative process, federal agencies with an interest in the subject were consulted. The Department of the Interior (DOI) raised concerns that the statute might prohibit scientific research. In response to that concern, the language of the bill was revised to include an exemption for persons operating under a license or permit of, any State or the United States to administer or protect or aid in the administration or protection of land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops. As the legislative history (below) makes clear, this exemption addressed DOI’s concern that the language of the bill as introduced might prohibit research by private universities, institutions, and foundations. At the first hearing on H.R. 15188, Leslie Glasgow (then Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife, Parks, and Natural Resources) voiced the objection of the Department of the Interior to enactment of the several bills introduced to prohibit airborne hunting. He explained: Among are objections are the scope of their language and their form as an amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. Though we do not anticipate that enactment would hamper the conduct of most airborne research activity undertaken by employees of the States or Federal Government, such research by a private university, institution, or foundation would be curtailed. However, the bill does not clearly exempt governmental employees engaged in duties other than those associated with the administration or protection of land, water, or wildlife (16 March 1970 hearing, p. 23). That the statute does not prohibit the use of aircraft for research activities is unequivocally supported by the statement of co-sponsor of H.R. 15188, Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI) when the original legislation came to the House floor in 1970: Mr. Speaker, the substantive objections to this legislation have been met. It will not prohibit research by university or other personnel. It is flexible enough to allow either State or Federal authorities to issue permits which will exempt persons from the prohibitions provided for in the bill (116 Cong. Rec. 40205; 7 December 1970). Unfortunately, the actual language of the bill, as enacted, failed to express that clear intent to exempt non-governmental scientific research from the statutory prohibitions. The definitions failed to stated that “administer[ing] or protect[ing] or aid[ing] in the administration or protection of land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops” was intended to include scientific research and monitoring. The lack of specificity in the statutory language has resulted in uncertainty as to the application of the exemption to research and monitoring. Given this uncertainty, many state wildlife agencies and FWS officials seem to err on the side of caution and determine that aircraft (manned or unmanned) can be used only by state agencies or contractors of state agencies.
  6. Fern Davies
    Bird Research is a peer-reviewed annual journal on birds written in Japanese with an English summary. It started in 2005. An article is posted on our website as soon as it is accepted to the journal. The journal is interested in studies on all aspects of bird biology with an emphasis on those based on field work and conducive to conservation. It also welcomes the observation records by amateur ornithologists or birders that contribute to the knowledge of bird distribution in the Far East and the eastern Pacific Ocean. The types of articles include: original research paper, short research paper, review, technical report, opinion, research data sets open for public use.
  7. Fern Davies
    More information about "New DOI Policy steers grants to Administration priorities"
    This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 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! In May 2017, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke took action that delayed the issuance of all planned FY 2017 grants and cooperative agreements in the amount of $100,000 or more. Now, as reported by the Washington Post, the Department of the Interior has issued a new policy that steers all grants to 10 priorities of the Administration. The policy instructs staff to ensure that awards to outside groups “promote the priorities” of the Trump administration. This politicization of grants follows that now in place at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has instituted a system requiring that a political appointee in the public affairs office sign off on each grant before it is awarded. Scott J. Cameron, Interior’s principal deputy assistant secretary for policy, management and budget, instructed other assistant secretaries and bureau and office heads to submit most grants and cooperative agreements for approval by one of his aides. Those include any award of at least $50,000 “to a non-profit organization that can legally engage in advocacy” or “to an institution of higher education.” These reviews are unrelated to the merit of the potential grant and worse, the Congress established and funded these programs for particular purposes. Re-directing them to fulfill political goals unrelated to those Congressional mandates may be illegal, according to former deputy secretary of the Interior David Hayes. He explained that under the Clinton and Obama administrations, "“... we recognized that government contract processes are complex, and that political interference would sully the integrity of contracting processes that applicants have a right to expect are governed with fairness, impartiality, and integrity as their guide.” The policy also threatened Interior employees who fail to comply. A sentence that is bolded as well as italicized warns that employees who defy the directive will be subject to even stricter oversight as a result. “Instances circumventing the Secretarial priorities or the review process will cause greater scrutiny and will result in slowing down the approval process for all awards.” Interior has already ordered the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to halt two studies that conflict with the administration’s goal of expanding domestic fossil fuel production. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ), top Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources opined, "“This grant approval process looks like a backdoor way to stop funds going to legitimate scientific and environmental projects.” He added, “Using the federal grant process to punish scientists doing important work because they disagree with that philosophy is unacceptable, and there’s good reason to think that’s what’s really happening here.” View attachment: Interior-guidance-for-fiscal-2018-grants.pdf View attachment: InteriorGrantPriorities2018.pdf
  8. Fern Davies
    More information about "DOI green lights preventable mass avian mortality"
    This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 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! Late Friday afternoon, just before the long Christmas weekend, the (*&%(%( Administration dumped a lump of coal on the birds protected under the Migratory Bird Act when it released a 41-page opinion from the Office of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior declaring that "consistent with the text, history, and purpose of the MBTA, the statute's prohibitions on pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, or attempting to do the same apply only to affirmative actions that have as their purpose the taking or killing of migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs." This statement (attached), written by Koch alumnus Daniel Jorjani, who was appointed principal deputy solicitor in May 2017, reverses a solicitor's opinion issued on 10 January 2017 (the last gasp of the Obama administration) that concluded just the opposite - that the MBTA's prohibitions on taking and killing migratory birds apply broadly to any activity, subject to the limits of proximate causation, and are not limited to certain factual contexts. Therefore, these prohibitions can and do apply to direct incidental take." In recent years, numerous industries have been charged with violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) when their otherwise lawful activities resulted in the deaths of bird species protected under that law. Telecommunications companies, power transmission companies, wind energy producers, and others paid fines, despite the fact that the law is unsettled as to whether the MBTA applies to what is called "incidental take." The MBTA is silent on the issue, as might be expected of a law enacted in 1918 and motivated both by the slaughter of birds for the millinery trade and the unrestricted hunting of game birds. No one thought about the deaths of birds that might result from otherwise lawful activities. And until the 1990s, no one thought to try to hold industries liable for incidental take under the MBTA. A series of federal court cases brought by NGOs and later, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, arose out of concern about the impact of activities such as logging, electricity transmission, oil and other chemical waste pits, telecommunications towers, and wind turbines. In 1997, a conservation organization tried to stop timber sales because the logging would result in the deaths of migratory birds. The court rejected that argument. In other cases, however, the court held that the MBTA is a strict liability statute (meaning that intent is irrelevant) and that if the industries had been given adequate notice that the deaths were occurring as a result of their actions, they were then legally responsible for subsequent bird kills. At this point, three federal appellate courts have ruled that the MBTA does not cover incidental take and two federal appellate courts have ruled that the law applies to any activity that has the direct effect of killing or injuring a migratory bird. Only the Supreme Court can resolve this "split among the circuits" and only the most fool-hardy NGO would dare risk taking a case to this Supreme Court. In fact, there is also considerable legal uncertainty about whether "private citizen" lawsuits are allowable under the MBTA. The uncertainty allowed the USFWS to entice industries to enter into discussions about mitigating or reducing avian mortality, with the proposition that if the industries developed practices to reduce mortality, they would not face prosecution so long as they implemented their own practices. It was a flabby carrot and a small stick, but the potential for prosecution and an adverse outcome was sufficient for some industries. This strategy worked fairly well with the electricity transmission industry, which worked with the USFWS under the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. That model did not work so well with the telecommunications industry or with wind turbine development. Eventually, near the close of the Obama administration, the USFWS attempted to develop a comprehensive policy pertaining to incidental take, despite the legal uncertainty. That effort, which almost certainly would have resulted in litigation, was initiated far too late in the second term to have had any hope of completion and, even if completed, would almost certainly have been reversed by the current administration. Ultimately, the effort resulted in that last-minute opinion from the solicitor which was destined to be ignored, if not overturned entirely by the (P8(*^(^^ Administration. And so it has come to pass that there is now a formal, written policy that has no more legal basis than its predecessor, all to make official something that was NEVER going to happen anyway. This (*&)(*&)( was NEVER going to prosecute any industry for even the most egregious conduct resulting in the take of migratory birds.
  9. Fern Davies
    More information about "Serious threat to Migratory Bird Treaty Act"
    This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 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! WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN: https://www.house.gov/representatives/ WRITE YOUR SENATOR: https://www.senate.g...nators/contact/ In recent years, numerous industries have been charged with violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) when their otherwise lawful activities resulted in the deaths of bird species protected under that law. Telecommunications companies, power transmission companies, wind energy producers, and others paid fines, despite the fact that the law is unsettled as to whether the MBTA applies to what is called "incidental take." During the Obama administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS) developed a policy pertaining to the wind industry that offered permits to the industry for incidental take in exchange for the use of mitigation measures and oversight. Later, the USFWS attempted to develop a comprehensive policy pertaining to incidental take, despite the legal uncertainty. That effort, which almost certainly would have resulted in litigation, was initiated far too late in the second term to have had any hope of completion and, even if completed, would almost certainly have been reversed by the current administration. The potential for industry pushback in the form of attempts to persuade Congress to change the MBTA has always been a concern and now, it is more than a potential. The oil and gas industries and others would have a complete and full pass should legislation sponsored by Steve Scalise (R-LA) become law. That legislation, known as the SECURE American Energy Act, includes this provision, SEC. 207. CLARIFICATION REGARDING LIABILITY UNDER MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT. Section 6 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 707) is amended by adding at the end of the following: ‘‘(e) This Act shall not be construed to prohibit any activity proscribed by section 2 of this Act that is accidental or incidental to the presence or operation of an otherwise lawful activity.’’. This amendment was offered by Liz Cheney (R-AK) during the mark-up. It will strip the USFWS of any leverage it has to push industries to use best practices (siting, technology, etc.) to minimize or eliminate incidental take. The bill is problematic for other reasons. It would encourage offshore drilling by distributing revenues from oil and gas leasing on the outer Continental Shelf to certain coastal States, requiring sale of approved offshore oil and gas leases, promoting offshore wind lease sales, and empowering States to manage the development and production of oil and gas on available Federal land, and for other purposes. At the same time, the Department of the Interior published a report of the burden of DOI actions that "potentially burden domestic energy."
  10. Fern Davies
    More information about "YOU DID IT! TUITION REMISSION WILL NOT BE TAXED!"
    This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 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! If the tax bill were to pass unchanged, roughly 145,000 graduate students could be responsible for suddenly paying taxes on the thousands of dollars in waivers that cover their tuition. https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16619246/tax-bill-trump-gop-cuts-and-jobs-act-graduate-students-tuition-waiver-reductions https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/07/the-gop-tax-plan-will-destroy-graduate-education/#3fda66ac3d2f In addition, the Republican tax plan now under consideration eliminates the tax-free status of employer tuition reimbursements, up to $5,250 a year. Higher education groups are already voicing opposition to this and other features of the bill that would increase the cost of higher education. It also proposes taxing some private college endowments, which would discourage contributions to those endowments. Republicans proposed a 1.4-percent tax on the endowments of private colleges that enroll more than 500 students and that have nest eggs of more than $100,000 per student. The proposal would generate an estimated $3 billion over 10 years.' [update 11/8: In the markup, the committee changed this to institutions with assets of $250,000 per enrolled student or more, vs. the $100,000 threshold in the initial bill]. Is your college/university on the list? https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/EndowmentPerStudent And, as fewer people would itemize their deductions under this bill, it would likely the lead to a steep decline in donations to colleges. More info: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/11/07/grad-students-and-policy-experts-say-taxing-graduate-students-tuition-waivers-would Update 11/9: A strong argument from conservative George Will: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-republicans-take-aim-at-academic-excellence/2017/11/08/eb8e9056-c4af-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html?utm_term=.086e2ed58af4 WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN: https://www.house.gov/representatives/ WRITE YOUR SENATOR: https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/
  11. Fern Davies
    More information about "Endangered Species Act legislation moving through House"
    This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 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! UPDATE 2I SEPT: Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has introduced S.1863, to clarify that noncommercial species found entirely within the borders of a single State are not in interstate commerce or subject to regulation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 or any other provision of law enacted as an exercise of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. A lower federal court in Utah ruled in 2014 that that there was no Constitutional basis for the exercise of federal authority in such instances but that ruling was overturned by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2017. A request for a re-hearing "en banc" (a three-judge panel) was denied in August. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, although John Roberts, the current Chief Justice, hinted in a dissent he wrote when he was a lower court judge that a species found in only one state does not affect interstate commerce. Editorial note: Clearly, he's not a birder and doesn't know that thousands of people travel across the country to see rarities or species that occur in only one state. On 12 Sept 2017, the House Natural Resources Committee marked up and advanced five bills that would weaken the Endangered Species Act. House Chair Rob Bishop (R-UT) has said he would like to eliminate the ESA entirely. The bills considered last week are just a start. H.R. 717 (The Listing Reform Act) introduced by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) would require consideration of the economic costs of protecting an animal or plant on the endangered species list and remove all deadlines for completing the listing process. H.R. 1274 (the State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and Recovery Act), introduced by Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) would deem any information submitted by a state or local government to qualify as “best available” science even if inaccurate, out-of-date, fraudulent, incomplete, or otherwise faulty, and without any merit review. H.R. 3131 (the Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act), introduced by Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) would discourage citizen enforcement and participation in the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. It would award attorneys fees to the prevailing party, contrary to the general rule in the United States that each party pays its own attorneys fees, regardless of outcome. H.R. 2603 (the Saving America's Endangered Species or SAVES Act), introduced by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) would bar ESA protection for non-native species that are present in the U.S. H.R. 424 (the Gray Wolf State Management Act), introduced by Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) would reinstate a 2011 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove federal protections for gray wolves in the western Great Lakes states. In 2017 a federal appellate court upheld a decision by a district court judge that the delisting decision was legally flawed and affirmed that wolves still needed protection. The legislation would invalidate these two court opinions and preclude all judicial review into the future. The Natural Resources Committee also considered H.R. 3668, the “SHARE Act,” which would also end federal protections for gray wolves in the western Great Lakes states, create an enormous loophole for polar bear trophy hunting and restrict the ability of the EPA to address lead pollution from fishing gear.. Since January congressional Republicans have launched 50 legislative attacks against the Endangered Species Act or particular endangered species. To keep track of this legislation and other legislation of interest to ornithologists, visit the Ornithological Council legislative database.
  12. Fern Davies
    More information about "BirdsCaribbean Hurricane Relief Fund"
    Please help BirdsCaribbean to help its members and partners working to protect birds and restore habitat on the islands that suffered the devastation of Irma’s catastrophic force. https://www.razoo.com/story/Birdscaribbean-Hurricane-Relief They desperately need your support as Hurricane Maria heads towards them. Irma's carnage is heartbreaking. Video from Cuba’s northern Cays shows thousands of flamingos that were killed outright by this intense storm. Dead fish lay amongst dead and dying flamingos whose graceful wings, legs and necks were damaged beyond repair. In Barbuda,aerial footage reveals complete environmental disaster. Barbuda’s Codrington Lagoon, a RAMSAR site that hosted the region’s largest colony of Magnificent Frigatebirds (approx. 2,500 pairs), was breached. On Barbuda, satellite imagery shows us that Irma destroyed almost all the vegetation that small birds need to escape the winds. We do not know if the endemic Barbuda Warbler, a Near Threatened species has survived. Our colleagues have already returned to conduct assessments on the island but their first surveys have found no warblers nor any West Indian Whistling-Ducks! You can help right now as we work to protect the birds, habitats, and island communities. We are supporting our partner organizations, stabilizing their lives and operations so people can return to the critical post-Irma conservation work. Your donation is crucial as Hurricane Maria roars through these islands.
  13. Fern Davies
    More information about "Are you a concerned scientist? Read this ASAP (deadline 9/26)"
    http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/ Twenty-five years ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists and more than 1500 independent scientists, including the majority of living Nobel laureates in the sciences, penned the 1992 “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” (see supplemental materials). These concerned professionals called on humankind to curtail environmental destruction and cautioned that “a great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided.” In their manifesto, they showed that humans were on a collision course with the natural world. They expressed concern about current, impending, or potential damage on planet Earth involving ozone depletion, freshwater availability, marine fishery collapses, ocean dead zones, forest loss, biodiversity destruction, climate change, and continued human population growth. They proclaimed that fundamental changes were urgently needed to avoid the consequences our present course would bring. The authors of the 1992 declaration feared that humanity was pushing Earth’s ecosystems beyond their capacities to support the web of life. They described how we are fast approaching many of the limits of what the planet can tolerate without substantial and irreversible harm. The scientists pleaded that we stabilize the human population, describing how our large numbers— swelled by another 2 billion people since 1992, a 35 percent increase—exert stresses on Earth that can overwhelm other efforts to realize a sustainable future (Crist et al. 2017). They implored that we cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and phase out fossil fuels, reduce deforestation, and reverse the trend of collapsing biodiversity. On the 25th anniversary of their call, we look back at their warning and evaluate the human response by exploring available time-series data. Since 1992, with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse (figure 1, supplemental table S1). Especially troubling is the current trajectory of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change due to rising GHGs from burning fossil fuels (Hansen et al. 2013), deforestation (Keenan et al. 2015), and agricultural production— particularly from farming ruminants for meat consumption (Ripple et al. 2014). Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to extinction by the end of this century. Full text: http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/Ripple_et_al_%209-14-17%20Scientists%20main%20text.pdf
  14. Fern Davies
    More information about "Numerous bird-related regulations appear to be extinct"
    Regulations. The current U.S. administration would like to toss the entire Code of Federal Regulations into the dumpster. In their anti-regulatory zeal, they have already ditched several that would have affected ornithological research (some, for the better) and another that might have had a major impact in protecting migratory birds. This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 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! Though agency staff had hinted that these regulations might be 86'd, nothing was official until the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (of the White House Office of Management and Budget) released the updated Unified Agenda of Regulatory Actions (now named the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions). This unified agenda tracks the progress towards completion of all regulatory matters moving through the agency regulatory process. Several regulations that had been pending - one since 2004 and another since 2010 - have dropped off the agenda and don't even appear on the inactive list or the long-term action list (items under development but for which the agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months after publication of this edition of the Unified Agenda). The absence of these regulations means that the agencies have been instructed by the White House to refrain from pursuing them. Among the missing is the USFWS regulation that would have controlled the incidental take of migratory birds via a new permit program. Unfortunately, the USFWS was unable to complete the process prior to the end of the second Obama term. The new administration placed a hold on all new regulations (not uncommon) pending review. The Ornithological Council expected that this effort would not survive review as this administration is hostile to regulations generally and particularly those that impose constraints on industry. Under an administration that was willing to prosecute industry for incidental take of migratory birds, the permits would have given industry a degree of assurance that if they complied with permit conditions, they would avoid prosecution. It gave the agency an opportunity to require "best practices" and/or mitigation as a condition of the permit. However, under an administration that is unlikely to prosecute industry for anything, these permits would have been an unwelcome burden. The regular update of the CITES regulations has also been terminated. This is puzzling in that the U.S. is a party to the CITES treaty and has therefore committed to implementing it within the U.S. After each Conference of the Parties, the regulations must be updated to incorporate changes made at the Conference. The most recent update was issued in 2012 and there have been two Conferences (2013 and 2016) since then. Presumably, the administration will eventually allow the USFWS to update this regulation because it is necessary to honor a commitment, but given this administration's antipathy towards foreign agreements, it might even foreshadow a potential withdrawal from CITES. Meanwhile, this is a disappointment for the ornithological community because the USFWS had determined that it would respond to a petition filed by the Ornithological Council in 2014 to suspend or terminate a problematic requirement called "validation." In that this regulation is now gone, the OC will re-file the petition. Ironically, as it would remove a regulatory burden, it is possible that the administration will allow it to proceed. Also gone is the conservation education permit regulation, languishing since 2010. This regulation was of importance to ornithologists because it would have allowed "citizen salvage" - something the bird collections community has long sought. The Ornithological Council pressed for this provision for many years and was disappointed that the USFWS did not move forward to finalize the regulation, largely as a result of staffing shortages. Over at the USDA, a major change in policy took place in 2004 when the agency decided, as a result of litigation, that it would begin to regulate rats, mice, and birds used in research (the law exempted "purpose-bred rats, mice, and birds so the agency rule would have affected other birds bred in captivity but not for the purpose of research, wild birds brought into captivity, and wild birds studied in the field). The agency began the process of developing regulatory standards by way of an advanced notice of public rulemaking, asking the stakeholders and the public for input as to what and how to regulate. Nothing more was heard until December 2011, when the agency announced that the proposed regulation was on hold pending an assessment of the agency's resources for implementing the rule. Nothing more has been heard since then. For all practical purposes, this regulation would have had little impact on those studying wild birds because it was unlikely that the agency would have attempted to oversee such research. However, it would have impacted those studying wild birds in captivity. The update to the bird banding regulations has been placed on the inactive list (no agency activity is likely to occur within the next 12 months). However, this status is due to roadblocks that the Bird Banding Lab has encountered in its attempts (since 2008) to update the regulations, including a determination by the Department of Interior in 2015 that a National Environmental Policy Analysis was required. More recently, an unresolved dilemma pertaining to the inadvertent capture of Endangered Species has prevented completion of these regulations. The Ornithological Council has continued to track the situation and is convinced that the BBL is working diligently to address these issues. However, it is still worrisome in that many of the changes that are likely to have been incorporated would be useful to ornithologists. Two other regulations continue to move towards completion. The first is the Wild Bird Conservation Act. The specifics of this update are not known. When the regulations were first published, only CITES species were listed and exemptions for certain CITES species were granted. However, the law applies to all non-native species unless exempted. It is possible that the USFWS is now working on listing non-native species and exemptions. More important is an update to the section of the regulation that exempts "dead museum specimens, dead scientific specimens, products manufactured from such birds." In 2016, the USFWS apparently determined that these terms were not defined with sufficient precision and that it therefore might be necessary to obtain WBCA permits for such imports. It is hoped that the USFWS is addressing this problem in the regulatory revisions, though the Ornithological Council has suggested that this is more an implementation problem that could be addressed via guidance to the ports. The Ornithological Council has also suggested a variety of ways to implement any regulatory revision so as to minimize additional burden on ornithologists. Finally, the USFWS Division of Law Enforcement is moving forward with two regulations of concern to ornithologists. The first is the "fee rule" which has been in preparation for over a year and is likely to be proposed for public comment by the end of this year. Expect all fees to increase. Also moving forward is the rule pertaining to import, export, and transport of wildlife. Much of this update is intended to incorporate changes necessitated by the implementation of a government-wide import declaration system called ACE. It will also clarify or revise other procedures. The Ornithological Council is glad to see this rule moving forward because it will address issues raised by our 2014 petition to the Division of Law Enforcement that were of concern to the ornithological community.
  15. Fern Davies
    Update July 2017. Migratory Bird Incidental Take policy appears to be six feet under In May 2015, the USFWS published a notice that it intended to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement evaluating the impact of a new permit and policy that would allow but limit the take of bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The basic concept rested on an acknowledgment that ordinary human activities do result in the unintentional take of these birds but due to legal uncertainty, the USFWS had limited ability to prosecute such take. The permit system would have allowed the take subject to requirements imposed by the agency. Most notably, this would have included requirements for avoidance and mitigation measures. Unfortunately, the USFWS was unable to complete the process prior to the end of the second Obama term. The new administration placed a hold on all new regulations (not uncommon) pending review. The Ornithological Council expected that this effort would be 86'd after review as this administration is hostile to regulations generally and particularly those that impose constraints on industry. Indeed, it now appears that this regulatory effort is officially dead. Although the administration has yet to publish the spring 2017 regulatory agenda (a compilation of all new regulations and regulatory revisions that are at some stage of development or approval), agency staff and others have confirmed that the USFWS has been instructed to refrain from resuming its work on this regulation and it has, or will soon be, removed from the regulatory agenda.
  16. Fern Davies
    More information about "Fifty-eighth supplement to the American Ornithological Society’s Check-list of North American Birds"
    The Committee on Classification and Nomenclature of North and Middle American Birds has published the 17th supplement to the seventh edition of the Checklist of North American Birds. The full supplement is available online As always, the NACC giveth new species and taketh away. In addition to remembering new names (after blurting out the old names from years of habit), you've got to remember how to spell LeConte's (no space between the Le and the Conte). Sandpipers and finches have been re-sequenced. And no surprise - the Yellow-breasted Chat is not a warbler; it is now in its own family. Proposals and discussions explain the rationale for each decision.
  17. Fern Davies
    A new meeting has been added to the =1']Ornithology Meetings database. Meeting Description: PIF VI will be in San Jose Costa Rica October 30 to November 3 this year. http://pifconference.com/ is up and running and now has a link to registration. All abstracts are due June 30, and early registration ends July 31. Information and deadlines for travel support should be sent out next week. The deadline will be in July. There may not be enough money to support much travel for participants from the US and Canada, but having money for travel support should improve attendance from Mesoamerica. Sorry for the radio silence, but everything has just come together! Please forward to anyone who hasn’t already received two or three copies of this. Some of you might perhaps be under the misapprehension that it would be OK to skip the upcoming Partners in Flight International Conference, but of course you would be wrong. The main reason to attend is that the conference is being held in conjunction with the XXIst Congress of the Mesoamerican Society for Biology and Conservation (SMBC). To my mind, the major advance in conservation biology over the past two decades or so has been the emergence of well trained and highly talented and dedicated professionals in Latin America and the Caribbean. More than 500 of them (including many professionals-in-training, also known as students) are expected to attend SMBC XXI and PIF VI. We are all alerted to the importance of full annual life cycle biology and conservation of migratory birds. To be successful in this endeavor, we need to greatly increase our partnerships with our colleagues south of our border. This meeting is a great way to make that happen. In addition, the timing of the meeting provides the opportunity to see for yourself how Nearctic breeding birds interact with Neotropical residents during the nonbreeding season. The most important reason to attend is that both PIF and SMBC are putting together a great program. I will send you here www.congresosmbc.org to learn more about the SMBC program. Suffice it to say that it greatly broadens the variety of topics that we are used to seeing covered in a North American bird or wildlife meeting. We have attracted 21 symposia for this meeting, producing concerns among several key leaders that we have over-programmed the event. Your attendance will guarantee the conclusion that all this effort will go together to produce a memorable and impactful event with just the right amount of material presented. For those of you who can’t get enough of Partners in Flight Business Conservation Planning (sometimes referred to as Investment Strategies), you will be glad to know that several symposia will be devoted to aspects of that planning. Our colleagues Alaine Camfield, Ruth Bennett, Randy Dettmers are building an all-day symposium on “Improving conservation implementation: integrating single species and ecosystem conservation initiatives.” The morning will be devoted to single-species initiatives focused on Wood Thrush and Canada, Golden-winged, and Cerulean Warblers. The group will meet as a whole to promote collaboration among these initiatives. The afternoon will include updates from the Southern Mexico/Central America and the Central and South America Highlands Conservation Business Plans and roundtable discussions focused on promoting projects within those plans. Claudia Macias Caballero is organizing a group to report on “Thirteen years of collaboration to preserve the Golden-cheeked Warbler and Mesoamerican Pine-Oak Forest” and to show how a single-species focus can still produce habitat-wide conservation benefits across Mesoamerican countries. To promote conservation in a different habitat type, Carol Beardmore, Edwin Juarez, and Sarah Otterstrom will foster increased Central American participation in “Conserving birds across the tropical deciduous forest and mangrove habitats of Western Mexico and Central America.” Taking a slightly different approach to single-species conservation, John Alexander and Sarahy Contreras Martinez will be convening a group to begin summarizing the “State of Rufous Hummingbird conservation and science” throughout its full annual cycle. Hummingbirds will be well covered at the conference. Susan Wethington and Maria del Coro Arizmendi are organizing a full day symposium on “Hummingbirds in a changing world: Why hummingbird conservation matters!” They have invited the leading hummingbird researchers in Mexico, the United States, and beyond to present their research. In the afternoon, three panel discussions will work towards developing hummingbird conservation programs. To approach business conservation planning from another angle, John Alexander will offer a workshop on “Developing projects and project proposals within a conservation planning framework”, recommending the use of the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation to identify threats and conservation strategies. His objective is to arm participants with products that can be used to develop funding proposals for their projects. A very timely symposium offering is “Migration Stopover in the Neotropics: Filling a Black Hole in Full Annual Cycle Conservation” organized by Ken Rosenberg, Nick Bayly, Wendy Easton, and Keith Hobson. They will have presentations from ongoing research highlighting new insights, emerging patterns, and opportunities for collaborations. In addition, they will show how stopover results help motivate large-scale conservation efforts and promote the use of Neotropical Flyways protocols in Mesoamerica. Even long before the emphasis on full annual cycle, we have been promoting long-term research projects because of extensive inter-annual variability. Luckily, Ghisselle M. Alvarado Quesada has organized a symposium to report on Costa Rican projects under the title “Ornithological Diversity in Tropical Ecosystems: Long-term Studies”. For me, one of the highlights will be the country-by-country rollout of the Central American Species Assessment organized by Luis Sandoval, Viviana Ruiz, and Arvind Panjabi. The assessment is done and is expected to lead to a “Central American State of the Birds Report” so this will be an excellent chance for you to hear from the leading experts for each Central American county on the status of all their birds using Partners in Flight criteria. A similar treat will be an ambitious all-day symposium on “Bird Conservation in Mexico” organized by Ernesto Ruelas Inzunza and Efraín Castillejos Castellanos that is designed to build towards an integrated national conservation strategy. Two symposia will highlight successes of widespread bird conservation networks. “International collaboration and capacity building to conserve our shared birds”, organized by Jaime Stephens, covers a number of projects mainly involved in research and monitoring, but also a few habitat conservation programs. On the other hand, Andrew Rothman is leading a group that is primarily focused on habitat conservation and management under the rubric “Bird Conservation through Green Investments - Creating effective BirdScapes for Migratory Birds”. Thanks to Sue Bonfield, Lily Briggs, Jody Enck, and Oliver Komar, we have three strong educational symposia planned. Sue is organizing “Engaging Communities in Conservation” that will cover eight international education and outreach programs. Lily will offer “Detectives de Aves-Internacional: Aves de mi Mundo”, an educational program from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology that is already in widespread use in Costa Rica. Jody and Oliver will introduce us to the “Sister Bird Club Network – Linking Birders through Neotropical Migratory Birds”, which is already underway, especially in Honduras. Our colleagues at the Museo Nacional de Costa Rica have organized two symposia focused on research tools. “Ornithological Collections”, organized by Ghisselle M. Alvarado Quesada, includes two collections in Costa Rica and one each in Colombia, Panama, and the USA. “On-line tools for data management, research and education in Ornithology” organized by Silvia Bolanos should open our eyes to the many resources available through the Internet. As has become standard, Partners in Flight is not just for landbirds. Our friends in the waterbird world are bringing us two symposia and a two-day workshop. “Priorities for shorebird conservation in Mesoamerica” by Isadora Angarita-Martínez and Rob Clay will lead a group to talk about the application of the Atlantic and Pacific shorebird plans and the Americas Flyways Framework to Mesoamerican shorebird work, with some specific site-based examples. In addition, Rob Clay, Diana Eusse, and Matt Reiter have organized “Multi-National Monitoring Programs for Waterbirds in Central America – Building a regional baseline for conservation action” to promote a typical Partners in Flight goal: coordinating monitoring programs to provide a coherent picture that motivates conservation. Finally, Alfredo Alvarez is assembling a group of experts for “Expanding and Enhancing Conservation Efforts of Reddish Egret into Mesoamerica”. They are organizing two days of planning and coordinating during our meeting. It’s quite a program! See you in Costa Rica! Greg Butcher Migratory Species Coordinator Forest Service International Programs p: 202-644-4551 c: 202-617-8259 f: 202-644-4603 gsbutcher@fs.fed.us 1 Thomas Circle NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 www.fs.fed.us Caring for the land and serving people Meeting Website: http://pifconference.com/ Click here to view the meeting
  18. Fern Davies
    A new meeting has been added to the =1']Ornithology Meetings database. Meeting Description: WESTERN BIRD BANDING ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETING CAVE JUNCTION, OREGON September 28 – October 1, 2017 The Western Bird Banding Association is pleased to invite you to our annual meeting, in scenic Cave Junction near Oregon Caves National Monument in the Illinois Valley. We have selected the Siskiyou Field Institute in south-western Oregon as the venue (www.thesfi.org). The Institute is renowned for its lovely accommodations in beautiful, wild and rural surroundings. The birds and banding opportunities are fantastic. Nearby Deer Creek has a bird-rich mist net station that will provide many birds for training and enjoyment. The Institute is just a short drive from the quaint town of Cave Junction, Oregon. What to Expect: The meeting will include demonstrations and workshops on a diverse array of bird research, banding, data management, and analysis of banding data. In addition, there will be an Advanced Molt and Ageing Workshop led by renowned molt expert, Jared Wolfe. Evenings will include catered meals, campfires and live music as well as special sessions. Updates from banders in Brazil, Mexico and Costa Rica will also be featured. Details for speakers and workshops will soon be finalized and announced on the WBBA website. A NABC training session and evaluation will be held by accomplished NABC trainers, including Kim Hollinger, Bob Frey and banders from Brazil, Luiza Figueroa and Pedro Martins. Online registration and submission of papers, posters, and demonstrations will be at the WBBA web site. www.westernbirdbanding.org/ and will be due by September 1. Meals and food will be delicious buffet style meals catered from local Illinois Valley sources featuring organic and local foods, beer, and wine. Facilities at the Siskiyou Field Institute include unlimited primitive camp sites, two group yurts with bunk beds, dorm rooms, a state-of-the-art solar bathhouse, and a covered picnic pavilion. The Institute provides a hostel-style kitchen and indoor classrooms for our meeting. Hotels in Cave Junction include several motels in a variety of price ranges. We will have arranged for a WBBA discount for attendees. Updated information will be posted on the WBBA website. Transportation: The closest airports are at Crescent City, California and Medford, Oregon, and rental cars are available. Exciting Silent and Live Auction: Do you have something to contribute to a silent or live auction? If so, please bring it to the meeting. All sorts of nature and bird-related items (pictures, books, traps, t-shirts, feeders, equipment, etc.) are welcomed as auction items. Come and share your extras, and have fun! Contact Information: for inquiries, email, wbbameeting2017@gmail.com PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE Updates will be posted on the WBBA website: www.westernbirdbanding.org/ Thursday, September 28, 2017 Registration Meet and Greet dinner and social Friday, September 29, 2017 All day -- Banding Demonstrations and Workshops Afternoon Board of Directors Meeting Guided bird watching tour around the Siskiyou Mountains. Saturday, September 30, 2017 All day -- Scientific Sessions starting with a Plenary Speaker Afternoon and evening poster session and social. Dinner and a keynote talk by John Alexander Sunday, October 1, 2017 NABC CERTIFICATION SESSION BEGINS Banding demonstrations Oregon Caves National Monument: cave exploring and birds in a world-famous setting Monday and Tuesday, October 2-3. NABC certification session continues This 850-acre property is situated at the gateway to the Illinois River Canyon – nestled up against the Siskiyou Mountains and overlooking the beautiful Deer Creek Valley. The Klamath-Siskiyous are the most biodiverse region in North America. Researchers from across the country come to Siskiyou Field Institute's property to investigate and learn about the rich biodiversity in the adjacent federal lands. Meeting Website: http://www.westernbirdbanding.org/ Click here to view the meeting
  19. Fern Davies
    More information about "Government moves to shut down or cripple federal natural resource agencies"
    This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 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! Under the pretext of efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability, the President signed an Executive Order on March 13 that directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to present the President with a plan that recommends ways to reorganize the executive branch and eliminate unnecessary agencies. The White House has now asked for public input as to which agencies should be eliminated or "reformed." Together with the drastic budget cuts proposed by the President's budget, the outcome of this public poll could have dire impacts on the ability of the federal agencies to protect our natural resources. Cynics might suggest that this - and not efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability - is the real purpose of this process. You can click NONE in each of the two categories (reform, eliminate). Meanwhile, the FY18-19 budget proposal sent to Congress on 23 May threatens to hamstring nearly every federal agency - which of course might impact effectiveness. Agency details will be provided on OE over the next several days. Although it is unlikely that Congress will agree to such drastic cuts, there is likely to be a reduction in funding for nearly every federal agency. NOW is the time to write to your members of Congress - repeatedly. Use their webforms (http://www.house.gov/representatives/ and https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/) and/or call. Make your contacts short and to the point and be polite.
  20. Fern Davies
    More information about "Concerned about preservation of National Monuments?"
    This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 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! Interior Department Releases List of Monuments Under Review, Announces First-Ever Formal Public Comment Period for Antiquities Act Monuments 5/5/2017 WASHINGTON – The Department of the Interior today announced the first ever formal public comment period for members of the public to officially weigh in on monument designations under the Antiquities Act of 1906, and the Department released a list of monuments under review under the President’s Executive Order 13792, issued April 26, 2017. A public comment period is not required for monument designations under the Antiquities Act; however, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke and President Trump both strongly believe that local input is a critical component of federal land management. Comment here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOI-2017-0002-0001 The Department of the Interior has published a notice in the Federal Register officially opening the public comment period. “The Department of the Interior is the steward of America’s greatest treasures and the manager of one-fifth of our land. Part of being a good steward is being a good neighbor and listening to the American people who we represent,” said Secretary Zinke. “Today’s action, initiating a formal public comment process finally gives a voice to local communities and states when it comes to Antiquities Act monument designations. There is no pre-determined outcome on any monument. I look forward to hearing from and engaging with local communities and stakeholders as this process continues.” Executive Order 13792 of April 26, 2017 (82 FR 20429, May 1, 2017), directs the Secretary of the Interior to review certain National Monuments designated or expanded under the Antiquities Act of 1906, 54 U.S.C. 320301-320303 (Act). Specifically, Section 2 of the Executive Order directs the Secretary to conduct a review of all Presidential designations or expansions of designations under the Antiquities Act made since January 1, 1996, where the designation covers more than 100,000 acres, where the designation after expansion covers more than 100,000 acres, or where the Secretary determines that the designation or expansion was made without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders, to determine whether each designation or expansion conforms to the policy set forth in section 1 of the order. Among other provisions, Section 1 states that designations should reflect the Act’s “requirements and original objectives” and “appropriately balance the protection of landmarks, structures, and objects against the appropriate use of Federal lands and the effects on surrounding lands and communities.” 82 FR 20429 (May 1, 2017). In making the requisite determinations, the Secretary is directed to consider: The National Monuments being initially reviewed are listed in the following tables: NATIONAL MONUMENTS BEING INITIALLY REVIEWED PURSUANT TO CRITERIA IN EXECUTIVE ORDER 13792 Monument Location Year(s) Acreage Basin and Range Nevada 2015 703,585 Bears Ears Utah 2016 1,353,000 Berryessa Snow Mountain California 2015 330,780 Canyons of the Ancients Colorado 2000 175,160 Carrizo Plain California 2001 204,107 Cascade Siskiyou Oregon 2000/2017 100,000 Craters of the Moon Idaho 1924/2000 737,525 Giant Sequoia California 2000 327,760 Gold Butte Nevada 2016 296,937 Grand Canyon-Parashant Arizona 2000 1,014,000 Grand Staircase-Escalante Utah 1996 1,700,000 Hanford Reach Washington 2000 194,450.93 Ironwood Forest Arizona 2000 128,917 Mojave Trails California 2016 1,600,000 Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks New Mexico 2014 496,330 Rio Grande del Norte New Mexico 2013 242,555 Sand to Snow California 2016 154,000 San Gabriel Mountains California 2014 346,177 Sonoran Desert Arizona 2001 486,149 Upper Missouri River Breaks Montana 2001 377,346 Vermilion Cliffs Arizona 2000 279,568 NATIONAL MONUMENTS BEING REVIEWED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DESIGNATION OR EXPANSION WAS MADE WITHOUT ADEQUATE PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COORDINATION WITH RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS Katahadin Woods and Waters Maine 2016 87,563 The Department of the Interior seeks public comments related to: (1) Whether national monuments in addition to those listed above should be reviewed because they were designated or expanded after January 1, 1996 “without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders;” and (2) the application of factors (i) through (vii) set forth above to the listed national monuments or to other Presidential designations or expansions of designations meeting the criteria of the Executive Order. With respect to factor (vii), comments should address other factors the Secretary might consider for this review. In a separate but related process, certain Marine National Monuments will also be reviewed. As directed by section 4 of Executive Order 13795 of April 28, 2017, “Implementing An America-First Offshore Energy Strategy” (82 FR 20815, May 3, 2017), the Department of Commerce will lead the review of the Marine National Monuments in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. To assist in that consultation, the Secretary will accept comments related to the application of factors (i) through (vii) in Executive Order 13792 as set forth above to the following Marine National Monuments: MARINE NATIONAL MONUMENTS BEING REVIEWED PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDERS 13795 AND 13792 Marianas Trench CNMI/Pacific Ocean 2009 60,938,240 Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Atlantic Ocean 2016 3,114,320 Pacific Remote Islands Pacific Ocean 2009 55,608,320 Papahanaumokuakea Hawaii/Pacific Ocean 2006/2016 89,600,000 Rose Atoll American Samoa/Pacific Ocean 2009 8,609,045
  21. Fern Davies
    More information about "Thinking of using geolocators? Read this first."
    Mixed effects of geolocators on reproduction and survival of Cerulean Warblers, a canopy-dwelling, long-distance migrant The Condor 119(2):289-297. 2017 Douglas W. Raybuck , Jeffrey L. Larkin , Scott H. Stoleson , and Than J. Boves Full text http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.1650/CONDOR-16-180.1 ABSTRACT Light-level geolocators, miniature devices used for tracking avian migration over the full annual cycle, are being widely deployed on small migratory passerines. However, the effects of carrying geolocators on the breeding biology of songbirds are unclear, and variable species- and guild-specific conclusions have been drawn regarding their effects on return rates (apparent annual survival). In particular, there is a lack of published information on the effects of geolocators on Nearctic–Neotropical migrant warblers and canopy-dwelling bird species, which limits our ability to determine whether this technology is appropriate for use on species within these groups. During 2014 and 2015, we deployed geolocators on 49 adult male Cerulean Warblers (Setophaga cerulea) in Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Arkansas, USA. We monitored the effects of geolocators across the full annual cycle by comparing apparent within-breeding-season survival (within-season ϕ), nestling provisioning rates, nest survival, and return rates between geolocator-tagged adult males and color-banded controls. We found no negative effects of geolocators during the breeding season of geolocator deployment, but the return rate of geolocator-tagged birds was lower than that of control birds (16% ± 5% vs. 35% ± 7%). We found no strong evidence that the differential return rate between the 2 groups was influenced by breeding region, body mass, bird age, year of geolocator deployment, or method of attachment. Although finding no effect of geolocators during the breeding season is encouraging, the lower return rate of geolocator-tagged birds warrants further investigation in the field. If further improvements in the design or attachment methods of geolocators are not technologically possible, the potential for increased mortality (or dispersal) of geolocator-tagged birds should be weighed against the potential conservation gains that could be made by identification of critical stopover, wintering, and breeding habitats for populations of interest.
  22. Fern Davies
    More information about "DOI contracts/grants on hold - OC needs to hear from you!"
    This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 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! Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke (Secretary) recently took action that will delay the issuance of of all planned FY 2017 grants and cooperative agreements in the amount of $100,000 or more. This requirement became effective on April 19, 2017 and applies to all financial assistance programs administered by the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program (WSFR) – this includes Wildlife Restoration, Sport Fish Restoration, State Wildlife Grant programs, and all other grant programs. Zinke's memo stated that the temporary measure is was intended "... to help me to understand the immense impact grants and cooperative agreements have on the mission delivery of the Department." DOI bureau heads and office directors were instructed to supply information to Deputy Secretary James Cason for review. It is not known how long "temporary" will be or the criteria by which the grants and cooperative agreements will be reviewed. If you are affected by this change (directly, or because you are working under such a grant or cooperative agreement to someone else), please contact the Ornithological Council immediately.
  23. Fern Davies
    A new meeting has been added to the =1']Ornithology Meetings database. Meeting Description: Call for papers is now open! The Scientific Program Committee and Local Organizing Committee have been working very hard on the conference program and logistics. We had had our share of challenges (anybody that has worked in Cuba can understand this!), but the meeting is shaping up to be a fantastic event that you will NOT want to miss. See the exciting sessions, workshops and symposia listed below - there are many learning opportunities as well as the chance to share your work and network with your colleagues, one of the most valuable (among many!) benefits of attending our conferences. To apply for a place in the program (to deliver an oral paper or poster), please visit the Call for Papers page on the conference website, read the instructions carefully, and submit your abstract online at this link. If you are unable to submit online, you can send your abstract as a Word attachment by email to:BirdsCaribbean@gmail.com. Please indicate clearly in your cover letter your preference for either an oral or poster presentation. Please also indicate into which of the sessions listed below your paper best fits. The deadline for receipt of abstracts is 7 May at midnight (EDT). The following symposia and sessions are included in the program (we are especially looking for presentations that fit these topics!): Cuba Day: Celebrating advances in the study and conservation of endemic, resident, and migratory birds in Cuba Engaging diverse audiences and stakeholders in conservation through social media, events, campaigns, citizen science, and education programs State of Caribbean forest endemic birds: Bringing science and conservation together Ecology of migrants and the importance of stopover sites in the Caribbean Habitat restoration and best management practices for the conservation of Caribbean birds and biodiversity On-the-ground bird and habitat conservation efforts: New approaches, success stories and lessons learned Promoting bird tourism in the Caribbean for sustainable development and conservation—Updates on the Caribbean Birding Trail (CBT) and marketing tools to enhance your efforts Shorebirds and waterbirds in the Caribbean: Connecting research, Caribbean Waterbird Census monitoring and education to conservation of key sites Invasive alien species in the Caribbean: Recent advances and best practices in prevention, control, eradication and monitoring to restore habitats and minimize impacts for birds Hunting in the Caribbean—Promoting sound management of shorebirds and other game species Recent advances in seabird conservation in the Caribbean Climate change impacts on birds and their habitats: research, management, mitigation and restoration solutions The role of advocacy in fighting mega-development projects: Case studies on what works, what doesn't, and lessons learned Advances in avian ecology and applied research Applied research for the conservation and management of Caribbean Birds The following workshops have been accepted for the program: Current and emerging technologies in avian and biodiversity research, management and conservation: Mini training workshops Reaching People: Writing for a General Audience—A Hands-on Workshop Mark-recapture and demographic modeling to inform on-the-ground management and conservation actions Bird Checklists of the West Indies Project Fundraising Workshop—Next Level Strategies for your Nonprofit Song Meter SM4 Acoustic Recording Workshop Cuba National Consultation on the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) Ecosystem Profile for the Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot (Pre-conference workshop) Eastern Caribbean Dialogue on the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) Ecosystem Profile for the Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot BirdSleuth Caribbean: Connecting Youth to Nature and Science Bird Conservation Education in the Caribbean: Caribbean Endemic Bird Festival and International Migratory Bird Day Caribbean BirdWatch—Developing practical approaches to monitoring birds and their habitats The following round-table discussions have been accepted for the program: Journal of Caribbean Ornithology, Past, Present, and Future: An open call for suggestions to improve the journal Standardizing Spanish names Attention Students: If you would like to apply for consideration for the Founders Award for Best Student Paper, please indicate this on your abstract form. Meeting registration will open and details on how to apply for travel support will be available later today. Field trips: We are planning wonderful early morning, pre-, mid- and post-conference field trips for you. Consider arriving early to Cuba early or staying on after the conference with your spouse, friends and family to go on a field trip and enjoy fantastic birding as well as the vibrant Cuban culture, stunning landscapes and history. We are awaiting final information on pre- and post-conference field trip costs and will be posting itineraries and costs very soon. Get social! Be sure to follow us on Twitter for more updates as they become available: @birdscaribbean #BirdsCarib2017 Updates are continuously being added to the meeting website, so check back often; we will also post updates on this BirdsCaribbean list serve, Facebook and Twitter. Sponsorship: We are still looking for conference sponsors - if you, your organization, agency, or company can help, please visit the Sponsorship Opportunities page and contact us - thank you! Any questions, contact me. Looking forward to seeing you all in Cuba in July! Best wishes, Lisa ______________________________ Lisa Sorenson, Ph.D. Executive Director, BirdsCaribbean Adjunct Associate Professor Dept of Biology, 5 Cummington St. Boston University, Boston, MA 02215 (508) 655-1940 (home office) (508) 333-8587 (mobile) Skype: Lsoren www.birdscaribbean.org | www.caribbeanbirdingtrail.org __._,_.___ Meeting Website: https://sites.google.com/site/birdscaribbeanconference2017/home Click here to view the meeting
  24. Fern Davies
    A new meeting has been added to the Ornithology Meetings database. Meeting Description: OVERVIEW AND CALL FOR PROPOSALS FOR SYMPOSIA AND WORKSHOPS 21st Congress of the Mesoamerican Society of Biology and Conservation (SMBC) and 6th International Meeting of Partners in Flight (PIF) SAN JOSÉ, COSTA RICA 30 October – 03 November 2017 "Conservation of biodiversity in the hands of Mesoamerican women" Hotel Crowne Plaza Corobicí, San José, Costa Rica http://www.ichotelsg...hotelCode=SJOCP The Organizing Committee of SMBC encourages participants in this Congress to present summaries of our knowledge on the conservation of biodiversity and to highlight how these advances have improved its management or can improve future management. Given the theme of the Congress, it is important that presentations focus on the work of women in research and as change agents. Partners in Flight is meeting in Costa Rica to promote our interest in understanding and conserving birds throughout their full annual cycle. PIF looks forward to meeting in Mesoamerica to increase partnerships with students and professionals throughout the region. In addition, PIF is interested in examining the relevance of bird and biodiversity science and conservation to the wider fields of sustainable development and human wellbeing. SMBC Themes: GLOBAL CHANGE 1) Adapting to climate change 2) Mitigation of climate change 3) Loss of habitat and impact on biodiversity 4) Invasive species BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT 5) Marine-coastal and oceanic ecosystems 6) Freshwater ecosystems and inland aquatic resources 7) Terrestrial and epi-continental ecosystems 8) Public and private protected areas 9) Innovative financial mechanisms 10) Adaptive management 11) Biodiversity and Technology 12) Fragmented landscapes 13) Application of high technology SOCIOECONOMIC ASPECTS OF BIODIVERSITY 14) Social participation, poverty reduction and governance schemes 15) Infrastructure development and biodiversity 16) Management, provision and socio-economic benefits of biodiversity and ecosystem services PIF Themes: CONSERVATION STRATEGIES 1) Economics and Ecosystem Services a) Ecotourism benefits b) Ecosystem services provided by birds and bird habitat c) Birds as umbrella or iconic species for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation 2) Protection and Conservation a) Enhancing protected area management for multiple benefits b) Integrating bird and biodiversity conservation into commodity production c) Markets and certification for eco-friendly products DEVELOPMENT TOOLS 3) Outreach and Communication a) Encouraging citizen science and stewardship b) Building a birdwatching/ecotourism constituency c) Using social science to promote conservation 4) Conservation Planning and Implementation 5) Networking and Development a) Working with sustainable development agencies b) Fundraising FIELD METHODS 6) Monitoring for baseline and project effectiveness 7) Generating and interpreting indices of bird, biodiversity, and habitat conditions 8) Measuring and estimating abundance and survival 9) Skills for obtaining and using sight and sound records: eBird, iNaturalist RESEARCH FINDINGS 10) Ecology/Population Dynamics a) Habitat requirements and habitat management b) Factors affecting survival and reproduction throughout the annual cycle c) Patterns of connectivity and their significance d) Population limitation 11) Anthropogenic impacts a) Climate change b) Pollution c) Urbanization d) Habitat conversion Instructions for the submission of bird-related symposia, workshops, courses, forums, and special lectures: Proposals should be sent to Greg Butcher gsbutcher@fs.fed.us until May 19, 2017 according to the instructions. Space is limited and proposals will be accepted taking into consideration suitability and available space. Please consult with Greg on proposals during development if any questions arise. There is a fee for these events (usually $500). It is great if the organizer can find the funds, but PIF will work to raise the money if the organizer cannot. Preference will be given to proposals that have an affinity with one or more of the thematic areas of the Congress. The Organizing Committee of the XXI Congress will provide support with the logistics of the events located at the Congress venue. Support available for pre- or post-Congress events can be negotiated with PIF and the Organizing Committee. Contact Zaida Piedra, Logistics Manager for the XXI Congress logisticacr2017@gmail.com., for questions on logistical support for these events and for non-bird-related proposals. Proposals should include the following: • Event Title (maximum 10 words) • Type of event (indicate if it is a symposium, forum, course, workshop or lecture). • Thematic Area of the Congress • Name of the organizer (or speaker for Master Lectures) • Include in an attachment a short bio or CV (3 pages maximum) of the organizer (or speaker for Master Lectures) • Summary of the event or lecture (up to 300 words) • Objectives (does not apply for lectures) • Duration (number of sessions and hours required) • Financing source (s) (indicate if they already have or have plans to obtain financing, the name of the donor (s) and how much funding is expected to be obtained). • Registration fees (applies only for pre- or post-congress events) • Program of the event (not applicable for lectures) For each presentation at the event include (can be tentative until July 31): • Title and / or subject • Presenter and his/her institution Deadlines May 19 - Proposals for symposiums, forums, master lectures, courses and workshops pre or post congress May 31 - Confirmation of acceptance of previous proposals May 31 – Proposals for oral presentations or posters July 31 - Confirmation of acceptance of abstracts July 31 - Early registration payment July 31 - Registration deadline for publication of abstracts in the "Mesoamerican" Magazine October 1 - Submit photos for contest We will send out a complete circular in English soon. In the meantime, for more information, visit the SMBC web site: www.congresosmbc.org We are waiting for you in San Jose, Costa Rica, to share another international scientific event of high level in a fraternal atmosphere. Greg Butcher Migratory Species Coordinator Forest Service International Programs p: 202-644-4551 c: 202-617-8259 f: 202-644-4603 gsbutcher@fs.fed.us 1 Thomas Circle NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 www.fs.fed.us Caring for the land and serving people Meeting Website: http://www.congresosmbc.org Click here to view the meeting
  25. Fern Davies
    More information about "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - permit app & report forms under review"
    This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 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! Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, federal agencies must obtain approval from the White House Office of Management and Budget whenever the agency wants to collect information from 10 or more members of the public. That includes permit application forms. Every three years, the agencies must request renewal of the OMB approval and when they do so, the public is afforded a chance to comment on the forms themselves and the burden imposed on those who must use the forms. Do you have any concerns about these permit application and reporting forms? Is any aspect of the form confusing? Do you find any of the questions to be overly burdensome or perhaps unnecessary? The agency will consider your concerns when revising the forms. If so, please contact the Ornithological Council. We must submit comments by 25 April 2017. Once the agency receives the comments, it may revise the forms. If changes are to be made, there will be an additional opportunity for public comment. The application forms can be found online. The following application and report forms are under review: 1018-0022: Proposed Information Collection; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports--Migratory Birds and Eagles 82 FR 11599 11599-11601 02/24/2017Docket ID: FWS-HQ-MB-2017-N016 Action: Notice; request for comments. (This includes scientific collecting and various of the special purpose forms, including salvage) 1018-0093: Proposed Information Collection; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports--Management Authority 82 FR 11596 11596-11598 02/24/2017Docket ID: FWS-HQ-IA-2017-N022 Action: Notice; request for comments. (this includes CITES, Wild Bird Conservation Act) 1018-0102: Proposed Information Collection; National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Applications and Reports 82 FR 11601 11601-11603 02/24/2017Docket ID: FWS-HQ-RF-2017-N011 Action: Notice; request for comments. 1018-0094: Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget for Approval; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports--Native Endangered and Threatened Species 82 FR 8840 8840-8842 01/31/2017Docket ID: FWS-HQ-ES-2017-N227 Action: Notice; request for comments.
×
×
  • Create New...