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

Fern Davies

General Members
  • Posts

    2,066
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fern Davies

  1. Every ornithologist in the U.S. and Canada who studies live birds must submit animal welfare protocols to a review committee and await approval before beginning the research project. The Ornithological Council devotes a very substantial amount of time to this subject because it is so central to the research life of every ornithologist. The objective of this workshop is to help NAOC participants understand the animal welfare policies in the U.S. and Canada and be able to use this information to improve their own research protocols. Audience members will achieve a better understanding of the protocol review process and effective methods for working with the IACUC. Through structured discussion with audience, instructors will gain insights into wildlife biology including study design and field methodology. This is a unique opportunity to hold this workshop at no cost! Workshops of this type sponsored by universities, government agencies, and others typically carry registration fees of several hundred dollars. This is your opportunity to talk with the people who make the policies that your IACUC must implement. Learn from them and help them understand how wildlife biology is very different from the biomedical research for which their policies were intended. Topics to be covered: a) “IACUC 101”- An explanation of the animal welfare laws and policies in the U.S. and Canada. Key topics: Which policies and standards apply to any specific study? What is a field study? What constitutes an adequate literature search? b) Strategies to prepare a successful protocol. Key topics include: justification of sample size, resources, frequently encountered questions from the IACUC. c) Structured dialogue: Through scenarios developed (and distributed to participants in advance), discussion leaders and audience members will discuss actual field methods and conditions with the instructors and explore the animal welfare issues that arise in each situation DATE: Tuesday, August 16 TIME: 1 - 5 p.m. As with all workshops, be sure to plan your travel to arrive early enough to attend the workshops of your choice.
  2. This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 12 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including Ornithology Exchange and the Ornithological Council! New Science Provides Foundation for Proposed Changes to Service’s Comprehensive Eagle Conservation and Management Program Public comment sought on revisions to bald and golden eagle regulations, programmatic environmental impact statement May 4, 2016 Contact(s): Laury Parramore Laury_parramore@fws.gov 703-358-2541 In a move designed to maintain strong protections for bald and golden eagles, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced it is opening a 60-day public comment period on proposed improvements to the agency’s comprehensive eagle conservation and management program. The proposed changes include modifications to the regulations governing permits for incidental take of bald and golden eagles that will protect eagle populations during the course of otherwise lawful human activities. A simultaneous public comment period also opens on a related proposed programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS). This PEIS forms an integral part of the environmental review process for the changes to the eagle permitting program. The Service also made public a new report assessing the status, trends and resiliency of bald and golden eagle populations. The report underpins the proposed revisions to the conservation and management program. The Service is proposing the revisions to its bald and golden eagle regulations, which it administers under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act), in response to extensive public input since the original regulations were published in 2009. This includes comments received during a series of public information meetings. The proposed revisions build on that input and on an extensive review of the best available science. “Eagles hold a revered place in our nation’s history and culture, particularly that of Native Americans,” said Service Director Dan Ashe. “The proposed regulations provide a path forward for maintaining stable or increasing eagle populations while also ensuring that limited and incidental take of eagles that occurs as a result of otherwise legal activity is tracked, permitted and, where possible, reduced.” The proposed rule sets objectives for eagle management, addresses how populations will be monitored and managed, directs how data on permitted eagle mortality are obtained and used, and provides a framework for how the incidental take permitting system fits within the overall framework of eagle management. The proposed regulations address the duration of permits for incidental take of eagles, extending the maximum permit duration to 30 years, subject to a recurring five-year review process throughout the permit life. Under the proposed revisions, only applicants who commit to adaptive management measures to ensure the preservation of eagles will be considered for permits with terms longer than five years. The Eagle Act requires the Service to determine that any take of eagles it authorizes is “compatible with the preservation of bald eagles or golden eagles,” known as the “preservation standard.” The Service defines the preservation standard to mean “consistent with the goal of maintaining stable or increasing breeding populations.” It underpins the Service’s management objectives for both species. The Service is proposing to add the clause “and the persistence of local populations, throughout the geographic range of both species” to more clearly define conservation and mitigation efforts at the local scale and respond to state, tribal and other stakeholder input into our eagle conservation programs. Other proposed provisions address compensatory mitigation requirements for golden eagles, application requirements, and a revised permit fee structure that will ensure the Service has adequate resources to implement effective eagle permitting and conservation. Non-purposeful or incidental take of eagles occurs throughout a range of industries, new and traditional. The system for permitting this take enables industries to work collaboratively and proactively with the Service to avoid, minimize and in some cases mitigate for their impact, while also providing critical data that can help the agency better track human causes of eagle mortality and manage eagle populations. “The permitting system provides a mechanism for private companies to do the right thing,” said Ashe. “Many companies are making efforts to avoid killing migratory birds during design, construction and operation of industrial facilities, and we look forward to working with additional permit applicants to ensure their operations are compatible with efforts to conserve eagles.” In its review of potential changes to the eagle conservation and management program, the Service relied on a significant body of current scientific data and findings, including its new report “Bald and Golden Eagles: Status, trends, and estimation of sustainable take rates in the United States.” The report is a compilation of the most current research on the population status and trends of bald and golden eagles and serves as the biological basis for the proposed regulation revisions and the preferred alternative in the PEIS. The bald eagle was once in danger of extinction in the lower 48 states, with fewer than 500 nesting pairs remaining. It was removed from the endangered species list in 2007 because populations had recovered sufficiently. Golden eagles are protected due to concerns about their status, their similarity of appearance to bald eagles, and their ecological value as apex predators in ecosystems where they occur. Both bald and golden eagles are protected under the Eagle Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Lacey Act. The new eagle status report indicates bald eagle populations have continued to rise throughout the United States—now numbering in excess of 143,000. At the same time, data suggest golden eagle populations may be starting to decline, heightening the importance of securing critical conservation measures through permitting to protect this species. “For decades, the Service has demonstrated leadership and commitment to the conservation of bald and golden eagles,” said Ashe. “This rule recognizes the need to adapt eagle management to changes across the American landscape, including our own activities.” The public may submit comments on the proposed rule and the PEIS until July 5, 2016. Both the proposed rule and the PEIS are available at http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/eagle-management.php and also at www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS–R9–MB–2011–0094. Comments on the information collection aspects of this rule must be received on or before July 5, 2016. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods: (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS–R9–MB–2011–0094, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then click on the Search button. On the resulting page, you may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9–MB–2011–0094; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. Comments on the Information Collection Aspects of the Proposed Rule: You may review the Information Collection Request online at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB. Send comments (identified by 1018–AY30) specific to the information collection aspects of this proposed rule to both the: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB–OIRA at (202) 295–5806 (fax) or OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov (email); and Service Information Collection Clearance Officer; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041–3803 (mail); or hope_grey@fws.gov (email). See Public Comments under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information regarding submission of comments.
  3. 20 MAY 2016 UPDATE: AOU and COS Members, Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts with us on the prospects of merging the American Ornithologists’ Union and the Cooper Ornithological Society. You can read a detailed summary of these results on the American Ornithology website http://americanornithology.org/content/aou-and-cos-merger-status. A clear message emerged from the poll that a vast majority of members wish to pursue merging the two societies, with 87% of the 614 respondents in favor. Support for merging was expressed strongly from members of both societies and across all age groups. Members were more varied in their opinions about a name for the merged organization. Nevertheless, members of both societies expressed a willingness to consider changing the name of the AOU, the receiving society, if the two societies merged. The COS Board of Directors met on 16 May 2016 to reflect on the member poll results, discuss the findings of the Joint AOU-COS Merger Working Group, and to reconsider their desire to engage in further merger discussions. The Board affirmed their position to pursue merging with AOU and transmitted it to the AOU Council. AOU Council met on 17 May 2016 held a similar discussion on merger issues in order to develop a response to COS. AOU Council was pleased that COS had voted to resume the effort and voted unanimously to restart merger discussions to resolve the remaining issues. Next steps will be to develop a formal plan of merger with further input from our members. To move this forward in advance of our upcoming annual Council and Board meetings, we will be on a swift timeline to reach resolution. Sincerely, Scott M. Lanyon President, American Ornithologists' Union University of Minnesota 1987 Upper Buford Circle St. Paul, MN 55108 612-624-6291 lanyo001@umn.edu President, Cooper Ornithological Society 3625 93rd Ave SW Olympia, WA 98512 360-753-7662 mraphael@fs.fed.us AOU and COS Members, We write to inform you of progress toward addressing the issues relating to merging our two societies and to ask for your input through a short, six-question online poll. AOU and COS leadership initiated discussions of merging the two societies in July 2016 when we met together in Oklahoma to review the progress and success of our partnerships: the joint publication of our journals, our joint communications and website http://www.americanornithology.org , our joint Science Arbitration initiative, and our joint meetings. A joint AOU-COS Merger Working Group was appointed at the Oklahoma meeting to move the discussion forward. Today we write to inform you that the Working Group has completed their report. It presents the potential advantages and disadvantages of merging, hurdles to merger and their resolution, and initial feedback about them from membership and leadership. The report can be found on our American Ornithology website here. Although the report is long, the Executive Summary produces a concise abstract of the Working Group’s findings. In short, most of the hurdles to merger can be addressed. The name of the merged organization is perhaps the most significant remaining issue. You can also help AOU and COS leadership to understand how our members think about the possibility of merging by answering 6 short questions in an online poll. We ask that you a few minutes to inform yourself about merger issues by reading the joint AOU-COS Merger Working Group report before you participate in the online poll, as this will help to inform your choices. The last day to record your preference in the poll is 13 May. Thanks very much for your participation. Sincerely, Scott M. LanyonPresident, American Ornithologists' Union University of Minnesota 1987 Upper Buford Circle St. Paul, MN 55108 612-624-6291 lanyo001@umn.edu President, Cooper Ornithological Society 3625 93rd Ave SW Olympia, WA 98512 360-753-7662 mraphael@fs.fed.us
  4. Ornithology journal The Condor: Ornithological Applications is publishing a Special Section of open access articles highlighting the impact that energy development is having on North America’s bird populations. “Although renewable energy may offer a ‘greener alternative’ to traditional energy sources, mounting evidence suggests that renewable energy infrastructure and the power transmission lines needed to serve them may impact avian populations,” according to lead editor Jennifer Smith, a post-doctoral research associate at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University. “Most avian-energy research has focused historically on direct effects of avian collision or electrocution with overhead power systems, and more recently on avian collisions at wind energy facilities. While research has expanded to consider indirect effects, large gaps in our knowledge persist.” The editors behind the Special Section hope to address these gaps by increasing our understanding of avian interactions with renewable energy infrastructures and identifying areas for future research. The collection of papers was inspired by symposia hosted at the 2014 joint meeting of the American Ornithologists’ Union, the Cooper Ornithological Society, and the Society of Canadian Ornithologists, and at the 2014 meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation. Topics addressed include: How wind energy infrastructure is impacting the reproductive success of Horned Larks and McCown’s Longspurs in Wyoming The effects of oil and gas development in Alberta and the Northwest Territories on Canada’s boreal birds Whether wind towers in the Great Plains region pose a risk to wintering Sandhill Cranes How migrating raptors alter their flight behavior in response to power line construction How energy development stacks up against other manmade threats to birds “Birds have complex interactions with energy infrastructure. The diverse papers in this Special Section evaluate threats that manifest themselves in different ways across species, landscapes, and types of infrastructure,” says Condor Editor-in-Chief Phil Stouffer. “With the expected trajectory of energy development, particularly renewable resources, it will become increasingly important to manage risks to wildlife. We hope ornithologists can inform decisions about energy development using information like we’re publishing here.” The six open access papers comprising the Special Section will be published April 20, 2016, and will be available at http://www.aoucospubs.org/toc/cond/118/2. For comment: Jennifer Smith, jensmith@vt.edu, 863-273-5335; Phil Stouffer, pstouffer@lsu.edu, 225-578-4221. About the journal: The Condor: Ornithological Applications is a peer-reviewed, international journal of ornithology. It began in 1899 as the journal of the Cooper Ornithological Club, a group of ornithologists in California that became the Cooper Ornithological Society.
  5. Ground-Level Artificial Lights Disrupt Bird Migration It’s not just lights on skyscrapers that can impact migrating birds—new research in The Condor: Ornithological Applications demonstrates that even ground-level artificial lights can affect birds passing overhead at night. Most birds migrate at night, and artificial light disrupts migrations in a variety of ways, throwing off birds’ natural navigation abilities and even attracting them to fatal collisions with buildings. The bulk of the research on how lights affect birds has been focused on lights on tall structures like skyscrapers and cell towers, but most artificial lights are actually near ground level—street lights, porch lights, and car headlights, to name just a few. Matt Watson, David Wilson, and Daniel Mennill of the University of Windsor recorded the flight calls of migrating birds passing overhead during the 2013 fall migration in southern Ontario, Canada, comparing sites with and without ground-level artificial lights. Analyzing 352 hours of recordings, including the calls of at least 15 bird species, they found that significantly more flight calls were recorded at lit sites than at dark sites. “By pointing microphones at the night sky, we can survey migratory birds based on the quiet sounds they produce in flight,” says Mennill. “This simple technique offers a special opportunity because we can resolve particular species of birds, or groups of species, using a fairly simple technology.” “It was exciting to find that even low-level anthropogenic lights affect call detections from migrating birds,” adds Watson. Their findings have several possible explanations—ground-level lights could be disorienting birds, causing them to call more often and decrease their altitude as they attempt to straighten themselves out, or they could actually be attracting additional birds, as has already been documented with higher-elevation lights. In either case, artificial lights are causing migrating birds to waste energy, which could affect their chances of surviving their journey. This study underscores importance of studying the consequences for wildlife when human activities alter the natural environment. “Anthropogenic light has profound effects on wild animals. For migratory birds, we know that lights on top of skyscrapers, communication towers, and lighthouses disorient and attract birds,” says Mennill. “Our study reveals for the first time that even low-intensity lights on the ground influence the behavior of migratory birds overhead.” Anthropogenic light is associated with increased vocal activity by nocturnally migrating birds will be available April 13, 2016, at http://www.aoucospubs.org/toc/cond/118/2. Research contact info: Daniel Mennill, dmennill@uwindsor.ca, 519-253-3000 ext. 4726.
  6. A new meeting has been added to the =1']Ornithology Meetings database. Meeting Description: ANNOUNCEMENT – The 40th Annual Meeting of the Waterbird Society. Call for ABSTRACTS and EARLY REGISTRATION. New Bern, North Carolina, 20-23 September 2016. The Waterbird Society will hold its 40th Annual Conference and General Meeting in New Bern, North Carolina, from 20-23 September 2016. Three full days of scientific sessions, symposia and workshops are planned including symposia on Herons of the World, Black Rails, Black Skimmers, and the Atlantic Marine Bird Conservation Cooperative and workshops on Herons of the World. This announcement is the first call for Abstracts and Early Registration, both open on April 11, 2016. For abstracts, please use the following link https://waterbirds.o...act-submission/ and for registration, please go here https://waterbirds.o...g/registration/. Any questions about abstracts, registration, or about the meeting, please contact Clay Green (Chair, Scientific Program – claygreen@txstate.edu ) or Sara Schweitzer (Chair, Local Committee – sara.schweitzer@ncwildlife.org ). For student travel awards, see https://waterbirds.o...-travel-awards/ Because the Waterbird Society is celebrating its 40th anniversary in 2016, we are planning a celebration of the first 40 years of the Society, complete with displays of the Society’s early formative days, so please make plans to join us in New Bern. Meeting information, including details on the New Bern Riverfront Convention Center, field trips, accommodations, and special events will be posted on the Waterbird Society web site (http://www.waterbirds.org/). Daily early morning birding trips will be offered, as well as longer field trips on 24 and 25 September. Historical New Bern, a city of approximately 30,000 people, is located at the confluence of the Trent and Neuse rivers as they flow into the Pamlico Sound, bordered by the Outer Banks chain of barrier islands; it is a water wonderland! We look forward to seeing you in New Bern in 2016. Meeting Website: https://waterbirds.org/annual-meeting/ Click here to view the meeting
  7. Arctic-Nesting Birds May Struggle with Changing Climate Songbird nestlings in the Arctic struggle in cold, wet years, but the changes forecast by climate models may lead to even more challenging conditions, according to new research in The Auk: Ornithological Advances. Jonathan Pérez of the University of California, Davis, and his colleagues compared the growth rates of the nestlings of White-crowned Sparrows, which have a broad breeding range, with those of Lapland Longspurs, which are an Arctic breeding specialist. They predicted that nestlings would grow faster in warmer, drier conditions, that clutches laid earlier would do better, and that the nestlings of specialist longspurs would grow faster than the generalist sparrows. They found that growth rates were higher overall in 2013 than in 2014, when the weather was colder and wetter. There were also fewer arthropods, the birds’ food source, available in 2014. Longspur nestlings grew faster than sparrow nestlings both years, but sparrows were unaffected by temperature, perhaps because sparrows nest in shrubs rather than on the open tundra. Nestlings from clutches that were laid earlier did grow faster than those from later clutches, since birds that arrived on their breeding grounds early could claim the best territories for raising young. Challenging conditions force parents to make a choice between taking care of themselves and taking care of their offspring. Climate change is likely to bring new uncertainty for birds nesting in the Arctic—while warmer temperatures will favor higher nestling growth rates, climate models also predict more frequent storms and increased precipitation. The research was carried out on the North Slope of Alaska’s Brooks Range, where researchers tracked 110 White-crowned Sparrow nestlings and 136 Lapland Longspur nestlings over two years, representing 58 total nests. Perez had previously studied parental energy expenditure and incubation. “When I became involved in our project based out of Toolik Lake looking at effects of interannual variation across trophic levels and how that ultimately plays out in terms of reproductive success of songbirds, expanding to an examination of nestling growth rates with regards to variation in environmental conditions seemed like a logical next step,” he says. “Species at range edges are sentinels of climate change because they often experience high environmental variability and harshness,” according to Dr. Daniel Ardia of Franklin and Marshall College, an expert on the role of environmental variation in bird behavior and physiology. “Pérez and his co-authors reveal the direct effects of weather variation on nestling growth, an important determinant of fitness, showing how climate variability might have strong negative effects of populations. What makes the study so compelling is that they were able to link weather variability to food supply showing the causal link between predicted weather variation and reproduction.” Nestling growth rates in relation to food abundance and weather in the Arctic http://www.aoucospubs.org/toc/tauk/133/2. Researcher contact info: Jonathan Pérez About the journal: The Auk: Ornithological Advances is a peer-reviewed, international journal of ornithology that began in 1884 as the official publication of the American Ornithologists’ Union. In 2009, The
  8. The use of vertebrate animals in research and education in the United States is subject to a number of regulations, policies, and guidelines under the immediate oversight of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs), which are charged with ensuring the ethical and appropriate use of the animal subjects. In almost all instances, this regulatory and oversight landscape of animal use has been developed for biomedical research environments and domestic animals bred specifically for research purposes. When the research activities involve wild species, especially in their natural habitat rather than a laboratory, oversight personnel and investigators alike struggle to apply these policies. A new, comprehensive review (published in the ILAR Journal, the peer-reviewed, theme-oriented publication of the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR) of the National Academy of Sciences) discusses the various policies, regulations, and guidance documents for animal use in the context of wildlife research. The publication, which follows the model of the highly influential IACUC Handbook (Silverman et al. 2014) compares the expectations of the various oversight agencies and how these expectations are met when working with wild vertebrates. The document is an important resource that will help IACUCs can use available resources to ensure that activities involving wild species are conducted in compliance with existing regulations and policies and in ways that are biologically appropriate for wildlife. It also explains the two overlapping but nonidentical federal policies (Animal Welfare Act regulations vs. Public Health Service Policy) and how to determine which of the policies should be applied. The authors include Ellen Paul, Executive Director of the Ornithological Council, Robert S. Sikes, Ph.D (Chair of the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists), Steven J. Beaupre, PhD (Professor and Chair in the Department of Biology at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, and Past President of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists) and John C. Wingfield, PhD is Distinguished Professor of Neurobiology, Physiology, and Behavior at the University of California, Davis, and Past Director of the Division of Integrative Organismal Systems of the BIO division of the National Science Foundation. NOTE: The publication has been made open access by ILAR. Articles: Ellen Paul, Robert S. Sikes, Steven J. Beaupre, and John C. Wingfield Animal Welfare Policy: Implementation in the Context of Wildlife Research—Policy Review and Discussion of Fundamental IssuesILAR J (2015) 56 (3): 312-334 doi:10.1093/ilar/ilv073 Abstract Full Text (HTML) Full Text (PDF) Supplementary Data
  9. "It is very remarkable that a nearly perfect gradation of structure in this one group can be traced in the form of the beak, from one exceeding in dimensions that of the largest gros-beak, to another differing but little from that of a warbler. Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends."
  10. The Ornithological Council (OC) is investigating an e-mail alert service that will generate notices about U.S. federal and state legislation to those who have signed up to receive those notices. On behalf of its member societies, the OC will research each legislative proposal to determine if it is likely to be of interest to ornithologists and if so, if the legislation has the potential to move through the legislative process (most bills never go past the first stage, much less all the steps in the legislative process). In addition, the OC will research the merits of the legislation and provide an analysis of the pros and cons. Participants will then be able to write to their elected officials directly from the website using text suggested by the OC or their own personal message or a combination of the two. It is unlikely that there will be any legislation pertaining directly to ornithological research. The OC anticipates that most of the legislation that might be of interest to the members of ornithological societies will pertain to wild bird conservation and management or wild bird habitat. To gauge the extent of interest in each topic, the OC has developed a short survey and we encourage you to respond to the survey even if you don't plan to participate in the legislative news alert system. If you would like to participate, sign up HERE. Registration is free and we will never share your information with anyone. Scott Lanyon, President American Ornithologists' Union Reed Bowman, President Association of Field Ornithologists Martin Raphael, President Cooper Ornithological Society Miguel Saggese, President Raptor Research Foundation Erica Nol, President Waterbird Society Sara Morris, President Wilson Ornithological Society
  11. This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 12 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including Ornithology Exchange and the Ornithological Council! New federal legislation introduced to protect albatrosses and petrels Of the 22 species of albatross recognized by International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 15 are threatened with extinction, and eight species are either endangered or critically endangered. More than half of all petrel species are threatened with extinction. Threats to seabirds include bycatch from longline fishing, especially from illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries in the Southern Ocean, as well as the introduction of invasive predators, and marine pollution. The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, or ACAP, is a legally binding international agreement promoting the conservation of several species of migratory seabirds. The agreement promotes activities that minimize harm to albatrosses and petrels, improve research of albatross and petrel conservation, and increase public awareness of the dangers facing these storied species. ACAP, which went into effect in 2004 has 13 national signatories. The United States is not among them. President George W. Bush first asked the U.S. Senate to ratify the agreement in 2008, and while President Barack Obama has listed it as a priority, the Senate has yet to take action. However, as is the case with many international agreements to which the U.S. is not a party, federal agencies often participate in activities that support the international agreement. For instance, through the State Department’s Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, the Smithsonian’s Office of International Relations, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. participates in various aspects of the Convention on Biological Diversity including the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice and the Nagoya Protocol on the Sharing of Genetic Resources). To help promote efforts that would support the goals of the ACAP, Congressman Alan Lowenthal (D-CA) introduced on 4 February 2016 legislation (H.R.4480) that ties together existing U.S. laws and statutes without substantially changing current laws in order to implement the international agreement. According to Lowenthal, “This legislation will give the U.S. more international influence to protect these endangered sea birds around the world by authorizing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to implement fisheries conservation measures, increase international fisheries enforcement, restore habitat, reduce non-native species, develop educational programs, and cooperate internationally.” According to National Audubon, the legislation authorizes the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to engage in activities that will improve conditions for albatrosses and petrels, including: · Habitat restoration · Control of non-native species · Research into the conservation of albatrosses and petrels · Development of programs to raise awareness of the issue · Bycatch reduction measures and research The legislation does not expand or alter the enforcement scheme for albatrosses and petrels found within U.S. jurisdiction, because these species are already protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Domestic fisheries would not be subject to additional restrictions on their activities under the proposed legislation. National Audubon encourages everyone to encourage members of Congress to support the bill. As of 8 February, the bill number is not available but it will be posted here as soon as it is known. Any legislation has an increased chance of success if it has a large number of co-signers, so you might want to send your representative (find your rep by name, state, or zip code here) a note like this: Dear (name of your representative) Of the 22 species of albatross recognized by International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 15 are threatened with extinction, and eight species are either endangered or critically endangered. More than half of all petrel species are threatened with extinction. The Albatross and Petrel Conservation Act (H.R.4480), introduced by Mr. Lowenthal on February 4, is a golden opportunity for the United States to improve wildlife conservation not just here at home, but around the world. Please co-sign this bill and vote for passage if it reaches a full House vote. (Note: If your Representative is on the House Committee on Natural Resources or the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, you should add, “Please vote for the bill when it comes before the committee.” You can add other text to your note if you like, but very short and direct is best when communicating with members of Congress because the staff members generally note only the extent of support or opposition to the bill).
  12. The discovery process for the Himalayan forest thrush began in 2009 when it was realized that what was considered a single species, the plain-backed thrush Zoothera mollissima, was in fact two different species in northeastern India, said Pamela Rasmussen, of Michigan State University’s Department of Integrative Biology and the MSU Museum, and coordinator of MSU’s global bird sounds website AVoCet. Rasmussen was part of the team, which was led by Per Alström of Uppsala University (Sweden). Rasmussen is tied for the third-highest number of birds discovered in the world since 1950 and is ranked first for birds discovered in Asia, and Alström is second for Asia in the same time period. What first caught scientists’ attention was the plain-backed thrush in the coniferous and mixed forest had a rather musical song, whereas individuals found in the same area – on bare rocky ground above the treeline – had a much harsher, scratchier, unmusical song. “It was an exciting moment when the penny dropped, and we realized that the two different song types from plain-backed thrushes that we first heard in northeast India in 2009, and which were associated with different habitats at different elevations, were given by two different species,” Alström said. Along with keen field observations, the scientists had to do a lot of sleuthing with museum specimens. Investigations involving collections in several countries revealed consistent differences in plumage and structure between birds that could be assigned to either of these two species. It was confirmed that the species breeding in the forests of the eastern Himalayas had no name. “At first we had no idea how or whether they differed morphologically. We were stunned to find that specimens in museums for over 150 years from the same parts of the Himalayas could readily be divided into two groups based on measurements and plumage,” Rasmussen said. Further analyses of plumage, structure, song, DNA and ecology from throughout the range of the plain-backed thrush revealed that a third species was present in central China. This was already known but was treated as a subspecies of plain-backed thrush. The scientists called it Sichuan forest thrush. The song of the Sichuan forest thrush was found to be even more musical than the song of the Himalayan forest thrush. DNA analyses suggested that these three species have been genetically separated for several million years. Genetic data also yielded an additional exciting find: Three museum specimens indicated the presence of yet another unnamed species in China, the Yunnan thrush. Future studies are required to confirm this. New bird species are rarely discovered nowadays. In the last 15 years, on average approximately five new species have been discovered annually, mainly in South America. The Himalayan forest thrush is only the fourth new bird species described from India since 1949. Additional scientists who contributed to the study include Chao Zhao (China), Jingzi Xu (Sweden), Shashank Dalvi (India), Tianlong Cai (China), Yuyan Guan (China), Ruiying Zhang (China), Mikhail Kalyakin (Russia), Fumin Lei (China) and Urban Olsson (Sweden).
  13. The following article has been published on the Ornithology Exchange. This and other articles can be found under the Articles tab in the navigation menu or by clicking here. Long-term research at Bahia Kina Stephanie Jones In this edition of the Editor's Choice series, Stephanie Jones, Editor of Waterbirds, highlights an article from the December 2015 issue of Waterbirds (vol. 38, no. 4), titled Diversity, Abundance and Nesting Phenology of the Wading Birds of Bahía Kino, Sonora, México. Click here to view the article
  14. The following article has been published on the Ornithology Exchange. This and other articles can be found under the Articles tab in the navigation menu or by clicking [url='http://ornithologyexchange.org/articles']here[/url].[br][br][size=5][b]Editor's Choice: Waterbirds[/b][/size] [br]Stephanie Jones [br][br] Dippers are very cool birds, and the Rufous-throated Dipper may be the coolest of the dippers! View full article
  15. The Kino Bay Center for Cultural and Ecological Studies in Bahía Kino, Mexico, has been conducting research on the wading bird colonies in the region for many years. The center has also spearheaded the designation of Estero Santa Cruz as a wetland of international importance under the United Nations Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. They have published the results of their surveys from 2009-2013 in the December, 2015 issue of Waterbirds [38(4):355-363]. Diversity, Abundance and Nesting Phenology of the Wading Birds of Bahía Kino, Sonora, México Emily W. Clark, Abram B. Fleishman and Mark F. Riegner http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1675/063.038.0412 Abstract.--The occurrence and nesting phenology of Ardeidae species and other wading birds were documented from 2009–2013 in the Bahía Kino bioregion of western Sonora, México. Two active colonies were surveyed: in a mangrove (Avicennia germinans; Rhizophora mangle) estuary and on a nearshore desert island. Thirteen species of nesting wading birds were recorded, 11 of which are year-round residents and two occurring only during the breeding season; two additional species were documented only in migration. The most abundant species was the Snowy Egret (Egretta thula), which had a peak of 234 nests in 2012. Of particular conservation interest is the Reddish Egret (E. rufescens), which had a peak of 149 nests in 2012. Potential prey of wading birds in the estuary was also sampled, with special focus on brachyuran crabs, which constitute the main prey items of the Yellow-crowned Night-Heron (Nyctanassa violacea). The rapid development of the region, and especially the establishment of large-scale mariculture operations along Estero Santa Cruz, has the potential to impact local wading bird populations, and thus an understanding of wading bird diversity, abundance and habitat use may prove critical to inform future management and conservation initiatives. The Kino Bay Center for Cultural and Ecological Studies is a Prescott College field station in Bahía Kino, a small town in the Mexican state of Sonora, on the Gulf of California. Each year the Kino Bay Center hosts over 1,000 researchers, students, resident fellows and community visitors from dozens of institutions and community groups from Mexico, the United States and other parts of the world.
  16. The Rufous-throated Dipper or Argentine Dipper (Cinclus schulzi) is an aquatic songbird found in South America, and is part of the dipper family. It is the subject of an article in the current issue of Waterbirds. The Rufous-throated Dipper lives along rapid rocky streams in the Andes in Bolivia and Argentina at 800 m to 2500 m in elevation. The bird breeds in the alder zone at 1500 metres to 2500 m in elevation. BirdLife International has classified this species as "Vulnerable". Threats included reservoir construction, hydroelectric dams, and irrigation schemes. The current population is estimated at 3,000 to 4,000 individuals. Nests and Nest Site Characteristics of Rufous-Throated Dipper (Cinclus schulzi) in Mountain Rivers of Northwestern Argentina. Patricia N. Sardina Aragón, Natalia Politi and Rubén M. Barquez. Waterbirds 38(3) : 315-320. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1675/063.038.0301 The Rufous-throated Dipper (Cinclus schulzi) is an endemic and threatened bird that inhabits the mountain rivers of southern Yungas of Argentina and Bolivia. This is the rarest and least known species of the genus, in part because of its restricted distribution. The aim of this study was to describe the nests and nest sites of the Rufous-throated Dipper in mountain rivers of northwestern Argentina. Five rivers were surveyed in transects of 3 to 6 km long from 2010 to 2013. The shape, size, substrate and building material of nests and nest and non-nest characteristics were assessed and compared in plots of 2 by 2 m. Plots with nests were compared to non-nesting plots for a number of habitat characteristics. Most nests found (78.57%; n = 28) had a globular shape, were attached to rocky substrates and were built using moss. The height of nests above the water level (P = 0.02), slope (P = 0.03) and watercourse width (P
  17. TO RENEW OR JOIN A SOCIETY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE OC WHEN RENEWING OR JOINING THROUGH MEMBERSUITE, CLICK ON THE DONATIONS BUTTON. RENEWAL NOTICES FOR 2019 GO OUT OCTOBER 8 OR DONATE THROUGH PAYPAL. What does the Ornithological Council do, and why should you care? The Ornithological Council gives voice to scientific ornithology wherever & whenever that voice should be heard in the making of policy decisions that affect ornithological research or wild bird conservation and management. The OC works with multinational, federal, and state governments and nongovernmental organizations to assure that the policies that affect the way you conduct your research have a biological basis and do not impose biologically unwarranted restrictions on your research. Permits, permits, permits: Migratory Bird Treaty Act (bird banding, scientific collecting, import/export), Endangered Species Act, CITES, Wild Bird Conservation Act, special use permits for the National Wildlife Refuge Systems, National Forest Service, research permits for the National Park Service, authorizations for BLM land, state permits, USDA APHIS import permits, CDC import permits. In Canada, working with the Canadian Wildlife Service and the provincial wildlife authorities on Migratory Bird Convention Act permits (banding, scientific collecting, import/export), SARA permits. Animal welfare: Working with USDA APHIS Animal Care on policies that affect ornithological research in the lab and in the field; working with the National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Research and the National Science Foundation on implementation of the Animal Welfare Act through their grant policies; working with the National Academy of Science, Institute of Laboratory Animal Welfare on the authoritative guidance document; working with the AAALAC International (the private accreditation organization). For you and your IACUC, we wrote a Model Wildlife Protocol. Research integrity and peer review policies: Representing the views and concerns of the ornithological community to the federal agencies that establish national policies regarding research integrity and peer review Providing scientific information about birds: The Ornithological Council endeavors to ensure that the best ornithological science is incorporated into legislative, regulatory, and management decisions that affect birds. The scientific information you generate is made available by the OC to government, conservation organizations, industry, and private landowners; that information is provided in an unbiased manner that helps decision-makers to understand how their choices will affect wild birds. AND FOR YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL ORNITHOLOGIST, THE ORNITHOLOGICAL COUNCIL: Publishes the peer-reviewed Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research Publishes guides to permit requirements and procedures for all federal and state permits Assists individual ornithologists to get through the permit maze and trouble-shoots difficult permit problems Provides expert input to Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (in Canada, Animal Care and Use Committees) More examples of what the Ornithological Council does for you can be found in our bimonthly OC newsBRIEFS. In short? The Ornithological Council: Keeping the world safe for ornithology since 1992! The Annual Ornithological Council Pledge Break (only once per year!) Members of AOS, AFO, RRF, and WOS will soon receive annual membership renewal notices from the Ornithological Societies of North America (OSNA) via Membersuite. We hope that when you renew, you will consider contributing to the Ornithological Council. If you renew online, You can also contribute via the line for contributions to the OC, on the webpage where you enter the society membership dues and contributions. If you renew by mail, you will find a line on the printed renewal notice, at the top of the column where you will list your dues and contributions to the OSNA societies. Members of the Waterbird Society will receive renewal notices from the Schneider Group; the online renewal form has a contribution line for the OC. Those who are not joining or renewing memberships in the AOS, AFO, RRF, or WOS via Membersuite of Waterbirds via Schneider Group can contribute directly through the PayPal button on our homepage using your free PayPal account or a credit card or by check (payable to the Ornithological Council and mailed to 6512 E. Halbert Rd., Bethesda, MD 20817, USA). About 90% of OC's support comes from annual contributions from its 12 member societies but we also rely on contributions from individual ornithologists. How and why the OC was hatched As early as the 1960s, ornithologists realized that they had no effective means of providing scientific information about birds to federal and state agencies, the private for-profit sector, and the conservation community. As awareness of the need for science-based bird conservation and management grew, ornithologists needed a way to assure that ornithological science was incorporated into decisions that affect wild bird populations. At the same time, ornithologists were struggling with the growing array of permit requirements. In fact, there were occasions when ornithologists even faced possible prosecution for violation of the Migratory Bird Treat Act due to problematic implementation of the permit requirements. Dick Banks (President, AOU 1994-1996; President Wilson Ornithological Society 1991-1993) proposed the formation of an ornithological council to speak for scientific ornithology with the publication of a paper in The Auk. And so...a committee was formed. And the committee recommended that such a council be formed. The Council was founded in 1992 by seven ornithological societies in North America: American Ornithologists' Union, Association for Field Ornithology, Cooper Ornithological Society, Pacific Seabird Group, Raptor Research Foundation, Waterbird Society and Wilson Ornithological Society. In recent years, the Society of Canadian Scientists, the Society for the Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds, the Neotropical Ornithological Society, CIPAMEX, and the North American Crane Working Group have become members. 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 the Ornithological Council!
  18. Gretchen Goldman, lead analyst, Center for Science and Democracy, lead author of the report Progress and Problems: Government Scientists Report on Scientific Integrity at Four Agencies, said that the survey asked scientists about scientific integrity, communications, and agency effectiveness. The results will have you checking the calendar to see if this is 2015 or 2006, when the Union of Concerned Scientists raised the alarm about political interference by Bush administration officials and the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior charged one high-level official with misconduct. A significant number of scientists are still unaware that their agency has a scientific integrity policy, despite the policies being in place for three years. Of those that were aware, some respondents didn’t think their agency adhered to the policy.
  19. E-mail discussion between John Marzluff and AOU President Scott Lanyon: Hi Scott, I’m following up on the resolution that the Fellows of the AOU passed two years ago when there was talk of a merging of ornithological societies. My reason is in response to the recent announcement that the AOU and COS are pursuing further talks about merging those societies. I think it is great to discuss the options, but I wanted to make sure the spirit of the past resolution was also being considered. Can you let me know what if any progress the AOU has made addressing those concerns? And how they might be rolled into the assessment of a future merger with COS? The point of the resolution that is most pertinent is as follows: 2. Request that the AOU Council explore all means to increase membership, raise funds, engender loyalty to the AOU or its descendants, enable real science progress in Ornithology, and foster healthy interactions with sister organizations. Deliberations should consider multiple alternatives, both inside and outside of our current 'boxes'. No topics should be considered 'off-limits,' but implications of recommendations should be considered carefully and completely--in terms of financial resources, journal vitality, benefits to ornithologists and ornithology, scientific merit, tradition, history, etc. To gain widest acceptance, any new committee appointed to aid the Council in this task should be independent of the Council and all committees that developed the SFO proposal; John M. Marzluff Response from AOU President Scott Lanyon: RESOLUTION CURRENT STATUS Request that the AOU Council: 1. explore all means to increase membership, · AOU’s philosophy is that all ornithologists in North America should be members of the AOU. Clearly that is not now the case. We need to take steps to find out how AOU could better serve ornithologists and then address those needs as best we can. · Council invested in cleaning up our member records in 2015. We added and linked important information to create a database we can actually use to provide support and value to our members with different interests, needs, and communication styles. · AOU conducted a survey this year of current members, lapsed members, and ornithologists who have never been AOU members. The AOU Membership Committee intends to follow up this year with small, targeted focus groups to explore some of the topics that emerged from the survey. · AOU Council agreed to launch a Long-Range Planning Exercise. The purpose is not only to provide guidance to AOU Council and AOU Committees, but also to more fully engage the AOU membership. A timeline was agreed to (to conclude at the 2016 NAOC meeting) but we are moving more slowly than anticipated due to AOU/COS merger discussions. 2. raise funds, · AOU hired an Executive Director (ED) with the goal of significantly increasing our fund-raising capacity to support ornithology and ornithologists. · Initially we have been focusing on professionalizing the organization so that we may meet the expectations of sophisticated donors. This takes time, reallocation of resources, and careful attention to nonprofit organization compliance. · AOU Council agreed to launch an annual campaign this fall. Unfortunately, we are now behind schedule on this initiative as a result of merger discussions and planning. · AOU Council agreed to launch a capital campaign (see details below under “enabling real science progress in ornithology”). We hope to make this a high priority for the ED and AOU President in 2016 to the extent possible in light of merger discussions. 3. engender loyalty to the AOU or its descendants, · In order to engender loyalty of members to AOU we need to know who our members are and be sophisticated in our methods for communicating with them. At present, the OSNA member database and services (maintained by Schneider Group) is woefully inadequate for this purpose. As noted above AOU has had to develop its own database in parallel to what we pay OSNA to maintain. AOU has been advocating for improved services and switching to a modern Association Management Software system for several years, but the other societies in the consortium had not shared AOU’s sense of urgency. The OSNA Board recently agreed to invite proposals for OSNA 2.0 to launch in 2016. · One of the clear responses from the membership survey is that professional development is a critical member benefit - a benefit category that needs to be greatly expanded. If AOU is successful at providing effective development opportunities for all career stages, this will go a long way towards engendering loyalty. · To engender loyalty, AOU is taking strategic steps to enable real science progress in ornithology (see below) 4. enable real science progress in Ornithology, and · For years, AOU has ensured that annual meetings take place, that the journal is published, that the checklist is updated (albeit infrequently), that the Birds of North America project was completed, and that conservation white papers are produced. These have all facilitated science progress and all continue to be important. However, AOU Council has identified three additional strategic steps that will support science progress in ornithology: o AOU Council has concluded that one of the primary barriers to continued progress in ornithology is the difficulty in obtaining research funding, especially for field ornithology. Therefore, Council has adopted as a capital campaign goal, the establishment of a new endowment to support a greatly enlarged research grants program – initially for early career professionals but eventually for all ornithologists once the endowment has grown sufficiently. o AOU exists in part to help ornithologists to communicate the results of their science (organizing the annual meeting and publishing the AUK are key components). Anything that restricts that communication has negative consequences for ornithology and ornithologists. Therefore, AOU Council has concluded that making the AUK open-access should be a high priority. Therefore, the AOU Council has adopted as a capital campaign goal, the establishment of a new endowment to support publication of the Auk such that the journal can be entirely open access. o AOU Council has concluded that the ornithological community has a unique perspective on avian conservation priorities – perspectives not necessarily reflected in the funding priorities of federal agencies and private foundations. Therefore, the AOU Council has adopted as a capital campaign goal, the establishment of a new endowment to support AOU-selected conservation initiatives. · The motion to “pursue merger” noted that unification of the ornithological community could strengthen our position to make the case for philanthropic support of these initiatives. 5. foster healthy interactions with sister organizations · Following the 2012 Council Resolution and strategic focus of Council, AOU actively pursued specific joint efforts. These efforts were intended to bring ornithology and ornithologists together: o The American Ornithology website was created as a single portal from which all ornithological society web sites could be accessed and on which topics of general concern could be addressed. Initially, the website was created as a partnership between the AOU and COS, but invitations have been extended to the other societies to join. AFO has chosen not to join at this time. WOS was considering the possibility but the AOU/COS merger discussions have put those discussions on hold. o The Central Ornithological Publishing Office (COPO) was created as a central publishing office for the publication of ornithological journals. Initially, this office was created by AOU and COS to publish the AUK and CONDOR, but the office was created with the idea that it could be expanded to serve other ornithological organizations. At present, I’m not aware that any of those societies are seriously considering joining. o The AOU has a long history of producing conservation white papers. However, we’ve had no program that standardizes our methodology for doing these nor have we promoted this actively as a service to the broader community. In 2014, AOU and COS agreed to form a joint “Science Arbitration Committee” to serve this function. o Annual meetings were organized and held in partnership with COS and, in some years, COS and SCO. The societies sought to be more efficient in all aspects of the planning of the meetings, to maintain the high quality scientific program, and to create greater opportunities for networking and professional development of students and early career ornithologists. · The Western Hemisphere Shorebird Group approached AOU to become an affiliated society. We’ve had excellent discussions and this development seems likely. · The AOU works with many other societies in the planning of NAOC meetings, and has been open to requests by other societies to meet jointly in non-NAOC years as well. · There are many other examples since 2012. The one thing they all have in common is that the AOU officers and the ED are spending significant time managing these partnerships. The ED’s time is understandable to some extent because the other societies don’t have full-time paid staff, however managing these interactions with sister organizations is taking away time from the significant work needed to develop and execute the fund-raising campaign that would benefit ornithology and ornithologists. · In 2014, AOU Council discussed at length what AOU’s position should be on mergers and partnerships with other ornithological organizations. The primary conclusions were that, as the largest organization, the AOU would not initiate merger and/or partnership discussions and that decisions should be made on the basis of what is good for ornithology and ornithologists. The result of those discussions was the following statement: o The AOU should consider entering into a partnership or merger with another organization only if the AOU concludes that the new partnership would further the AOU’s overall mission without jeopardizing success of other commitments to previously established goals. Following the AOU Fellows resolution in 2012, the focus of the AOU has been to: · Bring together ornithologists from throughout the Americas, including the Caribbean, to explore and carry out the science and conservation efforts needed to resolve pressing problems of our world. · Further develop a modern governance system that includes a full‐time, paid staff with the expertise to successfully undertake organizational objectives and insure long-term survival of the AOU. · Develop a formal means of obtaining donations, grants, and sponsorships from members, the general public, philanthropic institutions, and corporations. · Establish AOU as the unbiased assessor of avian conservation issues. · Develop ongoing professional development programs for members at each stage of their career. · Partner with developing countries to provide intellectual services for those engaged in ornithology to help foster conservation research in places where conservation may not be a primary concern. The Executive Committee and ED have spent considerable time aligning AOU’s strategic priorities prior to 2012 with those developed post-2012 to evaluate progress and impact to date. We are using this to ensure that we are investing in efforts most important to the society, to prevent drift, and to shape the Long Range Planning effort (discussed above) critical for fundraising and long-term sustainability of the AOU. Deliberations should consider multiple alternatives, both inside and outside of our current 'boxes'. No topics should be considered 'off-limits,' but implications of recommendations should be considered carefully and completely--in terms of: 1. financial resources, 2. journal vitality, 3. benefits to ornithologists and ornithology, 4. scientific merit, 5. tradition, 6. history, etc. Marty and I have explicitly discussed the need for merger deliberations to be conducted in parallel with continued deliberations regarding alternative plans. I say “continued deliberations” because, since the SFO discussions, both the AOU and COS have been operating as separate organizations and have been considering various alternatives on how to support ornithology. Clearly, merger is one such alternative and at the joint AOU Council/COS Board meeting this summer we agreed that we should examine what this merger alternative would entail. We are operating under the assumption that if an AOU/COS merger appears to be a financially viable alternative that could serve ornithology and ornithologists well, that eventually there would be votes in the two organizations to assess the levels of support for the merger versus support for other financially viable alternatives under consideration. The first step is to determine if an AOU/COS merger is 1) organizationally possible, 2) financially sound, and 3) strategically good for ornithology and ornithologists. Therefore, we’ve created a working group (Steve Beissinger, Melinda Pruett-Jones, Martin Raphael, Kim Sullivan, Blair Wolf and myself) to explore this possibility and will be soliciting input from members. The primary guiding principle of the working group is that we should do what is best for ornithology and ornithologists. Although we didn’t discuss this principle at length during our conference call, my impression of the group (and certainly my personal opinion) is that what is best for ornithology and ornithologists is to use our financial resources responsibly to ensure the vitality of our journals specifically and our science generally. A secondary guiding principle is to respect and honor the traditions and the history of the two organizations An initial list of merger issues has been generated by the AOU Council, COS Board, AOU Fellows (at the annual meeting), and by AOU and COS members following the OSNA announcement. All of the non-financial issues raised so far were discussed by the merger working group in the single conference call that has taken place. We hope to communicate notes from that meeting to all members by the end of next week and to solicit input from the ornithological community. If, after further discussion and after receiving input from members on these non-financial issues, the AOU Council and COS Board decide that a merger is possible, a separate finance working group (current and recent treasurers and the AOU ED) will do the hard work of identifying the financial implications/opportunities of a merger. To gain widest acceptance, any new committee appointed to aid the Council in this task should be independent of the Council and all committees that developed the SFO proposal. None of the AOU representatives on the Merger Working group were involved in the development of the SFO proposal. One AOU representative on the Financial Working group (Jim Herkert) was treasurer at the time that the SFO proposal was developed. It is critical that he be involved in this working group because the new AOU Treasurer took office in July and we need Jim’s perspective and understanding of AOU finances.
  20. Questions from past COS presidents C. J. Ralph, Russell P. Balda, J. Michael Scott, Charles van Riper, and John M. Marzluff to the current COS board with responses from current COS president Marty Raphael interspersed: September 15, 2015 Dear John: Thank you and your fellow letter writers for your thoughtful comments about our merger discussions with the AOU. I have inserted some comments in your points below, just to give you some initial thoughts and reactions. 1. We suggest you disclose existing COS finances to the membership with a realistic target of what additional funds are needed to sustain the society and its mission to publish The Condor. We realize that financial concerns are not the only reason for considering the merger, but as an alternative to merger, you might suggest other means to attain this target, such as increased dues or a fund-raising drive. These alternative funding options could be appraised as to their likely success in improving the financial stability of the COS. (Response): You are correct that financial concerns are not the only reason for considering a merger. We have many other reasons and will soon be sending out a note to all members detailing what we feel are the most important of these reasons. But to help members understand current COS finances, it would be good to post the latest 990 (tax filing form), financial review, budget and Treasurer’s reports on the COS portion of our website. Our 990 is available to the public on the website of the California Registry of Charitable Trusts and is not a secrets. I will work with Barb Kus, our treasurer, to make this happen. We will certainly want to think about alternative funding options and their likelihood of success. As you can recall during your time on the COS board, setting dues is tricky business and it can be hard to find the right balance. If dues are set too high, we risk losing members and end up with a net loss. We can certainly pursue ideas for increased fund raising, and I would welcome any ideas you and your group have to conduct an effective fund raising campaign. 2. As an alternative to merging into a larger society with global focus, we suggest you pose to the membership the alternative of forming a smaller society with a clear focus on conservation of western American or western hemisphere avifaunas. (Response) This is an excellent topic for discussion. If a merger were to take place, my guess is that we would strive to maintain a focus on the avifauna of western North America. We have not worked out how to do this, but that will certainly be part of the discussions as we move forward. Some options we have started thinking about include holding conservation focused meetings in the west when the annual meeting is held in the east or earmarking part of the COS investment account to fund an annual symposium or workshop focused on avian conservation in western North America. We want to think about whether this would be better accomplished by merging or staying as a separate society. 3. As an alternative to jointly publishing The Condor with The Auk, we suggest you conduct a financial assessment of the costs of publishing The Condor in open access format funded solely by COS. (Response): We know the financial costs of publishing The Condor. We can consider posting a copy of the COPO budget on the COS website. We currently publish 50% (the maximum allowed by BioOne) of our articles open access. If we were to go completely open access we would lose BioOne income (after 2 years) and likely lose institutional subscriptions. We know the amount of income we derive from BioOne and institutional subscriptions. I think many people are unaware of the costs of electronic submission, composition, tagging, hosting, copy editing and having staff to ensure the time to publication is not bogged down by delays. Currently the COS does not have the financial resources to publish The Condor as an open access journal without very large author fees. Part of the process for discussing a merger will be the formation of a financial committee to thoroughly evaluate the implications of a merger on income and expenses. I am hopeful we can compare results of that committee’s work with an assessment of those revenues and expenses if we were to publish by COS alone. 4. We ask that you fully consider costs that might accrue to North American Ornithology if the two largest societies now in existence merge into a single one. These include financial risks due to a less diverse investment and expenditure strategy. However, there are also substantial social costs to members that should be articulated and presented in an unbiased fashion. Some such costs include: 1) reduction of meeting locations in the less populated portions of the US; 2) reduction in ornithological leadership positions for young scientists to attain; and 3) narrowing of editorial philosophy that scientists will face when attempting to publish their works. (Response): Investment risks can be minimized by sound investment practices whether we are one society or two societies. In addition, merger of the two endowments would yield a financial basis that is very strong and capable of withstanding any future investment weaknesses and expenses. How do we address holding meetings in the west on a regular basis whether we merge or don’t merge? Location of future meetings will be a topic of our discussions, and we have already stated a goal to assure that western locations will be included for future meetings. How many leadership positions would be lost? We don’t know at this point and this is one of the topics for explicit discussion. We are sensitive to the need to maintain a strong investment and involvement of young scientists. Phil Stouffer could address the issue of narrowing of editorial philosophy and how this has affected authors. Please realize that we now publish the two journals and together these outlets cover the full range of ornithological science that has always been covered by the two journals. We don’t expect to see any changes in journal structure resulting from a merger. 5. We ask that you clearly articulate what your focus group believes to be the costs and benefits to COS members of a merger. What do current COS members gain by merging? What do current COS members loose? We would hope that the focus group would share a listing of these pros and cons with the COS membership and ask for their feedback. (Response): This is an excellent point, and our first call focused on just this issue. We all agree the pros and cons need to be clearly articulated and conveyed to members to help inform everyone about a potential merger. This should not be a financial decision. We should only merge if we believe we can better serve our members and be a stronger voice for avian conservation. Full and clear delineation, however, will take a bit of time as we try to fully elucidate this. 6. We ask that you research how many current COS members will and will not join a merged society. How will this impact the finances of the new society? (Response): We hope to do just that, perhaps through a poll or other means. This topic has come up and we have not yet decided how best to assess responses, but it is likely we will do this in stages. We will first send out an introductory letter outlining the basics of the merger idea and what some of the potential pros and cons are. We will seek feedback from that letter and then based on that feedback, further refine our alternatives. Finally, we will need to have a formal vote from membership to pursue a merger or not. Along the way, the finance committee will assess the implications on finances of the AOU and the COS. 7. We ask that you determine how many current COS members are also AOU members and discuss how the dues structure of a merged society compares with a current model of single or dual individual society memberships. Are revenues gained or lost when current members of both COS and AOU pay for only dues for a single merged society? (Response): Right now, our best data indicate that the COS has 1354 members, 1140 (84%) of whom are also members of the AOU. The AOU has 2704 members, and 42% are also members of COS. Dues and their financial impact is a subject for the financial working group. It is likely that by merging, income from dues will decline, but this will depend on what dues structures are proposed. This is a topic for our financial working group. As I said, these are just some initial thoughts and our working group will delve into these points in more detail as we work through the various issues and concerns that surface. If I have made any errors in my statements, I trust that others on our committee will jump in to correct me. But in any case, I again want to thank you and your group for your letter and your thoughts. You have given us some great points to consider and we will do our best to do so. Sincerely, Martin G. Raphael Martin G. Raphael President, Cooper Ornithological Society
  21. Hundreds of thousands of birds are accidentally injured or killed every year in fisheries around the world. A dynamic new website (www.fisheryandseabird.info) – created by American Bird Conservancy and The Pennsylvania State University’s Center for Environmental Informatics – puts a wealth of information helpful in reducing this “bycatch” right at the fingertips of those who need it most: fishermen, conservationists, and those promoting fishery sustainability. The site, explained in an , is designed to help users assess the risk for the accidental capture of seabirds in fisheries, and take action to reduce bycatch. Seabirds are among the most threatened groups of birds, with approximately 29 percent of seabird species listed in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List categories Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable. Featuring a database with profiles of 378 seabird species, the website offers a unique way to access a wealth of information. After drawing a map that outlines an area of interest, one click produces a list of seabirds known to occur there, along with useful information for assessing the risk posed to seabirds by fishing gear. Users can: · Create fishery area maps and determine which birds occur there. · Review protected status, population size, and range maps. · Produce reports with information such as diving depth and diet that may indicate the risk posed by fishing gear. · Find resources on how to reduce bycatch. “This technology gives fishers the information they need to avoid bycatch they don’t want and that can cause them problems,” said Dr. David Wiedenfeld, ABC’s Senior Conservation Scientist and a lead architect of the site. “The tool substantially reduces research time for those evaluating a fishery or considering fishery improvements. The volume of information here used to take months to compile, but now it is all available in a matter of seconds. We hope this information can be used to reduce the number of seabirds being killed by commercial fishing.” In the interactive map feature, users can overlay the base map with layers showing bird species ranges, as well as jurisdictions such as Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) or protected areas. While the intent is to help minimize bycatch among all seabirds, this component of the site will be particularly valuable in reducing the risk to vulnerable species. With the wealth of information provided about each species, fisheries managers can make changes to their fishing methods that may reduce or eliminate the accidental injury or killing of bird species found in their area. These fishermen could consider adding paired streamer lines to scare birds away from the longlines as they are being set or setting their lines at night when birds such as albatrosses, which are especially susceptible to bycatch, are less active. In addition to providing information on seabirds in a geographic area, the web tool features a search function that allows a user to obtain profiles of specific species or taxonomic groups, or to search for threatened species. The site allows fishermen to identify the fishing gear they use and search for birds known to interact with that gear. The site provides information for 17 different types of fishing gear, including set or drift gillnets, different types of longlines, trawls, seines, hand lines, pots, and traps. The website was developed by American Bird Conservancy and The Pennsylvania State University’s Center for Environmental Informatics, with generous support from the Walton Family Foundation.
  22. This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 12 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including Ornithology Exchange and the Ornithological Council! With the emergence of two forms of highly pathogenic avian influenza in the United States, Canada, and Mexico this past year, it is likely that ornithological researchers who do field work will be asked by their Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) and/or their institution’s risk management committees to explain what precautions they will take to avoid contracting this disease. The H5N1 strain that was first identified in 1996 in China and that re-emerged in 2003 to affect more than 50 countries caused severe disease and death among those who had close and prolonged contact with infected birds. For this strain, the CDC recommends general precautions such as avoiding wild birds – hardly practical for field ornithologists. The strains that appeared in the Pacific Northwest in 2015 were identified as HPAI H5N2 and HPAI H5N8, the latter being a reassortment of H5N8 and North American strains of avian influenza. Public officials stated at the time that there is no immediate public health concern with either of these avian influenza viruses. Both H5N2 and H5N8 viruses have been found in other parts of the world and have not caused any human infection to date. The avian influenza that affected millions of chickens and turkeys in the midwest was H5N2. No human illness or mortality was reported. However, because of the extensive press coverage, it is likely that universities will focus on HPAI and its potential impacts on its faculty, staff, and students. On 16 July 2015, the USDA, USGS, and other federal agencies released an update on the species of wild birds in the United States found to have been infected with HPAI and the subtypes that were identified. The agencies have developed a broad surveillance plan, focusing on waterfowl (particularly dabbling ducks). When preparing its peer-reviewed fact sheet on zoonotic avian disease, the Ornithological Council consulted numerous experts and references and made these recommendations: o Avoid unprotected contact with feces, secretions, blood, and fluids. o Wear protective clothing including shoe covers or rubber boots, eye protection, and gloves. (That being said, peruse this blog from the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative, describing their duck-trapping and testing protocols...check out the photos!). o If you cannot do so, decontaminate and clean yourself immediately after exposure, using a detergent-based cleanser. o Disinfect or dispose of protective clothing after use. o Learn to remove gloves and protective clothing in a manner that avoids skin contact; consult your safety officer or safety manual. o Wash hands immediately with soap and water. o Use a respirator or mask to avoid inhalation of aerosolized droplets; otherwise, work upwind of birds to avoid inhaling aerosolized fecal material, feathers, and dander. o After handling birds, use detergent-based cleansers to wash hands, equipment, and clothing. Alcohol (70%) or alcohol-based cleansers or diluted household bleach (10% strength) will also kill the virus. o Avoid eating or drinking while handling birds or bird parts. o Consider having antiviral medications on hand. Ask your physician if you should take these medications on a prophylactic basis before you begin working in a country or region where H5N1 has been confirmed or along pathways used by birds migrating to, from, or through countries or regions where H5N1 occurs. Any influenza strain can become resistant to one or more drugs; genetically distinct H5N1 subtypes have already been found in Asia and some antivirals may be more effective for some subtypes than for others. Be sure to check current health information from a credible source, such as the Centers for Disease Control for both country disease status and antiviral recommendations and seek a prescription for the appropriate medication from your physician. o Consider vaccines, if they are available. The university or research institution may attempt to restrict field research. Know the disease status of the countries where you intend to work and be prepared to explain to the risk management office (or, in the United States, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, which, in many universities, performs risk management functions) and the precautions you plan to take. It is the researcher’s responsibility to know the recommended precautions and to make arrangements to obtain and use the appropriate materials, such as disinfectants, gloves, and eye protection. Please review the OC fact sheet for information about precautions to take when working in the lab, quarantine requirements, import restrictions, and more. Please contact the Ornithological Council if your university refuses to allow you to conduct field research or take students out for field trips.
  23. We’ve all heard the adage, “He won’t buy the cow if he can get the milk for free.” But what they never taught us is that if you don’t feed the cow, the cow will die. No milk. Yes, I know that there’s another step in the process, but dead cows can’t do that, either. Sad to say that many people who study birds enjoy free milk but seem not to understand the basic biology of cows. They enjoy the benefits provided by the ornithological societies for free but seem not to realize that the societies, like cows, need to be fed. I can hear you thinking, “What is that woman going on about? Here’s the thing. Every day, as co-administrator of OrnithologyExchange, I approve the new registrations and assign the new members to the appropriate categories. Full membership (we call it society membership) is reserved for those who are members of one of our sponsoring societies. Most others are assigned to general membership. Though it is no secret that the ornithological societies are shrinking, it is tough to have to see what that looks like, day after day, when I see how few of the new OE members are members of any one of the OE sponsoring societies. Of the 3,200 members, 1,598 are in the society member category. Now, OE is international and it stands to reason that OE members from Europe or Asia might not join societies that they perceive to be U.S.-based and that hold most of their meetings in the United States or elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere. Some of the societies, however, are actively international – particularly the Waterbird Society, the Raptor Research Foundation, and the Association of Field Ornithologists – and all the societies encourage international membership. For regular members, most societies offer discounted rates for many countries outside the U.S. And students – especially undergrads – might not be sufficiently committed to pursuing ornithology that they feel a need to join a society. Though that’s a shame, given that at least one society – the Wilson Ornithological Society - focuses on encouraging and mentoring undergraduates and even high school students. Membership in the societies is quite affordable for students, ranging from $15 to $28 per year. Some may feel that because they lack graduate degrees or work in fields other than ornithology, there is no place for them in the societies. That is simply not true. Every society welcomes non-professionals and one – the Association of Field Ornithologists – describes itself as a society of professional and amateur ornithologists dedicated to the scientific study of birds…and they really follow through When a new OE registrant is not a member of one of the societies, we try to find out who they are so we can prevent spammers from registering. More often than not, we learn that the new OE member is an ornithologist. They publish in the ornithological journals and teach ornithology. Some have been society members in the past, but no longer. Some don’t call themselves ornithologists. They use labels like “avian ecologist” or “avian conservation biologist.” Call it what you will, the study of birds is ornithology. True, you may study other, non-avian species as well, and of course, no one has sufficient funding to join a half-dozen or more societies. However, it costs little – as little as $25 – to join one of the ornithological societies and every one of them is a great value. So what is this great valuable milk that so many want to enjoy without feeding the cow? · Great journals – true, you can get most of them “free” via your institution’s subscriptions but what happens when you finish school? And what happens when you want to publish, as most will someday? If these societies can’t afford to publish their journals, you will have fewer and fewer places to publish your research. · Great meetings – true, you don’t have to be a member to attend meetings but if the societies can’t afford to hold meetings (which can be fairly costly, especially if the society wants to subsidize student travel), the meetings go away. The meetings offer amazing opportunities to meet potential mentors, advisors, and research collaborators. The meetings offer all sorts of special workshops. The Wilson Ornithological Society just held a workshop on mentoring. The American Ornithologists’ Union and the Cooper Ornithological Society offered a workshop on meeting the challenges of parenting while working in the field. At last year’s meeting in Estes Park, they offered a terrific workshop on negotiating skills. Other recent workshops include radar ornithology, introductory and advanced courses in R, scientific writing, and ornithological careers. · Support for travel to meetings and research – Every society helps students to defray the cost of traveling to meetings. Many societies also offer research awards to members. · OrnithologyExchange – I admit to bias here, as a co-founder and co-administrator of OE, but I think it is a terrific resource for ornithologists. My co-administrator and I are volunteers, so the cost of OE is extremely low but it isn’t free. The costs are covered by the ornithological societies and the Ornithological Council. · Ornithological Council – I admit to extreme bias here, as the executive director of the OCC for the past 16 years. You may not realize it, but the OC makes it easier for you to study birds. We deal with permit policies, animal welfare policies, and myriad other international, federal and state/provincial policies (U.S. and Canadian, primarily), and we make sure that your research findings reach those in government and industry, along with private landowners, when they make decisions that affect wild bird populations. We also keep you informed about policy matters pertaining to wild birds. Nearly all our support comes from the ornithological societies. Some say they don’t join a society because there are too many of them and they don’t know which one would best meet their needs. Not a problem. Browse the websites, attend a meeting, ask someone – your mentors, your advisor, the people you work with in field jobs. Some have a taxonomic focus (Pacific Seabird Group, Waterbirds, Raptor Research Foundation, North American Crane Working Group) and some are regional (BirdsCaribbean, Neotropical Ornithological Society, CIPAMEX, Society of Canadian Ornithologists/La Sociétè des Ornithologists du Canada). And you can join more than one! More information about each society is presented here, but bottom line is this: IF YOU LIKE ICE CREAM, JOIN AN ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY BECAUSE ICE CREAM IS MADE FROM MILK, MILK COMES FROM COWS, IF YOU DON’T FEED THE COW, THE COW DIES. NO ICE CREAM. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. Join a society. Any society. Lapsed members – renew. Today. Right now. No time like the present. It is so easy. And for the societies you can join/renew through the Ornithological Societies of North America joint membership service, you can also make a small donation to the Ornithological Council at the same time. What more could you want? AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION Founded in 1883, the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) is the oldest and largest organization in the New World devoted to the scientific study of birds. Although the AOU primarily is a professional organization, its membership includes many amateurs dedicated to the advancement of ornithological science. PUBLICATIONS The AOU produces several authoritative publications of scientific information relating to birds. The Auk: Ornithological Advances is a quarterly journal that contains the results of original scientific research and book reviews. Ornithological Monographs provided an outlet for longer research papers, ranging from over 100 to 1,000 pages. The series began in 1964 and ran through 2014, with 80 volumes in total (many now open access). The AOU also publishes the Check‑List of North American Birds, the authoritative source of scientific and English names, taxonomic status, and geographic ranges of all known species of birds in North America, Central America, Hawaii, and the West Indies. The AOU South American Classification Committee is publishing a Checklist of South American Birds. Birds of North America ‑ The encyclopedic reference series jointly produced with the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Monographic series describing, in detail, the life histories of all species of birds that breed in North America. AOU members have access to the online version. ************************************************************************* ASSOCIATION OF FIELD ORNITHOLOGISTS The Association of Field Ornithologists (AFO)is a society of professional and amateur ornithologists dedicated to the scientific study and dissemination of information about birds in their natural habitats. Founded in1922 as the Northeastern Bird‑banding Association, AFO continues to be especially active in bird‑banding and development of field techniques. Additionally, AFO encourages participation of amateurs in research, and emphasizes conservation biology of birds. The geographic focus is the Western Hemisphere, with contributions to the ornithology of the Neotropics particularly encouraged. The Association's annual meetings and its quarterly Journal of Field Ornithology reflect these goals. ***************************************************************************** BirdsCaribbean Founded as the Society of Caribbean Ornithology (later, the Society for the Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds), the mission of BirdsCaribbean is to promote the scientific study and conservation of Caribbean birds and their habitats, to provide a link among ornithologists and those elsewhere, to provide a written forum for researchers in the region through the publication of the Journal of Caribbean Ornithology (formerly known as El Pitirre), and to provide data and technical assistance to governments and conservation groups in the Caribbean. ****************************************************************************** CIPAMEX (Sociedad para el Estudio y Conservación de las Aves en México A.C.) CIPAMEX is a not-for-profit and non-governmental organization whose mission is the conservation of birds and their habitats in Mexico. It has its origins in the formation of the Mexican partner of the International Council for Bird Preservation (now BirdLife International). Prominent individuals acted as representatives of the ICBP in Mexico, including Enrique Beltrán, Miguel Álvarez del Toro, and Allan R. Phillips. In the 1980's, Dr. Mario Ramos organized the Mexican Section of ICBP. The Mexican Section was a national committee that met regularly to exchange information about bird conservation inside and outside the country. In 1988, CIPAMEX A C. was legally established with eight founders. Today, there are hundreds of members: students, researchers, and amateurs in ornithology. All who have an interest in birds and their conservation are welcome to join CIPAMEX. PUBLICATIONS: CIPAMEX publishes a peer-reviewed journal called “Huitzil”, Journal of Mexican Ornithology, recognized by its quality and editorial excellence as one of the Mexican Journals of Science and Technology by CONACyT. It has also published special volumes about avian conservation in Mexico, the AICAS (IBA´s), and about the status and conservation of old-growth forest and endemic birds in the pine-oak zone of the Sierra Madre Occidental. ****************************************************************************** COOPER ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY The Cooper Ornithological Society (COS) was organized in 1893 and incorporated in 1934. The name of the Society commemorates an early California naturalist, Dr. James G. Cooper. Today the Society numbers over 3000 professional and amateur ornithologists from around the world. The purpose of the organization is to advance our knowledge of birds and their habitat. The objectives of the Cooper Ornithological Society are as follows: The observation and cooperative study of birds. The encouragement and spread of interest in bird study. The conservation of birds and wildlife in general. The publication of ornithological knowledge. PUBLICATIONS The Condor: Ornithological Applications (four issues per year) publishes original research reports and review articles pertaining to the biology of wild species of birds. Studies in Avian Biology, another COS publication, is a series of works too long for publication in The Condor. It contains both monographs and proceedings of symposia of general interest to ornithologists. It is deposited in over 600 institutional libraries. ************************************************************************ NEOTROPICAL ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY The Neotropical Ornithological Society (NOS) is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the scientific study of birds and their habitats in the Neotropical Region. NOS organizes the Neotropical Ornithological Congress, a scientific conference held every four years. NOS members include researchers, research institutions, and libraries from all over the world. PUBLICATIONS NOS disseminates scientific research though its journal Ornitología Neotropical. *************************************************************************** NORTH AMERICAN CRANE WORKING GROUP The NACWG is an organization of professional biologists, aviculturists, land managers, and other interested individuals dedicated to the conservation of cranes and their habitats in North America. The NACWG sponsors a North American Crane Workshop every 3-4 years, addresses conservation issues affecting cranes and their habitats, promotes appropriate research on crane conservation and management, and promotes a better understanding and appreciate of cranes among the general public. PUBLICATIONS: The NACWG promulgates technical information including a published Proceedings of a North American Crane Workshop and a semi-annual newsletter. ****************************************************************************** PACIFIC SEABIRD GROUP The Pacific Seabird Group (PSG) is a society of professional seabird researchers and managers dedicated to the study and conservation of seabirds. PSG was formed in 1972 out of a need for increased communication among academic and government seabird researchers. The principal goals of PSG are (1) to increase the quality and quantity of seabird research through facilitating exchange of information and (2) to identify and assess the importance of threats to seabird populations and provide government agencies and others with expert advice on managing the threats and populations. PSG members include biologists, wildlife managers, students and conservationists from the United States, Mexico, Canada and Japan and 12 other countries. PUBLICATIONS Marine Ornithology is published biannually on behalf of a consortium of seabird groups: including the African Seabird Group, the Pacific Seabird Group, the Australasian Seabird Group, the Seabird Group (U.K.), the Dutch Seabird Group, and the Japan Seabird Group.. The journal is overseen by a steering committee appointed by the supporting seabird societies. Marine Ornithology is published both in hard copy and in electronic form at this, the Marine Ornithology website. For those browsing the electronic version of the journal, papers are available in Portable Document Format (PDF) so that they can be captured as exact facsimile of the printed version for reading or printing. There is no charge for viewing or downloading papers posted by Marine Ornithology. Symposia Proceedings: At irregular intervals PSG holds symposia at its annual meetings. Specialized symposia on specific problems are organized to facilitate the exchange of information. Symposia proceedings are often published. Pacific Seabird Group Symposia are initiated by one or more persons with interest in a particular topic area, resulting in a collection of papers usually resented at an annual meeting of the Pacific Seabird Group. Some symposia are further refined and then published as a Symposium of the Pacific Seabird Group. Past symposia include Seabird Enhancement through Predator and Vegetation Management, Impact of the El Nino of Seabird Biology, The Effects of Human Disturbances on Seabird Colonies. Tropical Seabird Biology, and Rare Alcids. Most of the Symposia are still in print and available for purchase. Titles of the published PSG Proceedings of Symposia as listed. Technical Publications: Manuscripts, too long for publication in Marine Ornithology, dealing with any aspect of the biology or conservation of marine birds or their environment will be considered for publication. The first number in this series was recently published ‑ Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Final Report, of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Seabird Restoration Workshop. ***************************************************************************** RAPTOR RESEARCH FOUNDATION The Raptor Research Foundation (RRF) is a non‑profit scientific society whose primary goal is the accumulation and dissemination of scientific information about raptors (hawks, eagles, falcons and owls). This information is used to inform the public (both scientific and lay) about the role of raptors in nature, and to promote the conservation of raptors whose populations are threatened by human activities. The RRF's membership consists of academic researchers, government agency employees, and others interested in birds of prey. RRF was organized in 1966 and started publishing a scholarly journal in 1967. The number of members has grown to more than 1200 and, even though based in the United States, it is an international organization including members in some 50 countries. The RRF achieves its goals primarily through publication of research reports in The Journal of Raptor Research, but also holds an annual meeting at which research results are presented. The RRF cooperates with similar societies in other countries, and with universities, state, and federal natural resource conservation agencies to accomplish its goals of education and conservation. Such collaborations have led to scientific meetings in other countries, international cooperation in conservation efforts, and the publication of special reports on threatened raptors. PUBLICATIONS The Journal of Raptor Research is a quarterly, referred journal that publishes papers on any aspect of raptor biology, and book reports. **************************************************************************** SOCIETY Of CANADIAN ORNITHOLOGISTS/LA SOCIÉTÉ DES ORNITHOLOGISTES DU CANADA The Society of Canadian Ornithologists/La Société des Ornithologistes du Canada (SCO/SOC) was established in 1980, when several ornithologists felt that it was appropriate and timely to have a national ornithological society in Canada. The SCO/SOC is now active in several aspects of Canadian ornithology, its major purpose being to contribute to the progress of knowledge on Canadian birds and their conservation. The primary role of the Society is to encourage the study of birds as an important step toward the conservation and public appreciation of birds. The SCO/SOC advocates communication among those who study birds and those who wish to know more about them through a biannual newsletter - Picoides - and annual meetings. The Society issued its first special publication, entitled Biology and Conservation of Forest Birds in the fall of 1999. Currently the SCO has roughly 245 individual members. Most are studying birds professionally, employed by provincial, federal or territorial governments or by universities, or as graduate students. A few are private consultants. A significant number, however, (roughly 15%) are "amateurs;" some of these list their affiliations as bird or naturalist clubs, while some do not give an affiliation. PUBLICATIONS Together with Bird Studies Canada, SCO/SOC publishes Avian Conservation and Ecology, an open-access, online journal that focuses on the conservation, ecology, and status of birds. ************************************************************************** WATERBIRD SOCIETY The Waterbird Society, an international scientific organization, was established officially following the North American Wading Bird Conference held in Charleston, South Carolina in 1976 and named the Colonial Waterbird Group. The organization changed its name to the Colonial Waterbird Society in 1986. In 1989, the name was changed again to The Waterbird Society. The society is dedicated to the study and conservation of colonial waterbirds and works to establish better communication and coordination among those studying and monitoring colonially‑nesting aquatic birds. Reflecting its international scope and membership, Waterbirds has held its annual meeting in many countries including Mexico, Germany, Brazil, Spain, Italy, and Canada. The Society is composed of biologists, researchers, conservationists, students, and others interested in the behavior, ecology, and conservation of colonial waterbirds. PUBLICATIONS Waterbirds: the International Journal of Waterbird Biology is published quarterly. *************************************************************************** WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY The Wilson Ornithological Society, founded in 1888, is a world‑wide organization of nearly 2500 people who share a curiosity about birds. Named in honor of Alexander Wilson, the Father of American Ornithology, the Society publishes a quarterly journal of ornithology, The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, and holds annual meetings, sometimes jointly meeting with the Association of Field Ornithologists or other ornithological societies. Perhaps more than any other biological science, ornithology has been advanced by the contributions of persons in other chosen professions. The WOS recognizes the unique role of the serious amateur in ornithology. Fundamental to its mission, the Society has distinguished itself with a long tradition of promoting a strong working relationship among all who study birds. Each year the WOS awards a number of small grants for ornithological research. PUBLICATIONS The Wilson Journal of Ornithology (formerly the Wilson Bulletin) - For more than a century, the WOS has published a scholarly journal with form and content readily accessible to both professional and amateur ornithologists. The journal is a quarterly publication consisting of major articles based on original studies of birds and short communications that describe observations of particular interest. Each issue also includes reviews of new books on birds and related subjects, as well as ornithological news. Through an endowment from the late George Miksch Sutton, each issue of the Bulletin includes a full color frontispiece. The principal focus of the journal is the study of living birds, their behavior, ecology, adaptive physiology and conservation. Although most articles originate from work conducted in the western hemisphere, the geographic coverage of the journal is global.
  24. Comments filed 7/24 by the Ornithological Council. http://ornithologyexchange.org/forums/topic/24809-oc-comments-on-potential-incidental-take-policy-for-mbta-species/
  25. How to write to your senators: If you aren't sure who your senators are, check here: http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/ They all have webform contact pages. Be sure to include your address so they know you are a constituent.
×
×
  • Create New...