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. Dr. H. Ross Hawkins June 9, 1939 to July 9, 2020 We are saddened to announce the death of Dr. H. Ross Hawkins. Ross was in Hospice of the Valley for five days in Scottsdale, Arizona, and died at 81 of complications from an aortic aneurysm. Ross lived a ‘hummingbird-inspired’ and ‘joy-filled’ life. As Founder and Executive director of the International Hummingbird Society headquartered in Sedona, Arizona, he touched many lives in the community with his unwavering enthusiasm for and deep knowledge of hummingbirds. This wealth was shared through the seven years of the successful Society-sponsored Sedona Hummingbird Festival that brought hummingbird lovers to Sedona from every state and 12 different countries. Ross liked to say that he had a checkered past, as he began his career as a chemist, with a PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, and was employed as a research scientist for E. I. DuPont de Nemours in Wilmington, Delaware for 9 years. Too gregarious to work in seclusion forever, he changed careers and became an investment advisor and worked as Vice President in investments for Morgan Stanley, retiring after 22 years. In 1987, he married Beth Kingsley Hawkins, who shared her love of hummingbirds with him, and in 1996, while still working in Delaware. he founded the non-profit Hummingbird Society. Upon his retirement in 2006, they left Maryland (a state where the Ruby-throated hummingbird was the only nesting species and it didn’t stay for the winter) and moved to Sedona, with its abundance of hummingbirds. Traveling to learn about and photograph hummingbirds in their natural habitat, they made eight trips to Trinidad and Tobago and one to Costa Rica. Ross himself made two trips to Robinson Crusoe Island off the coast of Chile to study the endangered Juan Fernandez Firecrown (hummingbird) and one to Honduras, hoping to and succeeding in finding expanded habitat for the Honduran Emerald hummingbird. Few people know the back story of how he received the idea to create the Society. Michael Godfrey, Arthur Godfrey’s son, had made a definitive video of the hummingbirds up close in Arizona. As Ross spoke with him about it, Michael lamented that there wasn’t a Hummingbird Society and suggested maybe Ross was the one to create it. That was an AHA moment for Ross. The idea took root. He was shocked to learn that there was no organization to protect these tiny jewels. Once off the phone, Ross took a big blank white chart, drew a wheel with the Society at the center and spokes out from the center naming all the things he would need to know and do to found a non-profit, and the Hummingbird Society was born. He then proceeded to put feet under his dream, defining a mission to help people understand and appreciate hummingbirds and to provide a channel to help save the ones that are endangered. Of 365 species of hummingbirds, 39 of the ones found in Central and South America are endangered. He summed up the purpose of the Society in this way: it is to teach people about hummingbirds, so they will understand them better; knowing that from that understanding and caring, will come support for their protection. In this way Ross connected many people more intimately with nature and created a way for many people to express that love. If you knew Ross, you know how much he loved speaking and teaching about these precious flying gems, and he became certified as a Professional Speaker by the National Speaker’s Association in 2010. He also relished nature photography and he and Beth were charter members of the North American Nature Photographer’s Association. They also joined the local Northern Arizona Audubon Society. In addition, he was a resonant baritone and an enthusiastic member of the local barbershop group, Harmony on the Rocks. With diverse musical tastes, he and Beth also sang the magnificent O Magnum Mysterium with the composer Morten Lauridsen conducting. Ross was born in Fayetteville, Arkansas to Dero B. and Mary E. Hawkins, Ross was preceded in death by his younger brother, Gary Hawkins. Ross grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He is survived by his devoted wife Beth Kingsley Hawkins of Sedona, and his two amazing daughters; Sandra West, and her husband Mike West of Lakewood, Colorado, and Anita Hawkins and her husband Rev. Craig Cowing of Rocky Hill, Connecticut. Donations to continue the valuable conservation work of the Society are welcomed in honor of Ross, its founder, as we seek to find and fund a new director. To donate, go to www.hummingbirdsociety.org and click on the button that reads, Join, renew or donate. In addition, the family would value help for the funeral expenses, since Beth’s Sedona Hummingbird Gallery has been closed since March, due to the risk of the Covid virus A contribution in that regard would go to Beth Kingsley Hawkins P. O. Box 20398, Sedona, AZ 86341. We are grateful for your support.
  2. For several years, word has been circulating about an international effort to reconcile the differences among various taxonomic checklists of birds. In response Frank Gill and David Donsker initiated discussions amongst the various checklist compilers on the possibility of developing a single, consistent checklist of all the birds of the world. As the IOU notice explains, "The International Ornithologists’ Union (IOU) has formed the Working Group on Avian Checklists (WGAC) with a broadened purpose and function. Its primary purpose will be to produce and maintain on the IOU website an open-access global checklist of birds in the mould of the great Peters-Mayr checklist of the 20th century and intended to serve as the benchmark reference for all taxa of the class Aves. Eminent representatives of the international community of professional avian systematists will compile and maintain it. Australian ornithologist Les Christidis, who will chair the executive committee of the working group, reports, "There is now a team working on a unified world checklist of birds. It is under the auspices of the IOU and involves the teams currently working on the IOC List, Clements, e-bird, Avibase and Cornell's Birds of the World. The IOC list will continue to be updated while the working group develops the new list in the background. Things are finally beginning to move forward." The final checklist will produce more than just a hierarchical list of species and recommended names. It will provide, through its detailed fields and connections to external references, the basic information for all ornithology – professional ornithologists, citizen scientists, conservationists and students – to draw on the full record of diversity of earth’s birdlife.
  3. NEWS RELEASE (from The Peregrine Fund) For immediate release, 17 June 2020 To save a species from extinction we must know that it exists Boise, Idaho - A new study shows that there is substantial disagreement among scientists on the number of species of birds, which prevents accurate decision making for prioritizing conservation efforts. The study, “Toward reconciliation of the four world bird lists: Hotspots of disagreement in taxonomy of raptors,” uses birds of prey as an example for why this problem requires immediate resolution. Birds of prey represent approximately 5.5% of the world’s bird species, but are significant in this discussion because roughly 52% of raptors have declining global populations. The lead researcher for this effort, Dr. Chris McClure of The Peregrine Fund says, “A place may or may not be deemed a priority for protection depending on the number of recognized species in the area. So we decided to compare the four most widely used world bird lists that scientists use and found that, among raptors, there was only 68% consistency in the species recognized across all four lists. That’s not very consistent and could lead to confusion among conservation practitioners and government agencies.” The four most widely used lists for recognized bird species include 1) the IOC World Bird List which is used by the international ornithological journal IBIS, 2) the Howard and Moore Checklist of the Birds of the World, which is used by several major museums around the world, 3) the eBird/Clements Checklist of Birds of the World, which is used by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology in the implementation of all of their programs, and finally 4) the Handbook of the Birds of the World and BirdLife International Digital Checklist of the Birds of the World, which is followed by BirdLife International when determining the Red List of Threatened Species and for several international agreements. McClure adds, “If this all sounds a bit confusing, that’s because it is. In fact the differences between the four world bird lists was recently referred to as ‘taxonomy anarchy.’” Dr. Jeff Johnson of the University of North Texas’s Department of Biological Sciences explains the problem from a conservation perspective, “Typically conservation efforts are focused on saving species, however subspecies can provide considerable genetic and ecological diversity.” Take the Cuban Kite, for example. This is a critically endangered raptor, but only considered a species on two of the four lists. The other two identify it as a subspecies of hook-billed kite, which is not considered to be threatened with extinction. While its current numbers are dangerously low, “losing the Cuban Kite entirely due to extinction would be a travesty,” according to Johnson. “Consistent recognition of the Cuban kite as a distinct species could help elevate its prominence and thereby increase efforts for its conservation.” Dr. Thomas Schulenberg of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology states, “In this study we looked at the ‘hotspots of disagreement’ between the four lists. We found that there’s a lot of disagreement about owls, particularly in southern Asia. More broadly, the classification of raptor species is not well aligned across the high diversity regions of Indonesia, India, and China.” Dr. Denis Lepage of Birds Canada says, “The bottom line is that, if we want to conserve birds, including raptors, working together to develop a single world bird list would go a long way.” According to McClure, efforts are now being discussed to consolidate the four lists, but no official announcement has been made concerning when that may happen. “Oftentimes, taxonomic research is not well funded,” lamented Lepage, “but this study demonstrates that a concerted effort is critical for conservation of biodiversity. This is too important to not give our best effort.” This study was a collaboration between the University of North Texas, Birds Canada, Boise State University, Ornithologi, Southern Cross University, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Michigan State University, and The Peregrine Fund.
  4. This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including OrnithologyExchange and the Ornithological Council. Late last week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) analyzing their proposed rule to limit the reach of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by exempting incidental take (or unintentional killing or harming) of birds. The Service announced their proposed rule in January, in an attempt to provide more regulatory certainty to public, industries, states, tribes and other stakeholders. This DEIS assesses the possible effects of their proposed rule, as well as two other possible actions - or alternatives - on migratory birds, other environmental resources, and the economy. According to the DEIS, the Service’s “preferred alternative” will have a likely negative effect on migratory birds, including increased mortality. Industry will see “likely reduced legal and financial costs.” In addition, the implementation of voluntary conservation measures will also likely decrease under the new rule, as there would be no risk of prosecution. Comments will be accepted on the DEIS until 20 July. Visit http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket Number: FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090, to submit comments. More information related to this proposed rule, scoping and other associated materials, can be found online at: https://fws.gov/migratorybirds/2020Regulation.php. Background: Until this administration, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was interpreted to cover both intentional and unintentional take (harm or killing) of species covered by the Act. The USFWS under this administration developed a policy known as an M-Opinion, which is internal agency policy, stating that the law does not prohibit incidental take of migratory bird species protected under the Act. The policy was challenged in the federal court and is still pending. One of the key aspects of the legal challenge - that there was no opportunity for public input - would be obviated by the promulgation of this regulation, since under the Administrative Procedure Act, public input is required when a formal regulation is proposed. USFWS Press Release: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has made available a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This action is a required next step for the Service in its regulatory undertaking to define the scope of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to provide regulatory certainty to the public, industries, states, tribes and other stakeholders. On February 3, 2020, the Service published a proposed rule clarifying that the scope of the MBTA only extends to conduct intentionally injuring birds. The rule codifies the 2017 Department of the Interior Solicitor’s Office Opinion M-37050, which was a legal determination that restricted the scope of the MBTA to intentional take of migratory birds and concluded that the take of birds resulting from an activity is not prohibited when the underlying purpose of that activity is not to take birds. The Endangered Species Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as well as state laws and regulations, are not affected by the Solicitor’s Opinion M-37050 or the proposed regulation. This publication is another step in the public process that the Service will continue to manage throughout the development of the rulemaking process. The public is encouraged to provide input to help ensure that these changes are clear, effective and advance the goal of migratory bird conservation. “We are making every effort to ensure we are not merely complying with NEPA, but are being open and transparent in our regulatory activities and engaging the public fully,” said Aurelia Skipwith, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A federal agency is required under NEPA to consider a reasonable range of alternative actions, including a “no action alternative,” so as to fully review the environmental impacts of a rule. Reasonable alternatives must be economically and technically feasible, display common sense, and must address the purpose and need for the action. In this DEIS, the Service is proposing a no action alternative and two action alternatives. The draft Environmental Impact Statement will be available on June 5, 2020, opening a 45-day public comment period. Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2020. The DEIS will be available at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket Number: FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090, and will include details on how to submit your comments. All the documents related to this draft Environmental Impact Statement and proposed rulemaking and information on how to submit comments is available online at: https://www.fws.gov/regulations/mbta/. BACKGROUND INFO HERE: Comments filed by the Ornithological Council on the notice that the USFWS would prepare this draft EIS HERE: When the Ornithological Council files comments on the DEIS, they will be posted on the OrnithologyExchange homepage.
  5. Nominees Sought for Theodore Roosevelt Genius Prize Advisory Council to Promote Technology Innovation in Wildlife and Habitat Conservation May 12, 2020 Contact(s): Laury Marshall, 703-589-6947, Laury_Parramore@fws.gov The U.S. Department of the Interior seeks experts and leaders in wildlife and habitat conservation technology to advise the Secretary of the Interior as part of the newly formed Theodore Roosevelt Genius Prize Advisory Council. The Council, established under the 2019 John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, will act as a catalyst for technological innovation to advance wildlife and habitat conservation. It will focus on endangered species protection, invasive species management, poaching and wildlife trafficking prevention, and nonlethal solutions to human-wildlife conflicts. “We are looking for leaders and highly experienced professionals who can help guide our efforts to more fully incorporate innovation into conservation,” said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Aurelia Skipwith. “This Council will do more than just award prizes for innovation, its members will serve as guides to competition winners, helping mentor them and chaperone their ideas towards their full potential.” The Council will administer $500,000 in prizes and advise competition winners on opportunities to pilot and implement their nascent technologies, helping them develop partnerships with conservation organizations, federal or state agencies, federally recognized tribes, private entities and research institutions with relevant expertise or interest. The Council will be governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt will appoint 12 to 18 Council members who have expertise in one or more of the following areas: biology, economics, engineering, endangered species, invasive species, technology development, business development and management, international wildlife trafficking and trade, wildlife conservation and management, nonlethal wildlife management, social aspects of human-wildlife conflict management, or any other discipline the Secretary determines to be necessary to achieve the purposes of the Council. For more information, please visit: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/11/2020-10008/call-for-nominations-for-the-theodore-roosevelt-genius-prize-advisory-council-and-advisory-boards.
  6. This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including OrnithologyExchange and the Ornithological Council. Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing a rule that defines the scope of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to provide regulatory certainty to the public, industries, states, tribes and other stakeholders. This proposed rule clarifies that the scope of the MBTA only extends to conduct intentionally injuring birds. Conduct that results in the unintentional (incidental) injury or death of migratory birds is not prohibited under the act. Background: the USFWS under this Administration developed a policy known as an M-Opinion, which is internal agency policy, stating that the law does not prohibit incidental take of migratory bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The policy has been in litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for some time and is still pending. It is unlikely to be adjudicated before June of this year and any decision will be appealed. Throughout this time, the USFWS has stated that it intends to promulgate a formal regulation. Doing so would obviate one of the key aspects of the legal challenge - that there was no opportunity for public input. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, public input is required when a formal regulation is proposed. “With five federal circuit courts of appeals divided on this question, it is important to bring regulatory certainty to the public by clarifying that the criminal scope of the MBTA only reaches to conduct intentionally injuring birds,” said Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Rob Wallace. “That said, we will continue to work collaboratively with states, cities, conservation groups, industries, trade associations and citizens to ensure that best practices are followed to minimize unintended harm to birds and their habitats.” “The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve wildlife and habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Bird conservation is an integral part of that mission. We are taking action today to make sure our rules and regulations are clear,” said Aurelia Skipwith, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “We look forward to an open and transparent process that will ensure ample opportunity for public input.” This action codifies the 2017 Department of the Interior Solicitor’s Office Opinion M–37050, which analyzed the scope of the MBTA and determined the act only applies to the intentional take of migratory birds and that the take of birds resulting from an activity is not prohibited when the underlying purpose of that activity is not to take birds. The Endangered Species Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as well as state laws and regulations, are not affected by the Solicitor’s Opinion M-37050 or the proposed regulation. The proposed rule will change how the Service administers the MBTA, and the Service has determined an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act is the most efficient and comprehensive approach for considering the potential impacts of this action on the environment. This is the first step in an open and transparent public process that the Service will continue to manage throughout the development of the rulemaking process. The public is encouraged to provide input to help ensure that these changes are clear, effective and advance the goal of migratory bird conservation. When this Notice of Intent publishes in the Federal Register, it will begin a 45-day scoping process during which we solicit public input to help define the range of issues and possible alternatives to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. The public scoping period will take place from February 3, 2020 - March 19, 2020. The proposed rule will publish in the Federal Register on February 3, 2020, beginning a 45-day public comment period and will include details on how to submit comments. Written comments and information must be received on or before March 19, 2020, by one of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090. U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; MS: JAO/1N; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. Interims copies of the proposed rule and notice of intent are now available. More information related to this proposed rule, scoping and other associated materials, can be found online at: https://fws.gov/migratorybirds/2020Regulation.php.
  7. After nearly 29 years of Federal service including 11 years as Chief of the Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL), I have decided to retire at the end of 2019. The responsibility of leading the US Bird Banding Program has presented numerous challenges and opportunities. It has been a great privilege to have served in this capacity and help advance the contributions of the BBL in support of research, conservation, and the management of North American bird populations. USGS has not yet finalized its transition plans for replacing me. You should expect for acting BBL Chief(s) to lead the program for 1-2 years before a permanent replacement is hired. During this transition, the BBL staff will assume additional responsibilities. Processing applications for new banding permits and requests for permit modifications will probably slow down and you should allow for a minimum of 3-4 months to be complet e these requests. Please send all permit-related requests to the BBL permits office (BBL_Permits@usgs.gov) to ensure that these requests are handled as efficiently as possible. Other BBL support activities for banders will also likely be slower during this transition. Your patience will be greatly appreciated as the BBL staff deals with the increased workload. During my tenure as BBL Chief, the program experienced annual reductions in the resources available to operate the lab. Since 2008, the budget has been reduced by half and the staff was reduced by nearly 40%. Despite these drastic cuts, the size of the banding program did not change. Maintaining the banding program under these circumstances is testimony to the dedication and hard work of the entire BBL staff. I am sure that the staff will continue their high level of support for the banding program during the transition to a new Chief and hope that you will work with the staff to make this transition as smooth as po ssible. It has been an honor to work with everyone over the years. While I am retiring from this job, I am not retiring as a bird bander and hope to see you somewhere out in the field banding birds. Bird banding remains an essential tool to advance ornithological science and bird conservation, and every bander should be proud of their contributions towards advancing this science. BRUCE PETERJOHN, BBL CHIEF BIRD BANDING LABORATORY
  8. Service Streamlines Permit System New electronic payment function will expedite permit applications, helping the public and wildlife November 25, 2019 In an effort to simplify, expedite, and improve the permit application process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took a first step today to create a more robust and efficient electronic permitting system. Permits enable the public to engage in legitimate wildlife-related activities that would otherwise be prohibited by law. Service permit programs ensure that such activities are carried out in a manner that safeguards wildlife. Each year, the Service issues approximately 65,000 permits. The addition of an electronic payment capability will impact 48,000 permits. Prior to developing an electronic permitting system, applicants had to apply for permits through mail with paper checks. By adding pay.gov, a secure electronic payment system, this capability will be available for all migratory birds and the most widely used international affairs permits. “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a world-renowned conservation agency that is committed to using the latest technology to serve the American public,” said Rob Wallace, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the U.S. Department of the Interior. “Updating the current system to allow electronic payments will help simplify the permitting process while improving efficiency and reducing regulatory burdens.” The Service is working to deploy a modern permitting system that will seamlessly guide users to the right permit applications for their needs, provide answers to frequently asked questions, and make the application process faster and more efficient. The Service issues permits under several domestic and international laws and treaties such as the Endangered Species Act, the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Wild Bird Conservation Act and the Lacey Act. These laws protect species that are threatened by overexploitation and other factors, such as habitat loss. By applying for permits, the public helps conserve and protect imperiled species throughout the world. Additionally, some permits promote conservation efforts by authorizing scientific research, generating data, or allowing wildlife management and rehabilitation activities to go forward. To apply for permits through the Service’s new payment platform, visit: https://epermits.fws.gov/. For more information regarding the permitting process, visit: https://www.fws.gov/permits/.
  9. Provide emergency funds to help restore birds and habitats in the Bahama Islands The northern Bahama Islands have been utterly devastated by Hurricane Dorian. This Category 5 storm battered the Abacos and Grand Bahama for more than two days with 185 to 220 mph winds and a storm surge in excess of 23 feet. The damage to communities, lives, and habitats is unprecedented and heartbreaking. I am asking for your assistance to help birds and nature recover. Our long-time partner, the Bahamas National Trust, needs all the help we can give them to help birds survive, and clean up and restore vital habitats. They need funds to carry out bird surveys, provide supplemental feeding, repair and replace damaged equipment and infrastructure, and restore their national parks on these islands. I ask you to read about the threatened and endemic birds that we are most worried about and find out how you can immediately help to save them and restore their habitats. Please be as generous as you can and give today. With heartfelt thanks for your support, Lisa Sorenson, Ph.D. Executive Director, BirdsCaribbean p.s. Please share this email with your friends and networks that might be able to help. Thank you! Four threatened endemic species on Grand Bahama and Abaco (clockwise from upper left): Bahama Parrot, Bahama Swallow, Bahama Warbler, Bahama Nuthatch. (photos by Lynn Gape, Melanie Rose Wells, Erika Gates, Bruce Hallett)
  10. As most of you know, The University of Alaska Museum of the North has world-class collections in many disciplines, documenting and safeguarding Alaska’s natural and cultural history and making it available to students and researchers from Alaska and worldwide. The museum would not be able to function without the state appropriation, which is spent on curation and collections management to fulfill its legal obligations as a collections repository. The UA Museum also does a lot of student training and, yes, some research, too. It is a very lean, highly functional unit with partnerships in collections, education, research, and exhibits throughout Alaska and the world. PLEASE WRITE ASAP. A SAMPLE LETTER IS ATTACHED. SEND TO THE UA BOARD OF REGENTS [ua-bor@alaska.edu] AND COPY TO: ua.president@alaska.edu, ua-bor@alaska.edu, jndavies@alaska.edu, sburetta@alaska.edu, dganderson@alaska.edu, lmparker2@alaska.edu, jbania@alaska.edu, regent.garrett@gmail.com, drhargraves@alaska.edu, mkhughes@alaska.edu, goneill@citci.org, krperdue@alaska.edu, andy.teuber@gmail.com PLEASE ALSO E-MAIL COPIES TO THE STATE LEGISLATORS WHO ARE WORKING TO PASS A SUPPPLEMENTAL BUDGET THAT REVERSES MANY OF THE CUTS. HOUSE: leg.gov,Representative.Matt.Claman@akleg.gov,Representative.Harriet.Drummond@akleg.gov,Representative.David.Eastman@akleg.gov, Representative.Bryce.Edgmon@akleg.gov,Representative.Zack.Fields@akleg.gov,Representative.Neal.Foster@akleg.gov, Representative.Sara.Hannan@akleg.gov,Representative.Grier.Hopkins@akleg.gov,Representative.Sharon.Jackson@akleg.gov, Representative.Delena.Johnson@akleg.gov,Representative.Jennifer.Johnston@akleg.gov,Representative.Andy.Josephson@akleg.gov, Representative.Gary.Knopp@akleg.gov,Representative.Chuck.Kopp@akleg.gov,Representative.Jonathan.KreissTomkins@akleg.gov, Representative.Bart.LeBon@akleg.gov,Representative.Gabrielle.Ledoux@akleg.gov,Representative.John.Lincoln@akleg.gov, Representative.Kelly.Merrick@akleg.gov,Representative.Mark.Neuman@akleg.gov,Representative.Daniel.Ortiz@akleg.gov, Representative.Lance.Pruitt@akleg.gov,Representative.Sara.Rasmussen@akleg.gov,Representative.George.Rauscher@akleg.gov, Representative.Josh.Revak@akleg.gov,Representative.Laddie.Shaw@akleg.gov,Representative.Ivy.Spohnholz@akleg.gov, Representative.Andi.Story@akleg.gov,Representative.Louise.Stutes@akleg.gov,Representative.Colleen.SullivanLeonard@akleg.gov, Representative.David.Talerico@akleg.gov,Representative.Geran.Tarr@akleg.gov,Representative.Steve.Thompson@akleg.gov, Representative.Cathy.Tilton@akleg.gov,Representative.Chris.Tuck@akleg.gov,Representative.Sarah.Vance@akleg.gov, Representative.Tammie.Wilson@akleg.gov,Representative.Adam.Wool@akleg.gov,Representative.Tiffany.Zulkosky@akleg.gov SENATE Senator.Tom.Begich@akleg.gov,Senator.Chris.Birch@akleg.gov,Senator.Click.Bishop@akleg.gov,Senator.John.Coghill@akleg.gov,Senator.Mia.Costello@akleg.gov,Senator.Cathy.Giessel@akleg.gov,Senator.Elvi.GrayJackson@akleg.gov,Senator.Lyman.Hoffman@akleg.gov,Senator.Shelley.Hughes@akleg.gov,Senator.Scott.Kawasaki@akleg.gov,Senator.Jesse.Kiehl@akleg.gov,Senator.Peter.Micciche@akleg.gov,Senator.Donald.Olson@akleg.gov,Senator.Lora.Reinbold@akleg.gov,Senator.Mike.Shower@akleg.gov,Senator.Bert.Stedman@akleg.gov,Senator.Gary.Stevens@akleg.gov,Senator.Natasha.vonImhof@akleg.gov, Senator.Bill.Wielechowski@akleg.gov,Senator.David.Wilson@akleg.gov
  11. UPDATE 14 May 2019 (excerpts from the Washington Post 10 May 2019): The Agriculture Department has dropped its demand that staff scientists label peer-reviewed research as “preliminary,” after angry protests followed a Washington Post story disclosing the policy. But the latest guidelines, released on Wednesday, for internally reviewing science within the department raise additional questions about scientific integrity, said non-USDA researchers who inspected the guide....This week, acting USDA chief scientist Chavonda Jacobs-Young released a memo that replaced the July policy. It requires the following language when disclaimers are necessary: “The findings and conclusions in this [publication/presentation/blog/report] are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.” ...even this language may not be needed: “Many journals have this statement on their mastheads. This expectation, that an article represents the views of the authors only, is indeed the standard.” ...Rebecca Boehm, an economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a D.C.-based organization that advocates for scientists, said that “removing ‘preliminary’ from the disclaimer is a step in the right direction, but there still may be unnecessary obstacles preventing agency researchers from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals.” ...Not every study published by a USDA scientist is required to have this disclaimer. Some research agencies at USDA, including the Agricultural Research Service, the Economic Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics Service and the Forest Service have “agency-specific policies” that determine when a disclaimer is appropriate, said William Trenkle, the USDA scientific integrity officer. ...the department’s internal review process before scientists can publish results in journals. It lists several “flags” that may trigger additional scrutiny. Some flags, under the umbrella of “prominent issues,” include “significant” scientific advancements, the potential to attract media attention, and results that could influence trade or change USDA policy. ... Susan Offutt, who was the administrator of the Economic Research Service under presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, said the guide twists internal review “into a process by which policy officials get the final say on content.” Because researchers at the Economic Research Service publish statistics to aid policymakers, “just about any output” from that agency could be flagged, she said. USDA’s “interests apparently concern consistency with prevailing policy,” Offutt said, “not the public’s access to the best, unbiased science and analysis.” From the Washington Post, 19 April 2019: Researchers at the Agriculture Department laughed in disbelief last summer when they received a memo about a new requirement: Their finalized, peer-reviewed scientific publications must be labeled “preliminary.” The July 2018 memo from Chavonda Jacobs-Young, the acting USDA chief scientist, told researchers their reports published in scientific journals must include a statement that reads: “The findings and conclusions in this preliminary publication have not been formally disseminated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.” A copy of the memo was obtained by The Washington Post and the USDA confirmed its authenticity. https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/04/19/usda-orders-scientists-say-published-research-is-preliminary/?utm_term=.e08bf8db6cf8 The policy may reflect an attempt to end-run the Information Quality Act, which pertains only to information disseminated by the federal government. That law, created at the behest of corporate anti-regulatory interests, has been a double-edged sword which has also been used by health and environmental groups to challenge the basis of federal agency policies and statements. This newest effort to strangle scientific information produced by scientists employed by federal agencies follows the requirement imposed by the Bush administration that requires scientists (in numerous agencies) to submit their work - including publications and presentations - to agency communications or other leadership offices prior to publication. In addition, the policy bans scientists from including “personal view” statements, language that federal employees have often used to distinguish research articles they author from policy documents issued by the agency. Such a statement might read, in part: “opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own,” as suggested by the National Institutes of Health.
  12. This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including OrnithologyExchange and the Ornithological Council. As the shutdown drags on, some of you may be concerned about the fact that your MBTA permits are expiring. You need not worry because 50 CFR 13.22 expressly authorizes continuation of the permitted activity but ONLY IF: § 13.22 Renewal of permits. (a) Application for renewal. Applicants for renewal of a permit must submit a written application at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the permit. Applicants must certify in the form required by § 13.12(a)(5) that all statements and information in the original application remain current and correct, unless previously changed or corrected. If such information is no longer current or correct, the applicant must provide corrected information. (b) Renewal criteria. The Service shall issue a renewal of a permit if the applicant meets the criteria for issuance in § 13.21(b) and is not disqualified under § 13.21(c). (c) Continuation of permitted activity. Any person holding a valid, renewable permit may continue the activities authorized by the expired permit until the Service acts on the application for renewal if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The permit is currently in force and not suspended or revoked; (2) The person has complied with this section; and (3) The permit is not a CITES document that was issued under part 23 of this subchapter (because the CITES document is void upon expiration). Therefore, if you wish to take advantage of this provision, go ahead and file your application to renew. No one will be there to process it (unless DOI accedes to the request made by the Ornithological Council to allow the MBTA permit staff to return to work) but you will have satisfied the requirements of this provision. We encourage you to send the renewal application by FedEx so you will have proof of the date sent. Note that if you fail to comply with these conditions, your renewal application could be denied. If your animal use protocol is up for renewal, you may want to provide this information to your IACUC. The Ornithological Council will post the information on the IACUC Administrator's listserve.
  13. By law, your MBTA permits fees are returned to the Division of Migratory Bird Management rather than going to the general treasury. Thus, the permit program has a separate source of revenue independent of federal appropriations. The Ornithological Council will communicate with DOI officials and members of Congress to ask that the permits program be allowed to operate during the shutdown. The IC made the same request during the most recent prior shutdown but fortunately, that shutdown ended only a few days later. Unfirtunately, this request will not apply to the Bird Banding Lab, which is not free-funded.
  14. Good article: https://www.hcn.org/articles/birds-egged-on-by-industry-lobbyists-interior-department-weakens-bird-protections/print_view
  15. This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including OrnithologyExchange and the Ornithological Council. Does the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). include the take of protected bird species as a result of otherwise lawful activity? No one knows. The statute is silent on the subject. The proponents of this 100-year old law were concerned about indiscriminate slaughter of birds for their plumes, used by the millinery trade. They were also concerned about harvest limits on game birds. In short, they were not thinking about incidental take. In the early 1990s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) became concerned about the impact of incidental take on migratory birds but knowing that there was legal uncertainty, never moved to formally regulate incidental take. Instead, the USFWS engaged with certain industries to encourage them to adopt practices to reduce the extent of incidental take. The first of these efforts was the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. Together, the industry and the USFWS compiled a set of best practices and the USFWS gave industry members time to implement those practices. Only if a company refused to implement those practices would the USFWS sue under the MBTA. The companies, for their part, came to the table because they faced the same uncertainty - what if the courts would hold them liable for incidental take? Over time, some industries were more cooperative than others. In some cases, the USFWS imposed penalties for incidental take and these cases reached the federal courts. Some of the courts decided that the MBTA covers incidental take. Some courts decided to the contrary. And there things stand, ready for a Supreme Court show-down. (Editorial note: yes, you may and probably should take a drink or two as the enormity of that inevitable train wreck crosses your mind). During the second Obama term, some in DOI made an attempt to incorporate the incidental take policy into formal regulation, going so far as to issue a notice of intent to publish a programmatic environmental impact statement and a regulation defining take to include incidental take. However, the White House apparently did not support this effort and it never came to fruition. At the same time, some industries began pushing back. In particular, Duke Energy, which had been fined $1million and placed on five years probation for killing birds at a wind energy facility, persuaded Congress to include in an appropriations bill a provision to prohibit the USFWS from prosecuting incidental take. Worse, the company and its industry allies succeeded in persuading a South Carolina congressman to sponsor a free-standing bill to amend the MBTA to exclude incidental take from criminal liability (both efforts failed). Meanwhile, back at the Department of the Interior, the Office of the Solicitor was persuaded at the 11 & 11/12th hour of the Obama Administration (10 January 2017) to issue an "M-Opinion" stating that the MBTA does cover incidental take. Which the new Administration promptly withdrew (20 January 2017). And then on 22 December 2017 issued a new M-Opinion stating that the MBTA dos not cover incidental take. Several conservation organizations and eight states filed suit challenging that last M-Opinion. (all are still in the earliest stages; watch for updates). And now it has come to this. For months, it has been rumored that the USFWS would propose a formal regulation stating that the MBTA does not cover incidental take. A regulation is much, much hard to reverse than is an M-Opinion. Well, rumor no more. The USFWS is about to propose a formal regulation to codify its current position that incidental take is not covered. In the fall semi-annual regulatory agenda published on 17 October 2018, the USFWS list of regulatory matters included this entry: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to establish regulations that define the scope of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA or Act) as it applies to conduct resulting in the injury or death of migratory birds protected by the Act. This rule would codify the legal opinion in the Department of the Interior Solicitor’s Opinion M-37050 that incidental take resulting from an otherwise lawful activity is not prohibited under the MBTA. Worser and worser. The USFWS had a flabby carrot and a very small stick to work with, given the legal uncertainty about incidental take, but the way things are going, it is likely to lose even that leverage. Permanently.
  16. A note from Eduardo Santana about Jim: Jim was my supervisor at the Puerto Rican parrot conservation project in the Luquillo Forest during the summer of 1978 and from 1979 to 1980. He also freely offered advice while I was doing my masters thesis fieldwork there on Redtailed-hawks from 1981 to 1983. Jim, along with Joe Hickey, Tim Moermond, Stan Temple, Lloyd Keith and Ariel Lugo, was one of my main professional role models, especially for his intense commitment to doing high-quality fieldwork and his knowledge and love for birds, and his love for the outdoors. As for how his worked helped, I share what my friend Eduardo Iñigo told me: “A significant indicator that Jim’s work was highly valued is that he was the first foreigner to receive the Gundlach recognition from the Cuban Zoological Society”. Since I came to work in conservation and teaching in western Mexico decades ago I unfortunately lost track of Jim (and most of my Caribbean ornithology colleagues!). But I have always remembered him and acknowledged that he was a good teacher to many and “a teacher affects eternity.” esantanacas@gmail.com
  17. In 2014, the Association of Field Ornithologists honored Jim with the Alexander F. Skutch Medal. This year, the council and members of the AFO are honored to present the Skutch Medal for Excellence in Neotropical Ornithology to Dr. James W. Wiley. Dr. Wiley is recognized for his significant contributions to the scientific literature that have aided in the conservation of a wide range of imperiled Neotropical species in the Latin American-Caribbean region. He was one of the founding members of the Society for the Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds (SCSCB), and served as the editor of The Journal of Caribbean Ornithology between 1988 and 2004. His research efforts have not only assisted in the recovery of endangered species and management of critical habitat, but have also provided benefits to the public. For example, Dr Wiley has co-authored numerous popular books including three seminal field guides, Birds of the West Indies, Birds of the Dominican Republic and Haiti, and The Birds of Hispaniola. These definitive field guides have not only provided pleasure for scientists and recreational birders alike, but have also significantly contributed to the understanding of ornithology in the region. Throughout his career, Dr. Wiley’s extensive mentoring and teaching efforts have impacted a wide range of students and professionals, particularly those in the Latin American-Caribbean region. Dr. Wiley engaged students formally through supervision within Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unitsat Grambling University and at the University of Maryland at Eastern Shore, and informally in the field, through ornithological meetings, and personal communications. His dedication to mentoring and developing his students is legendary. The Skutch Medal committee was chaired by Dr. Herb Raffaele, Chief, Division of International Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The committee consisted of Lisa Sorenson, Executive Director and former President of Birds Caribbean; Amiro Perez-Leroux, Director of Birdlife International for Latin America and the Caribbean; Bert Lenten, Deputy Secretary General of the Convention on Migratory Species; Richard Huber, Principal Environmental Specialist for the Department of Biological Protection and Management at the Organization of American States and Chair of Western Hemisphere Migratory Species Initiative; Maria Rivera, Senior Advisor for the Americas in the Secretariat of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance; and Nestor Herrera, Director of Wildlife and Ecosystems at El Salvador’s Environmental Ministry.
  18. Jim Wiley, a mainstay of Cuban ornithology, passed away on 19 September 2018. Apart from his scientific contributions, Jim was a gem of a man, exceedingly and unfailingly kind, gentle, and humble. In 2010, the Journal of Caribbean Ornithology dedicated a volume to Jim. In the dedication, Herb Raffaele, Joe Wunderle, and Noel Snyder wrote: (Note - the Society for the Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds is now BirdsCaribbean) Were his only contribution the monumental bibliography on West Indian birds that he published in 2000 (Wiley 2000), Jim Wiley would rank among the most important ornithologists to have ever focused their attention on birds of this region. But Jim’s contributions to the studies of Caribbean birds, beginning in the early 1970s and continuing without diminishment today, have been so much more. We know of no ornithologist of the region whose impacts have been more beneficial, going back to the first European explorers who mentioned birds in their natural histories. Therefore, it is with profound respect and admiration that this issue of JCO is dedicated to a colleague whose detailed knowledge extends to more species than seems possible and whose many publications and other contributions could hardly be more impressive. Normally such remarks are only possible for doddering ancient figures or for spirits who have already passed from the scene after lifetimes of devoted field work. Fortunately, Jim is still at the peak of his capacities, and it is reasonable to anticipate that much is yet to come, regardless of his recent official retirement from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Jim’s energy in pursuit of worthy goals has been legendary and sets a standard for diligence that we can only dimly comprehend. Perhaps it all goes back to the Mexico City Olympics of 1968, where Jim competed as a member of the United States bicycle team and trained up to a level of fitness that he has maintained ever since. All three of us have at one time or another had the privilege of collaborating in field studies with Jim, and we are directly familiar with his tireless capacities. Even more, we have been amazed how he somehow always manages good humor and a spirit of selfless cooperation under even the most miserable field conditions. Jim’s skills range from scaling towering rain-forest trees to crossing treacherous streams (Fig. 1) and scuba diving, and we will never forget his tale of being nudged in the back by a curious Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) as he conducted field observations on marine Gobies along the California coast for his master’s degree. Fortunately for all of us, he survived this incident to finish his master's research at California State University in 1970 and to go on to many other studies. From California, Jim moved on to graduate studies at the University of South Florida on Red-shouldered Hawks (Buteo lineatus), interrupted in 1973 by taking a position with the Puerto Rican Department of Natural Resources to study Plain Pigeons (Patagioenas inornata ), White-crowned Pigeons (P. leucocephala), and other columbids, a group for which he has always had a special affection. In 1977, he took over supervision of the Puerto Rican Parrot Project for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) after completing a detailed study of the Hispaniolan Parrot (Amazona ventralis) in the Dominican Republic for the US Forest Service. He remained in the Puerto Rican Parrot position until 1986, having overseen a steady and convincing increase of the wild population and having launched the captive breeding and release efforts that continue today. The success Jim and his wife Beth had with Puerto Rican Parrot conservation was outstanding, and included an informative experimental release effort of captive Hispaniolan Parrots to the wild in the Dominican Republic in 1982. Concurrent with their efforts with parrots, Jim and Beth also conducted diverse ecological and behavioral studies of the raptors of Puerto Rican and Hispaniola and ground-breaking studies of the endangered Yellow-shouldered Blackbird (Agelaius xanthomus ) in collaboration with Will Post, particularly with reference to the invasion of Puerto Rico by the Shiny Cowbird (Molothrus bonariensis). It was Jim’s cowbird studies that led at last to finishing his Ph.D. with Bud Owre at the University of Miami in 1982. In 1986 Jim was transferred back to California by the USFWS to conduct efforts for the California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus), a period when the very last wild condors were being trapped into captivity and when temporary experimental releases of surrogate Andean Condors (Vultur gryphus) to the wild were just beginning. This period also saw a profound change in Jim’s dietary habits that resulted, quite understandably, from his having to oversee the supplemental feeding program for condors. For those who have long wondered about Jim’s antipathy to Big Macs and Whoppers, he was faced at one point with the clean-up of a defunct walk-in freezer filled with rotting mammal carcasses immersed in an incredible miasma of toxic gases. Fortunately, despite this brush with hell on earth, his enthusiasm for guanabana ice cream and other nutritious tropical delights has remained intact. From California, Jim moved to Grambling State University in Louisiana in 1991, where he took charge of a cooperative wildlife unit for the USGS. At Grambling, he developed a special interest in the training of wildlife students from the West Indies, especially Jamaica and the Lesser Antilles, and a number of his former Grambling students are current members of the Society for Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds (SCSCB). There, he also had the good sense to keep all his local sightings of Bachman’s Warblers (Vermivora bachmanii) and Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis)to himself. As some indication of the importance of his mentoring contributions at Grambling, one of us (HR) recently was talking with an assistant to the Directorof the USFWS. This individual was a graduate from Grambling some 15 yr ago and spontaneously described how much he and the other grad students at the time appreciated and respected Jim’s dedication in assisting underprivileged students, particularly those from developing countries throughout the Caribbean. Jim’s ability to inspire others to careers in ornithology and conservation is one of his most important legacies. In 2001, and continuing until his recent retirement, Jim took over supervision of the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. There, he continued to be involved with diverse conservation and research projects in the West Indies, as well as local projects in the Chesapeake Bay region, carefully guiding an impressive number of students toward their graduate degrees. Thus, despite being based in stateside locations from the late 1980s to the present, Jim’s first loyalties have always been in the Caribbean, with frequent trips to Cuba, the Cayman Islands and Hispaniola, and continued work with the psittacines of these islands, as well as many other bird species. He has been especially focused on aiding Cuban ornithological efforts in recent years, and was given special recognition for these efforts by Cuban ornithologists at the July 2001 meeting in Cuba of the SCSCB. Jim was a founding member of the Society of Caribbean Ornithology (now the SCSCB) and played an important role in launching the organization. He was the first editor of El Pitirre , and during the nine years of his editorship he was responsible not only for editorial duties, but with help of his students served also as the publisher (aided by desktop publishing software) and distributor of the publication. im oversaw the evolution of El Pitirre from a newsletter, for which he often scrambled for manuscripts in the early years, to a journal format covering a broad range of topics. As editor, he was especially helpful and patient with inexperienced authors and viewed the journal as an important forum for their contributions. Other editing contributions he has made have included serving for many years as editor of publications for the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology in California. Jim’s personal list of scientific publications includes well over a hundred substantial papers, books, and monographs, mostly on West Indian birds. We find ourselves consulting his annotated A Bibliography of Ornithology in the West Indies (Wiley 2000) with frequency, and it is impossible to exaggerate the usefulness of this colossal assembly of more than 11,600 references, stretching back to the earliest ornithological writings for the region. Among his other outstanding publications, we call special attention to his coauthorship of The Parrots of Luquillo: Natural History and Conservation of the Puerto Rican Parrot in 1987 (Snyder et al.1987), coauthorship of A Guide to the Birds of the West Indies in 1998 (Raffaele et al. 1998), coauthorship of The Birds of Hispaniola in 2003 (Keith et al. 2003), and his authorship and coauthorship of numerous shorter papers on the Shiny Cowbird, the Puerto Rican Parrot, the Yellow-shouldered Blackbird, and various other psittacids, raptors, and columbids of the West Indies, not to mention his publications on such subjects as the effects of hurricanes on West Indian birds and techniques of captive breeding and reintroduction for endangered forms. For his overall contributions to field studies of Caribbean birds and to ornithology in general, the SCSCB is truly indebted to Jim Wiley. LITERATURE CITED KEITH , A. R., J. W. WILEY , S. C. LATTA , J. A. OTTENWALDER . 2003. The birds of Hispaniola.British Ornithologists’ Union Checklist 21:1-293.. RAFFAELE , H., J. WILEY , O. GARRIDO , A. KEITH , J. RAFFAELE . 1998. A guide to the birds of the West Indies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. SNYDER , N. F. R., J.W. WILEY , C.B. KEPLER . 1987. The parrots of Luquillo: natural history and conservation of the Puerto Rican Parrot. Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology, Los Angeles. WILEY , J. W. 2000. A Bibliography of ornithology in the West Indies. Proceedings of the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology, vol. 7.
  19. The Ornithological Council publishes the peer-reviewed Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research. It was most recently updated in 2010 and it has been our intent to supplement it with literature published after that date, ultimately developing a database that incorporates all literature cited and all supplemental literature (volunteers welcome!). The Guidelines are recognized by federal agencies and private organizations as a resource reference. It is extremely important that we provide them - and your Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (Animal Care and Use Committees in Canada) - the most up-to-date information available. If you have published methods papers since 2010 that assess the impact of study techniques on the birds you are studying, please bring them to our attention. The OC simply doesn't have the resources to search for these studies on an ongoing basis (volunteers welcome!). Additionally, if yours is not a methods paper per se but assessed the impact of the study methods, please bring that to our attention, too. Help us to help you!
  20. 2018-2019 Awards Now Open! Size of Award: One grant up to $135,000 or 2-3 grants up to $65,000 each Deadline for Pre-proposals: September 23rd, 2018 at 5 p.m. EDT. Address Questions and Send Application to: Lisa Sorenson, Executive Director, BirdsCaribbean, Lisa.Sorenson@BirdsCaribbean.org; copy to info@birdscaribbean.org Invitations to submit full proposals will be sent by October 7th, 2018, and those proposals are due by October 30th, 2018. Announcement of Awards: November 15th, 2018 Donations to the Fund: Tax-deductible (U.S.) at this link. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Betty Petersen helped many aspiring conservationists; we honor her legacy with this conservation fund. Inspiration: Betty Petersen (1943-2013), a lifelong resident of Massachusetts, U.S.A. was, in her own way, a wizard. With nothing more than donated birding equipment, books, and a bit of cash, she turned local communities and school kids into committed conservationists, struggling NGOs into recognized players on the inter-American scene, and “paper parks” into real protected areas. And in the process she reminded us how rewarding it is to lend a hand when none is expected. The Goal of the Betty Petersen Conservation Fund is to advance the conservation status of birds and habitats in the Caribbean region. The Fund provides competitive grants to groups or individuals to engage and empower communities and stakeholders to protect and benefit sustainably from their birds. The Fund and its grants will be administered by a designated advisory group within BirdsCaribbean. Eligibility: Applications are invited from conservation organizations, academic programs or government working in the Caribbean. Successful proposals will benefit the conservation of birds and their habitats in the greater Caribbean region, including Bermuda, the Bahamas, and all islands within the Caribbean basin. Innovative projects that engage local communities and decision makers to alleviate threats and/or encourage sustainable use of threatened natural resources will receive priority for funding, as will projects that benefit high priority areas—such as Important Bird Areas or Key Biodiversity Areas—that are under serious threat. Matching Funds: Applicants are encouraged to provide at least 1:1 matching funds toward the project cost. In-kind match qualifies. Proposals providing a higher match ratio may receive preference. Application Guidelines Applicants shall initially provide a pre-proposal in English, French, or Spanish. All require an English language version of the abstract. Applications need to be emailed as a Microsoft Word document, with “Betty Petersen Conservation Fund Pre-Proposal” in subject line. The application comprises a cover page, proposal (see guidelines below), and a curriculum vitae for the applicant that includes the names, affiliations, telephone and e-mail address for three individuals who can attest to the applicant’s effectiveness in previous bird conservation work. Evaluation: A committee appointed by BirdsCaribbean will review the pre-proposals and may invite full proposals from applicants whose projects seem best aligned with the goals and most likely to affect positive change. The committee may select one or more projects each year for funding. Awardees are required to submit a report 13 months from the day of the award explaining the results of the project to that point and also an accounting of how funds were used. For single-year projects this will be considered the final report. Multi-year projects must report annually, with continued funding dependent on adequate progress and use of grant funds. In all cases, unexpected challenges as well as progress beyond initial expectations require notation. Awardees are encouraged to present the results of their work at the biennial International Meeting of BirdsCaribbean and publish in The Journal of Caribbean Ornithology. Download the application form (PDF) here. Read more about Betty and the fund here.
  21. The entire text (from the Congressional Record) reads: PROTECTION OF MIGRATORY BIRDS. During the executive session the Senate adopted a resolution advising and consenting to the ratification of a convention between the United States and Great Britain, Executive Document E, providing for the protection of migratory birds in the United States and Canada, signed at Washington August 16, 1916, and on motion by Mr. O'GORMAN the injunction of secrecywas removed from the same. 64 Congressional Record 13348 (29 August 1916)
  22. This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including Ornithology Exchange and the Ornithological Council! Update 23 July 2018: As of 20 July, this legislation appears to still be in the "discussion draft" stage. The full draft and other information - such as a list of supporters - can be found here. A hearing was held before the full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 20 July and at that time, the bill was still in draft and had not been introduced. The likelihood of this bill moving through the Senate before the midterm elections is fairly unlikely, even though the Senate will recess for only one week this year. The Senate will be in session for only 36 days prior to the midterm elections. The regulatory proposal from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announced 19 July (though not yet formally published for public comment) is of at least as much concern, if not more so, as it is far more likely to become law and implemented. Please read the Ornithological Council analysis of this proposed regulatory change. This article was published in The Hill on Monday 2 July 2018. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/395135-senate-gop-seeks-overhaul-of-endangered-species-act This is the "big comprehensive push" for "reform" that has been in the offing since the 115th Congress started. Many smaller bills (including some to repeal the ESA) have been proposed but the comprehensive legislation from committee chair Barrasso is the bill likely to move through Congress. Unless...November. Senate Republicans are embarking on an ambitious effort to overhaul the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Draft legislation due to be released Monday by Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) would give new powers and responsibilities for state officials to determine how animals and plants should be protected. The GOP contends that its goal is not to weaken protections, but to take advantage of the experience of state regulators. “When it comes to the Endangered Species Act, the status quo is not good enough,” Barrasso said in a statement to The Hill in advance of the unveiling. “We must do more than just keep listed species on life support — we need to see them recovered. This draft legislation will increase state and local input and improve transparency in the listing process.” Conservationists, however, say the new bill represents the most significant threat in years to the 44-year-old law, which has been credited with rescuing the bald eagle, gray wolf and grizzly bear from possible extinction. “It’s a bill which, on a broad basis, rewrites the ESA, with a whole host of consequences — as far as we can tell, almost entirely adverse consequences — for the protection of species,” said Bob Dreher, senior vice president for conservation programs at Defenders of Wildlife. Dreher and other critics fear the effort would tilt the balance too far toward industries while deemphasizing the role of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. “This is bill is all about politics. It’s not about science. It’s especially not about better ways to conserve endangered species,” he continued. “It’s a partisan bill.” The species act has sometimes restricted energy production or development to protect habitats, an irritant to many landowners and energy interests in the West, where governors are mostly Republican. Barrasso’s legislation is modeled after efforts the Western Governors Association, led by Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R), has undertaken over the last three years to identify potential changes to the ESA, Republicans have long identified the ESA as a problematic law, arguing that it disrespects landowners and states while putting major, unnecessary burdens on industry. They also say it’s overwhelmingly ineffective. “States, counties, wildlife managers, home builders, construction companies, farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders are all making it clear that the Endangered Species Act is not working today," Barrasso said in a February 2017 hearing that marked the beginning of his reform efforts for the conservation law. “Of 1,652 species of animals and plants in the U.S. listed as either endangered or threatened since the law was passed in 1973, only 47 species have been delisted due to recovery of the species," he said. To conservationists, the law isn't perfect, but measuring its effectiveness solely by the number of species taken off the endangered or threatened lists undersells its successes. "The success of the act is only partly in keeping species alive. It’s more importantly, in the long run, a commitment to recover them and restore them to health in a healthy ecosystem," Dreher said. ESA's supporters credit it with bringing back from the brink species ranging from the bald eagle to the gray wolf and the grizzly bear. One of the biggest changes the legislation would make is to require that, for each species listed under the ESA, the team overseeing its recovery plan could not have more federal members than state and local representatives, who would be nominated by state governors. That team would have new mandates, including setting standards to judge the species’s recovery that could not be changed later without unanimous approval. The team would also have to give “great weight” in its deliberations to scientific data and findings provided by state, local or tribal governments, a standard that other science wouldn’t be subject to. Before any new species is listed for protection, states would get an opportunity to implement conservation programs to avoid a listing. The legislation would also prioritize federal resources toward the most at-risk species, and it would prohibit lawsuits against de-listing actions under a species’s recovery monitoring period concludes, a period that usually takes years. A senior GOP committee aide told The Hill the proposal “focuses on elevating the states’ role in implementation of the act, elevating its partnership to a more equal partnership with the federal government.” “It focuses on trying to increase transparency of the information and process with regard to implementation of the ESA, in order make sure decisions are as well-informed as they can be, to make sure that resources are utilized as well as they can be,” the aide said. Republicans on the Environmental panel say they want a final bill to be bipartisan, but Democrats are skeptical. “I believe the primary impediment to species recovery is lack of dedicated resources at both the state and federal level. While I’m still reviewing Sen. Barrasso’s proposed legislation, it does not appear to address this serious challenge,” Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), the panel’s top Democrat, said in a statement. “Beyond a funding solution, any proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act should be judged on the basis of whether or not they improve conservation outcomes and recover species. That is a hard conversation to have in a Congress that has put forth dozens of proposals to undermine this important law and with an administration that seems intent upon supporting such efforts.” Dreher said states already play a strong role, and giving them more power would be counterproductive. “They’ve never played a particularly strong role in conservation of endangered species. Most states, in fact, lack adequate authority to conserve endangered species,” he said. Barrasso plans to hold a hearing on the draft bill in the coming weeks.
  23. This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including Ornithology Exchange and the Ornithological Council! Synopsis: The issuance of this new regulation concludes a process of regulatory change that spanned two years. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife offered several opportunities for public comment. After canvassing California ornithologists and banders, the Ornithological Council submitted comments prior to the drafting of the proposed regulation and again once the draft regulation was published for comment, Further analysis of the specifics of this final regulation will be provided in the next day or two. New Scientific Collecting Permit Regulations Effective October 1, 2018 Title 14, Sections 650 and 703, California Code of Regulations Information for existing and prospective permitholders On May 1, 2018, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the regulatory changes to Sections 650 and 703, Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR) (OAL regulatory file 2018-0320-05S) for Scientific Collecting Permits (SCPs). The new SCP regulations (including the new application structure and online submission format) will be effective on October 1, 2018. To help inform existing and prospective permitholders and other affected stakeholders, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) is addressing the following information on the new SCP regulations and transition to the new SCP online application portal: · How existing permits will be honored after the October 1, 2018 effective date of the new regulations; · How the new permit structure and other changes in new regulations compare to the existing regulations; and · General information about the new SCP online application portal. The Department’s SCP home page will serve as the primary online resource for information about implementation and, starting on October 1, 2018, will also provide access to the online application portal. Department staff will inform and educate affected stakeholders by posting outreach materials, guidance, and tools to this webpage throughout the summer of 2018. The Department has prepared a FAQ document (attached PDF, and will be posted to the SCP home page) to address common concerns that existing and prospective permitholders may have about the new regulations and online application portal. The Department highlights two immediate considerations for existing and prospective permitholders: 1. Phasing out of existing application forms. Any permit issued prior to October 1, 2018, or any issued permit that was applied for by September 30, 2018 using the existing hard copy forms will be valid until the expiration date listed on that permit. However, all new applications, amendments to existing permits and permit renewals requested on or after October 1, 2018 will require submission in the new SCP online application portal, and adherence to the new SCP regulations (refer to Title 14, Subsection 650(a)(7), CCR for more information). In an effort to promote a smooth transition into the new regulations, the Department will accept and process applications under the existing regulations and hard-copy forms through September 30, 2018. This will allow affected permitholders to continue their permitted activities without interruption in their scheduled field and/or laboratory activities, after the new regulations become effective October 1, 2018. Applications submitted via the new online application portal starting October 1, 2018 will be processed concurrently with applications on the existing hard copy forms submitted by September 30, 2018. If a permitholder anticipates needing to amend or renew their existing permit in the next three or so months, or throughout that permit’s term, it is in the permitholder’s best interest to wait, if practicable, until October 1, 2018 or later, to apply under the online application portal, for the following reasons: § Applications to amend or renew existing permits will not be accepted after September 30, 2018 in the existing hard copy process, under current regulations. An amendment to, or renewal of, an existing permit on and after October 1, 2018 will require the permitholder to apply (as a new applicant in accordance to the new permit and fee structure) in the online application portal. This way the permitholder pays just the new permit fees (Question 8 in the FAQs), rather than paying existing fees to amend or renew before September 30, 2018, in addition to paying new permit fees when coming in to use the new online application portal after October 1, 2018. § Once active, early use of the online application portal will also assist: · Department’s IT staff to identify and then work out any issues not identified during beta-testing. · Department review staff to process the queue of existing applications under the existing hard copy process. The Department highly recommends that a permitholder whose existing SCP does not expire until January 1, 2019 or later, wait to amend or renew an existing SCP under the new online application portal. This will help the Department process applications in the order received, and work with applicants to help maintain permit coverage for necessary periods of work (see also Question 6 of the FAQs). 2. Permit Fees. Currently, the non-refundable application fee is required when an application is submitted, and then the permit fee is requested separately when the permit is approved. Effective July 15, 2018, new applicants or renewing permitholders under the existing hard copy process will be required to submit at the same time both the application fee ($108.92, or $27.04 for students) and the permit fee ($324.75, or $54.59 for students) to the Department’s License and Revenue Branch (LRB) at the time of application submission. This will help the Department: o Finalize permits issued under the existing system sooner, to better facilitate a smooth transition to the new online application portal. o Phase out these older license items earlier; Department staff will not have to delay issuance while requesting permit fees upon permit approval (from applicants applying under the existing system between July 15 and September 30, 2018). o Encourage applicants to save a few dollars by avoiding the annual fee adjustments for any permits issued after December 31, 2018. Department license items are adjusted annually in January pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 713. Therefore, if the application is approved in early 2019, then the applicant would have to pay the higher, adjusted fee (up to a 3% increase). ************************************ Scientific Collecting Permits *** New Scientific Collecting Permit regulations (Title 14, Section 650) go into effect on Oct. 1, 2018. Please visit https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Scientific-Collecting for more information, and contact SCPermits@wildlife.ca.gov with any questions you might have.*** *************************************
  24. This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including Ornithology Exchange and the Ornithological Council! A new report from the Government Accountability Office examines animal use in federal research and, in particular, reporting and data sharing about animal use. The report points out, among other things, that APHIS’s instructions have not ensured consistent and complete reporting in three areas: research with birds, activities outside the United States, and field studies outside a typical laboratory. The GAO recommended that APHIS clarify its reporting instructions and fully describe the potential limitations of the animal use data it makes available to the public. USDA stated that APHIS will take steps to implement GAO’s recommendations, with the exception of clarifying reporting instructions for activities outside the United States. GAO continues to believe that APHIS needs to ensure complete reporting of such activities by federal facilities. The GAO also recommended that APHIS (1) develop a timeline for defining birds that are not bred for research and that are thus covered under the Animal Welfare Act and (2) requiring that research facilities report to APHIS their use of birds covered by the Act. In response, the APHIS Animal Care program committed to submitting a recommendation and timeline for defining birds subject to the Animal Welfare Act by 30 September 2018. Presumably, this would lead to a formal regulatory process and the opportunity for public comment. In addition, the GAO recommended that APHIS should provide research facilities with clear examples of studies that are excluded from the definition of "field study" and are thus covered by the Animal Welfare Act and that should therefore be reported to APHIS, as well as examples of studies that meet the definition of "field study" and thus should not be reported. This comes against the background of the 21st Century Cures Act which mandates the federal agencies such as APHIS and the National Institutes of Health to reduce the burden of animal welfare regulations, as well as the anti-regulatory stance of the current Administration. Background on the inclusion of birds Amajor change in policy took place in 2004 when the agency decided, as a result of litigation, that it would begin to regulate rats, mice, and birds used in research (the law exempted "purpose-bred rats, mice, and birds so the agency rule would have affected other birds bred in captivity but not for the purpose of research, wild birds brought into captivity, and wild birds studied in the field). The agency began the process of developing regulatory standards by way of an advanced notice of public rulemaking, asking the stakeholders and the public for input as to what and how to regulate. Nothing more was heard until December 2011, when the agency announced that the proposed regulation was on hold pending an assessment of the agency's resources for implementing the rule. Nothing more has been heard since then. For all practical purposes, this regulation would have had little impact on those studying wild birds because it was unlikely that the agency would have attempted to oversee such research. However, it would have impacted those studying wild birds in captivity. The new, extreme anti-regulatory stance of the current Administration led the OC to surmise that this regulation was in permanent repose. In fact, the listing for this pending regulation had been dropped from the semi-annual unified regulatory agenda of all pending regulatory processes. Now, it seems to have come back to life. Background on field studies The Animal Welfare Act regulations exempt field studies, defined as those that do not involve invasive procedures, harm to the animal, or material alteration of behavior. No further definitions have been provided. Recently, APHIS Animal Care attempted to develop guidance without any input from wildlife biologists. After strenuous objections from the Ornithological Council that process was put on hold. The Ornithological Council developed a survey to determine how IACUCs were interpreting those criteria; as of now, we have not received a sufficient number of responses. The few we received suggest that IACUCs are actually overly inclusive and requiring reviews (and reporting) for methods that do not involve any of those three conditions.
  25. Please visit the new and improved BIRDNET. We continue to add new resources and update information. Added today: an important animal welfare document for wildlife biologists and their IACUCS And a downloadable Pennsyvlania permit application.
×
×
  • Create New...